Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5026869" data-attributes="member: 80487">There might still be "too many D&Disms" for you -- at any rate, the name Dungeons & Dragons is still on the covers.][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][As to "an "alternate Dungeons & Dragons" rules set that combines the best of every edition", I would suggest that it is a personal thing! Dave Hargrave's The Arduin Grimoire is different from Chis Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game is different from Matthew Finch's Swords & Wizardry is different from the Troll Lords' Castles & Crusades is different from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved is different from Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes is different from Erik Mona's Pathfinder ...So, I think the first The Good would be:It is YOUR game! The scope is limited only by your imagination, and any "rule" is just an example of what made sense to someone sometime.Trying to be all things to everyone is likely to rack up more The Bad the more you follow the path of tight coupling and front-loading as in WotC's games. Everyone does not like everything, so, "Here's the stew; pick out whatever it is that gives you hives" is not so great.It would sort of hard simultaneously to emulate the 3E "throw out your old material and start all over" and the 4E "throw out your old material and start all over", wouldn't it? The essence of each is to make the old "obsolete".The only way I think you can really combine the significantly different games is the way it was done originally: with a simple base set and supplements of optional components without a lot of interdependencies. Think modular, not monolithic!The temptation from a commercial standpoint is to make each supplement a "must buy" for as many players as possible. Unless you're WotC or Paizo, though, I don't think you're looking at much money in this.If you put the players' interests first, then more narrowly targeted, and probably smaller, supplements seem meet.When you get into mixing and matching for your base set, you'll need to sort out some fundamental concepts. For instance ... You know the saying that 3E breaks down at high levels? Well, so do 2E and 1E. The Original set had magic-user spells only up to 6th level (vs. 9th), only 5th (vs. 7th) for clerics; the combat table topped out around 16th level, the saving throws at 13th for clerics and fighters; data on experience points, hit dice and spell casting likewise petered out. Magic weapons and armor were pretty much limited to +3 -- albeit in a context in which a top-level fighter had only +12 versus a first-level character (and AC did not likewise change, so hits became very frequent indeed, keeping high-hit-point fights from dragging on too long).Now, here's an interesting point: The high-level stuff added in Supplement I was meant mainly to provide NPCs able (even single-handedly) to take on PC parties, villains with powers appropriate to world-shaking threats. Top PCs in the Greyhawk campaign at the time were, I believe, just at "name level".The Moldvay Basic - Cook / Marsh  Expert  combo goes up to level 14, and adds some spells, but sticks with the original ranges of spell levels. The Mentzer revision goes up to 36th, "stretching" some aspects (such as thief abilities) a lot and others (such as spells) not so much. In 4E, things are set up for a lot of "leveling up" (30 levels), with small increments of added power. One might in similar fashion stretch the 14 levels of BX into about twice as many, spreading the spells and other benefits among level-specific lists -- so, e.g., a 10th-level cleric casts 10th-level spells.</blockquote>

Verification