Semi-pointless Edition Wishlist

[Aus_Snow]

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).

The "creativity" present (or otherwise) in any edition of D&D is hardly the only thing one might (or, indeed, might choose not to) critique or take issue with. I do not believe for a second that "relying on splatbooks for creativity" (to paraphrase) rates even noticeably, let alone highly, on the list of reasons why people tend to dislike a particular game (whichever that happens to be).

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.

Change (of that kind) is not inevitable in the slightest. Anyone in the world, who has access to any given edition of any given RPG, can choose to play that edition of that RPG, other editions be damned. Whether that's down to preference, budget, or whatever else, that's freedom for ya, like it or lump it. Inevitable? *snort*

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.

Nope. Editions should be judged as what they are: games. Judging DMs and players, if it comes to that, is - and should be! - an entirely separate issue.

 

[BryonD]

Nope. Editions should be judged as what they are: games. Judging DMs and players, if it comes to that, is - and should be! - an entirely separate issue.

Exactly. A good DM and a good group is not just a goal, it is a prerequisite.
Once that is established, lets talk about which game is best for the group to play.

 

[TerraDave]

Ulrick, I agree, its good when people are not jerks, and its nice when they are creative.

Hopefully we can be creative and friendly enough to note our general edition preferences. I was going to say "or critique an edition", but actually ENWorlders (and everyone else on the internet) seem to have a harder time doing that in a friendly way.

 

[Celebrim]

Hopefully we can be creative and friendly enough to note our general edition preferences. I was going to say "or critique an edition", but actually ENWorlders (and everyone else on the internet) seem to have a harder time doing that in a friendly way.

Most of what is on your list is edition and rules set independent. This is especially true of the second half. Most of it is the outcome of good DMing and will be missing regardless of edition when that skill in setting design, encounter design, adventure design, and so forth is missing.

Any edition which fails to give good guidance to DMs in the form of examples of excellent design is going to fail in the long run. Older DMs will gravitate to systems where they see in print clear examples that the system supports complex mature adventures. This is almost rules independent. A bad system with good adventures will attract experienced DMs because in many cases rules are relatively easy to fix to achieve a result. Worse come to worse, you can toss the system out the window and pick up another one. Newer DMs become successful DMs by running other peoples adventures, learning from them, emmulating the style of what their player's enjoyed, and gradually developing their own style. That doesn't happen as often when the system, however good the rules set, doesn't light the way.

One big mistake a rules designer can make is thinking that he can solve issues of game mastery and adventure design with rules design alone. No rules set is so good that encounter design and adventure design are rendered purely mechanical issues. You can provide guidelines, but if you don't provide examples of play, then you haven't provided much. If you only provide mechanical examples, then you haven't provided anything. Another related mistake I see in some games is a system with great flavor and great mechanics, but where it is clear that the designer has stopped at that and never seriously thought about how his game looks like in play. Or if he has thought about it, it's a secret known only to him and which cannot be divined from the text. In that case, the designer should have spent less time making a 'tight' rules set and more time communicating the real mystery of his game, which is, how he himself runs it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

I resolved this problem with a "Get the Drop" mechanic, which is OGC.


RC

 

[TerraDave]

sneak attack for everyone (?)

 

[TerraDave]

Most of what is on your list is edition and rules set independent.

Not really agreeing on this. A good GM can do a lot, but I see everything on the list having a pretty clear link to the "core book(s)" in one way or another. E.g. the GM can pretty much do what ever he wants in terms of advesaries, but if a by the book monster or npc has a high level of cross referencing or head scratching to play value, it fails the above criteria.

One big mistake a rules designer can make is thinking that he can solve issues of game mastery and adventure design with rules design alone. No rules set is so good that encounter design and adventure design are rendered purely mechanical issues. You can provide guidelines, but if you don't provide examples of play, then you haven't provided much. If you only provide mechanical examples, then you haven't provided anything. Another related mistake I see in some games is a system with great flavor and great mechanics, but where it is clear that the designer has stopped at that and never seriously thought about how his game looks like in play. Or if he has thought about it, it's a secret known only to him and which cannot be divined from the text. In that case, the designer should have spent less time making a 'tight' rules set and more time communicating the real mystery of his game, which is, how he himself runs it.

This on the other hand, I completely, 95% agree with. In fact, I should add it to the list!

I am well aware of those games in those genres were I find myself thinking "this is cool, but I don't know how to really GM this". One clear advantage D&D has had all these years is that the basic approach to playing is pretty straight forward. A better example might be Call of Cthulu, a game very dependent on a particular approach to play (solving the mystery that you reall shouldn't) that was (is) well supported.

My only 5% disagreement comes from people coming up with cool things because of gaps or opaqueness in a rules set.