Should 4th ed be point and level based?

[Vigilance]

Vigilance,

Just as a point of fact (insofar as facts can be applied here) - if sales figures are any indication, then you're dead wrong. White Wolf and SJG both come in consistently at #2 and #3 for their game sales, which comprise a good 40-60% of the remaining game market behind WotC for D&D. Both are point-based systems. While D&D has the majority (and likely will for quite some time), dismissing those who prefer point buy is misinformed at best.

Did I say point-buy systems are awful and no one played them and that they should be expunged from market? I ran GURPs and Hero for over a decade and have run and played M&M. They are good games. I never dismissed them, stop putting words in my mouth.

You keep insinuating (here and in the d20 Supers thread) that because I state a preference for classes that means I'm saying point-buy systems are teh suck. I'm not. Those are good games.

I said classes and levels are strengths of the D&D system are part of its appeal with its core audience, not a hindrance to it.

This is my opinion, but not only mine. Its shared by the majority of gamers that I meet, which is obviously subjective, but I have been gaming for 20+ years and writing RPGs professionally for almost 4.

Chuck

 

[Aus_Snow]

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

That's one perspective. Mine would be a little different.

I think it highly likely, especially given the many radical changes in 3rd ed (from all that went before), and given the high rate of both D&D stayers and new blood, that whoever the creators of a hypothetical 4th ed. are to be, whatever they decide to do to it will be accepted by and large, regardless. Brand name is a powerful thing, other factors aside.

Just because there are still a ton of sacred cows remaining in 3.x does not mean there will undeniably be a great number in 4th, either. Of course it's likely - that's a given. But who knows. I for one would like to see a lot less of them - and by that I mean I would like to see none that are there solely for the sake of 'nostalgia'. Blech. It would make a much better 'fantasy RPG to rule them all' if it actually focussed on being that to any great extent. IMO.



As for the OP, I wouldn't mind seeing the proposed model implemented. It's not pure point buy, or any of the other 'wacky' things being bandied about defensively. It also does make some sense, for the reasons stated. A good compromise for the base system, I think.

 

[theRogueRooster]

Did I say point-buy systems are awful and no one played them and that they should be expunged from market? I ran GURPs and Hero for over a decade and have run and played M&M. They are good games. I never dismissed them, stop putting words in my mouth.

You keep insinuating (here and in the d20 Supers thread) that because I state a preference for classes that means I'm saying point-buy systems are teh suck. I'm not. Those are good games.

I said classes and levels are strengths of the D&D system are part of its appeal with its core audience, not a hindrance to it.

This is my opinion, but not only mine. Its shared by the majority of gamers that I meet, which is obviously subjective, but I have been gaming for 20+ years and writing RPGs professionally for almost 4.

Chuck

Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't been following the d20 Supers thread) but I believe Jim Hague was simply responding to this quote of yours:

People who enjoy point-buy systems are the minority of the market in my experience.

There I said it. Flame on.

M&M and True20 have a devoted fan base and are good games, but the majority of the market LIKES classes. They LIKE archetypes and predefined roles.

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

Chuck

According to his data it would certainly appear that point-buyers are not as much a minority as one might think.

-tRR

 

[Vigilance]

According to his data it would certainly appear that point-buyers are not as much a minority as one might think.

If you're definition of "data" is unsubstantiated internet forum posting, then yeah his data is awesome.

And again, I did NOT say people who liked point-buy were some minority to be marginalized.

What I said was that one of the reasons D&D has excellent market share is that the game is well designed. One of the strengths of that design is the class and level system.

That's ALL I SAID.

Chuck

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Should 4th ed be point and level based?

No, no and no. By Crom, enough with the 4th Edition threads!

 

[Umbran]

According to his data it would certainly appear that point-buyers are not as much a minority as one might think.

Certainly? Mr. Hague has actually said nothing that tells us how large or small the minority is.

He says that WW and SJG come in at #2 and #3 in sales. Let us set aside for a minute that he gives no sources for that information, and that he doesn't say if that's in dollars or units, and a number of other questions we could ask about that datum. Let's accept it as gospel.

Then says the two of them make up (roughly, with wide margin of error, and again without source for the data) 50% of what WotC doesn't take. Again, let's accept that as gospel.

Until we know how much of the market WotC has, this tells us nothing. If WotC has half the market, then those other two have a total of 25%, and are non-negligible. If WotC has 90% of the market, then together they only have 5%, and can probably be safely ignored when considering market positioning.

Thus - Mr. Hague has yet to make us much wiser.

 

[Acid_crash]

I'm all for that and trying to tinker something together like that, based on True20.

I've always enjoyed games that combine level and point buy, like Rolemaster and Earthdawn. You get to decide more or less what you want to increase, level determines when you get to doit, by how much you can do it and what you can increase.

I think that a truly level and point buy d20 game would be heaven sent. So +1 BAB costs so many points, one feat that much, +1 save this and so on. Each multiple of one levels points would equal 1 CR. Sort of like GURPS d20
BESMd20 tried, but didn't do it for me. So now I'm tinkering...

Go to rpgnow and get the book 'Buy the Numbers' which does exactly what you are asking for. It's a really cool way to play D&D.

 

[Acid_crash]

When the 4e comes out, I want them to create the core system books as complete toolkit books.

* First, have your class and level system that most love which I don't.
* Second, have rules to turn the basic class/level system into a class/level system that uses character points to purchase abilities instead of just getting preset abilities/power.
* Third, have rules that are completely point based with no classes at all.

Me, I like Earthdawn. It does what I feel is the best way to handle levels and experience points. You have your Classes, each with unique abilities. You gain XP. You spend XP to increase your class abilities. Once so many of your class abilities meet a certain requirement, you can then gain your next level. Upon gaining your next level, you can gain new class abilities, all according on how you spend your XP. Of course the next rank always cost more XP than the previous, so it forced players to spend their XP wisely.

You get the class/level system, you get to spend your earned XP how you want on your abilities and skills, AND you get to customize which abilities you increase in power. You had to spend your XP to gain your next level, it wasn't just something you automaticaly got when you hit a special, certain number. It was the best combination of classes, levels, and spending character points in one system.

With this system, not all Fighters are the same, not all Barbarians would get the same Rage progression cuz one player might spend his XP in his Rage, and another might spend his XP on something else.

Another thing about Earthdawn was how they included Hit Points. Your HP did NOT increase automatically as you gain levels. You had to spend your earned XP to increase your HP rank.

If they would do something like this for D&D 4e, I'd be sold on D&D forever.

 

[theRogueRooster]

Certainly? Mr. Hague has actually said nothing that tells us how large or small the minority is.

He says that WW and SJG come in at #2 and #3 in sales. Let us set aside for a minute that he gives no sources for that information, and that he doesn't say if that's in dollars or units, and a number of other questions we could ask about that datum. Let's accept it as gospel.

Then says the two of them make up (roughly, with wide margin of error, and again without source for the data) 50% of what WotC doesn't take. Again, let's accept that as gospel.

Until we know how much of the market WotC has, this tells us nothing. If WotC has half the market, then those other two have a total of 25%, and are non-negligible. If WotC has 90% of the market, then together they only have 5%, and can probably be safely ignored when considering market positioning.

Thus - Mr. Hague has yet to make us much wiser.

The key phrase in my comment was "certainly appears." I made no claims to the veracity or completeness of his data, only that it appeared to me to mean a particular thing. And in that, you are right, and I didn't think it out as I normally would. Perhaps Mr. Hague can present us with his source.

But, darn it, I thought I was doing a good deed -- diffusing a potential argument by clearing up what appeared to be a miscommunication between Vigilance and Mr. Hague. Vigilance's comments made it sound like Mr. Hague was making assertions in his post that I certainly didn't get out of Mr. Hague's post, so I clarified. I didn't realize I was going to make myself a target of a highhanded grade school math lecture. Next time I'll just stay out of the middle.

-tRR

 

[Umbran]

But, darn it, I thought I was doing a good deed -- diffusing a potential argument by clearing up what appeared to be a miscommunication between Vigilance and Mr. Hague. Vigilance's comments made it sound like Mr. Hague was making assertions in his post that I certainly didn't get out of Mr. Hague's post, so I clarified. I didn't realize I was going to make myself a target of a highhanded grade school math lecture. Next time I'll just stay out of the middle.

My apologies if that's how it read to you. One man's "high handedness" is another's "being absolutely clear about the logic".