My plan for DnD

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stilleon at 2005-03-30 16:45:54
Converted from Phorums BB System

First, i agree with the Basic/Advanced approach. Basic being a real good introduction to the game (the hook), but people who basically know the game can just get the Adavnced version.

Basic would service level's 1-5. Include an introductory "learning" adventure, a 2nd level adventure, advice how to run a game, just like you NO BATTLE MAT. Human, Half Elf, Dwarf, Elf, Halflng and Half Orc races.

For classes you would have the original 4: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric. Also, a set of dice,premade characters for the first adventure, etc. It also includes a small book that helps you to transition from Basic to Advanced when the time comes.

Advanced would be levels 1-20. The Player's Handbook would be based on a modified generic system like in Unearthed Arcana: a Warrior (great combatant, little skill), Expert (good combatant, good skills), and Academic class (sucks at combat, great at skills and magic), feat based magic and the ability to really tailor a character. This would have been how the basic classes would have been built and the transition book would show exactly how that worked.

The DM's guide would include common monsters and great essays on running a game.

I would then include archetypes... the basis of how to build a variety of other "classes" by taking feats.

Prestige classes would still be there... either the master versions of the archetypes (like a Master Rogue) or special abilities you can only learn by being part of a society, etc.

From there we would need a new Epic level book but one that is FAR BETTER than what we got. Nuff said.

As for a bunch of other books: They are all optional and some people love them. So we'd have monster books, archetype books, plane books, and campaigns (with some kind of world shaking event happening to Forgotten Realms. Face it, FR is the pretty boy of campaigns... nice to look at but not much of a unifying thread. That is what makes Eberron, Midnight, hell... even Lord of the Rings so rich.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-30 19:03:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

For races...No halves in Basic. In Advanced or at the back of Basic, have rules for 'your mother was a <>' and 'your father was a <>'.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stilleon at 2005-03-30 19:11:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

My mother was a WHAT?????

No, seriously, I think the half-elf is very iconic of DnD. Gotta keep it. But... there does need to be rules for making half-races. Some things of DnD work so well, and some are pure kludges, such as Savage Spieces. There must be a better way to make races playable and balanced. Cuz Savage Spieces aint it.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-03-31 09:23:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

Iconic? Isn't there a way in which the half-elf, being so muddled and ill-focused (to me), is a huge reminder of how the D&D folks have 19th-century style construction of race?
Not to get all smarty-pants on D&D, but I think that making dwarves, elves, humans, etc. essentially ethnic groups really takes the supernatural *oomph* away from the inhuman ones.
Do whatcha want, of course, but I think that one of D&D's strengths is how it reinforces character-as-archetype to make characters all the more vivid.
A big emphasis on the Four Original Classes, I think, would be well accompanied by an emphasis on the various races as archetypal.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-31 12:57:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

How do you mean by races as archetypal?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-04-01 09:04:32
Converted from Phorums BB System

I guess that Race would fit into the business of archetypes if you *had* to choose a single archetype to play with. You pick up Fighter and go play; or you pick up Elf and go play.

If archetypes are extremes on a continuum, instead of boxes to fit into, then races would be archetypal in a very particular circumstance. That circumstance might be as follows:

If Orc is an example of a character that's mostly combat-focused, then maybe Elf could be somebody that's mostly magic-focused, and Dwarf could be someone who's mostly skill-focused.

Let's see. I think I'm drawing a lot on Donjon as an example of race and class as equally archetypal. But Donjon aside, it's like early D&D: you choose to portray a race OR a class. Let's say you're playing some game I just made up: you juggle points in three categories, then slap a title on top when you're done. A combat-monger could be a Master Swordsman OR an Ogre, depending on the precise details of *what* your character's combat style is and what kind of feel you want your character to have.

Does this get my idea across at all?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Narf at 2005-04-04 00:29:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

Yep. However, I see no reason why an ogre couldn't be a master swordsman. (With enough training :) )

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stilleon at 2005-04-06 09:10:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't see why races should be archetypes. that's like going back to Basic D&D where you were a fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user, elf.... ELF??? Yep, all elves we exactly the same... all Legolas rip offs.

The archetypes should be the major roles within a society. For the major races they are fighters, clerics, etc. These are the heores we talk about. In other societies these archetypes may be different. Lizardfolk may have shamans instead of clerics as they look at religion different.

So, to sum up, archetypes need to fit the roles of society of a race.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Bob the Fighter at 2005-04-06 11:41:23
Converted from Phorums BB System

well, the use of humans as the culture means that cultural Others become caricatures. The play Othello, for example, contains a character of the same name who mixes and matches various stereotyped traits of Arab/Moorish peoples to produce something fairly one-dimensional. I think that it can work just fine in a game like Basic, though.

If you wanna talk about the ludicrousness of all elves being the same, why not talk about fighters, too? There is a part of all this that needs to remain a game, and a fairly simple one at that.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Stilleon at 2005-04-06 12:15:32
Converted from Phorums BB System

But is that kind of stereotype what we want?

Well, that is a design element. I see a lot of people talking about how feats becomecomplex, or having a lot of choices take away from playing. However, I do not like playing basically the same thing as everyone else. i want some ability to customize. Fighters are good for that. You can make two very different fighters, but two paladins have the same thing.

Course that is only feats. On skills the fighter is screwed. Hell, a fifth level fighter can't spot a 5th level theif to save his life. And all fighters are like that. How about that stereotypical nonsense?

I believe ease of use should not mean sacrifice character design choices.