Fantasy Concepts: An OGL Fantasy Saga Project

[Flynn]

Just something I thought of....

One of the things I liked about d20 Modern was that they embraced the six attributes as character classes. With 5 classes, you are very close to that ideal.

Fighter -- Strength
Expert (Rogue) -- Dexterity
Wizard -- Intelligence
Cleric -- Wisdom
Aristocrat -- Charisma

All your missing is a class that runs off Constitution...

This might allow you to tailor the talent trees to specific attributes easier.

Just a thought though...

And therein lies the basis for the second generation product, a Modern Saga system...

Seriously, I'd thought about it, but then it would be D20 Modern and not D&D, and D&D is what most people seem to be looking for when they start discussing house ruling Saga into their campaign.

It's definitely a thought, though,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

About Monsters...

In regards to Monsters:

It would be my preference to avoid having to recreate monsters for the new system. Why invalidate all those great monster tomes out there? I'm certainly not going to spend the next three years republishing them for a new system. Instead, I'd rather build a system that allows you to use your monster tomes with minimal, if any, adjustments. I'd much rather be gaming once this project is over, in whatever manner it gets completed.

In short, compatibility within reason is a personal goal. I am willing to stray from this one to a certain degree, but the further one strays, the less general appeal the product has.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

So this is going to be a freely available document when finished, correct?

 

[Emryys]

Another cool thread to follow... now which to play, this or E6... Hmmm

 

[Flynn]

So this is going to be a freely available document when finished, correct?

I never said it would be free. In fact, in the original thread I said I would do this only if I found that at least five people would buy it. Now, while this won't be freely available, I'm sure it will be very reasonably priced. In addition, it should be available in both PDF and Print On Demand format, so you can have either a soft copy or hard copy, depending on your preferences.

That's the biggest reason why I am making sure that everything has an OGL reference. Otherwise, if it were just a fan-based netbook that would be freely available, we wouldn't have to worry about that at all.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Cant you just wait for 4th Edition D&D which comes out next month?... or so I've heard over and over and over and over and over.

Because I'm tired of waiting...

Hehehe,
Flynn

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

... but then it would be D20 Modern and not D&D, and D&D is what most people seem to be looking for when they start discussing house ruling Saga into their campaign.

Hmmm... I would be very curious if BFGEditor would chime in with their opinion on this. Because, as I said above when I agreed with Acid Crash, the impression I've gotten from Enworld, RPGNet and the Wizard boards is that many people would like to use Saga to play fantasy - not necessarily to play D&D.

Like AC and I have said, we are really just beginning to talk D&D with houserules, then (like when you, I and Baby Samurai were discussing no iterative attacks in D&D - that's just house rules). IMO, the goal should be to be able to use the Saga system for fantasy, not to play D&D with some elements from Saga thrown in for good measure.

I can perfectly understand you not being keen on too many talks with Wotc/Lucas' legal department, but Action points is OGL, using them to power abilities is OGL, Powers from True20 is OGL and so on.

Anyway, D&D is very good at being D&D - but it is D&D and thus has that D&D feel. They changed that feel to fit the d20 system to Star Wars. Now, if you import all those D&D tropes to Saga, it will just be D&D again.

It would be my preference to avoid having to recreate monsters for the new system. Why invalidate all those great monster tomes out there? I'm certainly not going to spend the next three years republishing them for a new system. Instead, I'd rather build a system that allows you to use your monster tomes with minimal, if any, adjustments. I'd much rather be gaming once this project is over, in whatever manner it gets completed.

In short, compatibility within reason is a personal goal. I am willing to stray from this one to a certain degree, but the further one strays, the less general appeal the product has.

This I can perfectly understand!


I'm sorry, if I'm sounding all negative. It's not my intention. I just feel this could be a great product (and I will pay much attention to BFG as well, whether or not you decide to coorporate) and I just feel it's taking the wrong direction.

 

[Baron Opal]

For what it's worth, I'm in the Saga-izing D&D camp. I don't particularly care for d20 Modern, but I do like the talent tree concept and how SWSE has incorporated it into classes. Of course, part of my dislike is a visceral reaction to "Smart Hero", "Tough Hero", &c.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

For what it's worth, I'm in the Saga-izing D&D camp. I don't particularly care for d20 Modern, but I do like the talent tree concept and how SWSE has incorporated it into classes. Of course, part of my dislike is a visceral reaction to "Smart Hero", "Tough Hero", &c.

But isn't this what we're aiming for. Or is the camp in reality divided by Vancian magic or Force powers?

 

[Flynn]

Okay, I think some people view fantasy D20 as being related to D&D (and define their experience with fantasy gaming by comparing it to that game), and others think that Saga fantasy has to be some total other kind of animal, because they could care less about using Saga with D&D. The basic division SO FAR seems to be along the lines of whether or not the system uses Vancian magic or not (where Vancian magic is defined in the form of discreet spells you know that accomplish a specific task, and spell slots are expended to cast them).

The people that don't want Vancian magic have plenty of scattered ideas, and no one can really agree on how to move forward. In addition, there's not a complete system that has been presented, just random thoughts. No one can tell me what exactly this system should be, and then get everyone else to agree on a single concept, but apparently it's either building-block magic or effect-based magic, neither of which thrill me, but that's only my opinion. There's also a cry for encounter-based magic, but no one can give me any OGL ideas to look at to understand that, as I don't have any books on that subject at all.

I've already stated that I'm not making up a new magic system, since that's not what will motivate me to do this project. I'm okay with Vancian magic, and with being able to use my existing D20 spell books with only some minor to moderate changes as needed to be useful. I am also intending to make the system modular enough so that people can tack on whatever they want instead of the talent tree that provides for casting spells. Just drop the talent tree and add in your own stuff.

Forgive me, but is the magic system the only thing I'm going to get flak for on this project? Is that the stumbling block? Or are there more problems here between what I envision and what a vocal few say they don't want to see? I don't want this project to be shot down before it really begins just because of the dislikes they have with the traditional D20 magic system.

It definitely would make things easier is the non-Vancian proponents would come up with a complete magic system they'd want to see in this, and then agree on it. Ideas are great, but without a complete system written up that's OGL, I'm much less likely to act. I kinda figure that if it's really something you want bad enough, you'll be able to provide the system you want (or sell it on your own, and then point me to the PDF you're selling).

In short, I believe that it is easy to say "this isn't right", but it's a lot harder to do the work that shows "this is better".

With Regards,
Flynn