Ethos for a New Edition

I posted the following "Ethos for a New Edition", almost four years ago on these boards in a towards 5E thread. Looking at it again and what is being talked about by Monte, his team, and the smatterings of playtester posts, I cannot help but smile with hope that D&D Next is going to be the edition for me. I honestly think they are setting themselves up to nail it!

Ethos for a New Edition

o Magic is mysterious and dark once more; rather than the safe hum-drum technology of the fantasy world.

o The days of character’s being defined by their suite of magical items instead of their skills and heroics are gone.

o Rules and flavour should be in symbiosis with one another, rather than in competition or strained accord.

o Streamline for elegance, not to bash complexity into vague simplicity.

o Adventuring is inherently not safe; combat encounters should present danger to the characters – the safety net must go.

o The assumption of miniatures and a battlemap should not be implicit in the ruleset; the rules must also be able to support those groups who prefer the landscape of the mind.

o Whilst no specific world is given, the rules should allow for one that sits between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Vance’s Lyonesse and Dying Earth series, Howard’s Conan Stories, Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Erikson’s Malazan series and Fritz Leiber’s Stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; and be able to stretch to any of these fabulous fantasy pillars.

o Verisimilitude is not a dirty word; a certain logic to the fantasy world should be upheld.

o Character creation must be flexible; the ability to meld many different but viable character ideas should be encouraged, rather than feeling pressured to focus on a couple of "optimised builds".

o Players should feel that they can develop a character that is both effective in combat and interesting out of combat – rather than either/or.

o The game economy must make sense and feel real; rather than being a calculated spoon-fed wealth lacking in true achievement.

o The game cannot afford for some classes to dominate at the expense of others at more powerful levels; and nor should the answer be compressing the classes into homogenized lumps of roughly equal measure.

o The game also cannot afford for rules to unmanageably bloat at higher levels with the time taken to resolve this vast array bloating as well.

o And most of all and above all else, the game must be fun!

Your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mighty tall order sir, I agree with all your points to one degree or another. But you have to add Wheel of Time in the world mix. My dream would be that Sir Cook would either port over Arcana Evolved or D20 WoT as the vancian system and be done with it.
 

Ethos for a New Edition

o Magic is mysterious and dark once more; rather than the safe hum-drum technology of the fantasy world.
I'm not really a fan of magic being mysterious and dark. I do want it to be different than it has been, but not necessarily dark. Giving Arcane Magic more flavor and identity would be nice.

o The days of character’s being defined by their suite of magical items instead of their skills and heroics are gone.

o Rules and flavour should be in symbiosis with one another, rather than in competition or strained accord.

o Streamline for elegance, not to bash complexity into vague simplicity.
Not bad ideas.

o Adventuring is inherently not safe; combat encounters should present danger to the characters – the safety net must go.
Not sure what you mean by "the safety net". A balance between danger and campaign stability is my preference... Not enough danger to make life cheap, but enough to keep the stakes high.

o The assumption of miniatures and a battlemap should not be implicit in the ruleset; the rules must also be able to support those groups who prefer the landscape of the mind.
I don't really know what to say about this... People say that 3E was fine for mapless play but I don't know how. I'm not sure what a game can even do to support that in comparison to other styles. A reasonable thing to ask for, but a very, very difficult thing to pull off while still allowing real tactical play.

o Whilst no specific world is given, the rules should allow for one that sits between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Vance’s Lyonesse and Dying Earth series, Howard’s Conan Stories, Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Erikson’s Malazan series and Fritz Leiber’s Stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; and be able to stretch to any of these fabulous fantasy pillars.
I'd expand the rules of the game far, far beyond this limited set, myself. To be honest, I wouldn't call this list of books a wide range of fantasy...

If you added fantasy anime and crazy videogame settings that casually blend sci-fi and fantasy, then I'd agree. :)

o Verisimilitude is not a dirty word; a certain logic to the fantasy world should be upheld.

o Character creation must be flexible; the ability to meld many different but viable character ideas should be encouraged, rather than feeling pressured to focus on a couple of "optimised builds".

o Players should feel that they can develop a character that is both effective in combat and interesting out of combat – rather than either/or.

o The game economy must make sense and feel real; rather than being a calculated spoon-fed wealth lacking in true achievement.

o The game cannot afford for some classes to dominate at the expense of others at more powerful levels; and nor should the answer be compressing the classes into homogenized lumps of roughly equal measure.

o The game also cannot afford for rules to unmanageably bloat at higher levels with the time taken to resolve this vast array bloating as well.

o And most of all and above all else, the game must be fun!
All of these are good things to pursue.
 

Again, I just don't get this obsession with "Verisimilitude" in D&D. I have seen it brought up more since the D&D announcement than I have ever seen it used in my entire 40 year old life.

It just doesn't seem to be the genre for it - either the fantasy, or the adventure part. Yes, there are rules that don't make much sense compared to the real world, but it is a fantasy game.

Characters should have a good chance of living after falling ridiculous distances, at least if they are very heroic (ie, high level), just as things like dragons and titans should be able to fly and walk around, and hobbits/halfings be able to adventure despite only weighing about 60 lbs (and thus basically automatically losing any fight to a larger opponent - they have weight classes in boxing for a reason)

Ditto for the economy. Unless you want to constantly figure out how much currency is in circulation, then figure out a way to assign costs base on that (so as to account for inflation when adventurers or whatnot bring in lots of loot), it's probably just easiest to assume higher prices than would otherwise make sense.

You also don't want a safety net, but at the same time you want to support several works of fiction where the lead characters were basically "Mary-Sues" of the author. REH heavily identified himself with Conan (and the hulking but intelligent Celtic type found a lot in his stories). The Gray Mouser was Lieber and his friend was Fahfrd. Tolkien was Faramir.

Authors control everything in novel, really, so they can put their favorite characters into dangerous situations with no safety net and not worry about it. But players don't have that luxury, they are at the mercy of dice. It's one thing to die from the consequences of your actions, but in a game, it stinks when you just have bad luck.

I also think it's okay for a person to be in part defined by the magic items they own - what would Arthur be without Excalibur, or Bilbo without the ring? But I do think they should be rarer, rather than commonplace.
 

Two minor points....

Lieber (6'4" and 200+ lbs.) was Fahfrd, whereas Harry Otto Fischer was the Mouser.

And Faramir isn't really a Mary Sue, nor a main character. So if Tolkien identified with Faramir, he basically relegated himself to playing a strictly supporting role. That said, Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the story.
 

o Magic is mysterious and dark once more; rather than the safe hum-drum technology of the fantasy world.

Broadly speaking, D&D magic has never been particularly "dark". It is only mysterious when the GM uses rules for it that the players have not read.

o Streamline for elegance, not to bash complexity into vague simplicity.

Yes, well, those terms are esthetic in nature - so your "elegance" and "vague simplicity" probably won't be mine.

o Adventuring is inherently not safe; combat encounters should present danger to the characters – the safety net must go.

I think the "safety net" is a myth.

o Whilst no specific world is given, the rules should allow for one that sits between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Vance’s Lyonesse and Dying Earth series, Howard’s Conan Stories, Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Erikson’s Malazan series and Fritz Leiber’s Stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; and be able to stretch to any of these fabulous fantasy pillars.

But those fantasy pillars are all (okay, I've not read Erikson, but I'd be surprised if he was the only outlier) pretty close to each other - not a big stretch, here. They are all what I'd consider "low magic" worlds, insofar as the protagonists rarely have much magic to speak of. You're cutting out a whole lot of the potential play space, there.
 


I think there should be room to make magic dark and mysterious, but it is not the default for D&D. Sanity rules, corruption points, wild magic have all been in the RPG realm for a while but D&D never supported it. How dark and mysterious is magic with cantrips like Spice, Light and the catch all spell of doom Unseen Servant. The warlock is dark and mysterious with the whole pact aspect, but is relatively new to D&D.
Clerical magic also limits how dark and mysterious it can be. The parish priest might not be able to heal the mauled villager but his buddy from the Crusades in plate with the mace sure can. Wicked demonic possession or god granted life saving miracle? Bob the priest says "Jobs a good 'un!" and the villagers put their pitchforks away for harvest.
Oh and the non-spell casters are scarier than the nice spell casters. Fighters and rogues are serial killers who mostly hunt around other neighborhoods. Hi Mr. Slathered in Gore, nice collection of ears you have there. Rough week at the dungeon?
 

It's code for 'martial characters must suck.'
If in 5e, martial characters suck then the design team have been lazy (and to me they have not come across as being lazy). It is not difficult for martial/mundane characters to perform powerful, significant yet believable actions. There is absolutely no reason for fighters to suck in the pursuit of verisimilitude.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

o Whilst no specific world is given, the rules should allow for one that sits between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Vance’s Lyonesse and Dying Earth series, Howard’s Conan Stories, Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Erikson’s Malazan series and Fritz Leiber’s Stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; and be able to stretch to any of these fabulous fantasy pillars.

You lost me. Your cited works basically reads like a "What I do not want in my D&D" list. Now, granted, I appreciate the classics for what they are: building blocks upon which the things I like are based.

I liken it to my general dislike of The Beatles. LotR is the fantasy equivalent of The Beatles. I appreciate what they accomplished for their respective genres, but I'd much rather listen to their modern descendants, who've had almost 50 years to improve upon the formula set down.

"The Name of The Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss is much more in line with my fantasy roleplaying game expectations. Pervasive, low level magic and artifice.

But, if 5e can cater to my tastes as well as the OP's tastes, then we'll be in good shape.
 

Remove ads

Top