Quickleaf
Legend
Great thread, everyone! Just finished reading everything. Ashockney, thanks for playing "moderator"!
FIRST: My Recommendations
These recommendations are to help with several of the pitfalls discussed in this thread.
1. Design a simple mass combat system. This system must provide a way for both large-scale wars and also small groups of PCs against overwhelming forces.
(helps reduce the pitfall of too many rolls)
2. Eliminate Hit Points in favor of a UA Damage Save Mechanic or Mutants & Masterminds style wounds. At the very least, create a "Mook" system for minions which allows them to be dispatched in a single blow, thereby eliminating the need for a GM to keep track of so many hit points.
(reduces the pitfalls of too much record keeping)
3. Eliminate feats/spells/or magic items which provide modifiers. In other words, reduce the number of modifier sources in the game. For example, a GM could eliminate feats like dodge or weapon focus which provide adjustments to a roll. I think that eliminating spells and magic items like shield or strength would greatly reduce the number of modifiers, though it would create a different feel to magic (and require new spells to replace the eliminated ones). Above all, a "Master Table" of situational modifiers should be included as a guideline for GMs to create their own modifiers.
(helps to reduce the pitfalls of too many modifiers)
4. Eliminate most initiative rolls by using the SNAP system.
(again, reduces the pitfalls of too much rolling)
5. Provide an action point-integrated method for allowing players narrative control. In many games, the GM has final say on modifiers or DCs; this attempts to return some power to players. The Adventure d20 rules provide some good options. In a more narrative game, allowing the players to narrate the results of their investigation based on a new "Clue Roll" system might work. In addition, players could have the option of sacrificing damage on their attacks to dictate special effects.
(helps to overcome 2 pitfalls - (1) players feeling their GMs have too much powers, and (2) combat feels to dry and lacking in suitably suspenseful & amazing stunts)
6. Limit each character to 1 attack roll per round. This requires re-working the move action/full action rules. One possibility is allowing 1 roll to be made for multiple attacks. Another possibility is providing new rules which allow a player to take advantage of their environment to create modifiers for themselves. Obviously combat-centric classes would need a little extra boost to compensate for the loss of multiple attacks. More high-level fighter feats would be appropriate, as would be providing class abilities to high-level warriors like "size up your opponent" or "conceal weapon".
(helps reduce the amount of dice rolling and quickens the tempo of combat)
7. Create more clearly/better defined rules for non-combat situations in d20. Great examples include Hot Pursuits guide to chases, and Dynasties & Demagogues guide to debates. Skills should be given much more uses (e.g. what about using Bluff to feign death or to get a villain to gloat?), and Diplomacy especially would be revised. Investigation montages (from the M&M adventure Church & State) would be incorporated into the "core rules".
(Allows a GM more options in planning an adventure. Rather than planning combat tactics, a GM could record chase tactics, debate tactics, or detail an investigation. This encourages players to try other tactics beyond combat, seeing that there are rules for them.)
8. Provide clear examples of a scaled "Role-Playing Standard." In other words, you decide if your group is Hack-n-Slashers, Adventurers, or Method Actors. Then, finding the appropriate section in the rules book, you would be given examples of what sorts of modifiers (bonuses & penalties) are appropriate for a player's detailed description.
(This would clear up confusion and player-GM debate when a player wants to try something the "rules wouldn't otherwise let them do". In this case, the rules would provide examples of how a GM could reasonably handle the situation.)
SECOND: Rules Should be Modular
I think Ourph states a really important point.... What kind of game you run depends on the type of players, the trust between GM and players, and whether everyone is more interested in tactical or narrative gaming.
I would find it very helpful if a new version of D&D provided more modularity to the rules, rather than stated "these are the rules." I think any RPG should be treated like a supplement (even the so-called "core rules") from which a GM can pick and choose as is appropriate to their group.
I've never seen this written in any rulebook (for any RPG), and I think it is sorely needed. Here is an example of the kinds of guidelines I would find helpful. I will only write up the first as a model, but I'll include a lengthy list of important topics that I'd like to see covered in any rulebook.
Players and GM Trust Each Other 100%
Your gaming group might be old friends who have gamed together for a while. But even then, having total trust between players and the GM is rare. Many consider this to be the ideal gaming group. In this case, the GM can let the players calculate all modifiers for their PCs. Likewise, the players acknowledge and embrace the GM fudging rules for the sake of gameplay. If the group is more focused on tactical simulation, the GM is expected to be open to the players about his or her house rules, and likewise the players are expected to be understanding and avoid bickering. Often such groups find it easy to create house rules on the spot for every situation. GMs need not worry that their ruling appear "inconsistent" because the players put their trust in the GM to apply the same logic next time.
How do I know if this is my group? Putting it to a vote is one way to tell. A better indicator is how the group handles a gap in the rules. If a GM is open to a player's argument about modifiers, resolving the debate quickly in order to get on to the game, the GM is showing trust in his/her players. If a player questions the GM only rarely and is willing to accept GM fiat, the player is exhibiting trust in the GM.
Rules: In "100%" games, players put their faith in the person of the GM as opposed to the rules. Thus, rules can be modified or changed at will - provide advance notice is given. Rules will often be sacrificed in order for the sake of the genre / theme of the RPG.
Players: Accept the GM's fiat. Should handle determining all modifiers for their PCs, and any cohorts. Encouraged to present house rules for inspection by the GM. No secrets about the character are kept from the GM (i.e. full disclosure). Knowledge the player has but their PC doesn't stays won't impact the PCs' decisions.
GM: Acknowledge every rules question/argument the players bring up. Fudging the rules is part of your "job description." Can present new rules to the group in between game sessions. Dice rolls are made in the open. Doesn't need to hide information from the players (e.g. no GM screen is needed).
Players and GM More Interested In Narration Than Tactical Simulation
Senile Players Who Can't Remember Which Can of Mountain Dew Is Theirs
Adult GM Runs Game For Young Players
Everyone Is New To Gaming
Experienced GM Runs Game For Mostly Newbies
First Time Playing Together (e.g. Convention Game)
Running A Game For Split-Up PCs
P.S. And Ashockney, since I know you're going to ask... I DMed up until 15th level in AD&D, then switched to 3e until 17th level.
FIRST: My Recommendations
These recommendations are to help with several of the pitfalls discussed in this thread.
1. Design a simple mass combat system. This system must provide a way for both large-scale wars and also small groups of PCs against overwhelming forces.
(helps reduce the pitfall of too many rolls)
2. Eliminate Hit Points in favor of a UA Damage Save Mechanic or Mutants & Masterminds style wounds. At the very least, create a "Mook" system for minions which allows them to be dispatched in a single blow, thereby eliminating the need for a GM to keep track of so many hit points.
(reduces the pitfalls of too much record keeping)
3. Eliminate feats/spells/or magic items which provide modifiers. In other words, reduce the number of modifier sources in the game. For example, a GM could eliminate feats like dodge or weapon focus which provide adjustments to a roll. I think that eliminating spells and magic items like shield or strength would greatly reduce the number of modifiers, though it would create a different feel to magic (and require new spells to replace the eliminated ones). Above all, a "Master Table" of situational modifiers should be included as a guideline for GMs to create their own modifiers.
(helps to reduce the pitfalls of too many modifiers)
4. Eliminate most initiative rolls by using the SNAP system.
(again, reduces the pitfalls of too much rolling)
5. Provide an action point-integrated method for allowing players narrative control. In many games, the GM has final say on modifiers or DCs; this attempts to return some power to players. The Adventure d20 rules provide some good options. In a more narrative game, allowing the players to narrate the results of their investigation based on a new "Clue Roll" system might work. In addition, players could have the option of sacrificing damage on their attacks to dictate special effects.
(helps to overcome 2 pitfalls - (1) players feeling their GMs have too much powers, and (2) combat feels to dry and lacking in suitably suspenseful & amazing stunts)
6. Limit each character to 1 attack roll per round. This requires re-working the move action/full action rules. One possibility is allowing 1 roll to be made for multiple attacks. Another possibility is providing new rules which allow a player to take advantage of their environment to create modifiers for themselves. Obviously combat-centric classes would need a little extra boost to compensate for the loss of multiple attacks. More high-level fighter feats would be appropriate, as would be providing class abilities to high-level warriors like "size up your opponent" or "conceal weapon".
(helps reduce the amount of dice rolling and quickens the tempo of combat)
7. Create more clearly/better defined rules for non-combat situations in d20. Great examples include Hot Pursuits guide to chases, and Dynasties & Demagogues guide to debates. Skills should be given much more uses (e.g. what about using Bluff to feign death or to get a villain to gloat?), and Diplomacy especially would be revised. Investigation montages (from the M&M adventure Church & State) would be incorporated into the "core rules".
(Allows a GM more options in planning an adventure. Rather than planning combat tactics, a GM could record chase tactics, debate tactics, or detail an investigation. This encourages players to try other tactics beyond combat, seeing that there are rules for them.)
8. Provide clear examples of a scaled "Role-Playing Standard." In other words, you decide if your group is Hack-n-Slashers, Adventurers, or Method Actors. Then, finding the appropriate section in the rules book, you would be given examples of what sorts of modifiers (bonuses & penalties) are appropriate for a player's detailed description.
(This would clear up confusion and player-GM debate when a player wants to try something the "rules wouldn't otherwise let them do". In this case, the rules would provide examples of how a GM could reasonably handle the situation.)
SECOND: Rules Should be Modular
I think Ourph states a really important point.... What kind of game you run depends on the type of players, the trust between GM and players, and whether everyone is more interested in tactical or narrative gaming.
I would find it very helpful if a new version of D&D provided more modularity to the rules, rather than stated "these are the rules." I think any RPG should be treated like a supplement (even the so-called "core rules") from which a GM can pick and choose as is appropriate to their group.
I've never seen this written in any rulebook (for any RPG), and I think it is sorely needed. Here is an example of the kinds of guidelines I would find helpful. I will only write up the first as a model, but I'll include a lengthy list of important topics that I'd like to see covered in any rulebook.
Players and GM Trust Each Other 100%
Your gaming group might be old friends who have gamed together for a while. But even then, having total trust between players and the GM is rare. Many consider this to be the ideal gaming group. In this case, the GM can let the players calculate all modifiers for their PCs. Likewise, the players acknowledge and embrace the GM fudging rules for the sake of gameplay. If the group is more focused on tactical simulation, the GM is expected to be open to the players about his or her house rules, and likewise the players are expected to be understanding and avoid bickering. Often such groups find it easy to create house rules on the spot for every situation. GMs need not worry that their ruling appear "inconsistent" because the players put their trust in the GM to apply the same logic next time.
How do I know if this is my group? Putting it to a vote is one way to tell. A better indicator is how the group handles a gap in the rules. If a GM is open to a player's argument about modifiers, resolving the debate quickly in order to get on to the game, the GM is showing trust in his/her players. If a player questions the GM only rarely and is willing to accept GM fiat, the player is exhibiting trust in the GM.
Rules: In "100%" games, players put their faith in the person of the GM as opposed to the rules. Thus, rules can be modified or changed at will - provide advance notice is given. Rules will often be sacrificed in order for the sake of the genre / theme of the RPG.
Players: Accept the GM's fiat. Should handle determining all modifiers for their PCs, and any cohorts. Encouraged to present house rules for inspection by the GM. No secrets about the character are kept from the GM (i.e. full disclosure). Knowledge the player has but their PC doesn't stays won't impact the PCs' decisions.
GM: Acknowledge every rules question/argument the players bring up. Fudging the rules is part of your "job description." Can present new rules to the group in between game sessions. Dice rolls are made in the open. Doesn't need to hide information from the players (e.g. no GM screen is needed).
Players and GM More Interested In Narration Than Tactical Simulation
Senile Players Who Can't Remember Which Can of Mountain Dew Is Theirs
Adult GM Runs Game For Young Players
Everyone Is New To Gaming
Experienced GM Runs Game For Mostly Newbies
First Time Playing Together (e.g. Convention Game)
Running A Game For Split-Up PCs
P.S. And Ashockney, since I know you're going to ask... I DMed up until 15th level in AD&D, then switched to 3e until 17th level.
Last edited:
