When the entire party is made of "exceptions" , it turns out it is nothing exceptional at all.
They're exceptional compared to the game world, not to each other. They're the A-Team. PCs are PCs because they're exceptional.
When the entire party is made of "exceptions" , it turns out it is nothing exceptional at all.
DDN is NOT the "please everyone" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition.
I like this but would include a small section of animals in the Players' book with creatures like horses, camels, dogs, cats, hawks, ferrets, and maybe bears and some other more dangerous but familiar ones. It would help during play both regarding the keeping of domesticated animals and in allowing players to better understand the combat sections.
I'd go with two books for rules and gameplay, one for players (with some animals and such included) then one for GMs with many of the typical cross-setting and mythical creatures plus GM guidelines for creating more. But I'd also have the setting books be the place for most creatures, common ones included in a player setting book and more information on those creatures and many others in the GM setting book.
Thing is: EVERYTHING is contentious if you ask the right people. A lot of people here find generic HP contentious, the converse find wound systems contentious. Some people find anything other than humans contentious, so we can't avoid everything that is contentious for everyone. DDN is NOT the "please everyone" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition. Finding common ground with 4e'rs after remoing healing surges, returning to vancian magic, removing the at will/encounter/daily triad, might just be giving them a couple popular(among 4e'rs) playable races.
No, they didn't say that 4e would reflect our favored playstyle, so why do you assume that it will reflect a more oldschool playstyle? I find this a fairly contradictory assumption.
For a new take on Elves, Dwarves and Trolls, Runequest blows everything else I've seen out of the water with what it came up with in 1978, IIRC...
Sure - it was originally built tailored to Glorantha and even the AH "fantasy earth" stuff didn't really undo that link completely. Add to that the fact that it eschews levels, classes, hit points and xps and it's clearly a very different game. If I want a gritty, world-situation centred game, though, I find the differences more cosmetic than real. For that type of game I want to reduce these factors (levels, classes, etc.) anyway; RQ and similar systems just do that job for me right up front.Runequest does a great job. I like it, but definitely has a feel that isn't D&D.
I actually like the Avalon Hill edition, mechanically. I think they neatened things up well. I haven't played the Mongoose versions, though.Which edition of runequest do you prefer?
WoTC: We are going to include dials in 5E, so you can tweak the feel of your game.
Gamers: YAY! We like dials!
WoTC: Here's an idea for a dial on player races, Common, Uncommon, and Rare...
Gamers: BOO! We hates your dials!
Common ground is going to mean you include as core the key elements shtared by all editions (or new elements that bring those things together some how). Dragonborne is not common to all editions, it is unique to one. However dragonborne like races are common enough in things like setttings or option books. So i suspect dragonborn will be included as an optional race. If they include dragonborne in core that wont be a delbreaker for me (particularlt if surges and powers are out as you suggest). I just think they will have an easier time including it as a module.