Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 2400742" data-attributes="member: 2268">The aspects I prefer from a ruleset for a roleplaying game...hmmm, lets see if I can break it down by keywords.Archetypes: Archetypes are good in that they provide a firm concept a player can wrap his mind around easily and run with it for as long as he wants. So yes, I like archetypes, or classes. A class-based system makes character creation faster, on the average, too, because a player doesn't have to decide on what he wants his character to look like character point by character point, but can take a package as a base.Customization: Being able to customize a class/archetype so the result will stand out from others of the same class is a damn nice feature. But I'd love it if the designers chose to stick to one set of tools, and worked with them, instead of inventing more and more new ways of customization. When I first read D&D 3E, I loved the thought of feats and a fixed skill system. The fact that there were only so many feats and skill points made it a part of the class, not an overpowering factor. Prestige classes were a cool concept if a DM chose to allow them, and the streamlined multiclassing rules were just plain great. Now, after 5 years, seeing the glut of additional options to customize a character, with the last being racial replacement levels or whatever they are called, I've got the impression people are simply spending more of their time modifying a character than actually playing it. As I say, just my impression, but I don't want a "Pimp My PC" game. One robust system of customization, and stick with it.Rules simplicity: D&D is simple. Roll a d20, add and subtract modifiers, and compare to DC. Done. I'd still prefer it being "all modifiers stack" or "modifiers overlap", for the simple reason that it would be much less bookkeeping, and would be less of a temptation for game designers to invent just another kind of bonus so their boni stack with everything else too. Case in point: Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook. Psychic boni all over the place, where you could have worked with deflection boni, or other already established ones. But no, then they wouldn't stack, so there has to be a new kind. An "all boni stack" rule works across the table after all, for PCs and NPCs, so it would even out in the end, too. And mean less bookkeeping. All that would be necessary is an adjustment in DC calculation.Rules detail: Do we need a specific rule for every kind of detail that could happen during a game? Or could we do with a more general set of rules that gives the DM a firm grip on how to adjudicate situations and how to calculate a quick DC that is fairly consistent without having to check a table in the skill description, check how that is modified by a feat or spell effect, and then wonder why the other players are busy counting Doritos? I'm in favour for a rules system that doesn't try to cover every tiny detail out of the box, but gives a DM a strong support in learning how to tackle most situations with the included general ruleset, and how to stay consistent with those decisions. No more discussions that include arguments like "No you can't do that, it doesn't say so in the description, and the description includes everything you can do with that, so if it's not there, you can't do it." Give players and DMs a little more room for creativity, please, and the rules to support it.Multi-genre rules: No thanks. I'm one of those weird geezers who firmly believes that every game is fitting for the style of play it was invented for. Sure, there are grey shades around it, but if I want to play L5R, I'll use the d10 rules, because they fit much better, and if I want to play Shadowrun, I'll reach for my d6 dicebag. D&D was created with a certain kind of game in mind, and it does that one best. Yes, I like the flexibility d20 has brought to it, the different magic systems, the choices I have in campaign worlds, etc. I don't play d20 Modern, Supers, Ancient Times or Future, and I don't know how they work, but I say if you want to represent another genre with D&D, just don't. D&D is fantasy, and works best within those confines, because that's what it was made for.As a sidenote, I'm consciously separating D&D a bit from d20, in case it didn't come over so far.Modularity/Options: I love options. As long as they don't float in a vacuum. I love prestige classes, as long as they have a good background description. I love different magic systems, as long as they fit with some part of the game world, or another. I hate options that are simply tacked on to sell more books. Especially redundant options that could have been taken from another source, but had to be redone to put another twist on the same principle. Same goes for new base classes that are there just for the sake of being different. If you got a campaign world, by all means, adapt the current stuff to the flavour, and add some fitting options, but don't just throw out silly feats, prestige classes or new customizing rules for the laugh of it. And while we're at it, label the stuff clearly as options. And clearly state that the inclusion in any game is a matter of DM approval, not the WotC stamp of approval.I think that covers some of the bases, even if I don't know how understandable it is.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> I hope you'll forgive me if it's just all rambling to you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification