Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4033262" data-attributes="member: 2067">I've got no problem with the convention, but I'd like D&D to tell me how I can make PC beholders, rather than tell me that PC beholders are impossible. Likewise, I'd like D&D to tell me how rich princes can be an interesting archetype, rather than just saying "all of your characters must be poor. Sorry." In other words, I'd like a system robust enough to handle the departures from convention that the rules suggest exist.I'm not convinced that this is an impossible goal. I'm willing to cede that it is a difficult one, but it's one that I believe is entirely worth persuing (though 4e doesn't, and I can't especially blame them for it). Looking at the fundamental differences between DM and Player actions, and effectively limiting and broadening one side of the screen (the Player -- limited, but broad power; lots of creative options under one umbrella, none of which are exceptionally powerful) while teleescoping and focusing the other side (the DM -- mighty, but focused power; a few mighty powers under many umbrellas, none of which are exceptionally complex) can be done without eradicating a sense that both are adhering to the same underlying principles, and just expressing it differently.The case in point comes to things like UA's "Players Role All The Dice" mechanic, where the player is given more fun options and the DM is given more expidited rules, but the fundamental math is largley unchanged. Or ideas like the "additive average" where a DM can add up an average and add it to a small dice pool for fast play, while a player can go ahead and roll a bucket o' d6's becauese it's stellar fun to add up all that hurt. 4e's monster system might allow enough broad ability to reverse-engineer some specifics, and after I spend some time doing that, I'll probably be content, but that's monster-explanation time that I wish I didn't have to spend. I'll get some general guidance, which, when combined with the compensating I've already done for 3e, might work out okay. But again, this is rather disapointing in an edition that promised faster, more efficient gameplay. I'm still going to be missing a lot of those fiddly bits that make improving creative monster background information so easy, but I'm looking forward to the 'page of fluff' mentioned that might make it a bit smoother, and I'm hoping that some things are called out (like environment, or ally monsters, or the like). I won't be any worse off, but it's a bit saddening to note that I won't be any better off because the designers basically said my style wasn't predominant enough/was too hard to design for, and that I still have to wait for that glorious Someday when someone puts in the actual work needed to design game elements that work equally as well, without loosing realism, on either side of the screen. I can maybe do a decent fan job, I'm not a half-bad designer myself, but it won't be anything like the braintrust at WotC could come up with, I'm sure.The fluff might be good; I may find myself going with something like the PHBII backgrounds system, or the d20 modern professions system, or even the idea I proposed in a thread talking about noncombat skills about rolling ALL skills into several broad professions (shall I bring up the term 'secondary skills'?), and making those like noncombat 'roles' for PC's. But it's a bit disappointing that I have to do this work to make this aspect as good as 3e was because the designers went a bit too far in their zealotry of dismantling the admittedly over-complex and not-entirely-rewarding 3e system. It's wierd to think that monsters and NPC's are something that no edition has ever gotten quite right, IMO. I guess the best I can hope for is that others come in and fill the gap left by WotC, or that my own rules can be decent enough that others use them and get something out of them.</blockquote>

Verification