tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post7287898820324559896..comments2024-03-26T02:31:48.024-05:00Comments on Trollsmyth: GURPS: Coming to a D&D Game Near You!trollsmythhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-11299796989173918802012-03-20T11:04:33.789-05:002012-03-20T11:04:33.789-05:00What is new is them talking openly about putting e...<i>What is new is them talking openly about putting every character class that's ever existed in a PHB in the 5e PHB.</i><br /><br />That sounds like the opposite of stripped down and modular to me. They could still do it with a separate beginner box, but then nobody will consider that as the "real" game.<br /><br />I'm still moderately hopeful about the direction they are going though, particularly the focus on moderating the power curve. I think a 4E power fighter could easily adventure with a simpler B/X type fighter as long as the powers are chosen in place of things like base attack bonus bumps (and preferably during level-up rather than chargen).<br /><br />Word verification: otogrea slayprigNecropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-20072737860306713852012-03-20T08:14:42.108-05:002012-03-20T08:14:42.108-05:00My reference point for envisioning how different c...My reference point for envisioning how different complexity characters would work at the table comes from (oddly enough) our Mutants & Masterminds superhero sessions.<br /><br />I have one player who likes creating really simple characters. Doesn't matter whether it's a super-strong basher, a spellcaster or a dude in power armour, his character "sheet" is rarely more than five lines long. The PC's abilities are all broad sweeps of the brush - Blast, Armour, Super-Strength, etc.<br /><br />On the other hand I have another player who agonizes and fine-tunes his character between sessions. His sheet is typically about 5 pages long with every single Power, Ability, etc given multiple Advantages and Disadvantages to get it <i>exactly</i> how he pictures it.<br /><br />And they both play at the same table, enjoying their game, and that's awesome. It's very like a Labyrinth Lord gamer and a 4e gamer sitting at the same table. Only with more spandex, obviously.<br /><br />Traditionally D&D has gone along the lines that Fighter = simple, Magic-User = complex. I would love to see that broken up so that players can chose to play a complex Fighter, simple Magic-User or anything in between. Or any other class, of course.<br /><br />From what I've seen of D&D Next so far (disclosure: I have signed the NDA), they might just manage it too.greywulfhttp://greywulf.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-59626164731739286732012-03-20T07:55:05.759-05:002012-03-20T07:55:05.759-05:00I'm with greywulf...
That sounds 100% perfect...I'm with greywulf...<br /><br />That sounds 100% perfect to me. Publish the stripped out basic game. Basically begin with the OSR retroclones that take the most basic core from the SRD. Make everything else optional. Yes, that does mean groups will have to coordinate and decide what rules they will be using. But that's not unlike the house-rules that existed pretty much everywhere prior to 3.0 (when suddenly being pure WOTC seemed the standard). <br /><br />Plus, as (was it Steve Winter) someone said, game companies need to publish the players books to keep alive. Make core books evergreen, and add the options. When I run, I run microlite OSS. But I really do want the "industry" to exist beyond the legacy of the SRD and basically us opensource hackers. I think its good for the hobby. Somebody has to put ads in the back of comics books. <br /><br />After a couple years I bet they republish D&DN as version "5+" that is the basic core plus the most common 3.5/4.0 tactical options. Which is fine by me. I like the idea of putting up a 3x5 notecard at the local gaming store saying "lfg, prefer D&D-core" and have people know what that is. Like or not, D&D is the gorilla in the room. <br /><br />Plus the stripped down D&D-core also makes a "red box" very easy to publish.mikkelibobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07425334399726380165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-34700137211524022182012-03-20T07:31:40.558-05:002012-03-20T07:31:40.558-05:00Will: Let's just say I'm not expecting a g...<b>Will:</b> Let's just say I'm not expecting a game that replaces the glorious melange of <i>Labyrinth Lord</i>, <i>LotFP</i>, and <i>ACKS</i> that's becoming my gaming of choice these days. <br /><br />I am hoping for a game that has a few cool ideas I can steal from.<br /><br />What is new is them talking openly about putting every character class that's ever existed in a PHB in the 5e PHB. And customizeability. Usually it's our way or the high way. We'll see.<br /><br /><b>Greywulf:</b> That would seem to be the logical way of approaching it, both from an ease-of-use perspective and especially if they want a newbie-friendly game.<br /><br />Unfortunately, a lot of folks seemed keyed to see the default options as a sort of sanction as to the "proper way" to play the game. I think if they gave us <i>Labyrinth Lord</i> in fancy trade dress plus modules for grid-tastic combat or 101 feats, they'd piss off everybody but the OSR crowd (and not even all of them) no matter how awesome and flexible the module system actually turned out to be. <br /><br />I think the only way to avoid this is to make the core system an unplayable skeleton you <i>must</i> bolt modules on to play. But then, I say this in spite of <a href="http://jrients.blogspot.com/2012/01/todays-experiment.html" rel="nofollow">Jeff's and Zak's demonstration</a> of how you can have multiple rules sets running on the table at once. I don't think that will work for most folks, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong.<br /><br />In any case, yeah, if they come anywhere near what they're preaching with the modules thing, it almost certainly will mean more and more exotic hacking. That'll be great.trollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-46807926541272162132012-03-20T06:18:34.303-05:002012-03-20T06:18:34.303-05:00The bare bones core of D&D Next (or whatver it...The bare bones core of D&D Next (or whatver it ends up being called - I predict it'll be called Basic D&D) will be very much like a retro-clone. Stripped down to four races & classes, in-your-head based combat and a simple skill system. It'll be fully playable as a game in its own right, all the way through from level 1 to level 20 (or 30, or whatever).<br /><br />It you want combat to use a tactical grid, that'll be a module. This will have 5' steps, combat advantage and all the mechanics that came into the game with 3e and 4e. <br /><br />Want a more detailed character? There'll be modules for that too. Your PC will be number-equivalent to a Basic character (still within the same range for attack and damage, for example), but you'll likely have more options pre-printed on your character sheet. OSR gamers well know that the <i>fewer</i> options on your character sheet, the more you're free to do what you want, but 4e has proven that some gamers do like to have the options prepared for them. Having this as a module means that players can find their own individual comfort level and game together. If it's done right, and that's a big "if".<br /><br />What this means for adventures is hopefully we'll see a return to more story-driven adventures where different gaming groups can play them however they want. That's the theory, anyhow. <br /><br />It also means we'll see a return to people hacking the system for their own use, with House Rules presented as user-created modules. I love the potential behind that idea.<br /><br />Overall, I'm quite excited by the whole thing.greywulfhttp://greywulf.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28751902.post-38760232001549441712012-03-20T03:41:56.476-05:002012-03-20T03:41:56.476-05:00I think that's one way to interpret what they&...I think that's one way to interpret what they're saying.<br /><br />Another, based on WotC's actual track record, is that we're due for another whole new fantasy action game with the D&D name, just like we got in 2000 and 2008. Remember, there was a lot of reverent lip service paid to TSR's game at those times, too. It didn't amount to much.Will Mistrettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403399118961902073noreply@blogger.com