Five things that would change the game forever

[jeffh]

Was it D&D before those things existed? None of those were there in the beginning, and the last two weren't even in the 1st Edition AD&D core.

It had weapon proficiencies, and the first book to mention THAC0 was the first-edition DMG, in the appendix with the monster stats.

 

[mythusmage]

Chair, Comfy, 1 ea.

(1 DM, 4 players. Do the math.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Mandatory rules? Are those the ones the WotC Police come and take your books away if you break?

Most groups forget (or gloss over) 0gp components because the "component pouch" equipment item is presumed to have sufficient supplies of all the no-cost components (as well as being a storage space of more expensive components you actually buy). As for spellbook rules, I usually see wizards keep track of what spells are in their book, it's the expensive details of scribing I tend to see get ignored. Just get rid of the outrageous scribing fees.

Yeah, that's what I meant after all. Lots of spells have a listed material component for arcane casters, but you never use them because everyone has its spell component pouch. So why listing "bat guano" or similar if you never care about it?

Otherwise, put bat guano and each and every material component in the equipment section of the PHB, give it a cost (even a small one), and keep track of the doses you carry.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Don't foist a false dichotomy on me. I never said that it couldn't exist in other games that lack alignment (or something similar).

I do think, however, it makes it much less implicit.

I don't mean to foist a false dichotomy on you, but you did actually say that extracting alignment... would remove the fundamental good-versus-evil conflict nature of the game.

I was just giving an example that this is untrue. extracting alignment would in no way remove it.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

But the PCs were just as much in control of their actions as in a physical confict. In each case, they ask themselves if they are willing to risk the outcome of the confict before they initiate it (death or being convinced to something you wouldn't normally do). After that, the dice take over. In combat, the players risk the death of their characters. In social conficts, the players risk having their actions controlled by NPCs.

The better roleplayer is the one who can roll with the social defeat and make the story interesting after he or she loses the social conflict.

Hi Dave,

FWIW I'm with you on this issue, and I thought I'd chime in so that you don't think you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness

The first game that I found with a solid mechanism for social conflict was the latest version of Heroquest, although I recently played a jedi game using the rules from "Dogs in the Vineyard" which puts a huge premium on social conflict rules. In both cases I noticed that the rules for the social conflict actually *increased* the amount of roleplaying going on - and quite apart from anything else, part of it was the way that the rules supported an extended social contest rather than the binary make/fail a DC which we see in bluff, diplomacy etc.

When the premise includes the rules for social conflict I find players pick it up and run with it just fine.

Cheers

 

[Psion]

I don't mean to foist a false dichotomy on you, but you did actually say that extracting alignment... would remove the fundamental good-versus-evil conflict nature of the game.

I think, if that is how you see it, that you misunderstand precisely what I meant by "fundamental good versus evil conflict." So allow me to rephrase.

You can have a good versus evil conflict in a game, but not have it be fundamental to the game itself.

But in D&D, evaluating the morality of the creatures and having these traits sensible to characters in the game and have a bona fide effect on how they interact with the world (beyond the mere consequences of their choices), then that brings a tangible moral reality to the game. To remove that would be to alter the game in a very fundamental way.

 

[Belen]

2) Point-based character building. Make all of the feats and special abilities available to all characters, as long as they pay the point cost. (Note, this does NOT require doing away with Classes or Levels.)

Gamist!

 

[hexgrid]

If you really want to see what a fantasy game feels like when all "magic" effects are the same, try playing Fantasy HERO.

You just use your points to build your spells. Nothing is divine or arcane or psionic, unless the GM decides that it has to be so for his campaign.

It looks just like super-powers.

While I love HERO as a game system, I find that I don't like the resultant flavor the system creates for a fantasy campaign- its bland. Instead of there being a default dichotomy of Good and Evil, Arcane (the work of Man) vs Divine (the power of gods), the GM has to work overtime to generate the proper feel of a fantasy campaign.

You don't have to go nearly so far for an example of removing the divine/arcane division. There are several d20 variants that have already done this- most notably Arcana Evolved, and Arcana Evolved plays nothing like a super hero game. (well, not any more than D&D does, at least.)

It's interesting- this discussion treats the changes mentioned as being theoretical, even though most of them have already been implemented in d20 variants. We don't have to guess about how the game would be effected, we can see it in action.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have played Arcana Unearthed. I don't like that the Greenbond and the Magister use essentially the same spells. Even though the Magister has more spells, I think it robs the classes of a lot of flavor. One is a mage who lives in the woods and the other lives in the city...WHOOPIEEEEE!

Don't get me wrong...I like AU, but its alignment-less system comes across as flat to me.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of the best alignment-less systems I've enjoyed was in RQ2, where each person typically had a cult affiliation - and there was a big old matrix that showed what each cult felt about each other cult - were they allies, friends, neutral, hostile or enemies. There was a broad brush chaos vs non-chaos theme, but within a Storm Bull cultist would be an enemy of Chaos and attempt to eliminate it at every turn while the Waha or Erithra initiate might be merely hostile to it (while having their own enemies).

It allowed for a subtle web of relationships to exist within a party and within the campaign world, very nice little system.

Cheers