Search results

Ironically, 4E fits your standards. First, those 4 HP Kobolds in 3.5 are supposed to be Minions in 4E. Given that, it's trivial to clear out swarms of them. But furthermore, a 20 INT Wizard casting Fireball will kill level 1 Kobolds, with max damage.

Why? I'm sure there will "knows things" options. They'll just be categorized according to which kinds of situations that knowledge is most likely to be useful in. What's wrong with that? Those are both obviously Exploration. Seems to me, Art would be Interaction. It's primary use is...

I don't think I said you did. Rather: Ratskinner pretty much said he'd be OK with that (or rather, that broken modules aren't a problem because the DM can fix them). I responded to him to disagree (twice). Whereas our disagreement was over whether software development was sufficiently...

Depends on your expectations, I suppose. I entered into DnD from a boardgames background, with an expectation of a small group tactical combat game with persistent characters and a bit of story to get from monsters-to-kill to monsters-to-kill. So the relative lack of non-combat mechanics...

Exactly. I really don't see anything "artificial" about them. I think they clearly reflect the most common aspects of the situations characters find themselves in in D&D. Also: Star Wars was explicitly written by George Lucas to follow a theory that all myths have essentially the same...

I think you're misunderstanding him. He's not saying that they shouldn't be included. But rather, that the core must be designed to at least anticipate those modules, for them to work. Or, the simpler design answer, just include those things in core. I think the central point here is that...

I've always had issues with this before. DnD's support for non-combat roleplaying has always been woefully anemic. I'm glad to see an area with genuine attempts at innovation. If it's just going to be a clone of what came before, then what's the point of it? Just play what came before. Or...

Perhaps, but what's wrong with picking a split, and using it as a guide to design the game? We can still have "know stuff" abilities; I expect they'll be categorized according to what pillar it's generally "knowing stuff" about, and what kind of situations that knowledge tends to be useful in...

It's not just clerics, either. DnD Wizards only slightly resemble Vance's wizards, and work basically nothing like any other wizards anywhere else in mythology or fantasy literature (outside of specifically DnD inspired stuff, of course). Under the principle of "base DnD on actual stories"...

I'm saying that principles of modular design in software design can help understand modular design in RPG design, because it helps reduce faults. Faults are bad. Does not mean we cannot have faults at all, but if we can avoid them, all the better. I'm not arguing for more rules hard-coded...

Obviously, computers can handle things in much more than "1" or "0" ways. Computer programs, RPG system, boardgames, laws, regulations, corporate policies, and industry standards are all ultimately the same basic thing: a set of rules. They vary in purpose, of course, but beyond that, the real...

I do not like tying mechanics so directly to gods. For one, I don't like setting playing such a big role in mechanics, since I don't use published settings. Even the default one, really. For another, I don't like the whole "every follower of a god is the same" thing. I'd much prefer to just...

I'd like to see: Class: combat stuff for everyone, occasional Trait stuff for classes traditionally associated with certain exploration or interaction things (e.g., Rogues and Bards) Race: basically even mix of stuff in each pillar. I like Race having some importance in combat. Otherwise, it...

Yes, the DM can adapt better than the computer. But that's really because the DM is essentially able to play the role of both the programmer and the computer. Flaws with the system are still flaws, there's just a last line of defense to fix them (hopefully) before they screw up the game at the...

The solution there is not building NPCs using the PC rules. But I was talking about available feats, not feat slots, anyway.

And my reply was just an example, as well. I could reply the same way to just about anything they could come up with. Because it's inevitably a joining of wildly disparate features. Why should the way I fight determine the way I explore, and the way I interact with others? Sure there might be...

First, in what way is an optimized character not a "PLAYER Character"? Second, what if I want to roleplay a tough character, but who isn't particularly intimidating? Really, having a lot of HP and endurance doesn't really sound anything like being intimidating, to me. What, fear me because I...

I don't see how that is remotely inevitable. Producing a game out of logical, ordered game mechanics is just good design. I don't see how that has anything to do with the game design. Noone is prescripting what the "scenes" in a game session will have. The pillars are simply points of focus...

If Themes are feat-delivery mechanisms, I don't think that can work. If you deprecate a feat, that means having to errata each theme that used it. If they're going to errata, I'd rather they errata the bad feat and make it good. If you don't care about varied or optimal character building...

Maybe, but a system where every feat is basically three feats in one, and must have a benefit for each pillar, doesn't exactly sound very "clean" to me. I'd much rather split those sub-feats out, even if it means having three times as many feats (or feat-like skills and traits) Then again, I...