View Full Version : Xorvintaal: A New RPG based on the concept from MMV

2011-12-10, 12:53 PM
So this is my home brew game, Xorvintaal, which will be played by characters filling roles as dragons. The basic rules will be up soon. The concept is about using minions as well as plotting and traps to gain a larger hoard.

Zeta Kai
2011-12-10, 02:08 PM
Interesting concept; I've always liked Xorvintaal & it's effects upon dragons, so I'll be curious to see what you do with this. Tell me, will this be an original game in its own right, separate from 3E rules, or will it be a game-within-the-game of D&D?

2011-12-10, 04:45 PM
I love Xorvintaal, I thought it was a great idea. Always thought that Wizards made many disservices to lots of little things like this that they came up as half-cooked ideas, tossed em out, and then never thought about it again.

I will definitely keep an eye on this if you get it going.


2011-12-10, 09:40 PM
I have long thought of writing down my own specific interpretations of the Xorvintaal game, perhaps even running a game using said rules, either from the dragon or the dragon's pieces point of view. I am terribly interested.

2011-12-10, 11:51 PM
I've always loved the Xorvintaal idea. I look forward to seeing your ideas.

2011-12-11, 03:21 AM
If your going to design Xorvintaal your going to need to say weather it's a game inside a game or a completely new system.

If it's a completely new system you have to decide the following. How big is the map?

Zeta Kai
2011-12-11, 12:36 PM
How big is the map?

Map? What does that mean? :smallconfused:

2011-12-13, 03:45 AM
Warning: going off on a tangent/rant ...

I love Xorvintaal, I thought it was a great idea. Always thought that Wizards made many disservices to lots of little things like this that they came up as half-cooked ideas, tossed em out, and then never thought about it again.

Agreed. If you ask me, it's another symptom of the same old problem WotC keeps bashing their heads against: their general production model, based on the sacred cow of the "Core Set" of MM, PHB, and DMG.

What they need to do, if they want a flavorful and sustainable edition of D&D, is release a Core set that doesn't involve a MM. (At least, not a whole one. A few generic monsters that everybody loves would be OK.) On the other hand, most of the crunch/classes/feats/etc. for PCs should be "Core." The game shouldn't need dozens of expansions full of new classes and spells and other character options; good "crunch" books like Tome of Battle and Magic Item Compendium and Complete Scoundrel (skill tricks) should be included from the beginning.

Then, instead of pumping out dozens of splatbooks of character options in a way that inevitably bloats the game system, makes it too complex for entry-level players and power-creeps it, WotC should focus on publishing settings and modules. One of the main reasons settings and modules haven't sold as well as WotC hoped is because, as people complain, they don't have enough "crunch" in them. So ... put "Monsters" chapters in these books as their main "crunch" contributions. (You could still include the occasional flavorful PrC or artifact, too, of course.)

This model of game production gives people a real reason to keep buying new books, even when they already have their crunchy player options sufficiently covered. It also makes monsters more flavorful and better-suited to the worlds in which they appear.

So in such a system, Xorvintaal, for example, would have been its own splatbook. (Awesome, huh? I'd buy it.) It wouldn't change the game rules at all. It wouldn't have much "crunch" except for the Dragons themselves -- but it would have a lot of those, and they'd be awesome. It would have a chapter about how you could design your own setting based around the Great Game as a central concept (like this thread), but also a chapter on how to adapt Xorvintaal into other popular fantasy settings. It would have a couple chapters that were self-contained Xorvintaal-centered adventure modules.

That's what WotC should be doing to save D&D. Anyone have their ear and want to pass along some 5e recommendations?

2011-12-13, 04:53 AM
That's a nice idea in theory, but you assume they know exactly what kind of character mechanics they are able to put into place from the setting launch.

Back in 2000, or even 2003, when they put out the PHBs, 3.0 or 3.5, do you think they could even envision the concepts and interplay of something like the Incarnum system, the Book of Nine Swords, or the Dragonfire Adept?

Look at 4e, they started with a fairly rigid structure in the PHB1, but as they went, PHB2, PHB3, Essentials, they loosened up their mechanics and began to explore more variety in how characters were constructed. Now, you don't have to agree with the end-results, but do you think the designers of 4e writing the PHB1 could have envisioned the end-result of classes like the Berserker barbarian, the Battlemind, or the Hunter ranger? They had to take exploratory steps to get there.

On-topic: Interesting concept, looking forward to how it develops.