Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
4 Hours w/ RSD - Let's Have a Flamewar!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="scourger" data-source="post: 5564592" data-attributes="member: 12328"><p>While I don't agree with all of this, I do agree with some of it. So here are my thoughts. First, the system does have to be limited. I started this with <strong>AD&D 2e</strong> by eventually limiting my game to just the core rules. It worked so well that I ported that concept over to d20. Of course, the "core" of <strong>3e</strong> is still about 1200 pages (PHB, DMG & MM); but it was better for me than allowing all the content that exploded afterward. I would use the core of another d20 game, but that was generally all. My favorites were <strong>Judge Dredd d20</strong> and <strong>Omega World d20</strong>, the latter being a great example of a concise but brilliant game where less is more in the presentation. </p><p></p><p>For non-d20 systems, the best I have found and brought to my group is <strong>Savage Worlds</strong>. The design concepts for that game seem to deliver many of these concepts. I think one of its best features is that it keeps coarse granularity of options for the GM while allowing fine granularity of options for the players. In other words, GMs can easily stat up foes or other NPCs that are good at one or a few things without worrying over the exact "right" calculations. That makes it easier to run. Meanwhile, players get to enjoy a rich level of character development through advancement options that preserve the game-within-a-game to keep them engaged. </p><p></p><p>To deal with a diminished number of players in our group, I really embrace the idea of allowing a pool of allies to the PCs. We started this concept in <strong>Savage Worlds</strong> games, and the key is to make sure all the players have extras to control--not just the player whose character has a leadership feat. I've brought it over to our current <strong>Gamma World</strong> game, and it works well. The heroes have some extra muscle that is somewhat expendable, and it opens up the possibility for the player characters to discover more allies in unexpected places through roleplaying the story. For example, when they rescued 4 people they turned out to be needed replacement allies; low-powered but available. Same for a robot they defeated, reprogrammed and repaired. And, since the game is simplified the allies are relatively easy to manage in additions to the stars. </p><p></p><p>There are some limits to simplification, though. In our <strong>Gamma World</strong> game I find the players less engaged because they don't have enough character development work to do. Each PC really is defined by the first rolls for backgrounds, and they are pretty even tactically. This hurts the story development because the players do not feel invested. It's to the point that I am not sure I want to continue the game even though I have 2 expansion modules left to explore. </p><p></p><p>I had the same experience with a <strong>D&D Minis</strong> skirmish campaign that I ran a couple of years ago. It was awesome for its simplicity. I chose a pool of minis for the adventuring group to include the heroes and the extras. The players took on characters and even made one each their primary character. But, the advancement was very simple from the <strong>Miniatures Handbook</strong>, and there were no defined feats or skills to choose or use. Next time, I plan to use a hybrid approach with the players having PHB levels of options but giving myself some freedom as DM to use a minis level of complexity for the foes. </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, I think the best way to limit the game material is to limit the magic. I say "unfortunately" because magic is really a big driver of the fun for <strong>D&D</strong>. But, it takes up a lot of material. Going back to <strong>3e</strong>, magic is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the PHB. So, for the next game I would like to run, <em>Sons of Conan</em>, I plan to limit the PCs to non-spellcasting classes. So, they are basically barbarians, fighters, monks or rogues. It has to work for the story, though, so magic-users are limited to foes and occasionally helpful NPCs; like the original <em>Conan</em> stories. My hope is that the players will actually be liberated from niche roles and that I won't have to worry about magic so much and can just use foes from my stock of D&D minis. That should in turn free me to focus more on the story development. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, I would love to run a game based on the <em>Slaine</em> comics with classes limited to "celtic" themes: barbarian, bard, druid, fighter & rogue. I think <strong>Slaine d20</strong> presented some interesting themes and the <em>Horned God</em> graphic novels present a basic story that could make a good adventure arc. But, the rules options need to be narrowed to empower the game--for me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="scourger, post: 5564592, member: 12328"] While I don't agree with all of this, I do agree with some of it. So here are my thoughts. First, the system does have to be limited. I started this with [B]AD&D 2e[/B] by eventually limiting my game to just the core rules. It worked so well that I ported that concept over to d20. Of course, the "core" of [B]3e[/B] is still about 1200 pages (PHB, DMG & MM); but it was better for me than allowing all the content that exploded afterward. I would use the core of another d20 game, but that was generally all. My favorites were [B]Judge Dredd d20[/B] and [B]Omega World d20[/B], the latter being a great example of a concise but brilliant game where less is more in the presentation. For non-d20 systems, the best I have found and brought to my group is [B]Savage Worlds[/B]. The design concepts for that game seem to deliver many of these concepts. I think one of its best features is that it keeps coarse granularity of options for the GM while allowing fine granularity of options for the players. In other words, GMs can easily stat up foes or other NPCs that are good at one or a few things without worrying over the exact "right" calculations. That makes it easier to run. Meanwhile, players get to enjoy a rich level of character development through advancement options that preserve the game-within-a-game to keep them engaged. To deal with a diminished number of players in our group, I really embrace the idea of allowing a pool of allies to the PCs. We started this concept in [B]Savage Worlds[/B] games, and the key is to make sure all the players have extras to control--not just the player whose character has a leadership feat. I've brought it over to our current [B]Gamma World[/B] game, and it works well. The heroes have some extra muscle that is somewhat expendable, and it opens up the possibility for the player characters to discover more allies in unexpected places through roleplaying the story. For example, when they rescued 4 people they turned out to be needed replacement allies; low-powered but available. Same for a robot they defeated, reprogrammed and repaired. And, since the game is simplified the allies are relatively easy to manage in additions to the stars. There are some limits to simplification, though. In our [B]Gamma World[/B] game I find the players less engaged because they don't have enough character development work to do. Each PC really is defined by the first rolls for backgrounds, and they are pretty even tactically. This hurts the story development because the players do not feel invested. It's to the point that I am not sure I want to continue the game even though I have 2 expansion modules left to explore. I had the same experience with a [B]D&D Minis[/B] skirmish campaign that I ran a couple of years ago. It was awesome for its simplicity. I chose a pool of minis for the adventuring group to include the heroes and the extras. The players took on characters and even made one each their primary character. But, the advancement was very simple from the [B]Miniatures Handbook[/B], and there were no defined feats or skills to choose or use. Next time, I plan to use a hybrid approach with the players having PHB levels of options but giving myself some freedom as DM to use a minis level of complexity for the foes. Unfortunately, I think the best way to limit the game material is to limit the magic. I say "unfortunately" because magic is really a big driver of the fun for [B]D&D[/B]. But, it takes up a lot of material. Going back to [B]3e[/B], magic is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the PHB. So, for the next game I would like to run, [I]Sons of Conan[/I], I plan to limit the PCs to non-spellcasting classes. So, they are basically barbarians, fighters, monks or rogues. It has to work for the story, though, so magic-users are limited to foes and occasionally helpful NPCs; like the original [I]Conan[/I] stories. My hope is that the players will actually be liberated from niche roles and that I won't have to worry about magic so much and can just use foes from my stock of D&D minis. That should in turn free me to focus more on the story development. Similarly, I would love to run a game based on the [I]Slaine[/I] comics with classes limited to "celtic" themes: barbarian, bard, druid, fighter & rogue. I think [B]Slaine d20[/B] presented some interesting themes and the [I]Horned God[/I] graphic novels present a basic story that could make a good adventure arc. But, the rules options need to be narrowed to empower the game--for me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
4 Hours w/ RSD - Let's Have a Flamewar!
Top