How do you like your martial characters?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except that, if you don't trivially rewrite it, then that is what makes fighters special.

Except my point is that everything you said is entirely dependent on the player, and not at all on the character; ergo, it has nothing to do with Fighters (or, more generally, martial characters).

 

[Agamon]

I go back & forth on this. Is a simple core the way to draw new people?

Core doesn't mean everything in the PHB as it used to. Core will mean the base around which modules from those starting books will be applied to. So there's as much complexity in the game as you want.

Starting simple seems to me the best way to draw in new people. Throw a few rules at a new person, or a hundred, which might be more frustrating? If they take to the simple ones quickly, or want to dive right into the complexity, no problem.

 

[Agamon]

Except my point is that everything you said is entirely dependent on the player, and not at all on the character; ergo, it has nothing to do with Fighters (or, more generally, martial characters).

So this is in the name of some sort of balance? Isn't that how the 4e classes got built the way they did? That was popular with some, not with others.

I like that they're trying to build the game in such a way that if you want to be creative, you can, and if you want to run your finger down a list, you can do that, too. We get to eat our cake and still have it.

 

[Herschel]

Core doesn't mean everything in the PHB as it used to. Core will mean the base around which modules from those starting books will be applied to. So there's as much complexity in the game as you want.

Starting simple seems to me the best way to draw in new people. Throw a few rules at a new person, or a hundred, which might be more frustrating? If they take to the simple ones quickly, or want to dive right into the complexity, no problem.

But the question is do enough people want to "build" their own game? The whole "unity" edition is a nice concept, but at the end of the day is it worth it for enough people? If "I'm" paying for a game, yeah, I want options, but I don't want to essentially build it from scratch. Especially if I already have a perfectly good edition or three. And for those that do, does it really give us any more than GURPS?

Just waxing a bit philosophic, but there's a lot of "why bother?" coming out right now.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But the question is do enough people want to "build" their own game? The whole "unity" edition is a nice concept, but at the end of the day is it worth it for enough people? If "I'm" paying for a game, yeah, I want options, but I don't want to essentially build it from scratch. Especially if I already have a perfectly good edition or three. And for those that do, does it really give us any more than GURPS?

Just waxing a bit philosophic, but there's a lot of "why bother?" coming out right now.

I think you have neatly delineated how they should do a beginner's box. The core rules with no rules modules so that those who just want to play without all the extra rules paraphernalia can. The PHB, DMG and MM are there for those of us who want to test out the different dials.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Agamon]

But the question is do enough people want to "build" their own game? The whole "unity" edition is a nice concept, but at the end of the day is it worth it for enough people? If "I'm" paying for a game, yeah, I want options, but I don't want to essentially build it from scratch. Especially if I already have a perfectly good edition or three. And for those that do, does it really give us any more than GURPS?

Just waxing a bit philosophic, but there's a lot of "why bother?" coming out right now.

It's not a box of lego. A lot of games have optional rules. Heck, the good ones tell you up front that all of them are optional. The fact that they are now delineating it more by calling them modules doesn't really change that.

And a lot of people don't play the game exactly as written. Giving people the tools to make the game they want is a good thing, imo.

 

[Agamon]

I think you have neatly delineated how they should do a beginner's box. The core rules with no rules modules so that those who just want to play without all the extra rules paraphernalia can. The PHB, DMG and MM are there for those of us who want to test out the different dials.

I like this idea, actually. They keep trying the starter game model with every edition, this is the way to do it best.

As an aside, I see we both used the word delineate in different contexts in consecutive posts. What are the odds on that? lol

 

[Herschel]

It's not a box of lego. A lot of games have optional rules. Heck, the good ones tell you up front that all of them are optional. The fact that they are now delineating it more by calling them modules doesn't really change that.

And a lot of people don't play the game exactly as written. Giving people the tools to make the game they want is a good thing, imo.

In general, I agree. However, instead of looking at Legos, look at race car tracks. You can build spires and loops to fill a room but if the simple cars that are the foundation can't complete them then they're really not much good.

Another thing is when does a modular game become a build your own game that you don't want or need to spend money on? Options are good but when you have to mix and match from umpteen different sources after looking at and trying umpteen more just to get the game close to where you want to actually play it, when do "you" say "screw it"?

 

[Agamon]

In general, I agree. However, instead of looking at Legos, look at race car tracks. You can build spires and loops to fill a room but if the simple cars that are the foundation can't complete them then they're really not much good.

Another thing is when does a modular game become a build your own game that you don't want or need to spend money on? Options are good but when you have to mix and match from umpteen different sources after looking at and trying umpteen more just to get the game close to where you want to actually play it, when do "you" say "screw it"?

I sure hope there isn't umpteen different sources. I'm generally a no-splat guy, personally, so I know I won't have that problem.

For others, there will be only one source to start, and everyone can start the game with what they want and then gradually add onto it as options are presented, if they like.

 

[Herschel]

I sure hope there isn't umpteen different sources. I'm generally a no-splat guy, personally, so I know I won't have that problem.

For others, there will be only one source to start, and everyone can start the game with what they want and then gradually add onto it as options are presented, if they like.

But what if you can't build the game you want without splats? If the core is too basic, you end up with not enough info/features for the majority of your market. That also bridges in to the discussion of how big the first book should be, etc. but say you want an alternate HP system that's not in the first book but there are half a dozen spread throughout later books? So you're only okay with the first but not veryhappy with it, the fourth looks much better and a year later the sixth nails it for you? Either you never look at the later ones and are never satisfied with the way it works (which is bad for the game overall) or you end up on a treadmill you don't want.

This is an issue I see with a too-modular approach.