Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5744813" data-attributes="member: 54877">Not bad, though I agree with pemerton's objection that there is nothing particular advanced about the simulationist/immersionist approach, compared to other styles. Taking into account some of those crunch game design challenges, I'd divide it up: D&D Core- simple, basic rules that are the foundation (think RC/BECMI, but modernized)- sandbox default here, with default world to support it D&D Legends- add narrativist support to the core D&D Lore- add simulationist support to the core Pathfinder doesn't have a lock on simulation. They have a near lock on story-based (i.e. not sandbox) variations on adventures, and the rules that go with them, with a D&D gloss.  So the answer to the question of where WotC can go to be unique is to do sandbox well. This will have a few ancillary benefits besides the main one of focusing on something and doing it well: 1. No one else really does sandbox well. Doing it well means teaching how to do it, too, and building materials to support it. 2. Sandbox naturally lends itself to both narrative, simulation, and pure gamist approaches, or with a dash of some of each, if you prefer. 3. Some of the older gamers will appreciate some of the source materials even if they don't like any of the three system choices. It is true that well-designed rules for the Lore crowd will take significantly more page count than well-designed rules for the Legends crowd. But that's just another supplement or two that can be sold to those that want it. Meanwhile, all three will want monsters and magic items and such, and that is not impossible to design in such a way that all three can appreciate the same materials. (You'll have to get clever with how you include the simulation elements in the monsters/magic entries, but it can be done.)</blockquote>

Verification