Dear Mike & Monte

DEFCON 1 · Dec 28, 2011

Mercurius said:
You can do both (in fact, I'm sure that they are doing both).

Which is exactly my point. They already know everything that is being said here, because it's been said ad nauseum for years. There is not a single point that's been made in this thread that hasn't already been made before. So at this point, there's really nothing left for me to say but "best of luck as you go forward with what you're doing, I'm sure many of us will like it."

howandwhy99 · Dec 28, 2011

Hassassin said:
I'd like to see a minimal playable set of rules on one page, plus maybe one more page for each class/archetype. Those should be enough for at least ten levels of play. In fact, I'd like to see the basic players' rulebook be just a handout you get with a DM's guide.

I've been thinking along these lines for awhile. I do believe the pure game rules of D&D could be parsed down to a page, but it's not as if we need to be so limited. I could see 3 or 4 pages more (even 20?) by including paragraphs of explanation after each rule. This would go a long way towards clarifying them for oddities during play. Of course the suggested code creation guidelines could cover multiple large books, but I count those as different than the rules.

A Players Handbook too could be about one page, but I don't see it needing to be only a reprint of the rules either. As a handbook I would suggest it offer multiple strategic variants as well as numerous PC record log examples. In this way I would probably swap the current roles of the DMG as guidebook and PHB as rulebook. Plus, none of the PHB beyond the rules would really need be read by any player before beginning. It's almost entirely strategy guide and therefore not about the right way to play the game. Think of it like a strategy guide for Chess, M:tG, or a computer game. It's there as common hints, character building, and walkthrougs if you desire such things.

howandwhy99 · Dec 28, 2011

AnonGemini said:
I think my primary wish would be the following:

Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional

Even to the point of having 3 separate classes per character.

Examples:

Cleric - Diplomat - Religion
Barbarian - Bully - Wood
Fighter - Charmer - Metal
Mage - Manipulator - Alchemy
Rogue - Blackmailer - Crime

The idea is that every single character does not have to sacrifice one area of ability to be any good in another. ALL characters are useful in combat and ALL characters have their own style and use in social encounters. Then shove all the non-combat/social into a separate professional class area. That way all the secondary type skills are there without interfering with the other 2. All 3 will not interfer with each other and cause design problems.

Will they please do something like this like many have been asking (usually called Siloing) for donkeys years.

Please Santa.

You know with a modular game we might see something like this. 4E Roles are almost entirely about skirmish combat. I could see alternate add-ons with Roles as well with particular variety and balance to the module.

mach1.9pants · Dec 28, 2011

AnonGemini said:
I think my primary wish would be the following:

Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional

Even to the point of having 3 separate classes per character.

Please Santa.

Yeah this and add race onto that for 4 dif mixes all equally important. LOVE it

SkredlitheOgre · Dec 28, 2011

Dear Mike and Monte,

My wife had a great idea. She's a long-time, old school gamer who doesn't understand all of this 'edition' nonsense. I love her anyway.

So, her idea is to help attract new players and new GMs to the game. Take the Core Rulebook or DMG or PH or whatever book you release, and make the first four 'chapters' Race, Class, Abilities Scores (and spells for Spellcasters) and Equipment. Give Clerics one Domain until they get the hang of it. Trim down the amount of Equipment and Class Abilities available for the new people and have them run two or three levels, or until they feel comfortable with the rules, and then say 'Here are your Skills, Feats, extra Equipment and all that other jibber jabber.'

"If someone hasn't played the game before, it can be really confusing." is her quote. Along with "That rulebook (my PF Core Rulebook) is a rally big list of rules. They need to be made simpler for people who have never played before."

This could be done with a 'Basic' and 'Expert' set of rules in the same book. The first, I dunno, fifty pages? Seventy five? are simply for the new players. After that, they can pile on whatever rules they want.

I think this is a good idea. Gold, even. Feel free to use that.

Skredli T. Ogre Bon Jovington, III DDS, FBI, STD

Tallifer · Dec 29, 2011

AnonGemini said:
I think my primary wish would be the following:

Completely separate Combat - Social - Professional

Even to the point of having 3 separate classes per character.

Examples:

Cleric - Diplomat - Religion
Barbarian - Bully - Wood
Fighter - Charmer - Metal
Mage - Manipulator - Alchemy
Rogue - Blackmailer - Crime

The idea is that every single character does not have to sacrifice one area of ability to be any good in another. ALL characters are useful in combat and ALL characters have their own style and use in social encounters. Then shove all the non-combat/social into a separate professional class area. That way all the secondary type skills are there without interfering with the other 2. All 3 will not interfer with each other and cause design problems.

Will they please do something like this like many have been asking (usually called Siloing) for donkeys years.

Please Santa.

For D&D, including Fourth and Fifth Edition, this kind of makes sense, since there is almost no connexion with reality. I enjoy playing 4th edition because it avoids duplicating the humdrum and tedium of real life.

But if there are detailled skills and professions in a game, I prefer them to follow real life a little more. Because in real life, you can only get really good at something by practicing it a lot, which means you are not practicing something else. Now of course talent and intelligence can increase your capability to master a variety of skills, but in the end, the best fighter will not be the best diplomat nor the best armourer.

In which case a system like Call of Cthulhu makes more sense.

Aldarc · Dec 29, 2011

Elf Witch said:
Here is my wish list.

Less classes, while I think options are great, do we really need a lot of classes to do this. For example instead of having wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, witches as separate classes have one mage class that can be customized to allow players to make the type of magic user they want.

I would like to see something like this: a return to the class basics.

Rechan · Dec 29, 2011

It's interesting to see who pitches ideas that are similar to yours. Both AnonGemini and Frostmarrow proposed similar profession/non-combat roles like I did.

Thumbs up, [MENTION=85831]AnonGemini[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1122]Frostmarrow[/MENTION]

Rechan · Dec 29, 2011

Mercurius said:
Anyhow, I remember conversations about the 3E art over a decade ago and there was a common complaint that the soul had gone out of the art, that Todd Lockwood's art was a bit stiff and lifeless. It seems that 4E has similar complaints, although they are more to do with what Morrus was talking about: spike-a-palooza, ninja-kewlness, and "dungeon-punk." Basically what I think is a rather unholy and excessive WoW and anime influence.

Emphasis mine.

Spikeybits and Dungeon-punk was front and center with 3.0. Open your 3.0 PHB and what do you see?

There's spikes and piecemeal armor and tattoos all over the place. And that was well before WoW. Where did that come from?

Back when 3e was announced (but not released), WotC had a Gen Con panel. One was about audience feedback/brainstorming, and the topic came to art, or at least, how the new game could feel. As the discussion went, someone suggested that adventurers would have mottled armor - basically having strapped random stuff to them, like Mad-Max style. That they would be gritty and grungy and it would look make-shift. THis was very exciting to the audience gathered, and the designers then wrote that down.

Derren · Dec 29, 2011

The classes in 5E should be much more open than the 4E.
In the current edition (or rather when 4E came out), the class you choose locked you into a single combat-playstyle.

A ranger was either an archer or fought with 2 weapons, a fighter had a two handed weapon or a sword&shield, etc. And once chosen that speciality could hardly be changed (except through retraining, but that is another can of worms).

It made characters very inflexible in the beginning (I am sure that with more rules like hybrids, etc. this isn't as much of a problem now than it was a gew years ago).

But basically it comes down to "Don't make balanced combat the highest goal of the game". That was the whole reason for the classes being so rigid, as otherwise they couldn't ensure that they have the expected power level at all times.

PS: I agree with Rechan that 4E was not the start of the "spiked anime" look (Although 4E continued the trend). I would rather defined the 4E art as "ass & boobs babes" look.