Semi-pointless Edition Wishlist

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
I DM 4E and I like it fine. But sometimes I think, what if I did something I liked better. Instead of wasting a lot of time on that, I wasted less and did this list.

Roughly ordered from most general/important to less general/important. Roughly.

Its D&D: races, classes, levels, hp, damage avoidance, paladins, holy avengers, gnomes, orcs, Orcus…those common elements are there.

Clear to the core: Baroque mechanics, as much charm as you may have, I don’t want you. I haven’t wanted you for a long time. Sorry. The core mechanics should be as slick as they can be to do what needs to be done.

And none shall dominate another: It may be the hobgoblin of my little mind, but I want balance. No class, race, or other major player option should be lousy in general or over a relevant range of levels. If its there, then a “reasonable” player should want to take it, at least under some set of reasonable circumstances.

Deflation: numbers have tended to go up and up. Though a dagger still does d4 damage (which use to hurt way, way, back when). In part just to simplify arithmetic, I would like hps, bonuses, defenses to all be trimmed back.

The right numbers: not only smaller, but correct. A small thing to ask, but apparently hard to do.

The right power curve: Yes, low level characters in old editions were made to die, and high level ones (with the right, and enough, magic and spells) may approach unplayable godliness, but 4E may have gone too far in the other direction by starting the “mid level” at 1 and continuing it will into the double digits. Would like something in between that approached the just better then a peasant to lordly lord of old editions.

Enough levels and no more: This follows from the previous three, but I never needed 20 levels, and don’t need 30. My own experience is that leveling is a discrete act that players can put too much time and thought into and just get stuck on, so if it happens too often it is a problem. Rarely leveling however is also a problem. 12-18 is probably good. If there is such a level cap however, this has to be reflected in the world…ie 12 level characters should be able to hang around with Demogorgon for at least a few rounds.

Enough random and no more: I am not playing chess, or even Amber. I want to roll those dice and have the results matter. But I don’t want dice to result in wildly divergent starting characters or lead an “average” combat to end in 2 rounds. I don’t want single rolls destroying characters. But I do want the chance of a single attack really hurting them, or just scratching them.

Enough time in game, not too much in my life: In game, expeditions may take many days, and the campaign months or even years. In real life, single combats should not feel like they take days, and adventures should not take many, many, many (many) precious hours. Just enough.

Assume I am 14 and sober, or 40 and not: All of the above should add up to less complicated. And that should be the guide for what follows.

Fighting, but not just: I have been using battle mats and running a tactical game for many years, years before 3E. I obviously like this sort of thing. But its not the only thing. Skills are good, tricks are good, traps are good, RP is good. Exploration is really good. And pacing is good. Mixing it up is good.

The old familiar places: Similarly, dungeon, wilderness, city, the occasional planar jump, all should be there.

Optional options: Bring the options, cover all the bases. If it was there 20 years ago and people liked it, then some version of it can be there now. And not just PC options, but optional rules and things for the DM. Then take a breath. Slow down. Think about spell 556 or feat 1235. Maybe it can wait.

Friends: Hirelings, henchmen, pets, conjured thingys, potential allies in the adventure zone…all this is good, as long as it doesn’t violate the “time” or “simple” aspirations.

As you level, things change: Again, following from the above, leveling should bring change, and not just in the AC and HP of the opponent. I have only really had one campaign were the characters eventually had a stronghold, followers, political responsibilities, etc, but it was pretty cool.

The items you seek: Magic items have to strike that balance between utility and wonder that can be elusive in practice (remember, this is a wish list).

The monsters you meet: They may be friends or foe. But there numbers need to be right, and what they do needs to be clear to the DM. They should be able to do some things, but not everything. More then a line of stats and less than half a page (most of which is ignored by the harried DM).

The rest you take: Really a corollary of some of the above (and not as important, hence down the list), but no, pcs shouldn’t always rest X hours (or days) after every combat. Yes, this has resource management and healing implications. Then again, they may take a day, a week, a month, or a year off every now and again.

Magic Missile and Flame strike: The classic spells are present and front and center. But not game breaking, rules referencing, resource/condition/time tracking pains in the backside. (still, a wish list)

Disarms and Hard Hits: They may be maneuvers, powers, stunts, something, but “non-magic” butt-kicking needs to be there.

Polearms and platemail: Able to handles a variety of weapons and armor with interesting tradeoffs, some connection to reality, yet not too complicated. (and still, this is a wish list).

It’s a common game, but a particular world (mine) : Bring the flavor, but don’t hardwire some “world” into the core. You can sell it separately.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I pretty much agree with all that.

The one I'm saddest about there not being in D&D is the "a knife still hurts you" issue. I read the 'red box hack' (a retooling of 1e with some 4e mentality), and it amazed me that an average hit does 1 or 2 damage, and an average monster has 5 hit points. Why do we need to have such big numbers?
 

I pretty much agree with all that.

The one I'm saddest about there not being in D&D is the "a knife still hurts you" issue. I read the 'red box hack' (a retooling of 1e with some 4e mentality), and it amazed me that an average hit does 1 or 2 damage, and an average monster has 5 hit points. Why do we need to have such big numbers?

The main thing that having big numbers gets you is some ability to have fine-grained adjustments. So, for instance, you can have multiple circumstances or abilities that add +1 to the damage of a knife without drastically changing how quickly someone drops from it.

Unfortunately most instances of number inflation tend to leave the low end really, really low and assume that everyone has big modifiers without actually ensuring that.

And that's why we end up with scenarios where murdering someone with a dagger becomes an impossibility within the rules.

Well, except that in 4e they're either a highly trained combatant, unlikely to be defeated by a mere dagger in the hands of an amateur, or they're a non-combatant minion at which point it works out pretty well even when the party wizard decides to do them in. It just relies on a DM to appropriately arbitrate which scenario is which.
 

Thanks everyone for the nice comments. Maybe its only a little pointless.

As for the dagger, in OD&D we went from (as noted recently on DDI) Orcus slapping you for 1d4 damage to, by the mid 80s, semi-noncombatants doing more damage with sticks and frying pans.

I guess in 4E, a rogue sneak attacking with a daily could mess you up with a dagger...but its not easy, and even that big attack might not bloody the target.
 

The one I'm saddest about there not being in D&D is the "a knife still hurts you" issue.

I'm experiencing some of that myself with my own house rules. While I think I've avoided some of the grosser number inflation of late 3.5 and 4e, my own solutions have exaggerated the old 'hunter and deer' problem.

The hunter and deer problem is the lesser known twin of 'farmer and housecat'. The farmer and the housecat problem is the well known problem that, if daggers are dangerous to a commoner, then the farmer's own housecat is a serious threat not just to the rats but to the farmer himself. The 'farmer and housecat' problem has to do with the low granularity of traditional D&D. It's very hard to simulate attacks doing less than 1 damage, and if starting characters have close to 1 hit point, then how many hit points should a wasp have?

My own rules largely fix the 'farmer and housecat' problem by increasing the granularity of the game at low levels. Simply put, the farmer gets a bonus to his hit points on account of his size, that is much larger than the housecat's bonus from a smaller size. Also, the farmer does not consider the housecat's size fine claws to be deadly weapons. The cat can easily dispatch a mouse with a pounce, but must make a lucky attack to do damage to such a large creature. All well and good.

But the other problem that D&D has always had is, if an arrow does 1d6 damage and a typical beast has 1d8 or even 2d8 hit points, how does a common hunter manage to bag game when the expectation is that an arrow will not on average kill its target? Now, I know a bit about real life bow hunting, so I know that outside of pointblank range you don't actually expect an arrow to kill an adult deer immediately, but you do expect that such a creature struck well has at least a good chance of bleeding to death. But, if we resolve the farmer and the house cat problem, we quickly find that the previously minor problem of hunter and deer becomes a major one. Now, the hunter cannot slay a deer at all (even if just by bleeding it to death) without a better than average critical hit.

Some of you of a non-simulationist bent may be thinking, "Who cares? NPC's and PC's don't use the same rules. Just hand wave the appropriate results in these cases!" And that's fine as far as it goes, but the point of describing these problems isn't that you are expecting to run alot of 'house cat vs. commoner combats' or simulations of a hunter gather economy. The point is that the scenario highlights an issue that does in fact impact the PC's.

In the case of 'housecat vs. commoner', the issue is that low level PC's under stock rules are scarsely less fragile than the commoner and so subject to death from the same sort of minor foes. In the case of 'hunter vs. deer', the problem is that any ablative defense which protects the PCs from random death also has the effect of making combats longer without necessarily increasing the interest thereof.

I'm personally not sure what to do. I've solved a huge number of problems. My current house rules are making for some of the easiest DMing I've ever had - the balance is great, the threat of death is there but random deaths are so far nonexistant, the combat is epic and flavorful even at 1st level, and it yet doesn't seem to drag that much - but I can't help but worry abit about the fact that it takes on average 3 arrows to bring a goblin down (and even then, he's not dead, just staggering, bleeding out, a probably unconscious). Don't ask about zombies. I could up the damage dealt by weapons, but that would seem to undermine the successes thus far. I could put NPC's on different rules than PC's, but I remember from my 1e days that that being one of the biggest headaches. I'm currently just shrugging my shoulders and accepting that no rule set is perfect.
 

The main thing that having big numbers gets you is some ability to have fine-grained adjustments. So, for instance, you can have multiple circumstances or abilities that add +1 to the damage of a knife without drastically changing how quickly someone drops from it.

So why do we adjust it at all if we simply nullify the effect on the other end?
 

I applaud you but I feel like someone from WotC will just say "We tried to give you everything on your list and 4e is what we came up with!"
 

TerraDave: I feel your pain, but if I were a designer, I'd read something like that and feel like you'd told me nothing. I have no idea what would please you, and no idea where to start.

What does that all mean?

Some of that seems to me to be contridictory desires. On the other hand, you don't want 'baroque mechanics', but you want a system that resolves 'maneuvers, powers, and stunts'. That to me is like asking for no subsystems and subsystems at the same time. The same thing holds true if you want 'things to change'. If you want to bring about mechanical change over time at all, it means having somewhat 'baroque mechanics' in some form. Change comes about from non-linearity, and that means either non-linear tables, complex math, or subsystems. Any of them can add time to conflict resolution, but IMO the more baroque the mechanics are the less complexity they add in the long run. Tables are extremely baroque, but they can be memorized and as long as they don't do multiple cross-references and can be kept handy are quick look ups. Sub-systems are even more baroque because its like changing rulesets when you change situations, but they also can be learned over time and more importantly they don't universally impinge on the system.

Honestly, looking at your whole list, it strikes me that you'd be most happy with a cleaned up, streamlined version of 1st edition. The post strikes me as somewhat motivated by nostalgia. If its not just somewhat motivated by such, and if in fact that's all it is, let me tell you that your nostalgia while understable is misplaced. I loved playing/running 1e, but there were so many times it just made me want to pull my hair out I'd never play it without a huge rewrite. I'd rather rewrite 3e. I suppose I could just make an original game, but the amount of work involved is daunting, and frankly I'm not sure where I'd start and don't have a clear picture of what it should look like in the end.
 

C & Z

It is a wishlist.

Maybe I want a streamlined combination of 1E and 4E…a really punched up B/X.

For 4E, its close in some ways…but the numbers (especially hp and max levels) are a little big, and they keep changing them (!?). Power curve is too flat, and not enough variety across levels, combat could use a little more swing and speed, some things still a little too fiddly then I like (remember, not sober), way too many marginal options now, friends only get so so support (though that has gotten better), items not quite there (though I know why they made the changes they did), monsters…almost…almost, classic spells and maneuvers are there, but a little lost in the power wave, default world built into the system.

A “streamlined” 1E would obviously solve many of that systems problems, and many have tried (B/X, C&C, BFRP and to a lesser extent some of the other clones, and of course 3E). If it is closer to 1E, you still have balance issues, number issues, too steep a power curve, probably too much swing, mixed support for non-combat stuff (and this gets into how you streamline), options, who knows, again depends on what variant we are talking about (core 1E too little outside spells), monsters might be too simple or sort of a mess, again depending, rest and pacing, again, really depends, may be no real maneuver/power/stunt system or not one that really works.

But I can see it, shimmering in the distance.
 

I Only Have Three Edition Wishes...

I wish that...

1. ...More gamers would take it upon themselves to be creative, rather than relying on the latest edition or splatebook to provide the creativity (and then complaining about it).

2. ...More gamers realize that change is inevitable and be open-minded to at least try new editions, instead of putting editions before friendship and camraderie at the gaming table.

And, finally, but most important...


3. ...gamers would judge an edition not by the content of its rules, but by the character of the Dungeon Master running said edition and the fellow players at the table.
 

Remove ads

Top