Unintended(?) Consequence of No More X-Mas Tree?

[Njall]

I disagree. If those changes, whether house rules or "official" changes, are relativdely minor or rely largely on the addition or removal of certain elements (classes being the primary example), then I would say the system is flexible.

In order to make Darksun work you have to rehash the arcane magic system ( and/or make it a nonoption for PCs ) and use psionics (and Psi is not even core in 3e.).
In Dragonlance, you might have to remove Divine Magic ( aside from a couple of classes ) from the game.
These don't seem like "minor changes" to me...if they were removing arcane magic or divine magic from D&D, people would be crying that "it's no longer D&D" all over the place ( not that I agree, but still... ).
IMHO, a system is really "flexible" only if it covers almost anything your characters might want to play, and if you can easily tweak the system without any need to rebalance it.
In D&D, if you remove magic items you PCs fall short on AC and saves; if you remove Divine magic they fall short on healing; remove Arcane Magic and they're suddenly low on battlefield and enemy control, as well as being significantly weaker at higher levels.
Furthermore, we needed a couple of years of splats just to cover most fantasy archetypes.
When a game is flexible enough, you don't need to add anything to suit your needs; adding to an existing game needs rebalancing. The more significant the change, the harder the rebalancing.

d20 modern is an example of a more "flexible" system...not the best one out there, but certainly better ( in the flexibility department, I still prefer D&D as far as fun goes ) than D&D ( base classes being generic archetypes more than fixed roles).
Remove the fluff, and you've got a game that's not too unbalanced ( since most arcane classes will cast 5th level spells at best ), and that covers most fantasy archetypes.

And, again, the d20 system is not D&D, D&D just happens to use d20.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I disagree. If those changes, whether house rules or "official" changes, are relativdely minor or rely largely on the addition or removal of certain elements (classes being the primary example), then I would say the system is flexible.

The system is adaptable - in that you can change it to suite your needs. But it's not an "out of the box" flexibility.

(I am not sure though, if there actually exists a system that is that flexible. But I never looked deeper into GURPS and its supplements, which might succeed at that, or might not).

If D&D is flexible, than so are most other games I have played so far. The new Warhammer game? Create two dozens new careers and a few new weapons, and you can have a modern or sci-fi setting. Shadowrun (probably all editions) - just remove cyberware, and you have a fantasy system, remove the magic and add space ship rules (which probably just means upgrading the rigging/vehicle rules), and you have a sci-fi system.

D&D might have spawned the D20 system, but ultimately, the D20 system itself is the larger concept that allows us to create and adapt the game for other purposes. Warhammer could spawn a D% system, and Shadowrun a new nD6 system, Storyteller a nD. GURPS is already a system (3D6) in itself, I guess.

 

[DreamChaser]

You'll note I was referring to sub-genre and tone. And if 3E didn't support a vast array of different sub-genres and tones, why would we have hundreds of different d20 settings out there. Also, the need for "houserules" (or, more accurately, system modifications) to achieve that isn't the same as saying "Go play another game."

Each game you described through released its own core rule set(s) to achieve this. I really don't know what you feel you've demonstrated.

And the fact that we can look forward to at least very different campaigns in the nearish future: Greyhawk (classic D&D fantasy), Forgotten Realms (anything that ever existed anywhere fantasy + a bevy of super powers), and Eberron (swashbuckling common but low magic [in that the number of characters other than the PCs that are above 5th - 8th level is noticeably small]) I would say that they are already thinking in terms of genres.

DC

 

[Reynard]

Each game you described through released its own core rule set(s) to achieve this. I really don't know what you feel you've demonstrated.

The myriad of 2E campaign settings came with their own core rules? News to me.

And the fact that we can look forward to at least very different campaigns in the nearish future: Greyhawk (classic D&D fantasy), Forgotten Realms (anything that ever existed anywhere fantasy + a bevy of super powers), and Eberron (swashbuckling common but low magic [in that the number of characters other than the PCs that are above 5th - 8th level is noticeably small]) I would say that they are already thinking in terms of genres.

DC

Let's talk about those three for a moment. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk were both built upon the foundation of A/D&D assumptions and implied setting, the "flavor" if you will (which is a function of both fluff and crunch). How will they look under 4E? Will they be D&D settings? Will they be modified to meet the new paradigm of D&D flavor? FR, for example, has sizable portion of its setting based around druids. What happens to that portion of the setting? I am not a huge FR fan -- it is a fine setting, I just have never played in it much -- but it seems that if you change the underlying flavor of D&D, you either have to change the underlying flavor of the Realms -- arguably a more powerful brand than D&D itself, given novels and such -- or you have to make the flagship setting not representative of the game.

Eberron is a little different because it was built around the base assumptions of 3.5 specifically. "If it is in D&D, it is in Eberron" and all that. Even so, there's still a fundamental flavor shift, which means that Eberron is going to have to shift too. If the Player's Guide to Eberron is any indication, it will mostly eb a matter of choehorning new stuff into the setting, whether it belongs there or not.

One of the problems with core settings like FR or Eberron is that, by their nature, they have to allow for everything in the core. There's no option to enforce genre or tone via exclusion*, which is generally what defines a fantasy setting (literary or gaming). For example, at the change over to 3E, FR suddenly had to account for gnome monks and dwarven wizards and half orc sorcerers. how did it do it? Did it come through unscathed? (Agian, I don't know since i am not a FR afficianado -- I am curious what the answer is.)

*ASIDE: One thing I wish would have happened at the beginning of 3E was a setting like FR would enforce class limits by race. the option was given lip service in the DMG, but an example from an official, influential product like a setting core book would have gone a long way toward reminding people that it is, in fact, okay to limit options in order to achieve a particular style of play, milieu, etc...

 

[AllisterH]

The myriad of 2E campaign settings came with their own core rules? News to me.



Let's talk about those three for a moment. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk were both built upon the foundation of A/D&D assumptions and implied setting, the "flavor" if you will (which is a function of both fluff and crunch). How will they look under 4E? Will they be D&D settings? Will they be modified to meet the new paradigm of D&D flavor? FR, for example, has sizable portion of its setting based around druids. What happens to that portion of the setting? I am not a huge FR fan -- it is a fine setting, I just have never played in it much -- but it seems that if you change the underlying flavor of D&D, you either have to change the underlying flavor of the Realms -- arguably a more powerful brand than D&D itself, given novels and such -- or you have to make the flagship setting not representative of the game.


One of the problems with core settings like FR or Eberron is that, by their nature, they have to allow for everything in the core. There's no option to enforce genre or tone via exclusion*, which is generally what defines a fantasy setting (literary or gaming). For example, at the change over to 3E, FR suddenly had to account for gnome monks and dwarven wizards and half orc sorcerers. how did it do it? Did it come through unscathed? (Agian, I don't know since i am not a FR afficianado -- I am curious what the answer is.)

*ASIDE: One thing I wish would have happened at the beginning of 3E was a setting like FR would enforce class limits by race. the option was given lip service in the DMG, but an example from an official, influential product like a setting core book would have gone a long way toward reminding people that it is, in fact, okay to limit options in order to achieve a particular style of play, milieu, etc...

The thing about FR was that it broke a LOT of the 2E rules anyway. As weird as it sounds, the Dwarven Wizard thing was easy enough to rationalize given that this was a setting that had a Saurial paladins as the ICONIC paladin. Another good example would be a gnomish druid in the Cleric canticle saga.

There were a lot of "that's not permitted by the rules" exceptions in the Realms so the loosening of that straighjacket in 3E was welcomed.

As for Druids, its somewhat weird in that, even though the 1st novels (moonshaes trilogy) had a VERY strong druid influence, afterward, druids weren't anywhere close to being an essential part of the Realms.

Seriously, you could replace all druids with nature clerics and only the Moonshaes would be affected.

Now, the big one though in 4E is the nerfing of magic. The Realms is a setting where top-dog has ALWAYS been the wizard. All the movers and shakers are of the magic using classes and all the mysteries of the Realms involve figuring out/dealing with ancient magics.

WOTC's nerfing of magic is fundamentally, the BIGGEST change to the Realms EVER. Not the addition/subtraction of classes, not the loosening of race-class combinations as none of the previous changes affected the basic underlying structure of the Realms.

 

[VirgilCaine]

This should be fun: yes.

Ah, yes.

My opinion of you is confirmed.

 

[DreamChaser]

The myriad of 2E campaign settings came with their own core rules? News to me.

Huh...I guess you never owned the FR boxed set and later books, the Dark Sun Boxed Set (and later books, which completely revamped every race and class), The Greyhawk boxed set...

The FR and GH boxed sets didn't rewrite the classes in the same way that DS did but they still added a diverse range of flavor, classes, etc (Al Quadim Sha'ir). Oriental adventures (all editions) is another great example.

In each case, the core mechanic stayed in place but the classes, races, cultures, spells, etc were redesigned, repurposed, or rejected to fit the flavor of the campaign setting.

Honestly, I think the reason the changes for 4e seems so violent is because they are shifting to something new rather than assuming something that people have been playing for years. When it comes right down to it, I disliked using Greyhawk for the "core" campaign in 3e. I have always found Greyhawk to be dull in the areas I want the most interest and overdone in the areas in which I care the least (gosh, the Flannes migrated where in the 3rd century...boy howdy, that affects the entire concept for my character and the current plot so immensely. Thank you so much!).

They have already indicated that the core of Eberron is not changing; the timeline is not even being advanced. Gnomes will still be core and marked, dragonborn may exist but they are no more core than they ever were.

To say that earlier editions of D&D did not require any overhaul to fit different campaign concepts is, IMHO, laughable and impossible to back up. 4e will be the same. Net change = zero.

DC

 

[DreamChaser]

One thing I wish would have happened at the beginning of 3E was a setting like FR would enforce class limits by race. the option was given lip service in the DMG, but an example from an official, influential product like a setting core book would have gone a long way toward reminding people that it is, in fact, okay to limit options in order to achieve a particular style of play, milieu, etc...

Honestly, what purpose would this have had? How do these limits make things more fun for anyone? I can say that it was the most frustrating, and immediately changed, aspects of 1 and 2e for me.

It fell into the same category as sex-linked ability scores. Perhaps it is realistic, but does it make the game better? IMO no; quite the opposite in fact.

Now, that said; just as there was nothing stopping me from removing racially-based class limits, there is nothing stopping you (in 3e or 4e) from saying that dwarves are antimagical and incapable of learning even the simplest of spells. All dwarves are fighters, rogues, rangers, or warlords. For flavor, that works interestingly. It works great in many books. Of course, what works well in a book doesn't always make for good gaming. In such a game, I know that my players would immediately rule out the idea of dwarf, even if they were playing a fighter, just because the idea of such a culturally limited race would not interest them. YMMV.

DC

 

[Reynard]

Ah, yes.

My opinion of you is confirmed.

Wow. Narrowminded, judgemental and insulting. It's an internet message board trifecta.

 

[Reynard]

Huh...I guess you never owned the FR boxed set and later books, the Dark Sun Boxed Set (and later books, which completely revamped every race and class), The Greyhawk boxed set...

The FR and GH boxed sets didn't rewrite the classes in the same way that DS did but they still added a diverse range of flavor, classes, etc (Al Quadim Sha'ir). Oriental adventures (all editions) is another great example.

In each case, the core mechanic stayed in place but the classes, races, cultures, spells, etc were redesigned, repurposed, or rejected to fit the flavor of the campaign setting.

Which completely -- and succinctly, I might add -- supports my point: D&D has always been flexible and generic enough for diverse settings to exist within its framework through the use of flavor and minor mechanical changes.