Clint_L
Legend
The people I started playing with went from OD&D to AD&D, and I joined as that transition was wrapping up. I had the Basic game as a gift, but we saw it as an oddity, along with the two follow-up sets. There were quite a few kicking around because they were the kind of things you got as gifts from older relatives who heard you were into D&D. But we never actually played them because we were already playing AD&D, and we saw those sets as not real D&D.
So my late game experience was different. We typically got to around 10-11 level, which meant we had followers per the rules and I think I once claimed a stronghold? Can't remember. I do remember that my ranger got lucky and rolled a Storm Giant follower, which was cool, but we didn't know what to do with it, so those rules mostly were just fun little tables that you rolled on and then went back to questing.
Do I think that aspect of gameplay should be a focus of the core rules? No, way too idiosyncratic. But OneD&D isn't like some big watershed moment where the game will transform, so it would make sense to do that kind of campaign outline as a supplementary adventure. I think the risk is that it dilutes the brand and tries to make an RPG into a sort of half-assed war game or strategy game that doesn't work very well (c.f. AD&D's attempt). Maybe a better solution would be for WotC to create an actual war game or strategy game that does not try to be part of D&D but uses the IP and can be tied into campaigns. That way it wouldn't be tied to RPG-oriented rules (i.e. the d20 system) and could be its own thing.
Edit: In re-reading the OP, maybe you are describing more transitioning from role-playing being about individual and party quests and more about statecraft and stuff? Maybe that could be in a DM's Guide that included more information about different styles of campaign? I've never had players who wanted to go in that direction so I haven't thought about it much. Or, since you write that the Companions guide still works, do an updated version of that. As its own thing, not in the core rules.
So my late game experience was different. We typically got to around 10-11 level, which meant we had followers per the rules and I think I once claimed a stronghold? Can't remember. I do remember that my ranger got lucky and rolled a Storm Giant follower, which was cool, but we didn't know what to do with it, so those rules mostly were just fun little tables that you rolled on and then went back to questing.
Do I think that aspect of gameplay should be a focus of the core rules? No, way too idiosyncratic. But OneD&D isn't like some big watershed moment where the game will transform, so it would make sense to do that kind of campaign outline as a supplementary adventure. I think the risk is that it dilutes the brand and tries to make an RPG into a sort of half-assed war game or strategy game that doesn't work very well (c.f. AD&D's attempt). Maybe a better solution would be for WotC to create an actual war game or strategy game that does not try to be part of D&D but uses the IP and can be tied into campaigns. That way it wouldn't be tied to RPG-oriented rules (i.e. the d20 system) and could be its own thing.
Edit: In re-reading the OP, maybe you are describing more transitioning from role-playing being about individual and party quests and more about statecraft and stuff? Maybe that could be in a DM's Guide that included more information about different styles of campaign? I've never had players who wanted to go in that direction so I haven't thought about it much. Or, since you write that the Companions guide still works, do an updated version of that. As its own thing, not in the core rules.
Last edited:
