King_Stannis
Explorer
JeffB said:
Don't lie, Jeff. "She", is really a he, and he is John Wick
.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I think the D&D line needs a "Bridge" product
- Thread starter JeffB
- Start date
Don't lie, Jeff. "She", is really a he, and he is John Wick
.http://www.playdnd.com/welcome.asp
here's the wotc demo on the dnd game.
It's fairly simple and easy and something that you can show new people.
The rest are rules. to make it rules lite, just find out what the person views that character to be, then help them choose feats and skills. or choose it for them.
here's the wotc demo on the dnd game.
It's fairly simple and easy and something that you can show new people.
The rest are rules. to make it rules lite, just find out what the person views that character to be, then help them choose feats and skills. or choose it for them.
Sanackranib
First Post
they have this out already
My wife picked somthing like this up. its the diablo II box set. its more basic then d&d no skills etc, combat is basic and only 3 types of potions (healing, rejuvination and mana) short and simple spell list based on class (all classes get some)
we've played it a few times, it kinda reminds me of advanced heroquest (at least its simplisity. - it even comes with spme pregen modules)
Olgar Shiverstone said:
My wife picked somthing like this up. its the diablo II box set. its more basic then d&d no skills etc, combat is basic and only 3 types of potions (healing, rejuvination and mana) short and simple spell list based on class (all classes get some)
we've played it a few times, it kinda reminds me of advanced heroquest (at least its simplisity. - it even comes with spme pregen modules)
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Dragongirl, I hope you didn't take my remark about how my wife never looks at the PHB to suggest women are incapable of understanding the full rules of D&D.Dragongirl said:
My wife is perfectly capable of understanding it, she just chooses not to read the book. She has better things to think about. Sumerian legal systems, film editing, her novel...
Believe me, the only thing that makes me doubt my wife's brilliance is the fact that she married me...
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Only if people won't buy it on that basis. My understanding is that 3e sales are very strong, so I don't see that it's asinine. On the contrary, it looks pretty smart to me.Geoffrey said:
The truth is, of course, that most of those 1,000 pages aren't rules at all. Most of the Player's Handbook, for instance, is composed of spell descriptions. Much of the DM's Guide is dungeon features and magic items. And of course the Monster Manual is completely unnecessary.
And further, it's simply a fact that unlike, say, Monopoly, you don't have to know ANY of the rules to play the game -- indeed, to play it successfully. So who cares how many pages of rules there are and how much it costs to buy them?
Now, what I WILL agree to is that there may be a market for SOMEONE ELSE to create a "simplified D&D" game. My point earlier was that it's a bad idea of WotC to create and support one, since it will only cannibalize regular D&D sales. But a third-party publisher might do very well with such a product.
I still doubt that a Lite product would be a good use of resources by WotC. I don't have any real evidence, of course, like sales figures from TSR's efforts at the same thing (AD&D and D&D), but the simple fact that WotC is not pursuing such a path suggests to me that they think it would be a bad idea. And presumably they have access to more information than I have...
KDLadage:
I love the concept you presented, but I would revise it considerably.
I think the core rules should be one product (whether a single book or a boxed set containing a number of books) and that single product should cover levels 1-20. This is for ease of reference. It's convenient to have all the spells in one place rather than in three (for example).
I'd completely drop non-human PCs in the core rules. As you have so excellently demonstrated with your world of Umbragia, not everyone wants dwarves, elves, etc. in their world. All non-human races should be relegated to supplements and 3rd party publishers.
I'd have just the four most basic classes: cleric, fighter, magic-user, and rogue. Again, the more specialized type of classes (bards, monks, paladins, etc) should be relegated to supplements and 3rd party publishers.
I'd not have prestige classes in the core rules at all. Even the DMG notes that prestige classes are completely optional. As such, they should not be in the core rules. The core rules should contain ONLY the essentials, not the optional stuff.
There's no reason in the world that 128 pages isn't enough to cover the basics for levels 1-20.
I agree that the entire "D&D Lite" game should be compatible with the PH, DMG, and MM.
Lastly, I like your idea of a boxed set better than a single volume. I'd like to see the boxed set contain a players book and a DMs book (which, total, shouldn't be more than 128 pages). A set of dice is good, too. Lastly, I think a short (no more than half a dozen pages) adventure can be included in the DMs book. I don't think there's a need for a full-length module in the set.
I love the concept you presented, but I would revise it considerably.
I think the core rules should be one product (whether a single book or a boxed set containing a number of books) and that single product should cover levels 1-20. This is for ease of reference. It's convenient to have all the spells in one place rather than in three (for example).
I'd completely drop non-human PCs in the core rules. As you have so excellently demonstrated with your world of Umbragia, not everyone wants dwarves, elves, etc. in their world. All non-human races should be relegated to supplements and 3rd party publishers.
I'd have just the four most basic classes: cleric, fighter, magic-user, and rogue. Again, the more specialized type of classes (bards, monks, paladins, etc) should be relegated to supplements and 3rd party publishers.
I'd not have prestige classes in the core rules at all. Even the DMG notes that prestige classes are completely optional. As such, they should not be in the core rules. The core rules should contain ONLY the essentials, not the optional stuff.
There's no reason in the world that 128 pages isn't enough to cover the basics for levels 1-20.
I agree that the entire "D&D Lite" game should be compatible with the PH, DMG, and MM.
Lastly, I like your idea of a boxed set better than a single volume. I'd like to see the boxed set contain a players book and a DMs book (which, total, shouldn't be more than 128 pages). A set of dice is good, too. Lastly, I think a short (no more than half a dozen pages) adventure can be included in the DMs book. I don't think there's a need for a full-length module in the set.
Last edited:
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I don't think dropping elves, dwarves, and halflings would be a good idea. Those are basics of the D&D style of fantasy. This will never get done I suppose, but I'd love to see a single volume D&D lite system.
ichabod
Legned
I have to agree totally with Barsoomcore, but I would like to add one point. Producing a lite product will not only split WotC's customer base, it will split it into two antagonistic groups. The basic players will acuse the advanced players of being munchkin gear heads who are such socially retarded geeks they could never understand that the rules are a framework for roleplaying, and the advanced players would acuse the basic players of being pretentious morons who just don't have the brains to understand a real game. The RPG world is divided enough as it is, and doesn't really need another focus for flamewars. If you want a rules light game, there are plenty of good ones out there. If you want rules light D&D, WotC has certainly made it easier than ever to do it yourself. In any case, it was a good business decision by WotC to not make a basic game.
Lalato
Adventurer
You know... for kids...
I'm all for a D&D lite similar to the D&D boxed set of old. Here's why...
My friend Warren brought home the D&D boxed set the summer before 6th grade back in 1981 (yes, that makes me 32 now). He had gotten it at a train and model hobby shop that happened to carry a couple of war games (B17: Queen of the Skies rules!) and the D&D set (not AD&D).
We were smart kids (if I do say so myself) and were able to read through the rules and start adventuring fairly quickly. The rules were easy to understand, the art was great, and the examples helped explain things fairly well. Although our first several adventures were very hack & slash (we were only 11 after all) we eventually settled into a pretty decent storytelling/roleplaying groove. We also played with friends at school.
We played D&D for a couple of years. We didn't even know there was an AD&D until I saw it at a comic book store across town. I think we were 13 then, so that's (1983 for those doing the math). I immediately bought the book and we poured over it. It was definitely more detailed than the boxed set, but it wasn't that difficult to learn because we already had enough basic knowledge from the boxed set.
If I had been introduced to AD&D at 11 years old, I probably would never have played it as much as I did. It would have been way too difficult. The D&D boxed set was just right. I might not be a gamer today if it weren't for that boxed set.
The d20/3E rules are great. I like them a lot, but I wouldn't give them to a couple of 11 year olds to figure out on their own.
There is an entire generation of kids out there that are growing up on Harry Potter and the new LoTR movies. The best way to capitalize on that is to create simplified rules for D&D. Having said that, one might say that Trading Card Games are simplified games that provide a source of future D&D players. I've found, however, that most young TCG players tend to only play TCGs not expand into roleplaying.
I hope the above makes sense... looking at it again... I don't think I made my point. :?
--sam
I'm all for a D&D lite similar to the D&D boxed set of old. Here's why...
My friend Warren brought home the D&D boxed set the summer before 6th grade back in 1981 (yes, that makes me 32 now). He had gotten it at a train and model hobby shop that happened to carry a couple of war games (B17: Queen of the Skies rules!) and the D&D set (not AD&D).
We were smart kids (if I do say so myself) and were able to read through the rules and start adventuring fairly quickly. The rules were easy to understand, the art was great, and the examples helped explain things fairly well. Although our first several adventures were very hack & slash (we were only 11 after all) we eventually settled into a pretty decent storytelling/roleplaying groove. We also played with friends at school.
We played D&D for a couple of years. We didn't even know there was an AD&D until I saw it at a comic book store across town. I think we were 13 then, so that's (1983 for those doing the math). I immediately bought the book and we poured over it. It was definitely more detailed than the boxed set, but it wasn't that difficult to learn because we already had enough basic knowledge from the boxed set.
If I had been introduced to AD&D at 11 years old, I probably would never have played it as much as I did. It would have been way too difficult. The D&D boxed set was just right. I might not be a gamer today if it weren't for that boxed set.
The d20/3E rules are great. I like them a lot, but I wouldn't give them to a couple of 11 year olds to figure out on their own.
There is an entire generation of kids out there that are growing up on Harry Potter and the new LoTR movies. The best way to capitalize on that is to create simplified rules for D&D. Having said that, one might say that Trading Card Games are simplified games that provide a source of future D&D players. I've found, however, that most young TCG players tend to only play TCGs not expand into roleplaying.
I hope the above makes sense... looking at it again... I don't think I made my point. :?
--sam
Last edited:
I'd disagree that you could drop the non-human races from the core rules. At least if this is supposed to be a "bridge" product - I figure a lot of those new to the game are going to be coming from, as others have said, having seen films or read books such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I know I'd be ticked if I picked it up and found I couldn't play Gimli or Merry.
Anyhow, here's what I'd put in it ...
- limited levels - 7th or 8th max, enough to get some good stuff (multiple attacks for fighters, 4th level spells for clerics and wizards).
- just the four basic classes - fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue, but keep multiclassing.
- races - human, dwarf, elf and halfling.
- skills - trimmed down list of skills, each of the four classes given a short list of skills that can be taken, any selected skill has a rank of class level or 1/2 that if the skill would be cross class in the PHB. Skills selected at 1st level gain +3 ranks. Intelligence affects number of skills that can be taken. Character stuck with skills selected when first taking that class.
- feats - a short list of feats to choose from for character level, and a preselected list for the fighter and wizard
- combat - much simplified, include a very basic version of attacks of opportunity (something like cast spells or drink a potion in melee, suffer an AoO). No requirement for minatures at all.
- monsters stats simplified as much as possible
Definitely an appendix or two, one to break down the differences between this product and the PHB/DMG/MM so those who start out with this product can see where the difference between the two are, and a second appendix to help convert PHB based products back to this product's stats, so less need to support a separate line of products.
The idea being to keep the mechanics as close as possible, so if one decides to stay with the basic set, one could then pick up the PHB for the additional level progressions, as well as more feats and spells, and make use of PHB based material such as modules, campaign settings etc.
Oh, and lots of examples of play - including such things as the social skills (diplomacy, etc) so as to give the new player an idea of how they fit into role playing without necessarily substituting for it.
Anyhow, here's what I'd put in it ...
- limited levels - 7th or 8th max, enough to get some good stuff (multiple attacks for fighters, 4th level spells for clerics and wizards).
- just the four basic classes - fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue, but keep multiclassing.
- races - human, dwarf, elf and halfling.
- skills - trimmed down list of skills, each of the four classes given a short list of skills that can be taken, any selected skill has a rank of class level or 1/2 that if the skill would be cross class in the PHB. Skills selected at 1st level gain +3 ranks. Intelligence affects number of skills that can be taken. Character stuck with skills selected when first taking that class.
- feats - a short list of feats to choose from for character level, and a preselected list for the fighter and wizard
- combat - much simplified, include a very basic version of attacks of opportunity (something like cast spells or drink a potion in melee, suffer an AoO). No requirement for minatures at all.
- monsters stats simplified as much as possible
Definitely an appendix or two, one to break down the differences between this product and the PHB/DMG/MM so those who start out with this product can see where the difference between the two are, and a second appendix to help convert PHB based products back to this product's stats, so less need to support a separate line of products.
The idea being to keep the mechanics as close as possible, so if one decides to stay with the basic set, one could then pick up the PHB for the additional level progressions, as well as more feats and spells, and make use of PHB based material such as modules, campaign settings etc.
Oh, and lots of examples of play - including such things as the social skills (diplomacy, etc) so as to give the new player an idea of how they fit into role playing without necessarily substituting for it.
Similar Threads
