Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5571319" data-attributes="member: 54877">Assumption and Caveat: For the effort to have any meaning, the resulting game should be different from other versions of D&D. If it is just like RC, for example, why bother? Just play RC. You can get a clone that is 99% of RC, even if you don't have a copy of the original. Likewise, this shouldn't be an effort to make a "faster 4E" or a "more sim 4E" or any number of other version combos one could tease out of the idea (e.g. diverge 3E from its 3.5 to 4E path into an RC-like game). I say this as someone who more or less likes all versions of D&D, BTW. So while I think any number of variations of RC could be fun, to fit the pattern of a spirit of RC with 4E design, the options are more limited. I'll talk about the spirt of RC within those contraints. Also, my copy of RC is in storage at the moment. So please excuse errors based on memory. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Keep - all the rules in one book, complete with modest starter selection of magic items and monsters. Can add adventures, and more magic items and monsters later, but very relunctant to add new classes or character abilities. Why, this is a brake on bloat. There are tons of good things that could go into such a game, simply on their own merit, but that isn't sufficient for RC. A good thing has to beat out all the other good things competing for its space.  Set Aside - racial classes and racial level limits. Why, these are mechanics mainly to give the human/demi-human mixes a certain default flavor. You can encourage that flavor without hard limits and get most of the bang. Keep - limited weapons, spell lists, options at each level, etc. Why, everything can't be complicated in this game, and historically the bloat in D&D (since 1E) has been quick to creep in here. Set Aside - highly tactical game widgets. This is counter to the spirt of the "strategic" aspect of RC play, at least in practice. And besides, we haven't had a D&D version that really went after strategic play since 1E.  Keep - some strategic options, such as spells with particular counters, fighter/wizard trade-offs in tactical combat, etc. If some tactical play emerges out of this, so much the better, but it isn't necessary. Set Aside - secondary "professions" (or whatever they were called), tacked on class options (e.g. mystic), the optional weapon rules, etc.  Keep - the flavor of professions, class options, weapon options, etc. via fully modernized mechanics--however, as options and still limited in space devoted to them. Why, basically this isn't the central focus of RC play, but it is a signficant secondary focus.  (The temptation to start with DragonQuest "professions" as a separate axis, weld it onto RC, and then modernize it--would be very strong for me. However, I have to admit that this isn't quite RC spirit.) Set Aside - to hit charts, saving throw charts, different saving throws, etc. Just lift this out of 4E, with the caveats below. Keep - lots of levels, with relatively little power difference between any two levels (with notable exceptions). Why, this is an area where RC and 4E are already somewhat more in agreement than other versions, low level play and pace of advancement being the biggest exceptions. I think 4E's smoother power progression is superior in isolation, but RCs differences in power from 1st to max wins out. If this means, for example, that the resulting game's wizards don't get "fireball" until 7th or 9th, then so be it, if that is when "fireball" is worth having. Simply Different - assume that magic items are mainly consumable, low-powered, and reasonably available. This will address some of the "wizard without stuff to do" and lethalness concerns at low levels. But the consumable part will keep strategic issues alive. Basically, when you write the "typical" combat example, you go through three or four combats--then the kobolds kill the cleric. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /> Keep - treasure acquisition being the main way to advance in level. Why, strategic play again. Set Aside - magic items counting as "treasure" for advancement. Why, you can have lots of magic at low level, and thus have staying power. Or you can have lots of gold, and thus gain personal power. The two don't have to be lock step. The default rules don't always get the mixture right for certain playstyles. This lets the DM vary one or the other to get a wider variety of styles covered. (This happened in RC, but took work.) Cover a wider variety of styles, more likely to hit the "spirit of RC" for a given group. Note, this basically means that permanent magic items are somewhat in between, and thus also a different way to vary advancement. I'll probably think of more later. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/angel.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":angel:" title="Angel    :angel:" data-shortname=":angel:" /></blockquote>

Verification