D&D 5E Why not Alternity? (Or, will or how might WotC do SF?)

[Marc_C]

Well, multiclassing galore was the intended use of D20 Modern. Whether the interactions were balanced can be questioned (knowing the 3e era, my instinct it "probably not") but the frequent multiclassing was the system working as intended.

I actually loved it first but the cracks started to show very quickly.

 

[Marc_C]

Though one can note few of their non-D&D games seemed to last for an extended period (there's a couple you can argue did) so its not going to be clear to WOTC that going there is what they want to do.

True. Their support of products wasn't very good which didn't help. Switching Star Frontiers from d100 to the FASERIP colour coded table was weird. That didn't help either.

Judging from the past, if WoTC does a sci-fi game it will be Gamma World and it will an adapted version of 5e. Gamma World is the game that got the most editions, 7 so far. Probably work for them, but not for me.

 

[Marc_C]

Deleted by user. See above.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

if you need mechanics to do social ROLE playing you need to think outside the box. D&D very much has the chops for social interaction etc. and we did it for years without a skill system even.

The fact that you can do social interactions without mechanics doesn't mean that's the optimal situation, and that there should never be rules for it. By that logic there shouldn't be rules for anything, since you could manage just about anything in an RPG without rules. It's just storytelling around the campfire, right?

Seriously though, do you really not see the value in having mechanics that support a PC who's supposed to be a charmer, or someone who excels at intrigue, without just seeing how witty and suave the player is (in the opinion of the GM, like some recurring audition)? Might as well just do that for everything that isn't swinging a sword.

Can my character pick this lock?
I don't know...can you?
Can my character intimidate this guy?
Well, go ahead, try to intimidate me! If you yell loud enough I guess it works or something. Anyway who cares, I statted out these hobgoblins so let's stop wasting time and get back to rolling initiative already, amirite fellas?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact that you can do social interactions without mechanics doesn't mean that's the optimal situation, and that there should never be rules for it. By that logic there shouldn't be rules for anything, since you could manage just about anything in an RPG without rules. It's just storytelling around the campfire, right?

Seriously though, do you really not see the value in having mechanics that support a PC who's supposed to be a charmer, or someone who excels at intrigue, without just seeing how witty and suave the player is (in the opinion of the GM, like some recurring audition)? Might as well just do that for everything that isn't swinging a sword.

Can my character pick this lock?
I don't know...can you?
Can my character intimidate this guy?
Well, go ahead, try to intimidate me! If you yell loud enough I guess it works or something. Anyway who cares, I statted out these hobgoblins so let's stop wasting time and get back to rolling initiative already, amirite fellas?

I think going all the way to no rules for social interaction is probably only going to work for a small number of people, but I do find that social interaction, for my group and a lot of others, benefits from few distinct rules elements, each of which is fairly broad, and mostly just tell you how good a character is at a general aspect of social interaction. Meanwhile, I find that combat is pretty unsatisfying in games that try to streamline it to the same kind of loose framework.

I also find D&D exploration could do with more mechanization, so I guess it kinda breaks down to physical vs non-physical challenges, for me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Considering I stated earlier in the thread I don't want a D&D in space variant game I'm not attached to classes. I don't want everything about my sci-fi characters to be tied to a class concept just like in D&D.

For example, in The Expanse the main characters all know how to operate the ships auto-doctor features.

I would like Professions with levels of specializations you buy in, a list of general sci-fi talents and a modified list of skills to reflect a sci-fi game.

That game already exists, several times over. Classless systems are pretty much the standard for SF RPGs, and have been for around 40 years.

There wouldn't be much point in WotC making it if they weren't going to cash in on the popularity of the D&D 5e rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think going all the way to no rules for social interaction is probably only going to work for a small number of people, but I do find that social interaction, for my group and a lot of others, benefits from few distinct rules elements, each of which is fairly broad, and mostly just tell you how good a character is at a general aspect of social interaction. Meanwhile, I find that combat is pretty unsatisfying in games that try to streamline it to the same kind of loose framework.

I also find D&D exploration could do with more mechanization, so I guess it kinda breaks down to physical vs non-physical challenges, for me.

Talking is something you can do at the table. Hitting each other with swords and exploring the desert are less practical.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Talking is something you can do at the table. Hitting each other with swords and exploring the desert are less practical.

This is true, but I think it really penalizes players who want to make someone with a gift for gab without having it themselves, and also potentially creates some very odd dynamics where PCs are convincing the GM of something, rather than an NPC who's a dufus, a mastermind, or anything else other than the GM. After all, I'm guessing you don't make someone sing a ballad at the table when they play a bard. Why force your fixer/spy/etc. to do the same when negotiating?

 

[Don Durito]

This is true, but I think it really penalizes players who want to make someone with a gift for gab without having it themselves, and also potentially creates some very odd dynamics where PCs are convincing the GM of something, rather than an NPC who's a dufus, a mastermind, or anything else other than the GM. After all, I'm guessing you don't make someone sing a ballad at the tabwhen they play a bard. Why force your fixer/spy/etc. to do the same when negotiating?

I always feel like this is a red herring. When I run social interaction scenes without dice I always adjudicate based on what the players say, not how they say it. They can even just describe the generel approach if they like.

The key is that you don't persuade the NPCs by making a dice roll, you do it by hitting the points you need to hit to persuade them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I actually loved it first but the cracks started to show very quickly.

So like 3e design in general?