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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5717544" data-attributes="member: 22424">It really depends on what I'm doing. Also, my tastes vary with time - what I want now may not be what I want in five years.For player characters, I want my players to be able to make a large range of characters, with a decent range of customisation. I don't want them to have to micro-manage lots of fiddly little details - give them a few, big questions to answer at character creation, and then one or two big questions to answer each time they level up. And allow plenty of scope for re-fluffing.For NPCs and monsters, I don't need anywhere near the same level of detail, since these are essentially black boxes to the players. It really doesn't matter all that much if a bandit does 1d6, 1d6+1 or 1d8 damage with his sword - all the player knows is that he loses "5 hit points". I initially opposed the move in 4e away from monsters using the same rules as PCs, but I was wrong to do so - 4e is better in this regard.This will depend on the player, so support must be given for all styles. Over time, I hope players will gradually move from "I use diplomacy!" to something a bit more detailed, but starting players may well not be comfortable with that.I certainly don't want RP elements to ever be completely divorced from rules elements - if the game supports the charismatic bard as a valid archetype, then there must be some support for social skills.This is the big one. Broadly, the closer things get to the PCs, the more detail I require. The larger the canvas, the lower the required detail.More specifically:The game should be playable without a battlemat, and should not lose much in the translation. 3.0e is about right in this regard, 3.5e is a bit worse, and 4e is unacceptably tied to the mat. There should be some scope for specific powers and maneuvers, but this is probably best handled with some sort of freeform system, rather than 4e-style fixed powers.The encumbrance rules are a really good example of too much detail. By calculating weight down to 0.1 of a pound, the game almost forces groups to ignore the rules (or at least play really fast and loose with them) - very few groups are going to recalculate encumbrance every time the archer fires an arrow!A much better encumbrance system must be possible - just count major items, and let a PC carry 10+Str mod, or something!I like the idea of characters have unique, modified and custom gear, but subtle differences are just too much. Basically, give them the opportunity to apply some fairly big modifications to their items (like masterwork, but with rather more flavour!).In general, monsters are a black box to the players. Very often, the DM is rolling a hidden die, adding an unknown modifier, and thus getting the result. Therefore, they can really be aware of small differences in modifier - the difference between a +5 to hit and a +6 is marginal (especially if the monster only ever makes a few attacks). Likewise, small differences in damage calculation are meaningless. Therefore, I would argue for less granularity even than is seen in 4e monsters - instead of modifiers going up by +1 every few levels, instead put them up by +5 less often (and differentiate monsters more by powers). For damage, don't worry about minor differences, but instead give a roughly-correct range - in a mixed group of bandits some will have swords, some maces, and some axes... but they might as well all do 1d8+Str damage!In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that the only dice a DM should ever need to run that game are the d20 (for attack rolls and the like), d6 (for damage rolls), and d% (for treasure generation and similar)!</blockquote>

Verification