Non-D&D 4Ed

[scourger]

I, too, think the D&D brand has too much value for 4e not to have been marketed as the new version of the game. As a personal example, we tried 4e when it was new. Most of us have been playing since Basic or at least 1e. 4e wasn't to our taste, but we wouldn't have even tried it if it hadn't been the new D&D.

Now, we're having great fun with Gamma World, which is essentially a simplified 4e with a genre shift to post-apocalyptic science fiction. And, it carries the D&D brand. Luckily, many of the game concepts are familiar from years of d20 play and that little bit of 4e D&D exposure to allow us to play Gamma World pretty easily.

So, I would develop a non-D&D 4e along the lines of Gamma World: everything you need in a box. For that matter, I would like to see D&D developed that way; as the Ravenloft RPG announced at GenCon 2010 and cancelled at DDXP 2011 was supposed to be marketed. I even prepared a one-shot game with Gamma World for this week even though heretofore my preferred systems for such a game would have been Savage Worlds or Omega World d20.

Speaking of Savage Worlds, that is the way to develop a generic game. If I had to develop 4e as a generic game, I think that is the good way to do it. Make it simple and portable to any genre. Then, the core rules engine is transferrable to other games.

The more intersting question to me is, why would WotC want to market 4e as anything oither than (the new) D&D? It seems that the game has to be periodically re-released in new versions to remain viable--or for the company to do so. Plus, there really are some good developments in game design that make it more fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The more intersting question to me is, why would WotC want to market 4e as anything oither than (the new) D&D? It seems that the game has to be periodically re-released in new versions to remain viable--or for the company to do so. Plus, there really are some good developments in game design that make it more fun.

I'm not thinking about WotC.

I'm not a pro game designer, but like anyone else in the hobby, I do think about variants. And the fact is- even without the OGL- the fact that game rules are not copyrightable means that someone could release a 4Ed clone if they wanted to.

This thread is both a window into that possible future...and a possible catalyst.

 

[scourger]

...someone could release a 4Ed clone if they wanted to.

OK, why would someone want to do that? I went back & re-read the original post. I don't think a generic 4e would be more successful (or bigger) without the D&D brand. In fact, I think it would be much smaller if it existed at all. So, why would someone (anyone) want to do that? Other games are already available.

There are plenty of other games out there, including some that are generic or customizable. Savage Worlds is my favorite. I love to run it & play it. I would even like to try it for a D&D game. But, I wouldn't want it to replace D&D. D&D has its own special niche for fantasy gaming. WotC has done a great job of expanding it into Gamma World, and I hope they will develop more games like that; but I wouldn't want the D&D brand to go away or be generically developed.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

* Disclaimer: this is an opinion derived from observations made of the market and the Edition Wars...[/I]

You have an interesting opinion, but I think it's skewed by rearing too many forum wars.

Most D&D gamers play the edition they play 1) because it's the newest edition, and therefore the easiest to find a group for or 2) out of habit and familiarity. The comparative merits of an edition plays surprisingly little role in those who play; except for the those few of us who frequent D&D forums and actually read edition wars.

Yes, yes, this is also an opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK, why would someone want to do that?

Lots of reasons, most revolving around money.

But just picking one: 4Ed is highly unlikely to be the final edition of D&D. I daresay its design probably will not even be the final version of the mechanics. If this is true, and 4Ed is popular when it is put out to pasture, there will be a market that will spend money if catered to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You have an interesting opinion, but I think it's skewed by rearing too many forum wars.

Like I said, I didn't agree with their opinion of the game vis a vis D&D, but I thought their critique of the legacy issues had merit. Which made ME re-evaluate the game. And the more I thought about what the mechanics could do without legacy concerns, the more I agreed with them...on that point.

Most D&D gamers play the edition they play 1) because it's the newest edition, and therefore the easiest to find a group for...

IME, that rings 100% true of casual or new players, not so much the vets.

 

[Aldarc]

Do you think it would work with a True20 style class framework, with a few extremely customizable classes?

Danny, I'm curious as to your own thoughts on the question you posited above.

 

[LostSoul]

How would YOU do a non-D&D version of 4Ed?

If I understand correctly, I think I'm already doing that!

It's a pretty complicated system now (thanks to this little bit of feedback: "There has to be a clear currency.") but I'll try to sum it up.

[sblock]
PRE-PLAY
1. Create the setting before play begins; this includes a challenging setting with active threats, as well as custom skill lists and available classes and races
1a. I am only allowing PHB classes and races unless the PCs discover more through play
1b. I am allowing 1e-style multiclassing with Warlocks
2. Describe the setting to the players via rumours and an overview of the campaign, its genre, and general setting
3. Character creation; rolling 3d6 straight-up for stats (means you can't play a pre-set "build", that your character is never guaranteed to be anything except what you can get during play - this is a huge factor)
4. Players pick Goals for their characters; this is why you are adventuring, and unless you complete it you can't hit level 11
5. Players pick Quests for their characters; Quests are based on the setting, but can be of any difficulty level that's available

PLAY
1. The DM describes the setting and asks the players what their characters do
2. The players describe their actions, taking full use of any metagame knowledge they may have
3. The DM resolves their actions; if there is a conflict between characters, he determines how to resolve those

CONFLICT
When conflicts arise, the DM determines which sub-system to use (combat, social conflict, evasion & pursuit, wandering monsters, getting lost, etc.); the basics are presented below:
1. The players & DM describe the actions of their characters & NPCs
2. The DM determines the modifiers to the roll based on the descriptions of the actions; fictional details determine which skill modifiers are used, which stat modifiers are used (stats are no longer tied to specific skills)
3. The DM determines the DC based on the description of the action (powers are no longer hard-coded to use specific Defences)
4. The DM determines the outcome based on the rolls; binary results are rare, since both parties almost always have a chance to succeed and to fail (i.e. I succeed, you succeed; I fail, you fail; I succeed, you fail; I fail, you succeed)
5. Repeat until the conflict is resolved

REST & REFRESH
As the resources of PCs are depleted via conflict, they will need to rest to refresh them.
1. Daily Powers refresh based on class:
1a. Divine characters regain Daily Powers by performing a service to a community based on their god; or they sneak off, spend money on exotic drugs, and complete a secret rite
1b. Martial characters must "carouse"
1c. Wizards need time and seclusion
1d. Warlocks must do something specific, as determined by their pact ("Pact Obligation")
2. Healing surges return at a rate of 1 per day, and only in town
3. XP is only handed out to surviving members of the expedition once back in town

CHARACTER GROWTH
As PCs complete Quests and deal with Conflict, their characters change. Each option here takes about a week.
1. PCs must spend GP and time in order to level up
1a. Warlocks must only fulfil their pact obligation
1b. Divine characters and Wizards require ritual components
1c. Martial characters require NPC trainers and GP
2. Magic items may be built
3. Technological items may be built
4. New character components (Exploits, Prayers, Spells; Feats and Skills) may be researched
5. Character components may be swapped
6. XP can be gained
7. Attitudes in town can be influenced

NPC REACTION
Lairs and towns grow as NPCs react to the actions of the PCs.
1. GP or ritual components spent in a town change the town
1a. Towns can take on specialists, develop new buildings or fortifications, and attract new migrants
2. Actions taken by the PCs determine modifiers to a Reaction Roll to determine the town's disposition to the PCs
3. Similar to the above, there is an Authority Roll to determine the amount of sway the PCs hold in town
4. NPC actions modify a simple die roll to determine if an NPC settlement changes
4a. Towns increase/decrease in population, possibly changing their level
4b. Lairs increase/decrease in level, changing population

---

This is the Heroic Tier; I have only vague ideas about what will happen when PCs hit 11th level. That will have something to do with the Paragon Path chosen, long-term cycles of play (from seasons to years/decades), and kingdoms.[/sblock]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I'm curious as to your own thoughts on the question you posited above.

I think that 4Ed's engine could work very well with 2-6 flexible base classes, with the skill/feats/powers doing the heavy differentiation work. Perhaps a menu like "choose a class feature" would be added in addition to ensure this flexibility.

Just off the top of my head, each class has 2-3 unique features. Rank 'em, sort 'em, then let players choose which they want for their PC, one from Column "A," one from Column "B." Imagine an unarmed martial "controller" who had the Shadow Walk of the Warlock class, for instance, using grapple/lock/throw techniques to put enemies at a disadvantage while being evasive...

 

[SSquirrel]

It wasn't my intent to imply they were launched when WotC owned D&D- I know better than that.

However, both product lines were cancelled after the acquisition, and there was a press release to the effect that WotC didn't have the resources to manage both D&D and another RPG.

Been away from this thread for a few days. Actually Danny you're getting your years confused. December 1995 was when WotC dropped their RPGs. They were publishing The Primal Order, Talislanta, Ars Magica and Everway and Everway was drastically overprinted. They never made a dime on ANY of those. A Brief History of Game #1: Wizards of the Coast: 1990-Present - RPGnet

Do you think it would work with a True20 style class framework, with a few extremely customizable classes?

I'm not really all that familiar w/True20, so I can't speak to this very well. I did spend a lot of time a few years back on a thread started by DrSpunj where he took 3.x and Arcana Evolved and turned them both into point buy. Flexibility is always a good thing. I think that if they did they would provide the core True20 classes and all the options to make your own then provide their view of the classes as templates. You could build the same thing yourself, but to save the time, here is the basic version of all these classes. DrSpunj did the same for all the core 3.x and AE classes on that old thread and it worked nicely.

Looked it up, here is the system: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/82858-drspunjs-class-balance-spreadsheet.html