From the D&D disliker...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sabermane at 2005-03-30 09:29:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

Look, not to be picky here, but the system sucks as is, and you're changing it only enough to be differnet, not get others into the game. I've had some great adventures in D&D, but when we start rolling, I want to scream and leave.

Take the attribute advantage thing--+1, +2, not 16=+yadda yadda...

God yes, change the XP system. Hey, I know it's weird, but could we TRY classless in D&D? I hate the fact that no matter how many books I read, I can't get smarter until I level...

If you're using something called the d20 system, could we maybe just use a D20? Fixed damage codes aren't that tough to figure out.

Modify your HP and your Armor class, stop the infinite HP growth (or hell, run with it! Say people who kill monsters become immortal and powerful! whatever!), and clarify the spellcasting and multi-level things.

I know this is aggressive and angry--sorry, just got off of work. But frankly, D&D is a fine concept with miserable mechanics. If you want to change things, then CHANGE things. Otherwise, why mess with them? But hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-03-31 09:39:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

Lemme start by saying that I think this particular thread could be for folks who aren't happy with D&D, and that I'm also not trying to bring the hate or anything by what I say.
I think that a big problem with D&D for dislikers like us :) is that it's not focused enough.
Lord knows, I really want to have a game where dwarves and thieves and wizards are thick with theme and mood. I think that the general premise of D&D is pretty cool, too. I just, um, I just don't know how I feel about the way in which D&D's rules accomplish this.
I think that it was The Forge that had an article on this: it referred to the D&D rules as a pile of ideas, as opposed to a core system with branches off of it. Regardless of arguments of any stripe about this idea, I think that the author had a good point.
I'd like to start brainstorming ideas with other self-titled Dislikers; I want to capture the themes and motifs I really like about D&D and spare myself the bog of rules, as I see it.
Let's start by taking a look at some of the archetypes, and thinking about what we can do with them.
For one thing, if we carve characters up into Fighter, Priest, Thief, and Wizard, we have to ask: does this divvy people up based on skills? on outlook? on motivation? If it divides PCs on skills, then a Class is a set of capabilities, a set of tools the player can fiddle with for color and style while other, more motivational concerns are addressed in other ways.
If it's about outlook, then we can see these archetypes in terms of how the PCs fit together socially. The Fighter outlook might be "might makes right", while the Priest outlook could be "we are all fighting for a cause".
If it's about motivation, we could chop the Classes up in broad terms, and think about what they're trying to do. Fighter could be "conquest" or "domination", Wizard might be "learning" or something. You get the idea.
Race could either exist as another box for PCs alongside Class, or Class and Race could just be different takes on the same thing: ways to carve up PC concepts into stable categories and give an anchor for creativity.
Thoughts?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sabermane at 2005-03-31 12:18:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

Well, good thoughts on an opening here, Mr. Fighter...

The nice thing about D&D is that it's (thoretically) easy for anyone to make a character. Grab an archetype, roll some dice, and go kill dem gobbo's!

...except, I think it's gotten a little worse than this in the latest ed's. But that's another topic.

I think the fighter/magician/thief deviation works well. Think of three main branches-- Combat branch for fighters, barbarians, rangers, hunters, etc. Magic branch for sorcerors, priests, etc. Frankly, Skilled branch for thieves, professionals, orators, bards, etc. From there, you can deviate. Grab skill groups by these categories, more expensive if you want to go outside your branch (either for skill points or levels), and it's a good start. Give each specific (barbarian, for example) thier own mastered skills (tracking, Great weapons, sounding like Ahnuld, for example), and you've got a nice, simple system that's easy enough to include new groups in for 4th Ed.

What's next? :)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-03-31 20:42:56
Converted from Phorums BB System

Do we wanna do levels? I say no.
I think weapons/magic/skills make a good split: while this lends itself to having a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Craftsman (or whatever) in a group, it also could apply to all kinds of types, like you said.
I think that the Skill Group/Other Skill Group idea is fun; not the newest thing on the block, but something I'd like to do.
I think it might help to delineate Skilled as hands-on things and bodily movements and the like, rather than things like oration and balladry. I figure that social skills should be up to the players to portray, rather than the dice to decide. Intelligence might be a good thing to nix, too. Not knowledge skills, though: they could stay just fine. I think...
Maybe different archetypes (pre-made) could stem from different levels of power in the three Branches. This is kind of like the current D20 system, but we should definitely make "special abilities" (like for the druid, f'rinstance) some kind of skill instead. You could have archetypes that play totally to type (Berserker, Elf, and Craftsman, maybe), and then everything else is some mixture.
We could probably include some mythic man-beings in here too (like the Elf), using them as archetypes.
Another thing to work on would be resolution mechanics. We can work on that next/later/something.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-03-31 21:23:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hm, I think I'm starting to share my ten-years-ago knockoff of D&D. Not that that's a bad thing, but I'm going to definitely be checking out The Forge's articles on fantasy heartbreakers. You know, just to stay on top of things.

Aside from that, I think that the archetype system should be fairly loose: you can choose an archetype and throw some numbers together, or you can spend a few minutes choosing dice and such.

I don't want to make any archetype-system too detailed: we're trying to cut things down for simplicity, after all.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ezekiel Black at 2005-04-12 10:26:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Warrior: Strong man with a strong sword arm.

Rogue: Quick and cunning individual who can get the job done.

Savage: Tough, hardened hunter of the wilds, one with nature, able to survive off the land indefinately.

Spell-Caster: Person who can cast arcane spells by means of great study or an awakening of knowledge that caused him to learn such.

Priest: Wise individual who believes in a greater power or maybe just a philosophy.

Leader: Charismatic individual who is able to rally allies and lead people, etc.

Using these six archetypes, you can make every DnD class except Psionicists. Then again, I never did understand why Psionics existed in DnD. Example:

Fighter=Warrior
Ranger=Warrior/Savage (more Warrior than Savage)
Barbarian=Warrior/Savage (more Savage than Warrior)
Paladin=Warrior/Priest (more Warrior than Priest)
Rogue/Thief=Rogue
Bard (traditional)= Warrior/Leader
Bard (DnD) Warrior/Rogue/Leader
Cleric=Priest
Druid=Savage/Priest (more Priest than Savage)
Mage=Spell-Caster
Sorcerer=Spell-Caster

You can even make new(ish) ones:
Knight=Warrior/Leader
Swashbuckler=Rogue/Warrior
Conan=Savage/Rogue ;)

I used these to eliminate classes in D&D and make people figure out a transition between DnD and more free-form games. Last time we played, There was one guy who played the Savage/Rogue, and told me his character had a great Conan feel.

So I think it's a good step between classes and classless.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-12 11:58:00
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ezekiel,

I agree. Call my fighter a warrior, my ranger a savage, and my bard a leader and we're in agreement here.

I think you make your observation even more clear with the Conan reference. Good example.

Charlie