I'm ready for Fourth Edition now (a brief manifesto)

GlassJaw said:
- working on a Grim Tales homebrew (I highly recommend GT if you're looking for some new inspiration)

BD, we'll probably have an EN World game day at the end of January. You and your hubby should come, and I'll show you Grim Tales.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I could try a different system instead of modifying D&D. I love the Earthdawn game world, and while I dislike the system it does do a lot of the things that I'm looking for. I'm not wild about GURPS, but I haven't checked out the new edition yet. I'm just wondering which would be harder to translate all of my mostly "fluff" books to, a modified D&D or a whole new system...

Also, I agree that a lot of my ideas reflect campaign style rather than rules. But the fact is that the rules are playtested using a particular campaign style. The number of expected combats per session, for example, is reflected in how many spells you give to a spellcaster, how many hit points you give to a fighter, how much experience points you earn from combat, and many other facets of the system itself. Challenge ratings are designed with a certain level of magical equipment in mind. So there's a lot more system re-writing than you might think, just based on a change in campaign style.

Most of what I want to re-write is the feat system, the combat system and the meta-magic system (and to a certain extent the skill system), I still love D&D and I think that most of it is very well done. I just think it could be made better.

Balsamic Dragon
 

Piratecat said:
BD, we'll probably have an EN World game day at the end of January. You and your hubby should come, and I'll show you Grim Tales.

Cool! As long as it's not opposite Arisia, I'd love to come :)

Send me an email when you have the date.

Balsamic Dragon
 

I don't understand why, when people say they're 'burned' out on the game, they blame the rules as opposed to the way they've been running their game.

[1] If all encounters were cataclysmic session-stealers, then the game would get very boring very fast. It's only because the smaller, easier, bite-sized encounters exist that the larger encounters stand out, as well as giving players an opportunity to stretch their abilities (and roleplaying) in the run-up to the big fight. Take out the smaller encounters and you potentially strip the non-combat characters of most opportunities to show off their expertise. All that would happen is that the game would go nowhere, very fast indeed, with massive fights and lethal traps punctuated by long periods of dullness. Still, if you want to do it this way, then why are the rules stopping you?

[2] Options. I somewhat agree with this but I've seen players create fantastically memorable characters within these 'limitations'. On the other hand, extra plusses and getting around limitations *do* give a fighter many more combat options. Drop in something like the Book of Iron Might and your fighter is all set (not core, I know, but I'm kind of agreeing with your fighter stance here).

[3] Taking massive damage and healing up to brand spanky newness in the middle of a firefight is all part of the fantasy game. Climbing sheer walls and cracking impossible locks by tickling the cogs is a D&D staple. There have been long discussions on ENW about whether they're 'required' or not, and I see nothing about your 'one encounter per session' idea that brings anything new to the party. You'd like to see your group tackle a massive dungeon twenty feet at a time and retreat to town every time they get injured? Good luck with that. :)

[4] Any game, anywhere, in any system, that has equipment-based bonuses, is never going to achieve this. The equipment will inevitably become as important a part of a character's repertoire as his innate skills. Still, I do like the idea of weapons getting better with their wielders, and always have.

Edit: Got a little tetchy there, sorry about that. I blame my cold. :)
 
Last edited:

die_kluge said:
That's a joke, right? F.A.T.A.L. had rules like "retard strength" and tables that could randomly generate penis length, and other things that I can't describe here. It was a joke (well, one can hope) by some college students, and ultimately got pulled off the server where it was hosted.

Umm, no. I said FATAL possesses wildly different ideas to D&D. Wouldn't you agree that to be the case? I actually think it was done with serious intent, since most pranksters wouldn't have the strength to elongate their joke to 900 pages.
 

Balsamic Dragon said:
Also, I agree that a lot of my ideas reflect campaign style rather than rules. But the fact is that the rules are playtested using a particular campaign style. The number of expected combats per session, for example, is reflected in how many spells you give to a spellcaster, how many hit points you give to a fighter, how much experience points you earn from combat, and many other facets of the system itself. Challenge ratings are designed with a certain level of magical equipment in mind. So there's a lot more system re-writing than you might think, just based on a change in campaign style.

That may be the case. But ultimately, what you are doing here is proposing a supposed new edition around your particular playstyle.

In the world of computer programming, we have a design principle called the 80/80 rule, which I beleive applies to game design as well. It holds that when laying down the groundwork for a program (or in this case, a game), you should consider what 80 percent of the people want to do with it 80 percent of the time, and then consider the border conditions later (in the case of a game, that would be the optional rules, supplements, or if need be, house rules).

So while I think you have set down a dandy set of criteria for house rule, supplement, or variant game, I purport that deviating from what most other gamers want from a game is a lousy way to set about conceptualizing a "new edition."
 
Last edited:

wedgeski said:
I don't understand why, when people say they're 'burned' out on the game, they blame the rules as opposed to the way they've been running their game.

You make some good points, here are my responses:

1) I don't want long periods of dullness, I want opportunities for roleplaying! Which is where the less combat oriented characters will get to shine. With four encounters per session, most of them combat oriented, this isn't the case. On the other hand, I don't see why you need boring combats. Fighting kobalds doesn't give people the opportunity to stretch their abilities or to roleplaying. It's just dice rolling.

2) There are a lot of good third party books with respect to fighting styles and such. I plan to steal from them and incorporate it into the core system :)

3) First, I kind of want to get away from the "massive dungeon" paradigm. I ran all of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. It took over a year, and although they had fun, my players got really tired after a while. I found myself wanting to cut encounters that didn't really advance the plot or weren't as interesting. Second, traps are a big part of D&D, I just don't want the corrolary to that rule to be that there must be at least one rogue in the party. Same with healing. Parties without clerics tend to die really fast, but not because of a single nasty villian, but because of attrition. They have to go into the big fight with only half their hit points and they die. But not every party should _have_ to have a cleric.

4) The DM has control over what equipment goes into the game, right? So why can't this be achieved? And why can't the rules of the game be modified so that you don't _need_ all that equipment? To give an example, change the combat system so that AC is not as important as defensive maneuvers. Defensive maneuvers are based on a character's skills, while AC is usually based on magic items.

Balsamic Dragon
 

So, you know Earthdawn already... :)

As for the magic items, I don't see why one could not "simply" make magic items that way. Sure you would need to improvise a bit, but that would certainly work with D&D as well.

Balsamic Dragon said:
Most of what I want to re-write is the feat system, the combat system and the meta-magic system (and to a certain extent the skill system), ...
Well, then you should probably start a thread in the House Rules forum and go from there.

I can see that people have problems with the feat system... WotC is totally overdoing feats currently IMHO, modeling way too much stuff as feats, for the sole reason, as it seems, to have more feats available.

About metamagic, I have started a thread in the House Rules forum, with the intent to make metamagic spontaneous for all classes and more useful overall. Not sure, what you are looking for exactly, tho.

I still love D&D and I think that most of it is very well done. I just think it could be made better.
That will always be the case... unless your name is Diaglo, that is... :p

Bye
Thanee
 

Agamemnon said:
Umm, no. I said FATAL possesses wildly different ideas to D&D. Wouldn't you agree that to be the case? I actually think it was done with serious intent, since most pranksters wouldn't have the strength to elongate their joke to 900 pages.


Well, possessing wildly different ideas to D&D is an understatement. That's kind of like saying that Hustler is a little different than TIME magazine.

And F.A.T.A.L. was *barely* an RPG. It had a ton of rules to be sure, but no real cohesion. There were classes (IIRC), and spells, and lots of tables, and a lot of rules concerning rape, sex, sizes of body parts, and this sort of thing. It had ability scores, and races (include "hobbits" which was a copyright infringement). I don't remember seeing any actual combat rules. There were rules for sex, though. It had a table for up to 10,000 random magical effects, only of which a mere 3,000+ actually had entries. Oh, and a list of every phobia catalogued by the American Pscychological Assocation. On top of that, it's not available anywhere, for any amount of money. So, even if it *were* legitimate, suggesting it is kind of a waste of time, because even if Balsamic Dragon *wanted* to check it out, she couldn't.

Oh, I'm sure the authors were "serious" with their intent. What that intent was, I don't think even they could answer that.
 

In response to your response. :)

Balsamic Dragon said:
1) I don't want long periods of dullness, I want opportunities for roleplaying! Which is where the less combat oriented characters will get to shine. With four encounters per session, most of them combat oriented, this isn't the case. On the other hand, I don't see why you need boring combats. Fighting kobalds doesn't give people the opportunity to stretch their abilities or to roleplaying. It's just dice rolling.
Aren't you presupposing here that encounters=combat? When I talk about an encounter, I am talking about the gamut from sitting around having a chat to kicking armoured butt. There's XP to be had across that entire range. And there's no reason why an encounter, even if it is 'filler', has to be boring if it gives the PC's decisions to make. I do believe in the value of a random encounter (especially in the wilderness, not so much in the dungeon), which gives a much needed sense of unpredictability to long journeys, but a good DM should be able to improvise an interesting scenario from just about any critter.

2) There are a lot of good third party books with respect to fighting styles and such. I plan to steal from them and incorporate it into the core system :)
Ah, so you are actually planning on writing your own 4ed? I look forward to disagreeing with 90% of it. ;P

3) First, I kind of want to get away from the "massive dungeon" paradigm. I ran all of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. It took over a year, and although they had fun, my players got really tired after a while. I found myself wanting to cut encounters that didn't really advance the plot or weren't as interesting.
Yes I kind of got the impression you'd say that. A lot of your points, IMO, fall over most completely when applied to the dungeon. I think I might even have hazarded a guess that Temple was a recent dungeon you had DM'd. :) A lot of folks seem to get worn down by it. But, designing a 4ed that doesn't embrace dungeon delving will set your game on shaky foundations from the get-go. That's a whole other thread though.

Second, traps are a big part of D&D, I just don't want the corrolary to that rule to be that there must be at least one rogue in the party. Same with healing. Parties without clerics tend to die really fast, but not because of a single nasty villian, but because of attrition. They have to go into the big fight with only half their hit points and they die. But not every party should _have_ to have a cleric.
I can see where you're coming from but you can't have your cake and eat it. If traps are a big part of D&D then a class that specializes in dealing with them is also going to be a big part of D&D. A party that is having its hit points whittled away by small encounters should be given the opportunity to strike at the BBEG *after* resting up. This is adventure design, not game design. The two seem muddled here.

4) The DM has control over what equipment goes into the game, right? So why can't this be achieved? And why can't the rules of the game be modified so that you don't _need_ all that equipment? To give an example, change the combat system so that AC is not as important as defensive maneuvers. Defensive maneuvers are based on a character's skills, while AC is usually based on magic items.
It can be achieved (see d20 Modern and others for first steps). With Armor Proficiencies, spell failure, skill mods, max Dex. bonuses, etc., I think 3ed did a brilliant job of making magical equipment options part and parcel of a fighter's appeal. I just don't see it as a problem in the way you do.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top