Would you play D&D if [rule X]?

[Starfox]

All your ideas seem to point at a pretty gritty/historical game where individual heroics stand back for careful tactics and where people die more or less randomly. Heroes would be rare in such a game, and trying to be a hero is likely to give you a short career and a mourning family. Character continuity becomes conditional upon not being heroic, which means the most powerful characters in your game will likely be behind-the-lines schemers rather than action heroes.

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

I prefer #2. Increasing defenses makes you feel more heroic. Adding to the bag of hit points makes you feel fat. Also, increasing hp makes a fight between two equal-skill fighters take more time when they are both higher level, which is not to my liking.

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

These work well as heroic tasks to do, the objectives of combat rather than the means. For example, you summon a demon and are interrupted. The goal of the combat is to complete the summoning. As combat powers, this is not so good - it effectively binds casters to noncombat roles. Which can be cool in a medieval style game, but not in a more anime/action setting.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

This is interesting but probably a bit too abstract. I think players would feel disenfranchised; individual heroics would suffer and be replaced with discipline and orderly conduct. Might work in a historical, gritty game. To create a more heroic version, simply dispense with flanking or say that if you are attack an opponent you did not attack you, there is a small flanking bonus.

See Mouse Guard for a take on this.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

These all introduce more randomness into the game. It sound cool, but do not work in a character-centric game. Chance working as it does, this would mean that many PC careers are ended by dumb chance. Again, it might work in a gritty game where character continuity is not so important. or a game like Call of Cthulhu, were action solutions are heavily discouraged.

6) You could never get above level 6?

As long as there is a way for characters to grow trough diversification, this can work. Level means power peak. Growth need not mean your peak powers improve. But it is no fun if your character stops growing completely past a certain point.

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

Too many rolls. IMC I use one attack roll that generates damage from its margin. That's more my style. If you can get each of these rolls down to 5-10 seconds at the table, this can work, but this is not possible in my experience.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

Interesting.

 

[JamesonCourage]

All your ideas seem to point at a pretty gritty/historical game where individual heroics stand back for careful tactics and where people die more or less randomly. Heroes would be rare in such a game, and trying to be a hero is likely to give you a short career and a mourning family. Character continuity becomes conditional upon not being heroic, which means the most powerful characters in your game will likely be behind-the-lines schemers rather than action heroes.

It seems like you're more into "heroic" games than "gritty" games, and that's cool, but I'd disagree that "gritty" games mean that it's less focused on characters ("These all introduce more randomness into the game. It sound cool, but do not work in a character-centric game.").

I use a "hit chart" for anyone hitting in battle, not just a "crit chart", and while it has produced character death where they would not have been killed otherwise, it has not hampered my players bonding to their characters (and indeed, it has strengthened it if they live through a "close call" because of the chart), nor has it taken the focus away from character-driven goals (that's pretty much the entire premise of the game... I sit back and react, while they pursue their goals, having the world evolve as appropriate).

At any rate, I know you were stating your preferences, and I'm not trying to change the way to play. Just disagree about one particular assertion. But, as always, play what you like

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Would you play D&D if the following rules or design philosophy changed, and what would be your opinion of the change?

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

6) You could never get above level 6?

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.



Feel free to add your own.

I think I would rather play warhammer 1e which has most of the above if memory serves. However, I nowadays prefer heroic to gritty.

4 and 9 I would have no specific problem in D&Dwith but I do like the battlegrid.

 

[RangerWickett]

A lot of these ideas are taken from other games I'm playing. Warhammer 40k, for instance, has the attack, dodge, damage, armor soak combat system. Kiznit's Old School Hack has the 'cap out at level 6' and 'no battle map, just areas.'

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

Urk. That feels ... odd. Unless your HP refresh extremely fast (catching your breath type fast) and even then it feels a bit weird. Just one reason I don't like classic D&D.

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

Depends on implementation; this can work with to hit and damage rolled into one a la Rolemaster. But without this or effective cancellation with skill this will become a lottery in which the first person to roll a 20 wins. No thematic problem but definite implementation problems.

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

Sure. We're going to use that in 4e I think; all martial (or pseudo-martial) classes and all magic as rituals or seriously scary BBEGs. Great for a certain style of sword and sorcery. Multi-round combat magic on the other hand has issues.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

No inherent problem (although I'd want more than numerical superiority).

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

AFAIK D&D is one of the few games not to have this.

6) You could never get above level 6?

Solid or permeable wall. Solid wall where you are more or less frozen in place is a dealbreaker. Permeable where you can trade XP for feats and keep progressing just much more slowly and it's a nice 3.X patch.

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

*yawns* Too much rolling. Not a dealbreaker but not what I'd choose for D&D (now for a duelling system like Dogs in the Vineyard it might work although not as well as Dogs).

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

Depends how implemented. Possibly. I'd much rather a Fate/aspects style system.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

Perhaps. Sell me on the campaign.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

Depends on the campaign world.

 

[gamerprinter]

AFAIK D&D is one of the few games not to have this.

Vorpal?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd certainly give your D&D a try, with the following reservations:

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

Are attack bonuses static too? If yes, that's cool. If not, the writer probably don't know how to balance a pound cake on an imperial scale, so I probably won't like the game.

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

Is damage static too? See above.

6) You could never get above level 6?

Hell. No. If I'm playing a level-based game, I want at least ten of 'em. Otherwise, what's the point? Either make it a point buy game, or a no-advancement game.

My own additions would be: interesting and tactical rules for social encounters and nation building (which your reputation scores might play a part in), and mass combat.

 

[LostSoul]

1) Instead of increasing HP and defenses as you level up, you only increase HP. (The idea being that defenses are how tough you are, and HP is how good you are at dodging and rolling with blows.)

2) As above, but you only increase defenses. (The idea being that defenses are how good you are at dodging, and HP is how much flesh you can afford to have chopped off your body before you die.)

3) Spells always took more than a round to cast, but were commensurately stronger. Getting hit during casting would disrupt your spell.

4) Movement wasn't tracked by square; instead, the battle had different arenas, and you could move between them as a move action. You can attack anyone in the same arena with melee attacks. Flanking and similar things are replaced by simply seeing which side has numerical superiority.

5) There was a mechanic to inflict horrible wounds beyond simple HP damage during combat.

6) You could never get above level 6?

7) A typical combat exchange went Attack Roll -> Dodge/Parry Roll -> Damage Roll -> Armor/Toughness soak -> Damage inflicted.

8) There was a sanity score that took damage from encountering scary or horrible things.

9) There was a social standing score that took damage from attacks against your reputation.

10) Spells had a chance of going horribly awry and doing chaotic things.

1. Yes.

2. Yes. I like Palladium Fantasy and Star Wars d6.

3. Yes. You could break it up into two categories; either or both is cool.

4. No. I like it when the details of the fiction are important to resolution.

5. Yes. See 4. above.

6. Yes.

7. No. Too many rolls. (And yes, I understand that d6 does this.)

8. Yes.

9. Yes, for certain values of "damage".

10. Yes.

 

[Starfox]

It seems like you're more into "heroic" games than "gritty" games, and that's cool, but I'd disagree that "gritty" games mean that it's less focused on characters

A dead character ends that character's story. Permanently. Once PCs begin to die, players react by investing less and less into their characters, so that the loss of one won't hurt. They also begin to act tactically, not in character. PCs become game pieces, not roles.

I'm old and jaded with 30 years of gaming experience under my belt. Newer players might not have gotten jaded - but if you start killing their PCs and expect them to care, they may become so quicker than in a more friendly game.

In fact, part of the reason I run such a lightheated game is as a reaction to when I saw myself and my players start treating their PCs as game pieces. It has taken years of more light-hearted play to bring back more role-playing and character identification.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A dead character ends that character's story.

Especially in my game, where you can't resurrect people.

Permanently.

Good call.

Once PCs begin to die, players react by investing less and less into their characters, so that the loss of one won't hurt.

I think you forgot a qualifier before the word "players", like "my" or "most" or "some".

They also begin to act tactically, not in character. PCs become game pieces, not roles.

Some people are tactical. Some PCs are too. Some of my players aren't tactical. Some of their PCs aren't, either. Even though we've been playing this game, with those rules, with these past deaths, for about a year and a half.

I'm old and jaded with 30 years of gaming experience under my belt. Newer players might not have gotten jaded - but if you start killing their PCs and expect them to care, they may become so quicker than in a more friendly game.

Our mileage has varied. Please don't make statements directed at me, expecting me to believe it's true for my players, when my experience with them certainly trumps yours. I'll do my best not to make any claims about your players.

In fact, part of the reason I run such a lightheated game is as a reaction to when I saw myself and my players start treating their PCs as game pieces. It has taken years of more light-hearted play to bring back more role-playing and character identification.

I'm glad you found something that works for you and your group. A lighthearted game wouldn't work for mine in the long term, though it makes for great Mutants and Masterminds one-shots every other month or so.

As always, play what you like