Mercurius
Legend
A quick note: I was tempted to subtitle this post "or I how I learned to love the Grind," but couldn't figure out a suitably clever main title ("Dr. Powerslove"?).
Bear with me as this is long and rambly but hopefully will be of some interest to someone. The thread on RA Salvatore got me going again on a line of pondering that has been percolating for some time now and was previously exacerbated a few days ago by a recent purchase, the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Fabled-Lands-1-War-Torn-Kingdom/dp/095673720X/"]first Fabled Lands book[/ame] by Dave Morris, author of the better-known Dragon Warriors game. I haven't played through it yet, but was very impressed by its simple game system.
If you aren't familiar with it, the core rule is 2d6 + ability vs. a target number. There are six main abilities that are gestalts of attributes and skills: Charisma, Combat, Magic, Sanctity, Scouting, and Thievery. Each of the six professions specializes in one of the abilities: Troubadour, Warrior, Mage, Priest, Wayfarer, and Rogue, respectively. A Rogue, for instance, will start with a 6 in Thievery, 5 in Charisma, 4 in Combat and Magic, 2 in Scouting, and 1 in Sanctity.
For a fight you roll 2d6 and add that to your Combat score, which must be higher than your opponent's Defence; the amount that it surpasses their Defence is how many Stamina points they lose.
There are one or two other rules (like certain items increase your ability scores, and your ability scores cannot surpass 12), but the entire rule set takes all of eight pages, and it took me just a couple short paragraphs to summarize the majority of it.
Fabled Lands is the definition of rules lite and is just about as elegant and flexible of a system as you can find. As I read through the rules it irritated that suppressed feeling that something has been lost (for me) in the modern iterations of Dungeons & Dragons (meaning, 3E and beyond) with their weight of endless feats, powers, and modifications. Don't get me wrong, I loved when the d20 3E came out in 2000 and still prefer modern D&D to the older, clunkier versions, but I also tend to get a bit of the "Splat Glut Blues" and miss the days of a simpler game. I have since learned to believe that more options does not necessarily mean a better game, especially when the differences between most of those options is rather minimal.
In some ways Fabled Lands is what I think a retro-clone should look like - it is simple, elegant, inspires improvisation and narrative, but also includes a basic, core engine that allows some degree of modifications, a core engine that was lacking in all versions of D&D prior 3E.
To get a bit more specific, Fabled Lands exacerbated the ongoing mild-to-moderate, and usually suppressed, irritation I have with the endless rules modifications of modern D&D. I play and enjoy 4E, but I sometimes feel that the power system takes away from imaginative play and that the majority of powers are just slight variations on a few basic things, yet at the same time lack the flavor of, say, the wide number of spells of previous editions. Most of my players don't even describe their combat actions, they just tell what power they are going to use. One or two of them do, but it actually stands out a bit in an awkward way, like "Why is he saying that? Just use the power and get to the next combatant in the initiative order."
I have tried to encourage my players to be creative and improvise combat actions, saying that they all have a "stunt power" which is an improvised standard action that will give them various bonuses depending upon how clever their description and action is. But no one ever uses it; if they are out of daily and encounter powers they'll either just use an at-will or a basic attack.
Now I'm sure that the experiences of 4E groups varies widely but I think my experience is far from rare; in fact, I think it is the norm. But you know what? I'm OK with that - 4E combat is a blast (as long as the grind doesn't get out of hand and I am willing to reduce monster HP as necessary). I have learned to enjoy 4E for what it is and it is overall my favorite, or at least currently preferred, edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game. 4E combat is a war game and a fun one at that, but I can't shake the nagging feeling that something is missing...
I still believe, perhaps naively, that the Holy Grail of D&D is possible. What do I mean by the Holy Grail of D&D? Well, perhaps I should clarify and say my Holy Grail, which would be a modular system that allows for a variety of complexity levels, game styles, and customizations. It would allow for a game as simple as the Fabled Lands or as complex as 3.5 or 4E; it would allow for off-the-farm rubes picking up rusty swords against orcs for the first time, to demigods doing battle with Asmodeus in his citadel of Malsheem in Nessus. It would allow for simple characters with very basic statistics to complexly detailed characters with dozens of powers and customizations. And so forth.
Why does D&D have to be everything for everyone or anyone who wants to play it? It doesn't, of course -- and there are tons of great games out there that deserve to be played, many of which I would even say are "better" from a pure design perspective. But I'll be honest: D&D is the game I grew up with and it will always be closest to my heart.
By way of explanation, I am a long-time fan of the LA Angels baseball team. Sometime early in the Dark Years of the 90s, when they never went to the playoffs, I tried switching over to a more successful franchise. But I couldn't; I loved (and still love) the Angels as I was imprinted on them at a very early age, and I have learned to accept that love and ride with them through thick and thin (they have since rewarded this love with a World Series victory in 2002 and a very successful decade since).
I love D&D and it will likely always be my favorite game. I love rolling all of the polyhedral dice, especially d20s; I love having hundreds of books on my shelf that I rarely reference but can always pull down and browse through. I love that there are a half dozen or so distinct versions of the game, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, quirks and foibles. I love the wide range of idiosyncratic monsters and tropes; what other game has gelatinous cubes and neo-otyughs and owlbears and flumphs? And I love how the game continues to change as the designers seek to adapt it to a changing market, as well as try to improve the experience at the game table.
But I want D&D to be better, to be idiosyncratic and simple and elegant and customizable and flexible. Yes, I want to have my cake and eat it to. As I said, I want D&D to be more flexible, with a wider range of play styles, from Fabled Lands-esque to 4E, from a role-playing game of imagination to a wargame of tactics and virtual table-tops. From fighting nearly to the death against a lowly orc thug to consorting with the gods of the planes. This Holy Grail may not exist, but like the target of Zeno's arrow, I believe that we can come ever-closer to it.
For some time now I've been simmering on one of the many backburners of my mind with a hypothetical "5E" D&D that embodies this Holy Grail. I have realized that in order to ever come close to creating such a monstrosity, I would have to start with a core game as simple, elegant, and flexible as the Fabled Lands. The d20 system allows for this and, as far as I know, some have tried something similar (e.g. Microlite). What I don't think has really been done is the modularity - the ability to "port in" and "paste on" various sub-systems, both depending upon the campaign but even on the situation. What if you want to use a really simple system for parts or aspects of a campaign but not others? What if you want the skirmish with the band of goblins to be quick and simple, but the final battle of a given adventure against the black dragon to use complex tactics?
Is this possible? I don't know, but I think so, and I see nothing wrong with giving it a go. Hopefully at some point I will find the time and muster the inspiration to try to pencil out this Holy Grail, or at least give it a fighting shot. It is a dream I have...
Bear with me as this is long and rambly but hopefully will be of some interest to someone. The thread on RA Salvatore got me going again on a line of pondering that has been percolating for some time now and was previously exacerbated a few days ago by a recent purchase, the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Fabled-Lands-1-War-Torn-Kingdom/dp/095673720X/"]first Fabled Lands book[/ame] by Dave Morris, author of the better-known Dragon Warriors game. I haven't played through it yet, but was very impressed by its simple game system.
If you aren't familiar with it, the core rule is 2d6 + ability vs. a target number. There are six main abilities that are gestalts of attributes and skills: Charisma, Combat, Magic, Sanctity, Scouting, and Thievery. Each of the six professions specializes in one of the abilities: Troubadour, Warrior, Mage, Priest, Wayfarer, and Rogue, respectively. A Rogue, for instance, will start with a 6 in Thievery, 5 in Charisma, 4 in Combat and Magic, 2 in Scouting, and 1 in Sanctity.
For a fight you roll 2d6 and add that to your Combat score, which must be higher than your opponent's Defence; the amount that it surpasses their Defence is how many Stamina points they lose.
There are one or two other rules (like certain items increase your ability scores, and your ability scores cannot surpass 12), but the entire rule set takes all of eight pages, and it took me just a couple short paragraphs to summarize the majority of it.
Fabled Lands is the definition of rules lite and is just about as elegant and flexible of a system as you can find. As I read through the rules it irritated that suppressed feeling that something has been lost (for me) in the modern iterations of Dungeons & Dragons (meaning, 3E and beyond) with their weight of endless feats, powers, and modifications. Don't get me wrong, I loved when the d20 3E came out in 2000 and still prefer modern D&D to the older, clunkier versions, but I also tend to get a bit of the "Splat Glut Blues" and miss the days of a simpler game. I have since learned to believe that more options does not necessarily mean a better game, especially when the differences between most of those options is rather minimal.
In some ways Fabled Lands is what I think a retro-clone should look like - it is simple, elegant, inspires improvisation and narrative, but also includes a basic, core engine that allows some degree of modifications, a core engine that was lacking in all versions of D&D prior 3E.
To get a bit more specific, Fabled Lands exacerbated the ongoing mild-to-moderate, and usually suppressed, irritation I have with the endless rules modifications of modern D&D. I play and enjoy 4E, but I sometimes feel that the power system takes away from imaginative play and that the majority of powers are just slight variations on a few basic things, yet at the same time lack the flavor of, say, the wide number of spells of previous editions. Most of my players don't even describe their combat actions, they just tell what power they are going to use. One or two of them do, but it actually stands out a bit in an awkward way, like "Why is he saying that? Just use the power and get to the next combatant in the initiative order."
I have tried to encourage my players to be creative and improvise combat actions, saying that they all have a "stunt power" which is an improvised standard action that will give them various bonuses depending upon how clever their description and action is. But no one ever uses it; if they are out of daily and encounter powers they'll either just use an at-will or a basic attack.
Now I'm sure that the experiences of 4E groups varies widely but I think my experience is far from rare; in fact, I think it is the norm. But you know what? I'm OK with that - 4E combat is a blast (as long as the grind doesn't get out of hand and I am willing to reduce monster HP as necessary). I have learned to enjoy 4E for what it is and it is overall my favorite, or at least currently preferred, edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game. 4E combat is a war game and a fun one at that, but I can't shake the nagging feeling that something is missing...
I still believe, perhaps naively, that the Holy Grail of D&D is possible. What do I mean by the Holy Grail of D&D? Well, perhaps I should clarify and say my Holy Grail, which would be a modular system that allows for a variety of complexity levels, game styles, and customizations. It would allow for a game as simple as the Fabled Lands or as complex as 3.5 or 4E; it would allow for off-the-farm rubes picking up rusty swords against orcs for the first time, to demigods doing battle with Asmodeus in his citadel of Malsheem in Nessus. It would allow for simple characters with very basic statistics to complexly detailed characters with dozens of powers and customizations. And so forth.
Why does D&D have to be everything for everyone or anyone who wants to play it? It doesn't, of course -- and there are tons of great games out there that deserve to be played, many of which I would even say are "better" from a pure design perspective. But I'll be honest: D&D is the game I grew up with and it will always be closest to my heart.
By way of explanation, I am a long-time fan of the LA Angels baseball team. Sometime early in the Dark Years of the 90s, when they never went to the playoffs, I tried switching over to a more successful franchise. But I couldn't; I loved (and still love) the Angels as I was imprinted on them at a very early age, and I have learned to accept that love and ride with them through thick and thin (they have since rewarded this love with a World Series victory in 2002 and a very successful decade since).
I love D&D and it will likely always be my favorite game. I love rolling all of the polyhedral dice, especially d20s; I love having hundreds of books on my shelf that I rarely reference but can always pull down and browse through. I love that there are a half dozen or so distinct versions of the game, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, quirks and foibles. I love the wide range of idiosyncratic monsters and tropes; what other game has gelatinous cubes and neo-otyughs and owlbears and flumphs? And I love how the game continues to change as the designers seek to adapt it to a changing market, as well as try to improve the experience at the game table.
But I want D&D to be better, to be idiosyncratic and simple and elegant and customizable and flexible. Yes, I want to have my cake and eat it to. As I said, I want D&D to be more flexible, with a wider range of play styles, from Fabled Lands-esque to 4E, from a role-playing game of imagination to a wargame of tactics and virtual table-tops. From fighting nearly to the death against a lowly orc thug to consorting with the gods of the planes. This Holy Grail may not exist, but like the target of Zeno's arrow, I believe that we can come ever-closer to it.
For some time now I've been simmering on one of the many backburners of my mind with a hypothetical "5E" D&D that embodies this Holy Grail. I have realized that in order to ever come close to creating such a monstrosity, I would have to start with a core game as simple, elegant, and flexible as the Fabled Lands. The d20 system allows for this and, as far as I know, some have tried something similar (e.g. Microlite). What I don't think has really been done is the modularity - the ability to "port in" and "paste on" various sub-systems, both depending upon the campaign but even on the situation. What if you want to use a really simple system for parts or aspects of a campaign but not others? What if you want the skirmish with the band of goblins to be quick and simple, but the final battle of a given adventure against the black dragon to use complex tactics?
Is this possible? I don't know, but I think so, and I see nothing wrong with giving it a go. Hopefully at some point I will find the time and muster the inspiration to try to pencil out this Holy Grail, or at least give it a fighting shot. It is a dream I have...
