New Ruleset?

[Treebore]

Greywulf,

Microlite is looking pretty slick. I'll have to keep an eye on your stuff, because it is very easy to use with C&C. Even your stat blocks look like C&C, and OSRIC for that matter.

 

[kaomera]

The questions I have is, would anyone be interested in this?

I'd be very interested in taking a look at what you come up with. I've been screwing around with taking OSRIC and adding in some stuff from the SRD, myself... I'm currently at the "hit it repeatedly with a big hammer until it is no longer obviously completely unplayable" stage...

I have to say: The one thing I really miss from AD&D in 3.x is the basic framework of the initiative / actions system (ie: declare / move / attack). Mind you, pretty much all of the (fairly few) problems I have had with the 3.x initiative model have not in any way been rules-related...

 

[greywulf]

Microlite is looking pretty slick. I'll have to keep an eye on your stuff, because it is very easy to use with C&C. Even your stat blocks look like C&C, and OSRIC for that matter.

I thought it might appeal. Feel free to beg, borrow or steal anything you like

 

[RFisher]

It certainly sounds like an interesting read.

FWIW, I think it's perfectly possible to combine 3e-style PCs with 1e-style monsters. Just because PCs have feats & skills doesn't mean that the monsters have to have feats & skills. Or that they have to have as many as a PC of equivalent level/HD. It might make it harder to find the balance, but there's no reason it couldn't work.

I'm afraid putting together the bits of the two systems that you like (no objective point of view is available to pick the unambiguous strengths) sounds like a fantasy heartbreaker.

Of course, I count that as a positive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*cough* Microlite20 *cough*

A little too simple for my tastes, I am afraid, but I have had the thread subscribed since I found it. Mircolite20 is very, very interesting stuff.

 

[Umbran]

FWIW, I think it's perfectly possible to combine 3e-style PCs with 1e-style monsters. Just because PCs have feats & skills doesn't mean that the monsters have to have feats & skills.

Monsters are going to want to take actions other than claw/claw/bite. You need to have something to ajudicate how well it climbs a wall, or jumps, or hides, or tracks, or the like.

And I suppose you can get rid of their feats, but then compared to the PCs, they are going to be tactically limited, and kind of boring to fight against - if the monsters never pull rabbits out of their hats, they aren't entertaining opponents, right?

I don't see that taking monsters as given in the book is terribly rough. Just take the stat block as it stands, and you're done. It seems to me that it is altering the monsters that can get nasty, because you're not handling as the PC does, a little bit at a time.

 

[Wystan]

I like your prior work, I would be interested.

 

[Modoc]

I would be interested to see how this turns out. I for one am not overly invested into d20 yet. I play and run 2 or 3 3.5e games, but I am an older gamer and have an interest in a variety of other (older) systems that used to be good in thier day.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I suppose you can get rid of their feats, but then compared to the PCs, they are going to be tactically limited, and kind of boring to fight against - if the monsters never pull rabbits out of their hats, they aren't entertaining opponents, right?

Actually, that is one of the biggest differences between what 3e does well and what I want from a game.

In 3e, the default assumption seems to be (to me at least) that the setting is a backdrop in which conflict with monsters (or villians, primary conflict) takes place.

In 1e, the default assumption seemed to be (again to me) that the monsters were there as expressions of the PC's conflict with the setting (primary conflict).

IOW, 3e is about beating the Frost Giant Jarl, but 1e was about beating the Glacial Rift. Which may explain why megasettings were popular in 1e but not so much in 3e.....Whereas Campaign Paths featuring the same villian's mechanations are more popular in 3e than in 1e.

Again, IMHO.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Actually, that is one of the biggest differences between what 3e does well and what I want from a game.

I don't quite see how that follows from what I wrote - whoever the overall antagonist is, each fight ought to be tactically interesting, no? But anyway....

In 3e, the default assumption seems to be (to me at least) that the setting is a backdrop in which conflict with monsters (or villians, primary conflict) takes place.

In 1e, the default assumption seemed to be (again to me) that the monsters were there as expressions of the PC's conflict with the setting (primary conflict).

In my experience, the 1e primary conflict was not against the setting as a whole. It was, perhaps, against a given dungeon. But I don't think that has anything at all to do with the rule-structure. It had everything to do with our playstyle - we were young, and our primary mode of playing was "buy dungeon module, play module, buy next module". The major question facing the characters was "have we finished this module" - which implies that beating the module was the real goal, and thus the module was the antagonist.

But that has little to do with the rules.