Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Probably one of the most interesting combat systems I have seen is in Shadowrun.
I don't know, I just like it. We used the Shadowrun tech level, and combat/magic system and slapped it into Forgotten Realms, and it worked great!
Leveless and classless.

I love the magic system too. The thought that if the mage is having a good day, they may be able to just blow everyone away, and the next day, when they get up and try to levitate the glass of water to them, they are suddenly exhausted.

My two sense.

 

[dr jekyll]

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.

I'll grant this, but there is a continuum between levels and spending points as you get them. I agree the lumpiness of levels can contribute to wanting to play (just one more level, mom!). But I think you could easily introduce a lumpy advancement system that isn't levelling. CODA's idea of going to Bob's Skill and Feat Store every 1000xp, for instance. You can advance in a carrot-like, lumpy fashion without resorting to levels.

Also, tho I must admit I have a fondness for more skill-based systems, Monte's point about classes providing focus for character development is absolutely true. I just would like to see each class made more open and flexible. I would also like to see any and all multi-class restrictions removed, with each class having a lot more things they can do - kinda like the fighter, only more so. The 3E classes are a lot more open and flexible than those in former editions, but I think they could be even more so without losing their flavor. I'm not convinced the d20 Modern approach is quite what I wanted, either.

As to hit points, I'm not really sure I buy the idea that you need a truckload of hitpoints to play heroic fantasy. Isn't it *more* heroic to face the Dragon with fewer hitpoints? I would like the HP mechanic to suggest that I'm not being hit rather than shrugging off damage (whatever HPs are supposed to represent, I feel that losing hitpoints mechanically suggests that one has been smacked, not that one narrowly dodged the blow). I would also like to see hitpoints maybe level off after a while. There should be a limit to how much physical damage you can take, regardless of level, and I would make it race-based, modified by CON.

Finally, if (like in a quote above) you define "dungeon" to be "any locale where conflict happens" then gaming never left the dungeons, and all games take place in them even those set on the floating islands. Personally I think venturing underground over and over again becomes fairly tiresome, and I would like to think I could face danger and have adventures in other locales. "Out of the Dungeon", as it were. That said, a chapter on designing interesting locales to channel adventurers, and tips on making places tacticly fun to fight in would be very welcome, and I feel the DMG does only an OK job at this.

I really didn't mean to write a treatise, really!

*edit*- fixed some typos

dr jekyll

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Finally, if (like in a quote above) you define "dungeon" to be "any locale where conflict happens" then gaming never left the dungeons, and all games take place in them even those set on the floating islands. Personally I think venturing underground over and over again becomes fairly tiresome, and I would like to think I could face danger and have adventures in other locales. "Out of the Dungeon", as it were. That said, a chapter on designing interesting locales to channel adventurers, and tips on making places tacticly fun to fight in would be very welcome, and I feel the DMG does only an OK job at this.

D&D left the dungeon when TSR's adventures (among other materials) did away with site based adventures (such as White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, and the Village of Hommlet) and towards plot based adventures. Read the Dragonlance series of modules to see what I mean. I left before this period totally took over, but the horror stories I hear about are Forgotten Realms modules where high level NPCs showed up to save the day and issue PC adventure orders.

That style of play left players with no real impact on the story, no meaningful method of resolving the plot other than what the DM/adventure defined, and in general, took decisions away from the players.

To my mind "Back to the Dungeon" is a return to the gaming roots of D&D. What was important was giving players choices, decisions, and trade-offs. Everything in 3E D&D was geared towards promoting this sort of trade-off. Hence, for instance, the game designers spend a lot of time talking about resource management. Another example of this philosophy in action is the rule that no character trait advantage could be balanced by a role-playing disadvantage.

Anyway, I think those who wish that D&D was more like GURPS should give up and play GURPS instead. If WoTC were to publish a D&D 4 that promoted point-based experience leveling, higher lethality (by introducing some sort of lethal hit point system), and eliminating classes, I predict that gamers will once again abandon D&D in droves just as players left D&D during the D&D 2E fiasco. (In particular, note that the player options skills and powers books did nothing to bring players back to D&D's moribound 2E systems --- to my mind this experiment has already been tried and failed miserably)

Now that the OGL is out, there would be nothing to stop Necromancer Games or Sword and Sorcery studio to republish 3E rules and capture market share from the kind of 4E that Joshua Dyal and others are proposing. While this could possibly fragment the market between WoTC loyalists and old school 3E types, my suspicion is that the market center of gravity would fall with the installed base. Remember: whatever 4E is would have to be better than 3E the same way 3E was better than 2E and 1E to be able to trigger the same massive upgrade activity we saw in 2000/2001.

 

[Desdichado]

Hmm. Okay, let's try a different direction here... Why is this myopia "unfortunate"? What undesireable effects does it have?

Or, perhaps put another way - Why should we, here on these boards, care if lots of people left the game years ago?

You don't have to. I merely posted my opinion that there are a "significant" numbers of gamers who don't play D&D, or more specifically, many that formerly played D&D. It's unfortunate that WotC didn't take some really easy steps to gain those folks back into the fold. It's also, unfortunate, I believe, that players have to ask why they should even care. Of course they don't have to, but the bigger the user base of d20/D&D is, the better off we all are, as it's easier to find games, there's more market demand (and thus more product), etc., etc.

 

[Desdichado]

Just looking at this one point. That 40% is fragmented into dozens, if not hundreds of products, making each individual market (other than D&D) insignificant. If the market breaks down as
D&D 59%
WW 15%
GURPS 9%
RM 6%
All others combined 9%

Then everything after D&D IS insignificant. I think the references to that quote should probably be stopped. It is assuredly taken out of context, and I don't really think it's adding anything to the debate.

Individually, yes, any one game system could concievably be called insignificant. But since I never advocated targeting gamers of any specific other game, rather putting out enough options that any gamer of any other game would find the d20 system more attractive, I don't know how your post is relevent. Or why you think I should stop referencing that number, as I feel it is a crucial piece of my whole position on the affair.

 

[hong]

As to hit points, I'm not really sure I buy the idea that you need a truckload of hitpoints to play heroic fantasy. Isn't it *more* heroic to face the Dragon with fewer hitpoints?

Don't confuse heroism on the player's part with heroism on the character's part.

I would also like to see hitpoints maybe level off after a while.

That's what 1E and 2E did. The fact that they changed that in 3E probably indicates they won't be going back to it any time soon.

 

[Desdichado]

Anyway, I think those who wish that D&D was more like GURPS should give up and play GURPS instead. If WoTC were to publish a D&D 4 that promoted point-based experience leveling, higher lethality (by introducing some sort of lethal hit point system), and eliminating classes, I predict that gamers will once again abandon D&D in droves just as players left D&D during the D&D 2E fiasco. (In particular, note that the player options skills and powers books did nothing to bring players back to D&D's moribound 2E systems --- to my mind this experiment has already been tried and failed miserably)

Now that the OGL is out, there would be nothing to stop Necromancer Games or Sword and Sorcery studio to republish 3E rules and capture market share from the kind of 4E that Joshua Dyal and others are proposing. While this could possibly fragment the market between WoTC loyalists and old school 3E types, my suspicion is that the market center of gravity would fall with the installed base. Remember: whatever 4E is would have to be better than 3E the same way 3E was better than 2E and 1E to be able to trigger the same massive upgrade activity we saw in 2000/2001.

I'm proposing? I'm now convinced that --despite the fact that I've clarified at least half a dozen times-- you have no idea what it is I'm proposing. If you think I'm proposing d20 GURPS, as you've implied many times, you're absolutely wrong. I don't own a single GURPS product, I've never played GURPS and I have no interest in GURPS.

I'm not even advocating changes in the system. I'm merely lamenting the fact that more mechanical options and alternatives weren't given in the DMG without replacing current mechanics -- simply as options--, especially when fairly large portions of the DMG (specifically all the detail on dungeon environments, door and wall characteristics, etc.) as currently written are completely wasted space. IMO. Even for someone like me who plays d20 exclusively.

 

[Umbran]

It's unfortunate that WotC didn't take some really easy steps to gain those folks back into the fold. It's also, unfortunate, I believe, that players have to ask why they should even care. Of course they don't have to, but the bigger the user base of d20/D&D is, the better off we all are, as it's easier to find games, there's more market demand (and thus more product), etc., etc.

Well, I expect we'l have to agree to disagree on a number of points.

For one, I don't think it's unfortunate that WotC didn't try to get them back into the fold. For one thing, the task would not have been "easy". It would entail a significant design challenge, and even more significant marketing challenge. There's a real question here that the extra costs would not be worth the players found.

For another - I think it's a philosophically bad move to try to make an one game into all things for all people. It would also be a horrible public relations move - WotC is already often seen as the lumbering giant of the gaming world, and comparisons between WotC and Microsoft were not uncommon even before the release of 3E. They would not endear themselves by trying to become more of a monopoly.

Increasing the size of the D&D user base is only good to a point. The gaming world as a whole, and D&D in particular, gains from diversity and cross-pollination. If the D&D user base grows at the expense of other systems, in the long run we have fewer fresh ideas.

Lastly, there's the Open Gaming concept - WotC made a very specific decision to not personally try to make every single thing the game might need, because it wasn't economically advantageous. It simply doesn't pay WotC to try to dig out every gaming penny available. It does actually pay WotC to allow other people to create exactly the material you describe.

 

[saersan]

Whoa! Looks like I opened a big can o' worms here!

 

[Storminator]

Individually, yes, any one game system could concievably be called insignificant. But since I never advocated targeting gamers of any specific other game, rather putting out enough options that any gamer of any other game would find the d20 system more attractive, I don't know how your post is relevent. Or why you think I should stop referencing that number, as I feel it is a crucial piece of my whole position on the affair.

Joshua, yes, the number of market share is significant (there's that word again!) to your argument, and I never advocated that you stop using it. I was merely pointing out that Ryan's quote may in fact be entirely accurate, and also totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. I actually said that the quote about all other systems being insignificant shouldn't be used, as we aren't sure what Dancey actually claimed to be insignificant. Was it the next biggest game? Was it all the other games put together? Was it the people that buy those games and NOT D&D as well? We don't know, so we should stop pretending we do.

Mostly tho, I'm tired of the bickering. A discussion of the sacred cows of D&D might be interesting. Watching you and Umbran and the occasional other snipe at each other for 3 pages is not. Unfortunately, that's what this thread has become. I don't know about you, but I figured out a long time ago that you and Umbran (and Thorin, what the heck) just aren't going to resolve anything. So I think you should drop it and move on.

Whether or not you do isn't up to me, tho, so I'll just have to be done here myself.

PS