Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore: Modular Madness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5642547" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>See, I always felt that Basic D&D in a sense was a mistake though. It was close enough to AD&D that it wasn't a really big deal, but since around 1978 I have actually never personally witnessed anyone playing Basic. I've seen a lot of use of Basic modules with AD&D, that was trivial. (not to dis anyone who WAS a Basic fan/player or who still is, just purely my observation). It alway seemed to me that the 2 weren't really that far apart for one thing. I always felt like AD&D could have been a half step closer to Basic (most of us effectively used something close to the Basic combat system anyway TBH). Basic could then easily have been AD&D with a few options filed off. I think Basic was really more of a mind set than a system in effect anyway. There certainly would have been no reason not to continue to support that aesthetic without the need for multiple product lines (which in the end killed TSR, though that certainly doesn't seem to have been the fault of Basic it couldn't have helped).</p><p></p><p>[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] I pretty much agree with you. I think the smart approach would be to create a new edition at some point which deals with some of the parts of 4e that haven't worked as well as I think they were intended. I think this can be achieved without gutting what 4e has done to advance the game. In fact to the contrary it should strengthen those improvements to the game by perfecting them.</p><p></p><p>I really think that if there was a streamlining of the combat system, so that it runs twice as fast and still allows for clever tactical play for instance then most objections go away or become minimized. Feats and powers can be pared down to much smaller lists (feats might even go away, I don't know for sure). There can be some other adjustments and the presentation of the game can be evolved to more heavily emphasize the fantastic elements, show people better how to use the system, and present a more polished version of the SC system with better examples and an explanation of how to present stakes, integrate the SC with the narrative, etc. None of that requires going backwards in any way, but it can help to facilitate people playing with a more 'old school' sensibility.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing wrong either with presenting options to get rid of feats and skills (as an example). Other stuff can simply be presented as "rules extensions". This can encompass almost anything from psionics to mass combat to running a business. These kinds of things are more guidelines anyway. It would certainly be possible to present more than one option for this kind of thing too, though honestly I doubt WotC is going to publish several books with extensions covering the same ground, they could certainly put up some articles on DDI with alternate options.</p><p></p><p>I don't know about alternate combat systems. I'm not even sure you can really make the skill system optional or modular, though you might be able to present MORE options for it for someone that wants a 3e style encyclopedic list of skills and professions in an extension. In terms of combat, hmmmm... There certainly are things like Sarn Fu. They work. The question is are they something that WotC can really afford to support actively since they WILL change the balance of the game and I'm skeptical you can make modules that work with any arbitrary combat system. </p><p></p><p>I think it would either have to be a companion set of rules geared towards a specific mode of play, in which case you have the Basic issue all over again, or a sort of one off module that basically says "you have been warned, we aren't going to aim content at working with this, but we've tested it and this should work for gridless combat." As I said above, combat that is 2x faster than it is now is probably going to satisfy a LOT of people that are unhappy with grids now. There are some people who just hate the whole concept of any kind of map at all and won't be happy, but there are limits to how big the tent can be... A gridless combat module would at least be something they could still consider.</p><p></p><p>It is also overall worth considering what happens between now and 5e. Personally I don't believe there will be a 5e for a number of years yet. There could be a few things that could happen between now and then though. One would be some sort of semi-independent version of 4e, not a 4.5 really, but a game that is designed to work alongside 4e and IS compatible with it, but doesn't have to share elements with it, and can rework some of it. Essentials sort of tried to do this, but maybe what was needed was just a deeper and more radical application of that concept. Another option would be to break with the "edition nomenclature". Instead of creating "5e" simply create a companion game that IS 5e but isn't billed as a replacement for 4e. Both can continue to be supported for some period of time and this game could represent an experiment. If it simply works out to be a better game then eventually it simply replaces the existing one as a product. At the start it can be pretty limited, with say just a single softcover book. Heck, bill it right off as a potentially one-off product that might or might not get further support. If it is an interesting design I think it would sell well enough to be worth doing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5642547, member: 82106"] See, I always felt that Basic D&D in a sense was a mistake though. It was close enough to AD&D that it wasn't a really big deal, but since around 1978 I have actually never personally witnessed anyone playing Basic. I've seen a lot of use of Basic modules with AD&D, that was trivial. (not to dis anyone who WAS a Basic fan/player or who still is, just purely my observation). It alway seemed to me that the 2 weren't really that far apart for one thing. I always felt like AD&D could have been a half step closer to Basic (most of us effectively used something close to the Basic combat system anyway TBH). Basic could then easily have been AD&D with a few options filed off. I think Basic was really more of a mind set than a system in effect anyway. There certainly would have been no reason not to continue to support that aesthetic without the need for multiple product lines (which in the end killed TSR, though that certainly doesn't seem to have been the fault of Basic it couldn't have helped). [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] I pretty much agree with you. I think the smart approach would be to create a new edition at some point which deals with some of the parts of 4e that haven't worked as well as I think they were intended. I think this can be achieved without gutting what 4e has done to advance the game. In fact to the contrary it should strengthen those improvements to the game by perfecting them. I really think that if there was a streamlining of the combat system, so that it runs twice as fast and still allows for clever tactical play for instance then most objections go away or become minimized. Feats and powers can be pared down to much smaller lists (feats might even go away, I don't know for sure). There can be some other adjustments and the presentation of the game can be evolved to more heavily emphasize the fantastic elements, show people better how to use the system, and present a more polished version of the SC system with better examples and an explanation of how to present stakes, integrate the SC with the narrative, etc. None of that requires going backwards in any way, but it can help to facilitate people playing with a more 'old school' sensibility. There's nothing wrong either with presenting options to get rid of feats and skills (as an example). Other stuff can simply be presented as "rules extensions". This can encompass almost anything from psionics to mass combat to running a business. These kinds of things are more guidelines anyway. It would certainly be possible to present more than one option for this kind of thing too, though honestly I doubt WotC is going to publish several books with extensions covering the same ground, they could certainly put up some articles on DDI with alternate options. I don't know about alternate combat systems. I'm not even sure you can really make the skill system optional or modular, though you might be able to present MORE options for it for someone that wants a 3e style encyclopedic list of skills and professions in an extension. In terms of combat, hmmmm... There certainly are things like Sarn Fu. They work. The question is are they something that WotC can really afford to support actively since they WILL change the balance of the game and I'm skeptical you can make modules that work with any arbitrary combat system. I think it would either have to be a companion set of rules geared towards a specific mode of play, in which case you have the Basic issue all over again, or a sort of one off module that basically says "you have been warned, we aren't going to aim content at working with this, but we've tested it and this should work for gridless combat." As I said above, combat that is 2x faster than it is now is probably going to satisfy a LOT of people that are unhappy with grids now. There are some people who just hate the whole concept of any kind of map at all and won't be happy, but there are limits to how big the tent can be... A gridless combat module would at least be something they could still consider. It is also overall worth considering what happens between now and 5e. Personally I don't believe there will be a 5e for a number of years yet. There could be a few things that could happen between now and then though. One would be some sort of semi-independent version of 4e, not a 4.5 really, but a game that is designed to work alongside 4e and IS compatible with it, but doesn't have to share elements with it, and can rework some of it. Essentials sort of tried to do this, but maybe what was needed was just a deeper and more radical application of that concept. Another option would be to break with the "edition nomenclature". Instead of creating "5e" simply create a companion game that IS 5e but isn't billed as a replacement for 4e. Both can continue to be supported for some period of time and this game could represent an experiment. If it simply works out to be a better game then eventually it simply replaces the existing one as a product. At the start it can be pretty limited, with say just a single softcover book. Heck, bill it right off as a potentially one-off product that might or might not get further support. If it is an interesting design I think it would sell well enough to be worth doing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore: Modular Madness
Top