My Homebrew ISN'T core (and neither is yours)

[sheadunne]

I read the core books as a novel. If it doesn't facilitate the telling of the story I want to read, I find another book. So yes, if the core books contain stuff that doesn't "feel" like the D&D story I want to tell, I'll find another that does. I don't have time to fiddle anymore. I already have fiddled stuff. And I'd rather not read LotR without the Frodo chapters just because I might not like them. I'd rather not read the books at all.

For some of us, we've already fiddled with an edition and got it good enough for our tellings. If we're to switched to 5e, it had better be at least as good as what we've done, because we ain't got the time or inclination to change things around anymore.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

If 5E doesn't have what I like and it's looking more and more like this is the case every day...I'll just go back to playing 4E or Pathfinder. Still plenty of people who want to play either of those.

The days of "hey guys just accept this edition or quit the hobby" are over folks. We have alternatives available now.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The only time people really worry about the rules, in a strict sense, is when they are trying to win an argument over the internet.

 

[amerigoV]

The only time people really worry about the rules, in a strict sense, is when they are trying to win an argument over the internet.

Or my character is about to die due to some dumb houserule. Then I'm pulling out my Core, baby!

(of course, I'll ignore all the times I abused the houserule).

 

[slobster]

The only time people really worry about the rules, in a strict sense, is when they are trying to win an argument over the internet.

When I am starting a new campaign (something I haven't done in too long, by the way), I sit down for a good long time and try to identify what feel I want the game to have. Basically I think of what genre it would be if it were a book. Then I look at systems I am familiar with, and figure out which one has mechanics that best reflect the genre conventions I am looking to reinforce, or occasionally subvert. Then I begin an iterative process of houseruling in/out things that are incompatible with my vision for the game, or are just plain broken.

When I am done I've spent a few tens of hours (including daydreaming time while driving and such) in a pretty good worry about the rules. What can I say, some of us actually enjoy this system design stuff .

 

[ExploderWizard]

How does this concern D&DN? It's my reaction to all the "DNDN MUST be my way or it's the highway" responses each new nugget of information about the system seems to engender.

Basically, grow up. D&D has always OFFICIALLY best supported a certain particular type of play style. But really, outside of Convention or Tournament play who plays exactly 100% by the RAW every moment of every session of every campaign? Computers, that's who.

Grow up? I don't wanna grow up I'm a Toys R Us kid.

A new set of core rules is just a product, and product that a great deal of the customer base has in one or more forms already. Telling a customer base that doesn't really need your new product to accept compromises and just buy it isn't a winning strategy.

Painting Guru Bob Ross says that when you buy your first tube of paint you get an artists licence that goes along with it that says you can put any world or vision on the canvas that you can imagine. Same goes for the D&D rulebooks also, I think.

Core isn't a bible (although many treat is as such.) Core IS a baseline, that's all. Core is a starting point, not the finish line. Should core be complete (to a point)? Yes. Should it work and have internal consistency? Again, yes. Should it be tailor written to apply to as small or niche-y an audience as possible? No. Should my assumptions about the game be the only ones taken into account in the creation of the core? No.

All very true. The only decision to make is which core to begin with? Logic dictates that you should choose the one that comes closest to the game you eventually want to end up with in the name of saving work. You choose a core that makes the fewest assumptions and incorporates the least amount of unwanted material for your dream game.

Core is Common Tongue. You may be an Elf, Giant, Gnome, Human, or even a sentient Bear and talk amongst yourselves in your own languages. But to get along in the world at large, you're going to need to speak at least a little Common Tongue. And seemingly translators are in short supply.

Dave

What world at large? The notion that everyone must use the same base rules proved false when AD&D was released and its still false now. There are many games out there with different core rules that satisfy the desires of various groups all with a D&D flavor. Some of them are not very far apart and some are worlds apart from a playstyle perspective but they are all valid cores to begin with.

If this new core comes closer than any other for the sort of game I want then I will adopt it right away. If not then it will be yet another game I might want to play but not run.

 

[slobster]

All very true. The only decision to make is which core to begin with? Logic dictates that you should choose the one that comes closest to the game you eventually want to end up with in the name of saving work. You choose a core that makes the fewest assumptions and incorporates the least amount of unwanted material for your dream game.

Logic suggests to me that you include more material than most groups will likely use in any particular game, with the understanding that this maximizes the total number of groups that could play their campaign straight from the core rulebooks. Cast a wide net, catch more fish, let people throw back the ones that aren't to their taste.

I might have been going a bit too far with the metaphor, but the point stands.

 

[Leatherhead]

But I like playing D&D video games (Granted, not as much as I enjoy the tabletop) and I have a strong suspicion that D&DN is going to have video games.

 

[pemerton]

The only time people really worry about the rules, in a strict sense, is when they are trying to win an argument over the internet.

From Burning Wheel Gold Edition, pp 73-74, 552:

Why roll at all? Why not just agree on what's happening? We're all fair-minded adults, right? Well, social agreement is a fantastic ideal, but its subject to bullying, blustering, intimidation, manipulation, cajoling, persuasion and lying: all things that are separate from the characters - part of a social dynamic that is apart from the game. By relying on the dice, everyone is on a level playing field. Burning Wheel is a game, not acting class. The versus test [= opposed check] gets everyone playing the game. . .

Roll, and you'll find that the dice in Burning Wheel actually support and bolster the players' actions - even if they fail! . . . I'm conficdent that the mechanics of this game drive dramatic, intense play. Roll the dice. You'll see. . .

As questions arise about detailed resolution, make a few notes and, after the game, start reading through the chapters [that set out the details of the action resolution mechanics]. . .

Use the mechanics! . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!​

I think this is evidence of a designer (Luke Crane) who has thought pretty hard about the play experience he wants his game to deliver, and is pretty confident that his game will deliver that experience. Now maybe he's wrong. Or maybe I don't want that sort of experience from an RPG. But I like it that he has the courage of his convictions. I like it that he believes in his rules, and is prepared to tell me "Follow these rules, invoke these rules in the course of play, and you'll drive the story forward into dramatic and intense play."

Gygax, in his PHB, promises a different experience, but he also has the courage of his convictions. I don't much care for the Gygaxian experience, but I like it that Gygax tells me what he thinks I will get from playing his game.

The comparison of Luke Crane (and BW) to Gygax (and AD&D) shows another thing, too, I think. In Gygaxian AD&D the finer details of the action resolution mechanics are to some extent secondary. Tweaking halberds so that they do 2d4 rather than 1d10 damage won't make a huge difference; nor will boosting all thief abilities by 5% across the board. Likewise changing the detect secret doors chance from 1 in 6 to 1 in 4, or down to 1 in 8, won't change the fundamental play of the game. The real shapers of the experience are found elsewhere - particularly in the interplay between the GM's design guidelines and the PC advancement rules. Change how XP is earned, how treasure is acquired, the basic free-form dynamics of the dungeoneering experience - now you're changing what it is the game delivers.

Whereas in BW, the action resolution mechanics in many ways are the PC advancement rules, and also drive the dynamics of play. Change them, and you change the game. And I think that's part of what Luke Crane is getting at.

Both Gygaxian AD&D and BW have a system; but the core of the AD&D system isn't the minutiae of its action resolution mechanics. Whereas the core of the BW system is those minutiae.

I think 4e is more like BW than AD&D in this respect. If D&Dnext is going to go back to the AD&D style, that's fine as far as it goes. But I hope they think it through, and write PC build rules and player/GM guidelines that suit that different sort of game.