D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Nothing

Halfling is Short lucky human.
Gnome is Short elf/dwarf with gadget.

Cut the fluff
Power up the unique

Halfling is short lucky human.
Gnome is short elf/dwarf with gadget
.

Ah. Then that is the issue. I prefer to actually make them manifest some kind of archetype rather than just making them vehicles for mechanics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I understand the concept, I'm just skeptical any one game can fairly present both options to the satisfaction of both groups.

Good.

Without skeptical people, testing doesn't work. You need people willing to challenge you in order to actually achieve the end goal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good.

Without skeptical people, testing doesn't work. You need people willing to challenge you in order to actually achieve the end goal.

Good deal. I look forward to seeing your playtest draft then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep, It is not that it can't be done, but the bold part is going to be really hard.

Heck, when I suggest novice levels should be actual levels, @EzekielRaiden says no, no they shouldn't be actual levels, they should be incremental advancement. As if that is a better solution than starting at higher levels (if they want that style of play). They can't satisfy the two groups right out of the starting block! Heck their own poll shows 75% of DMs here have or do start above level 1 and they are still insisting on optional incremental novice levels/not levels.

It is better for several reasons.

Not being levels means, as I've said already, we completely and utterly cut out the "but that's not FIRST, you start at FIRST because that's what FIRST means, why would you ever start anywhere other than FIRST". And yes, while this is not the majority opinion, my own thread has literally shown that that IS what some people think. Real live people.

Secondly, and far more important in the grand scheme, not being hard coded fixed sequences of completely nailed down effects means the structure is much more customizable for each interest. Someone wanting "gentle curve guiding players into their first character" can make sure that the characters have near/full defenses as if they were already competent, survivable 1st level characters, without the bells and whistles chosen. Someone wanting a gritty, hardcore experience can strip out nearly everything and still have a functional character. Someone wanting the characters to grow naturally can set a steady pace from low but meaningful starting choices. Etc.

The flexibility that comes from having a system that isn't tied to a fixed progression, and instead allows the GM to set the curve and the content, is literally the key point that makes it functional for multiple groups. Trying to shove every priority, every style, into one singular fixed structure that has to be one size fits all? That literally won't ever work. This can, because it can be customized to each group.

And those who don't want to bother never even need to look at it.

 

[Faolyn]

Not sure what you're saying. The GM should always do what the player wants in terms of worldbuilding unless it's very obviously abusive or outrageously silly?

Always? No. But can you think of a reason why you shouldn't, besides "it's my world and I don't want to"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Always? No. But can you think of a reason why you shouldn't, besides "it's my world and I don't want to"?

That I don't assume their idea is always better than mine?

 

[Faolyn]

That I don't assume their idea is always better than mine?

But by dismissing it as a whim, you're assuming that their idea is automatically worse than yours.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But by dismissing it as a whim, you're assuming that their idea is automatically worse than yours.

Whim is an ill-chosen word. I'm willing to hear out a player's idea, and have instituted them in my games on several occasions. But I won't default to it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Perhaps you didn’t see the post I was responding too. We were talking about a monster getting multiple full turns and the idea of getting 1 turn per PC.

Ah you are right, my apologies. That is quite mad to give the troll multiple full turns.
That's much too much. I have seen a friend try run a free-form combat where it doesn't necessarily follow the structure completely but wwhat ou're describing takes the cake. Did the table not question the GM during or after?

 

[Minigiant]

I guess that's why I used the words "To me" rather than "According to the Player's Handbook..."

Sure.

But I've never seen those descriptions since 2e.

Ah. Then that is the issue. I prefer to actually make them manifest some kind of archetype rather than just making them vehicles for mechanics.

They would be manifesting archetypes.

Halflings would be the people whose entire life are based around good and bad luck. Their cheeriness and carefree attitudes are due to the fact that they tend to be so lucky that they don't care as much to do as much cuz they don't typically need to. Their luck allows them to survive.

Gnomes would be an inventor species. Much like you see in sci-fi, they would be people who would be great at creating technology either be through gadgets or by carefully weaving illusions.

Luvk points and magic items would be how they display mechanically what these archetypes are in play and lore.