D&D General Going back to Basic(s). A thought experiment.

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Well, if the purpose is reducing complexity, then having no mechanics attached to your playable species goes towards the purpose. But the narrative side of the species can remain. I used this idea more than once when playing one-session adventures or with casual gamers anyway, while other times I have only reduced the mechanics (for example to 1 or 2 per playable species), but players still seemed to like choosing different creatures for the narrative.
And the aesthetics, I’d say. I would wager like 80% of racial choices are driven by how the character looks in the mind’s eye of the player.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Ok, agree on descending AC. However, while it's true that unified resolution is more intuitive, it also constrains game design in a number of ways
A unified resolution system doesn't mean if you deviate from it, you die. It's not like keeping a city bus going above 55 miles per hour.

Central mechanics -- like combat in D&D -- which make up the majority of rolls in D&D, should go with the unified system and different systems should be saved for less commonly used rolls, IMO.

If you want to have subsystems for less common rolls, like checking for secret doors (TSR loved its 1-in-6 system for that), go for it.
 

Yea, but the OSR shows there are hundreds of different ways to do a “simple D&D” and everyone wants to make their own.
Thing is, simpler games are easier to customize. If a class is just a list of weapon* proficiencies and available skills, new classes only take a few minutes to make once you have the core idea.

CF how many custom races there are in 5e compared to even subclasses. Or how little homebrew there is for PF2 (although "they already covered everything" is a factor there as well.)

If it's easy to customize, why not tweak it into being exactly what you want?

*you could even make wizards just people proficient with wands, staffs and rods, if you're going for maximum simplicity.
 

The Sigil

Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Yea, but the OSR shows there are hundreds of different ways to do a “simple D&D” and everyone wants to make their own.
Obligatory XKCD reference:
2-uEVf2qvThArArpfR-HO6iZKZRHrENwtflTCZhPrfo[1].jpg
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Obligatory XKCD reference:
View attachment 340899
I love XCD, but in this case, the OSR community has been eager to adopt de facto standards throughout its existence, previously clustering around Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry and now, around Old School Essentials. There are other standards out there, but one can pick up any of them, figure out how much they change to use OSE stats (typically very little) and then be able to buy thousands of compatible products.

I don't know if anyone has counted what rule systems have the most compatible material available for it, but I would be shocked if BD&D/OSE isn't #2, behind 5E and ahead of D20/3E.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I love XCD, but in this case, the OSR community has been eager to adopt de facto standards throughout its existence, previously clustering around Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry and now, around Old School Essentials. There are other standards out there, but one can pick up any of them, figure out how much they change to use OSE stats (typically very little) and then be able to buy thousands of compatible products.

I don't know if anyone has counted what rule systems have the most compatible material available for it, but I would be shocked if BD&D/OSE isn't #2, behind 5E and ahead of D20/3E.
Yep. It’s impressive, really. I’m so glad B/X is the gold standard for old-school gaming. With a little tweaking you get access to the majority of OSR titles and modules. There’s more stuff out there, serving every kind of niche and preference, than anyone could actually use in a lifetime.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
WOTChas no reason to compete with the OSR, so they should attempt to provide a constrast if they attempted this. Perhaps not going with tradition but to tropes.

Race:
  1. Normal: Human
  2. Big: Orc
  3. Small: Goblin
  4. Magic: Elf
  5. Monstrous: Dragonborn
Class
  1. Hero: Paladin (Devotion)
  2. Foil: Warlock (Fiend)
  3. Brains: Wizard (Abjurer)
  4. Brawn: Barbarian (Berserker)
  5. Emotion: Cleric (Life)
Feats
  1. Normal: Skill Expert
  2. Fey: Fey Touched
  3. Undead: Shadow Touched
  4. Dragon: Gift of the Dragon
  5. Giant: Strike of the Giants
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
A unified resolution system doesn't mean if you deviate from it, you die. It's not like keeping a city bus going above 55 miles per hour.

Central mechanics -- like combat in D&D -- which make up the majority of rolls in D&D, should go with the unified system and different systems should be saved for less commonly used rolls, IMO.

If you want to have subsystems for less common rolls, like checking for secret doors (TSR loved its 1-in-6 system for that), go for it.
Subsystems in 1e (or close) that IMO and IME work well for what they do:

Turn-destroy-control undead matrix
Surprise on d6
Bend bars-lift gates as a roll-low d% rather than a simple strength check
Roll-under-stat for ability checks (this can easily replace a large chunk of what today comes under "skills")
Roll-low d% for revival from death or system shock survival
Segmented rounds
The assassination table

Subsystems in 1e that can be made to work with (sometimes a lot of) tweaking:

Initiative on d6
Thief skills/abilities as a roll-low d% - the system works great but the actual numbers need work
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top