Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Desdichado]

Yeah, the magic system is one of my greatest disappointments with the game as it currently stands (and judging from stuff I've seen here, I'm not alone in that regard.) Not that it really is a great disappointment, because the system overall is good enough that my greatest disappointments are still not that bad.

I have the ELH but haven't read the spell seed section yet. It may just yet convince me to try and create a spell seed version of D&D magic for basic levels, though. The idea sounds really neat.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The "modernizing" changes they made going from 2E to 3E brought a lot of people back into the D&D fold -- many who'd left gaming for awhile, and many who'd left D&D for other games. And I think the designers have already stated that they wanted to clean up the game even more, but they were scared to change too many sacred cows. Once the game was so well-received, they realized they might have been able to get away with a bit more.

I don't know about that. Most of those I know who came back into the D&D fold with the release of 3e - including myself - did so because it took the original game and made it logical, with rules that seemed strikingly similar to House Rules used in the 1e/2e era. It wasn't because the game was remade very differently.

mmadsen, I understand the need for discussion about these things. However, eventually one should - and I mean no disrespect - put one's money where one's mouth is. Why not work up your own d20 "fix" for D&D and post it? I spent a lot of time discussing d20 Lord of the Rings, but I eventually did something about it. I've seen you suggest a number of things - why not collect it all into one document and set up a website?

 

[Desdichado]

Originally posted by ColonelHardisson:

mmadsen, I understand the need for discussion about these things. However, eventually one should - and I mean no disrespect - put one's money where one's mouth is. Why not work up your own d20 "fix" for D&D and post it? I spent a lot of time discussing d20 Lord of the Rings, but I eventually did something about it. I've seen you suggest a number of things - why not collect it all into one document and set up a website?

And therapuetic as well. When I finally got tired of complaining about magic in D&D and posted up my take on a new magic class in House Rules, it felt darn good! Granted, my version needs some work still, but I got some great feedback, and I can see how I can make it even better than I originally posted. I'm seriously thinking about making a run for this class next time I run a long-term campaign. Which might not be for a little while.

 

[Umbran]

Is that really true? Other books in the line-up are bigger than the DMG. Not only that, IMO, they wasted a lot of time in the DMG giving all that dungeon stuff. I really have to wonder how many gamers really think of dungeons when they think of role-playing anymore. The industry has so moved away from that, that it's just a retro fetish these days to do dungeons. IMO.

I think it is true - yes, other books in the lineup are larger, but what are they selling for? $40? As opposed to the opening $20 of the DMG?

Perhaps they could throw out the dungeoneering section, perhaps not. But that'd only save you about 10% of the book's current space.

Plus I did say an exhausitve list would be too big. You see, You can't choose just one. Everybody's got a pet alternative. If you put in just one, you'd still leave the majority of the people who wanted other options asking "Why didn't you put in mine?" Remember, they aren't trying to satisfy you. Or the board members, but tens of thousands of gamers. Why start choosing major rules options for the DMG, when you can't fit enough to please everybody? Especially when your market research says that good old classed, levelled, HP/ACed, vancian D&D is what most folks would be happy with?

In an exhaustive list, we'd need classless, levelless, at least one alternate HP/AC system, and one or more alternate spell systems. Now add in how all the feats and skills and spells change in each case, and how the systems interact ("I'll take classless, but not levelless, with normal hit points but a side order of non-vancian magic, and could you super-size that, please?"). Yes, it'd be too darned big.

[edit: Almost forgot, how are you going to find the time to playtest all these combinations?]

Now, consider that. Consider also the OGL - what use is it when you include so many rule options in the core books that nobody can guess what you're gong to use? Add on top of this the fact that they did publish other options - the VP/WP system is out there, they've got three non-vancian magics in Psionics, the Force, and Channeling.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I liked all the dungeon stuff in the DMG! I think a lot of people are going "back to the dungeon." But the DMG should have been bigger - I feel it should have been at least as big, if not bigger, than the PHB. It's one of a few D&D books I'd have gladly paid more for.

 

[mmadsen]

I liked all the dungeon stuff in the DMG! I think a lot of people are going "back to the dungeon."

That was one of the explicit goals of 3E, so it's hard to blame them for filling the Dungeon Master's Guide with lots of dungeon info. As Monte's "Genius of D&D" article points out, dungeons make for good gaming. (Even better gaming if you can come up with a sensible dungeon, of course...)

 

[mmadsen]

mmadsen, I understand the need for discussion about these things. However, eventually one should - and I mean no disrespect - put one's money where one's mouth is. Why not work up your own d20 "fix" for D&D and post it?...I've seen you suggest a number of things - why not collect it all into one document and set up a website?

I may do just that. Actually, I'd probably have to post multiple "fixes" for different design goals. What I'd recommend for house rules and what I'd recommend for a hypothetical Fouth Edition are two different things.

 

[Desdichado]

That was one of the explicit goals of 3E, so it's hard to blame them for filling the Dungeon Master's Guide with lots of dungeon info. As Monte's "Genius of D&D" article points out, dungeons make for good gaming. (Even better gaming if you can come up with a sensible dungeon, of course...)

Y'know, I respect Monte as much as anyone as an industry "expert" if you will. But that's just plain silly, IMO. Dungeons don't make for good gaming, unless your DM isn't any good. They're a crutch, perhaps, for beginner DMs, and a fun occasional retro flash for older gamers. Other than that, I can't see that they serve any purpose whatsoever.

 

[Skoal]

The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. This reminds me of a campaign few years ago. After everyone in the party had reached around 7th level, we complained to the Dm, "The game is called Dungeons and Dragons. However, in the 3 months we've been playing, there hasn't been a dungeon or a dragon. What's going on here."

You fancy people stick to the surface, I'll be sticking to the dungeon--kicking in doors and grabbing loot--all the while searching for that elusive dragon.

ps. I like my beer cold, steak rare, and hit-points high.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

But that's just plain silly, IMO. Dungeons don't make for good gaming, unless your DM isn't any good. They're a crutch, perhaps, for beginner DMs, and a fun occasional retro flash for older gamers. Other than that, I can't see that they serve any purpose whatsoever.

On the contrary. 3E was definitely touted as "Back to the Dungeon." Didn't seem to hurt it's sales prospects any, and it certainly brought back lots of old gamers who abandoned the story-telling approach to gaming espoused by 2nd-ed types like Dragonlance.

Considering that Necromancer Game's "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" has successfully captured a large segment of such a gaming population (and many of them veterans --- I'm running the 1st edition Temple of Elemental Evil conversion right now, just to show how old school I am), I think that giving up the dungeon would be a big marketing mistake that a corporation like WoTC wouldn't make. (And certainly, something that TSR ignored to it's detriment)

Never EVER forget that this is first and foremost a game. One of the reasons that D&D 3E is so successful is because the designers and supporters never forgot that D&D is a game and supposed to be fun. Not to say that you can't use the same system to do deep immersion story telling, but to make out that style of play to be superior in some fashion is plain wrong.