How Would You Design Fourth Edition?

[WheresMyD20]

Welcome to EN World--I wish you wouldn't make a mockery of my thread (in before, "I wish they wouldn't make a mockery of my game").[/SIZE]

Ok, in the spirit of your thread, here's what I would do if I was in charge and I wanted to make the game I'd want to play and/or DM:

1. The most important change: Ditch the grid and minis. This is an RPG, not a boardgame. It's ok to have some optional rules for minis, but the rules shouldn't be written as if they are expected. IMO, the minis-and-grid system slows down play dramatically.

2. Simplfy the skill system. IMO, the 3e skill system is broken. The SWSE skill system seems much better.

3. Get rid of feats and limit character customization. The more you allow characters to be customized, the harder they are to balance. The game should emphasize adventuring and playability, not character engineering.

4. Start with the big 4 classes: fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard; and the big 4 races: human, elf, dwarf, halfling. Think long and hard before adding to these. If you need to add classes, consider making them variants, i.e. the paladin would be a variant fighter with a couple of small tweaks.

5. Bring back the pre-3e character power curve: characters gain less power per level after level 10 or so, and very little power per level after level 20. IMO, high-level play was smoother under the pre-3e editions.

6. Ditch Vancian spellcasting. Give casters fewer spells per day and make all their spellcasting spontaneous. Give them some minor at-will magical powers (detect magic, ray of frost, etc.) to supplement their spells.

7. No splatbooks. Rule upgrades should be rare and well-playtested.

8. BECMI-style art.

9. One core book like the Rules Cyclopedia. It should be setting-neutral.

This would be where I would start. If 4e actually did all of these things, it probably wouldn't make enough money. However, 4e is actually doing some of the things I want, like 2 & 6, which is nice. My biggest fear is that 4e is putting profitability above playability. We'll see once the rules actually come out...

 

[helium3]

I once started writing my own "perfect" version of D&D.
After the first 100 or so pages, I realized it was easier to just buy it.

This. Every time I really get into a mood where I want to mod the rules, that mood ends when I reach the above state.

If you're going to go to that level of effort, why bother to reinvent something? Why not invent?

 

[fnwc]

Will people stop bagging on my Totally Original Movement System (do not steal)! And if its so ubiquitous, why doesn't Dungeons & Dragons use it?!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you're played Robo Rally, you'll notice that the basic gameplay is pretty much as you described.

For D&D though, you can run into some silly issues because a character is only allowed to evaluate his position for the first phase. Each phase after that, his state/position and other states/positions are unknown, which can cause some strange behavior -- like trying to attack a monster that has already died, or move into a square occupied by a another unit.

This gameplay works in Robo Rally, since this behavior is by design. In D&D, however it's hard to explain why your warrior moved 6 squares north to attack a wizard that is no longer there.

 

[fnwc]

This. Every time I really get into a mood where I want to mod the rules, that mood ends when I reach the above state. If you're going to go to that level of effort, why bother to reinvent something? Why not invent?

Because design is iterative. It's much easier to start with something that you know works on some basic level. You can change parts of the system and test them to see how they work in play.

If you have to radically change the underlying system to get the behavior you want, you're probably working with the wrong system.

4th edition was designed iteratively from 3.5, which was derived from 3.0, etc. Each succession has allowed the designers to see what subsystems work and don't work, and try to redesign them, as appropriate.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you're played Robo Rally, you'll notice that the basic gameplay is pretty much as you described.

I indeed was being sarcastic. I've had the misfortune of being informed that the idea I thought was rather clever has, in fact, been used in at least three other systems.

For D&D though, you can run into some silly issues because a character is only allowed to evaluate his position for the first phase. Each phase after that, his state/position and other states/positions are unknown, which can cause some strange behavior -- like trying to attack a monster that has already died, or move into a square occupied by a another unit.

This gameplay works in Robo Rally, since this behavior is by design. In D&D, however it's hard to explain why your warrior moved 6 squares north to attack a wizard that is no longer there.

I don't follow. In the system I posited, a player is allowed to evaluate their situation--and adjust their actions accordingly--at the beginning of each 'segment'. If, for instance, the Fighter spends his first three segments moving towards the Frost Giant, only to watch it suffer a bloody death at the hands of the Rogue, he can spend his last two segments moving towards the Ogre's pet bear instead. The 'rounds' which encapsulate the five 'segments' exist only to limit how may standard actions a character may take in a given amount of time.

 

[fnwc]

I don't follow. In the system I posited...

Ok, my bad. I must have misread your post. :\

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Impulse" movement, while much more satisfying from a simulation perspective, is incredibly slow in play. (See Star Fleet Battles, in any action involving more than three or four ships. Or classic Champions. (I loved Champions. But Christ was the combat system slow.)

For me, this is an example of the speed and ease of play being so much greater that I can accept turn-based actions. (As opposed to the 1-1-1-1 rule, where (a) the speed and ease of play is not significantly greater, and (2) it completely breaks the fourth wall.)