Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5488906" data-attributes="member: 29398">A few thoughts, in no real order...If so, I'd give it a long hard look; even more so if the rules were presented largely as guidelines (a la 1e) rather than hard rules.&nbsp; And if they actually have a prototype at GenCon I'll try it there.This is exactly where I do NOT want to see the game going: online only.&nbsp; So many of you seem to see the DDI as the game's future; I'd prefer it be at best a support tool with nothing in it not also available in actual hard-copy print.&nbsp; Yes, this would destroy the subscription model.&nbsp; Good.This is the first I've heard of anyone wanting to see hit points and armour class disappear.&nbsp; We must run with different crowds or something. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That said, if one uses these seven things as the foundation for a new edition what more do you really need?&nbsp; And keeping it this basic and simple allows the game to handle all different types of play - hardcore dungeon crawl, sandbox exploration, thespian night, etc., etc.&nbsp; The only real issue is how to handle combat, and that's something each edition has tried and sort-of failed; flexibility to handle any group is what we're after.&nbsp; I'd say a simplified version of 1e is probably the most flexible as a base; then just give provision for DMs to add in minis rules, slide-shift effects, turn-based vs. free-form action resolution, and so forth.A secondary issue is how important to make character build in the mechanical sense - my own preference would be to make it as basic as possible, with character development coming through roleplay rather than mechanics; but I know there's many who disagree with me on this.&nbsp; That said, if character building in any new edition is complex enough to support a char-ops system, I'm out.Lan-&quot;if I didn't have any hit points I'd be......dead&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 5488906, member: 29398"] A few thoughts, in no real order...If so, I'd give it a long hard look; even more so if the rules were presented largely as guidelines (a la 1e) rather than hard rules. And if they actually have a prototype at GenCon I'll try it there. This is exactly where I do NOT want to see the game going: online only. So many of you seem to see the DDI as the game's future; I'd prefer it be at best a support tool with nothing in it not also available in actual hard-copy print. Yes, this would destroy the subscription model. Good. This is the first I've heard of anyone wanting to see hit points and armour class disappear. We must run with different crowds or something. :) That said, if one uses these seven things as the foundation for a new edition what more do you really need? And keeping it this basic and simple allows the game to handle all different types of play - hardcore dungeon crawl, sandbox exploration, thespian night, etc., etc. The only real issue is how to handle combat, and that's something each edition has tried and sort-of failed; flexibility to handle any group is what we're after. I'd say a simplified version of 1e is probably the most flexible as a base; then just give provision for DMs to add in minis rules, slide-shift effects, turn-based vs. free-form action resolution, and so forth. A secondary issue is how important to make character build in the mechanical sense - my own preference would be to make it as basic as possible, with character development coming through roleplay rather than mechanics; but I know there's many who disagree with me on this. That said, if character building in any new edition is complex enough to support a char-ops system, I'm out. Lan-"if I didn't have any hit points I'd be......dead"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification