"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[Odhanan]

I think that variable experience charts are so far past what is acceptable nowadays that we can't expect to see them even as options. The arguments for it are flimsy at best and I have a feeling that they're more deeply rooted in nostalgia than anything else.

But what if I as an AD&D 1e player and DM I like those things? What if I think these elements make the AD&D game what it is? So is this an edition for all the D&D fans, or is it just "for people who actually like 3e/4e, with maybe a little 'you're nice' nod to the players of TSR's D&D"?

Because WotC needs to understand. If really they want a modular game that can be played in a vast variety of ways that is enjoyable for a lot of different fans of the game out there, I think they CAN succeed. IF they put in the extra effort and really think about the design.

But if all they dish out is d20 lite with a few nods here and there to the old schoolers as if "it's all nostalgia anyway, who cares, right?" this absolutely will not do for the AD&Ders out there.

So all I'm saying is that WotC needs to be serious about this. Either the designers care enough to try to understand each and every iteration of the game down to their very core, so they can in effect reproduce all these games through their modular design, or they don't care, don't give a crap about the why and the how and just throw a D&D bus with art taken from TSR era D&D at us, in which case their effort is going to FAIL big time.

Let's get serious, here, is all I'm saying. Respect us. Don't treat us like we don't know what we want or we're just fooling ourselves. You aren't, are you? Well, we aren't either. Try to understand and respect that. Please.

 

[Pilgrim]

Save vs Death can easily be handled as either instant or progressive in the description of the monster.

Medusa:

Turn to Stone: If a player makes eye contact or meets the gaze of the Medusa then they must make a "saving throw" or be turned to stone.
Optional: If a player fails the initial save, the player is "Slowed", the player must make a subsequent save on the following round. A second failure indicates that the player is "Paralyzed" and must make a third save on the following round or become turned to stone.

It's really not that difficult. There aren't that many effects that would require such alternate methods, it might mean a little more text is required in the monster description, but I think it would be far from a deal breaker for most players. Heck, worst case scenario, at least the DM always has an option to going hardcore or not.

Edit: And actually you could probably even simplify the Stat block by using something akin to:

Turn to Stone Gaze: Sv(1), Turns to Stone
Optional: Sv(1) Slowed, Sv(2) Paralyzed, Sv(3) Turns to Stone

 

[Dannager]

Is there any skin off your nose if someone wants to indulge their nostalgia, as long as you don't HAVE to, too? For a lot of people, nostalgia is fun, and D&D, as a brand that's been around for a generation or so now, can embrace that if that's what a group wants.

It's not any skin off my nose. But I think that the design problems that will be created by introducing individual XP charts for different classes will be heinous enough that the designers decide that sticking this particular option in there just isn't worth it. You either create XP charts that are different enough as to have a significant effect on gameplay (in which case you create a huge number of balance issues that have to be handled completely separately from the way you handle balance under the normal XP charts) or you create XP charts that are not different enough as to have a significant effect on gameplay, in which case why do you care?

You're not just asking for variable XP charts. Presumably, you're also asking for this option to include other rules changes that encourage players to try out classes that level more slowly by providing them with perks commensurate with their increased level of difficulty. That's a tall design order.

I just can't see it happening.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with the OP on all 3 points.

However, I don't think they will be default in the core game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're not just asking for variable XP charts. Presumably, you're also asking for this option to include other rules changes that encourage players to try out classes that level more slowly by providing them with perks commensurate with their increased level of difficulty. That's a tall design order.

I just can't see it happening.

Thankfully, they already have a book with all these rules. A few actually. Something like the AD&D player's handbook, maybe...

All they have to do is publish a book that has those options in it. Or re-publish that original rulebook (maybe for a limited run, maybe not). Maybe it includes rules for running monsters as threats against characters from the book, too...

Then anyone who doesn't want to do it just doesn't have to buy that book.

 

[Gundark]

This is why there can never be an "edition for everyone". All of the things you mention are deal-breakers for me in the reverse.

No, this is why there needs to be an OGL/very liberal GSL. Let 3rd parties make products to fill the gaps.

 

[Dannager]

Thankfully, they already have a book with all these rules. A few actually. Something like the AD&D player's handbook, maybe...

All they have to do is publish a book that has those options in it. Or re-publish that original rulebook (maybe for a limited run, maybe not). Maybe it includes rules for running monsters as threats against characters from the book, too...

Then anyone who doesn't want to do it just doesn't have to buy that book.

That's not really the same thing as providing additional options/modules for a cohesive rules set, though. You're suggesting that they actually provide multiple sets of rules. I don't think that's what they're going for. If I were WotC, I'd be targeting modular batches of rules that are largely independent so that you don't have to worry about explaining how different modular sets of rules interact with other modular sets of rules. Doing it any other way seems sort of nightmarish.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're suggesting that they actually provide multiple sets of rules. I don't think that's what they're going for.

They've been mentioning that you can use your old books in the new iteration -- backwards compatibility with every edition of D&D.

I think the most modular they can be is by providing multiple sets of rules, that let you change the game as you see fit, into whatever you want, and if what you want is AD&D 1e, I don't see why WotC wouldn't want to make some money by re-printing the books (maybe with some new organization, verbiage, page layout, and options), and calling it good.

They then don't have to do anything else. Publish that book like it's a supplement, and leave it alone.

 

[Dausuul]

They've been mentioning that you can use your old books in the new iteration -- backwards compatibility with every edition of D&D.

Got a link? I'd like to see the details of that claim.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Got a link? I'd like to see the details of that claim.

From Mike Mearls here

We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition.

Doesn't necessarily follow that they will make room for classes with alternate XP charts, but it absolutely seems like a possibility with that idea behind it.