Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Desdichado]

Yes, it would be complicated, and it would take work; the whole system would needs to be overhauled. I'm talking about D&D 4.0 at this point. But if someone was gonna pay me (i.e., buy the product), I'd bet any amount of money I could do it. Heck, I'm sure a lot of us on these boards could do it. And it would be a huge improvement in the game we all love so much. IMHO.

I'm hoping that when I look at the new Decipher LotR rules, which don't use levels but which otherwise is very similar to d20, a mechanic to do this will present itself which is fairly easily portable.

I hope. 'Cause I'd hate to just take a stab at it as is; it'd be quite a bit of work.

 

[mmadsen]

So certain abilities like barbarian rage, backstab, lay on hands, etc. are worth different amounts, and all are worth more than your typical 'feat.'

Obviously you can scale the power of Rage, Sneak Attack, etc. rather than scale the cost. We can scale either side of that relationship.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

So certain abilities like barbarian rage, backstab, lay on hands, etc. are worth different amounts, and all are worth more than your typical 'feat.' So costs would vary, and the game would still provide linear progression without the too-gradiant "level" crap. XP would be spent as desired, or saved up for something "bigger" like a 1d6 backstab bonus or a spell.

Yes, it would be complicated, and it would take work; the whole system would needs to be overhauled. I'm talking about D&D 4.0 at this point. But if someone was gonna pay me (i.e., buy the product), I'd bet any amount of money I could do it. Heck, I'm sure a lot of us on these boards could do it. And it would be a huge improvement in the game we all love so much. IMHO.

Then you'll have GURPS. Buying attributes/abilities/skills with experience points is a big feature of GURPS, HERO, and other such point-based system. But why should D&D try to be one of those games? D&D will NEVER be a better GURPS or HERO than GURPS or HERO. If you wanted to play those games, you'd already be playing them. Most folks who play D&D want to play D&D.

From a game designer's point of view, the reason for levels is because levels and the quantum jumps in power that comes with them is a heck of a lot more exciting for players than spending individual xp, one at a time. Try getting excited about getting 2 extra hps every session. But when you get 8 hit points after 4 sessions because you 'leveled', it feels a lot more different, and it's a lot easier to get excited about. The same goes for spells, spell progression, etc.

Like I said, most gamers enthusiastic about point-based systems are people who've played enough to get jaded about the tricks and carrots that D&D dangles in front of players. (I'm not saying that everyone get sick of these carrots..) I'm positive that the alternative systems (point-based, whatever) aren't an improvement over what D&D does, because the market success of all these other systems don't hold a candle to D&D's market success. In fact, the revival of D&D's player base with 3E indicates that while other games went off to player other games during the malaise that afflicted D&D through the late 80s early 90s, all D&D needed was a little bit of stream-lining to bring back those players.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about with regards to the design basis for D&D, read this thread:
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=27

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

More food for thought from Ryan Dancey

From: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=36

The biggest problem is that many Designers don't like what their customers like. For example, many RPG Designers are pretty tired of creating low level dungeon crawls. They've been doing it their whole professional lives, and the task doesn't seem very rewarding anymore. It is very hard to do something wholly original in the dungeon crawl field, and that means that it is very hard to get recognition as a Designer from other Designers for dungeon crawl work. Unfortunately, customers really like low level dungeon crawls. We ran an experiment at Wizards in '98 and '99, where we actually labeled a handful of products "Dungeon Crawls" - right on the covers! Sales of those products were typically 30% higher than similar adventures with similar prices and similar subject matter! Unfortunately, the
people that an RPG Designer is most likely to interact with directly don't like dungeon crawls and will try to convince the Designer to do something - anything - besides another one.

In practice, what often happens is that the longer a game line exists, the further from its initial premise it drifts. That drift happens because Designers don't like to tread water. They're like sharks: They have to keep moving forward, or their passion for a project tends to die. Here's where one of the oddities of the game business kicks in too: The most active and vocal consumers of a game are often likely to be those who have been interested in the game since its inception - and they get bored too. They put a lot of pressure on Designers to keep moving forward as well, so the message the Designers hear is often a message that reinforces their own self-interest. The problem is that for most game lines the bulk of revenue and profits are made by selling core books to new players, and the longer a player is involved in a game, the less likely that player is to buy products in the line.

Think about it. Old players don't buy products. New players do. Old players (like Joshua) might not like dungeon crawls. New players do. Guess who wins? The player that buys products (new players).

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Then you'll have GURPS. Buying attributes/abilities/skills with experience points is a big feature of GURPS, HERO, and other such point-based system. But why should D&D try to be one of those games? D&D will NEVER be a better GURPS or HERO than GURPS or HERO. If you wanted to play those games, you'd already be playing them. Most folks who play D&D want to play D&D.

I'll concede you have a point (and a good one); but I think brand recognition is a HUGE factor for most would-be gamers. 99.99% of the general "gaming age" populace will not recognize the names White Wolf, Vampire, or even Gurps. But I think it's safe to say that probably, fully 70% or more of all people know what D&D is. That fact alone is enough to bring more "hardcore" gamers (like people here or at rpg.net, supposedly) back to it, if just for the nostalgia factor, if not to have an easier time finding other gamers.

Your argument (and Monte's) about levels and classes being a staple of D&D is very sound. There's not much to quibble with there, I guess. Furthermore, I think most new gamers don't have the patience to learn a (perhaps more complicated?) character design process like gurps. D&D is bad enough for most new gamers (trust me I know from experience with other gamers here).

HOWEVER, that didn't stop them from selling Skills & Powers, which basically allowed players to 'buy' things just like what I'm talking about, not to mention the 2e DMG which had rules for designing variant classes using points. I guess what I'm talking about is a sort of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3.0e (or 3.1 if you prefer), which caters to the real hard-core gamers, and in such a tome it would break down the character abilities and give more control to players.

What if I want a monk with backstab but without some other monk crap? What if I want a magic-using guy with fighter BAB, rogue skills, and nothing else? Why must we (as players) be shackled into 'classes' we didn't design? And the worst part is, they aren't even balanced! I mean the core 4 are, but apart from that, they really aren't even close. A barbarian is no match for a fighter, really. Heck the damage bonus he gets from STR is made up fro by the fighters +2 from weapon specialization! It's negated totally, except for the BAB bonus. But with a fighter's feats, it's no contest.... so much so that I wonder what they were thinking. Don't even get me started on the monk or ranger!

The lack of class balance is probably the best reason yet to throw classes out the window.

 

[Storminator]

I think the advantage of levels is in selling adventures, not in dangling carrots.

I get Dungeon magazine, and I can tell from the table of contents which adventures are likely to challenge my PCs. It list the levels of the adventure right there. If I have another, less concrete system of grading, I actually have to read the adventures before deciding.

This isn't actually a problem in Dungeon, but it is if I'm standing in the store looking at a module. I need to know right away if I should purchase the thing.

PS

 

[Umbran]

Opinion polls are often based on numbers as small or smaller for populations much larger.

Yah. And with such basis, they should be highly suspect.

It's not that the rpg.net folks are important per se just that they presumably represent the tastes of gamers at large.

As I noted, there's good reason to think they don't represent the tastes of gamers at large. If nothing else, the tastes of gamers at large don't include such websites.

Yes, that's true. Still, Dancey said that the other games in the market were "insignifigant" relative to D&D. More than 40% isn't insignificant. And who knows what that ratio is now, though.

There you are again, mistaking the gaming community for the market. For the purposes Dancey intended, those 40% are insignificant if they aren't buying books. People who are content to sit back and play games with the books they have are not relevant to Dancey, who's interested in selling books.

True, but presumably those same spending habits hold true for all (in print) games equally, so the effect of it should be a wash.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What same spending habits are supposed to be holding true for all? The only spending habit I've alluded to is the habit of D&D gamers to buy more books than other gamers.

 

[Desdichado]

There you are again, mistaking the gaming community for the market. For the purposes Dancey intended, those 40% are insignificant if they aren't buying books. People who are content to sit back and play games with the books they have are not relevant to Dancey, who's interested in selling books.
[...]
I'm not sure what you mean here. What same spending habits are supposed to be holding true for all? The only spending habit I've alluded to is the habit of D&D gamers to buy more books than other gamers.

Which is exactly why you think I'm mistaking players of a game for the market for a game. I understand your point perfectly. However, the effects of it are still a wash. Why should D&D players buy less (or more) books for their game than a Vampire player, or a GURPS player (who probably actually buys more, just because there are so many more)? Therefore, one can make a pretty reasonable assumption that there is a direct correlation between players and buyers of games. And that correlation should be about the same for all game systems equally.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: More food for thought from Ryan Dancey

From: http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=36
Think about it. Old players don't buy products. New players do. Old players (like Joshua) might not like dungeon crawls. New players do. Guess who wins? The player that buys products (new players).

Yeah, but the market for modules is a fraction of the market for RPG products. That's why WotC did so few of them, why there really aren't that many on the market from 3rd party guys, and why game systems like the Storyteller system, or GURPS don't do them at all. So Dungeon Crawls sell 30% more than other adventures. When adventures are such a small portion of the game accessories market, so what? All that proves is that the relatively few people who want to buy modules want something that they can use *instantly* without having to work to port into their current campaign. And there's no denying that dungeon crawls are that.

Which raises another interesting question. If 3e was all about "back to the dungeon" and adventures (i.e. dungeon crawls) aren't even a core product for the D&D line, why have the emphasis on back to the dungeon at all?

 

[Corinth]

That's what Dungeon Magazine is for. It's the best possible way to publish modules.