28 Pages later (sounds like a movie), I have few comments. I've been playing D&D since 1981, back when Elf was a class and pretty much every variation there after. The mistake I think, is trying to make D&D too generic, for me it has a particualr flavour and any new ruleset should try and recapture that. I think the new rules are well on the way to doing that.
I'm in favour of a 'default' set of rules that closely resemble Forgetten Relams or World of Greyhawk, beacuse the setting and the rules need to inform each other. Vancian magic is one of the things that evokes D&D to me, its fine to present other options. Who doesn't want more options, but lets not turn it into GURPS, which does all things but not many of them well.
I played 4e a few times, but it felt too mechanichal and played like a computer game in my opinon, and thats not what I look for when I play D&D.
I don't see how a default limits anyones choices, you're free to ignore them in your game.
I think that their should be 4 default races: Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling 4 default Classes: Fighter,Cleric,Mage,Rogue 2 Default Magic systems: Divine & Arcane(Vancian) Their should be Stats, (Strength, Dextrerity ect), AC,HP's, Alignments, Hitrolls, saving throws, spells, gold, monsters, dungeons and magic items. That pretty much sums up what I think is core to D&D, and the system/mechanics are intertwined with setting.
I like the backgrounds and specilaities, plus the new advantage/disadvantage system. Changing the dice type has great potential too. The combat styles, rogue schems etc. are also cool. The new skill system is tight and easy to pick up. I see myself using most of those optional rules and the game still feeling right to me.
the problem isnt the edition wars, and it isnt finding that nostalgic scraching place gamers like me (since 79) like to get scrached in.
its about this scenario
after months of having 5e ran by terrible ted the worst DM in the multiverse, the gaming group is ready to let strange mike run a game.
"well guys got the 5e books right here, been planning and creating the plot for this campaign for months, I'll be running the game in the forgotten realms setting, but I prefer using some of the low magic optional rules, I want you to use random HP, and rolled stats, and I will be using hit location limb disablement and the armor/weapon breakage rules'
angry allen says "WAIT, WTF? I says right HERE on page 5 of the forgotten realms setting book that the default rule set your supposed to use when running in forgotton realms is all high magic, not low magic, and those other optional rules are used with darksun, we dont want to play dark sun, we want to play forgotten realms, whats wrong with you? Ted may suck as a DM but at least he follows the rules!!!!
and another great game that could have been is never born, all because of the common perception that if it isnt the default, it isnt right regardless of how often the core books said that optional rules are valid and ok.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
and another great game that could have been is never born, all because of the common perception that if it isnt the default, it isnt right regardless of how often the core books said that optional rules are valid and ok.
So if the common perception (I disagree that it is common at all BTW) is actually a misconception we should all suffer for that? You've got it backwards. Those few idiots with this misconception should suffer for their foolishness.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
the problem isnt the edition wars, and it isnt finding that nostalgic scraching place gamers like me (since 79) like to get scrached in.
its about this scenario
after months of having 5e ran by terrible ted the worst DM in the multiverse, the gaming group is ready to let strange mike run a game.
"well guys got the 5e books right here, been planning and creating the plot for this campaign for months, I'll be running the game in the forgotten realms setting, but I prefer using some of the low magic optional rules, I want you to use random HP, and rolled stats, and I will be using hit location limb disablement and the armor/weapon breakage rules'
angry allen says "WAIT, WTF? I says right HERE on page 5 of the forgotten realms setting book that the default rule set your supposed to use when running in forgotton realms is all high magic, not low magic, and those other optional rules are used with darksun, we dont want to play dark sun, we want to play forgotten realms, whats wrong with you? Ted may suck as a DM but at least he follows the rules!!!!
and another great game that could have been is never born, all because of the common perception that if it isnt the default, it isnt right regardless of how often the core books said that optional rules are valid and ok.
Thats not a problem a set of rules, regardless of how 'equal standing' each module has, can fix. I'd ask, as player, why you want to run Forgotten Realms game without the trappings of the particualar setting. As a DM i'd make up an ingame reason why it was a low magic variant. Maybe its an alternate dimension or somehow Mystra went missing. I just don't see how you expect the rules to fix a problem with players not wanting to play your carefully planned game? Its got to be solved at the table not in the book.
Thats not a problem a set of rules, regardless of how 'equal standing' each module has, can fix. I'd ask, as player, why you want to run Forgotten Realms game without the trappings of the particualar setting. As a DM i'd make up an ingame reason why it was a low magic variant. Maybe its an alternate dimension or somehow Mystra went missing. I just don't see how you expect the rules to fix a problem with players not wanting to play your carefully planned game? Its got to be solved at the table not in the book.
I agree completetly, you are far more likely to ruin potential games by not having any options but "here is D&D" as has been the case with the last edtion, than you are with "Here are the various ways magic can be handled.... aka vatican, mana, whatever 4th edition calls theirs". At leas in this way as a GM you have the option, without the problamatic and time consuming "create your own system" method. I mean for me as a GM, I don't want to create mechanics, I want the mechancis to be there for me, but I also have my preference abou the types of mechanics I like and I liked (past tense) D&D because it had a Vatican Magic system (as an example of a mechanic). That option to be eliminated completetly from the game is .... well, to me is broken. I mean its great if you like the new magic system, but its unfair given that for 25+ years it has existed one way and was suddenly changed.
At this point however going back to old mechanics is also problematic because 4th edition players like their new D&D and they don't want to see it abandoned either and frankly I don't blame them.
So with all the changes and type of mechanics used in D&D's past 5th edition is maknig the logical choice of being modular and including them all to ensure that DM's can pick and choose. Getting players to accept your version of D&D is another story, but that's not different than me coming to a game session saying "he we are playing 2nd edition" and people not wanting to because they like 4th edition. Its not something WOTC can fix for you.
Default=the rule set we expect you will want to use non-default= the rule set we didnt expect you would want to use, IE perception of different, bad, wrong.
get rid of the default, or at least make the default something that only truly begining players would want to use, and all advanced rules are "optional" and no misperception problems exist.
getting rid of the default solves problems, it does not create them. as explained earlyer, having no default would not make the game more time consuming or confusing, the default just becomes the first and most easy to understand and implement ruleset.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
Default=the rule set we expect you will want to use non-default= the rule set we didnt expect you would want to use, IE perception of different, bad, wrong.
get rid of the default, or at least make the default something that only truly begining players would want to use, and all advanced rules are "optional" and no misperception problems exist.
getting rid of the default solves problems, it does not create them. as explained earlyer, having no default would not make the game more time consuming or confusing, the default just becomes the first and most easy to understand and implement ruleset.
I can say in all honesty that has never happened to me. I really am truely sorry if thats how it is in your neck of the woods, but by and large when people play D&D they have certain expectaions. Like using a d20 to hit, Longswords do a d8, Wizards casting 1 fireball at 5th level, Thieves backstabing and Clerics can cast Cure Light Wounds. Thats D&D, for me at least.
But there are variants that I've liked, and they are setting dependnent. I enjoyed Birthright - the blood magic and realm running, plus the malicious elves where great. I also loved the clockwork mage in Al-Qadim (plus Genies). I wouldn't be adverse to trying a low magic variant of Forgotten Realms, but I don't want it given equal weight with the traditional high fantasy setting.
I've never had a problem getting players to play what ever kind of game I'm itching to run, but its not the fault of the rules if the players are too narrow minded to try it your way, its thiers. I don't want a set of rules that makes setting up a game harder than it needs to be. And I think a shopping list of modules would put off alot of first time players, who already have a lot of choice in the RPG system they try. D&D has the name, but if the first taste doesn't inspire and confuses instead, then off they go to Pathfinder or worse, back to WoW.
and another great game that could have been is never born, all because of the common perception that if it isnt the default, it isnt right regardless of how often the core books said that optional rules are valid and ok.
So if the common perception (I disagree that it is common at all BTW) is actually a misconception we should all suffer for that? You've got it backwards. Those few idiots with this misconception should suffer for their foolishness.
I hate to say it, but the “idiots” seem to be high in frequency.
Consider how many in these forums have strong feelings about what should be “core” - precisely because - they believe other ways of playing are the “wrong” way to play.
It seems obvious, the edition wars exist in the first place, because of feelings about the “right” way to play, plus a *REFUSAL* to homebrew the other edition to personalize it.
So, because attitudes about “core” are blatantly a problem, the rules must take pains to make it crystal clear that conflicting playstyles are equally legitimate. There can be no one whose playstyle “wins”.
"I don't want a set of rules that makes setting up a game harder than it needs to be. And I think a shopping list of modules would put off alot of first time players, who already have a lot of choice in the RPG system they try. D&D has the name, but if the first taste doesn't inspire and confuses instead, then off they go to Pathfinder or worse, back to WoW."
but again, thats your misconception...
how does having a default ruleset where the "novice" level of rules are suggested make it less complex than having a default ruleset where the "beginner" level of rules are suggested?
D&D next will have rules modules. D&D next will have beginning players.
do you want the rules to cater to the beginning players and suggest that ALL settings have the same basic rules? or do you want the beginning rules to vary and change from setting to setting?
heres the thing your not getting... (and I know this isnt the system, its just an example)
go to the hit points section. there are seven choices...
1) set hp per level regardless of class, except fighters which get +3 hp per level. 2) set hp per level dependant on class 3) random hp 4) set HP with +con stat 5) random HP with +con stat 6) random hp with con adjust +x per level/per 2 pts con over 11 7) random HP with con adjust as above but with set hp after 10th level and DR for con/armor combinations.
now there are your choices, with my ideal game the core book suggests that the "default" setting for HP is always the first setting, so its the most easy to use, if your first level, you have 5hp regardless of if your a mage or rogue, but fighters get 8 per level. easy to understand, no rolling, no need to look up stat adjustments, etc. its simple easy and fast to get started. no need to read or implement the other rules.
once you got the simple system down, your free to change things as you will, maybe you'll want to make the hp random, or grant a varying con adjust per level. but its up to you and your players.
in your system your suggesting that rule 4 is the default because its most like traditional 1e-3e... but its NOT more simple or easy than my "beginner" default level.
in fact, your novice level system is even more confusing and time consuming. the same choices are still available, but now your beginning players are going to have to figure out what con stat equates with what HP bonus.
my system better.
@hal agreed
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I want the default rules to be as D&D like as possible while still being a leaner and more simpler system than 3.5e. I didn't buy one 4th Edition Rulebook because it didn't feel like D&D to me, if WotC want to gather the disparet edition faithfulls back to the fold the games has to feel like D&D and not a bored game or DIY system.
So I'm in favour of a default set of modules that evokes old school D&D while making strides in playability and speed. With optional bells and whistles to accomodate personal group styles. D&D Next needs to provide a solid framework not a mechano set.
I still think your placing a burden on the rule set to fix your local problem that it can't fix. If 'Angry Allan' can't or won't try something different I fail to see how less structered game system will appeal to him at all, won't he stick with 4th ed of Pathfinder or whatever it is he prefers anyway?
Right now I'm playing D&D Next and 1st Edition Advanced and the tone/feel is very close, much better than 3rd Ed with its plethora of feats and mutliclasses, less obvoisly game mechanic driven than 4th. In its current incarnation 5th Ed already has my vote, and thats due to having the heart of D&D beating at ist core.
