Yawn

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Torben Mogensen at 2005-03-30 00:41:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree with the people who are a bit surprised that you haven't suggested more changes than you did. Here are a few things that I would like to see:

- Represent characteristics by their bonuses, so you would no longer have STR 14, you would have STR +2 and so on. Generate these directly without going through 3d6 or some such.

- Make sure feats represent things that can't be represented by giving plusses to characteristics or skills or by adding new skills.

- Replace classes and levels by packages. Each person starts with a racial and cultural package and can buy new professional packages by using XP. Packages need not be of the same cost (I expect a mage package to cost more than, say, a soldier package) and you can stack similar packages to increase skills etc. Some packages may require others as prerequisites or be reserved for specific races or cultures. Make some packages a good deal smaller than classes/levels are today.

- Drop the escalating HP and replace by abilities to better dodge or parry blows. Some packages may add a few HP, but you would not increase to many times your initial HP (which is racial constant + CON).

- Treat each spell as a skill. It may fail, but there should be fewer limitations on how many you can cast per day. Drop "fire and forget".

- Scale XP down by removing two or three zeroes. There is no need for so fine detail as now.

- Make the basic rules truly open license and change the business plan to earn mainly on game worlds and scenarios.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-03-30 06:44:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't want to change D&D simply to change it. Any change should accomplish two things in my mind: 1) make game play easier and 2) make roleplaying better and the D&D experience more fun.

I could see using several of your ideas in the game. I especially like your ideas on attributes, feats, and reduced XP.

I can see using many of your other ideas in some shape or form as well. Keeping an open mind to changes, while keeping D&D familiar to existing players, would be what I'd look for in 4th edition game design.

I don't think a company could survive by concentrating on building worlds and scenerios. I would want to include those things, but many DMs want to build their own worlds and simply want tips and tools to do that. So a combination might be in order.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by DensityDuck at 2005-03-30 09:17:03
Converted from Phorums BB System

>Replace classes and levels by packages.

That's pretty much GURPS, right there, at least compared to D&D.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-30 10:40:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

I like the package idea. Not sure about the rest.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by nihtgenga at 2005-03-30 14:14:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

Are certain elements of D&D iconic?

Can you have D&D without classes levels, AC, Hit Dice and spell lists?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Torben Mogensen at 2005-03-30 22:23:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

Actually, I got the packages idea from Powers & Perils.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Torben Mogensen at 2005-03-30 22:31:34
Converted from Phorums BB System


nihtgenga wrote:
-------------------------------
Are certain elements of D&D iconic?

Can you have D&D without classes levels, AC, Hit Dice and spell lists?
-------------

That may be a point, but since there are d20 games without many of these elements, I think you can go a way before people will say "This is not D&D!" (well, anymore than they did when 3E came out).

Anyway, the packages I suggested can be renamed "classes" to appease the traditionals. :-)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Nigel Tam at 2005-03-31 02:26:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

Or even better, replace character classes with clans, the D20 with a D10 and focus on storytelling rather than dice rolling.

Wait a second...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-31 13:04:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks, that gave me a good laugh. :D

But I don't think he wants to go that far... :)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Spike at 2005-05-03 09:58:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

???
Excuse me?
I've been a fan of gurps for 14 years and beleive me, what he is describing in no way resembles Gurps. Unless I missed a huge post or something.
Last time I checked, packages were not an integral part of, or even important, to character design in Gurps. In fact it seems to me that Packages in Gurps (a relatively new idea to me, I almost said they didn't exist a minute ago) are more for the GM to whip up quick and accurate NPC's. GURPS is almost the Anti-Dnd, they are so far apart from eachother in concept they don't even compete against eachother. Fan's of one won't like the other, unless they are people who like to play radically different styles, in which case they could be called fans of both.

I'm working on keeping my posts short, so I'll finish with a tiny explanation and let you muddle through the rest.

GURPS is more for people who are into complex, realized characters, and less concerned for the setting. I think that's why Gurps has always tried to consolidate their rules, and to keep settings in completely seperate books. I'm willing to bet the latest setting books have few, if any rules changes, only rules expansions where necessary (magic and Psionics spring to mind)and even that will remain within the boundaries set by the main books.

DnD and it's decendents is less about Character complexity, and more about adventure in a rich and detailed setting, complex and fully realized. Most die hard DnD fans like the byzantine and arcane complexities of the game, the layers of rules and story ideas. They like that a GM can whip out Races of (Stone/Wild/Destiny) and suddenly their Dwarf/Elf/Human just got a whole lot more interesting.