If I were to run D&D, I doubt most of you would play

[Kiero]

I've never run 3.x, nor even played it besides Neverwinter Nights. My main experience with D&D was several years of weekly play with AD&D2e. Much of what I see in the current edition is stuff I just have no stomach for. Indeed, I don't play anything anywhere near as crunchy nowadays.

But for argument's sake, if I was persuaded to do so, I'd make some pretty sweeping changes to what was "in" my game.

1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes. Furthermore, the Monk class is removed. I'd be tempted to get rid of the Wizard as well. That's if I didn't got the UA route of replacing all the classes with the three generic ones like True20 does. Why don't I just play True20? For the purposes of this scenario, I can't. I'd also probably go all-human.

2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.

3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.

4) Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.

5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level. I'd probably use something like E6 as well, to stop hit points spiralling to ridiculous levels later on. Also cuts out dull high-level combat with "buff-buff-dispel attempt-buff-finally we get on with the fighting".

6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).

7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.

8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.

So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

Um... so? You don't play vanilla D&D. What exactly do you want us to say?

[Ulzgoroth]

Yes, unsold. But would you care to explain what you do in combat without even the concept of a tactical map?

[Kiero]

Yes, unsold. But would you care to explain what you do in combat without even the concept of a tactical map?

Narrative, purely cinematic combat. Just like we do playing Feng Shui. Stuff is where we say it is, nothing is nailed down until someone narrates it so.

[Cyborg Pirate]

...If you're gonna do all that, why bother with DnD in the first place? There are much better systems out there.

[Kiero]

...If you're gonna do all that, why bother with DnD in the first place? There are much better systems out there.

Because sometimes you have to work with what people know, not what you'd like to do. Besides in some ways it would actually be easier to use UA to engineer something like True20, than to just use True20. Mostly cos I don't like the damage save, even if it does remove level-escalating hitpoints.

[Ulzgoroth]

Exactly what part of what people know are you working with? I'm kind of not seeing what you haven't gutted. Out of everything in the core books, what's left? Ability scores and the basic attack resolution mechanic?

[Yuki Akuma]

Exactly what part of what people know are you working with? I'm kind of not seeing what you haven't gutted. Out of everything in the core books, what's left? Ability scores and the basic attack resolution mechanic?

He just wants to be able to say "I play D&D!", he doesn't really want to play it.

[Kurald Galain]

So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

No. I fail to see the problem with any of the things you've mentioned; it gives a game more focused on atmosphere than on mechanics, and that's not a bad thing in my book. I should note, however, that you haven't pointed out what you will do, or convinced me that you can write a decent plot. That would be a dealbreaker :smallcool:

[Cyborg Pirate]

Because sometimes you have to work with what people know, not what you'd like to do. Besides in some ways it would actually be easier to use UA to engineer something like True20, than to just use True20. Mostly cos I don't like the damage save, even if it does remove level-escalating hitpoints.

But you're already removing so much of the rules. How is just switching to a better rule-light system any different after all those changes?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you mean. a large part of DnD's popularity comes from people being scared of trying something other then what's most popular. But what you're doing here is more along the lines of tricking people into a new type of game by telling them that it's DnD.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Out of curiosity; why remove the Monk?

[Kiero]

Out of curiosity; why remove the Monk?

Doesn't belong in a western fantasy-inspired game. Plus, there was no monk in AD&D2e, which is where most of my experience is. If someone wants an unarmed combatant-type, they should be using Fighter.

[Artemician]

Doesn't belong in a western fantasy-inspired game. Plus, there was no monk in AD&D2e, which is where most of my experience is. If someone wants an unarmed combatant-type, they should be using Fighter.

I.. don't understand. Why don't you get rid of the Paladin, the Ranger, and the Barbarian as well? After all, you can perfectly represent them with the Fighter. In fact, why don't you just abandon this mockery of calling it "D&D" and go play True20?

You want something that's the same as True20.. but you want to call it D&D. I don't understand your logic..

[Kiero]

I.. don't understand. Why don't you get rid of the Paladin, the Ranger, and the Barbarian as well? After all, you can perfectly represent them with the Fighter. In fact, why don't you just abandon this mockery of calling it "D&D" and go play True20?

You want something that's the same as True20.. but you want to call it D&D. I don't understand your logic..

AD&D2e did perfectly well without the Monk.

What is it with people on this board and the fallacy of the excluded middle? This isn't an all-binary world we live in where there are only ever two choices to something.

[Artemician]

AD&D2e did perfectly well without the Monk.

What is it with people on this board and the fallacy of the excluded middle? This isn't an all-binary world we live in where there are only ever two choices to something.

But the thing is.. What middle?

You're basically trying to run True20. Only with hit points instead of toughness saves. Trying to call it D&D isn't very accurate at all.

[Matthew]

But the thing is.. What middle?

You're basically trying to run True20. Only with hit points instead of toughness saves. Trying to call it D&D isn't very accurate at all.

Far too strong a reaction, in my opinion. It's just a D&D Variant by the sounds of things. Not much different from some of the variants provided in the Core Books and Unearthed Arcana. The aspect that really makes it 'less D&D' is the suggested use of E6. Everything else is fairly minor.

[Droodle]

AD&D2e did perfectly well without the Monk.It also did perfectly well without the sorcerer. It did perfectly well with Bards learning and casting spells like a wizard. It did perfectly well with druids being restricted to neutral alignment and being required to kill a higher level druid in order to keep gaining levels. It did fine without lots of things that were changed or added by 3E. If you want the games to be like 2E, why don't you just play 2E? There are still gaming groups that do it.

[Matthew]

I dunno, it doesn't sound much like (A)D&D 2.x to me.

[Droodle]

I dunno, it doesn't sound much like (A)D&D 2.x to me.My impression is that he wants the rules to be light and flexible.....and he at least wants the classes to resemble 2E. As I see it, 2E games are among the simplest and easiest to run because it hasn't codified each and every aspect of interaction or combat. If he wants 2.x-esque classes, he might as well just go to the horse's mouth.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. The only thing that speaks to me in that regard is number 2).

[Swooper]

My impression is that he wants the rules to be light and flexible.....and he at least wants the classes to resemble 2E. As I see it, 2E games are among the simplest and easiest to run because it hasn't codified each and every aspect of interaction or combat. If he wants 2.x-esque classes, he might as well just go to the horse's mouth.It is, untill you need to actually make attack rolls and work out the ThAC0 system. It's... confusing. :smalleek:

[Name_Here]

So you gut gear, spellcasting, melee classes and magic gear.
Why? Is giving the players a measurement of the gold they have on hand so detrimental to atmosphere? Is the ability of your fighter to stop enemies from getting to the squishy members a horrible affront to you? Does the idea that somebody will deal in rare magical items worth large amounts of gold seem ludicis?

Over all you are right I would refuse to play in your campaign. With the classes gutted the party wouldn't stand much of a chance in fights. Then of course whatever class I do play how on earth do I know that you won't take away my useful class features if it conflicts with the way you like to see the rules? Overall I just don't see how a person who makes so many changes for weak reasons could ever make an acceptable DM.

[Matthew]

It is, untill you need to actually make attack rolls and work out the ThAC0 system. It's... confusing. :smalleek:

Only very slightly more confusing than AB and AC - and once you're used to it, it's very easy. The real problem was the language employed around it, such as +2 Bonus to AC (which caused some occasional confusion). I prefer AB and AC on the whole, but THAC0 wasn't a particularly difficult concept, just unintuitive.

[Yuki Akuma]

Only very slightly more confusing than AB and AC - and once you're used to it, it's very easy. The real problem was the language employed around it, such as +2 Bonus to AC (which caused some occasional confusion). I prefer AB and AC on the whole, but THAC0 wasn't a particularly difficult concept, just unintuitive.

THAC0 works exactly the same way as BaB in 3.x... except with negatiuve numbers instead of positive ones.

[Swooper]

Only very slightly more confusing than AB and AC - and once you're used to it, it's very easy. The real problem was the language employed around it, such as +2 Bonus to AC (which caused some occasional confusion). I prefer AB and AC on the whole, but THAC0 wasn't a particularly difficult concept, just unintuitive.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I meant... I played AD&D for a few years myself. I can still remember how relieved my group was when we read the combat rules for 3.0. For some reason, adding is much easier than deducting in your head :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

THAC0 works exactly the same way as BaB in 3.x... except with negatiuve numbers instead of positive ones.

Yes indeed. As I said, there was more confusion about the language surrounding it than the actual maths.

[ZeroNumerous]

Really, why make all these house-rules for D&D when you could just change True20's damage saves to an HP system?

A silly number of houserules versus one houserule is a better idea, in my opinion.

[Yuki Akuma]

Really, why make all these house-rules for D&D when you could just change True20's damage saves to an HP system?

Because he wants to pretend he's playing D&D.

[ZeroNumerous]

Because he wants to pretend he's playing D&D.

"Hey guys, lets try a new system."
"Ok, sure. What is it?"
"It's D&D Lite!"
*Whips out True20 and throws it on the table.*
"Instead of damage saves, we're just gonna use HP."
"Cool."

Call it what he wants.

EDIT: To answer the OP: No, I wouldn't play. But thats because you aren't running D&D and I don't know True20. If I could get a book and learn True20, then I'd be glad to try out a new system.

[squishycube]

I also doubt whether I'd play. Wait, actually I don't; I simple wouldn't play. I'll tell you why. The OP has made this thread and only 'negated' (for lack of a better word) things: cut this, remove that, restrict that. On top of that the title isn't very inviting either "I doubt that most of you would play". Why all the negativity? Just say "I play a rules-light, roleplaying focused fantasy game" and have fun.
No wonder many posters here made gruff and hostile posts, the OP has invited nothing but negativity with the style of posting.

[Tallis]

AD&D2e did perfectly well without the Monk.

What is it with people on this board and the fallacy of the excluded middle? This isn't an all-binary world we live in where there are only ever two choices to something.

The AD&D 2e monk was in the Scarlet Brotherhood book. It isn't core and it came out near the end of 2e production, but it does exist. Assassin too I think.

[Tallis]

It also did perfectly well without the sorcerer. It did perfectly well with Bards learning and casting spells like a wizard. It did perfectly well with druids being restricted to neutral alignment and being required to kill a higher level druid in order to keep gaining levels. It did fine without lots of things that were changed or added by 3E. If you want the games to be like 2E, why don't you just play 2E? There are still gaming groups that do it.

Druids had to duel their superiors to move up, no one ever said they had to kill them. They could, and probably usually did, have non-lethal duels.

[Tengu]

Oh, another "I'm better than you because you don't like excessive houserules" thread. Yawn.

I wouldn't play DND with you because I don't play DND in the first place.

[Tallis]

I've never run 3.x, nor even played it besides Neverwinter Nights. My main experience with D&D was several years of weekly play with AD&D2e. Much of what I see in the current edition is stuff I just have no stomach for. Indeed, I don't play anything anywhere near as crunchy nowadays.

But for argument's sake, if I was persuaded to do so, I'd make some pretty sweeping changes to what was "in" my game.

1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes. Furthermore, the Monk class is removed. I'd be tempted to get rid of the Wizard as well. That's if I didn't got the UA route of replacing all the classes with the three generic ones like True20 does. Why don't I just play True20? For the purposes of this scenario, I can't. I'd also probably go all-human.

2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.

3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.

4) Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.

5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level. I'd probably use something like E6 as well, to stop hit points spiralling to ridiculous levels later on. Also cuts out dull high-level combat with "buff-buff-dispel attempt-buff-finally we get on with the fighting".

6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).

7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.

8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.

So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

1- I could live with that. I'd miss the wizard if you removed him though.

2- Fine, if it's run well

3-Eh, not sure about this, probably okay. Where's the line of what's important and what's not?

4- I like this. I limit magic items in my own game. Though I do allow them to be made on commision if you can find someone to do it.

5-I could live with it, though I wonder why you'd start at level 5 and then use an E6 type system. Where would leveling stop? Why not start at level 1?

6-fine

7-good

8-Don't know that I like it, but certainly it's workable.

All in all I would be willing to try playing in your game. It would really come down to how good a DM you are.

To everyone saying this isn't D&D, I disagree. D&D is made to be houseruled and that's what this is. It's a heavily modified system, but the basic mechanics are still in place.

Squishy cube makes a very good point. The way this thread was presented invites negativity. Why not just put it up as: this is what I'd do with 3e?

[Narmoth]

Or, you could do as grumpy old me and continue to play 2nd ed, and if you want include players option rules and homebrew some rules.
And the books are much cheaper to!

[Matthew]

The AD&D 2e monk was in the Scarlet Brotherhood book. It isn't core and it came out near the end of 2e production, but it does exist. Assassin too I think.
Hmmn. Much like in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, 1.x Oriental Adventures didn't get an update. However, several Second Edition Adventures were published using many of the rules (including the Monk Class), so you could say the Monk never really went away... Of course, the Monk actually first reapppeared officially as a Kit in The Complete Priest's Handbook and then as a fully fledged Sub Class in Player's Option: Spells and Magic, if I recall correctly.

[Kiero]

The AD&D 2e monk was in the Scarlet Brotherhood book. It isn't core and it came out near the end of 2e production, but it does exist. Assassin too I think.

Assassin was a 1st edition original.


Why not start at level 1?

I don't like playing, or running games for novice characters.

[Matthew]

Indeed, and much like the Monk, it also appeared as a Kit in Second Edition, but in The Complete Thief's Handbook.

[Arbitrarity]

What's amusing here is you only ever level up once.

E6+start at level 5?

[Matthew]

As I understand it, you keep levelling in E6, you just don't get the majority of the benefits.

[Tengu]

After reaching level 6 you only gain feats in E6.

[ZeroNumerous]

To everyone saying this isn't D&D, I disagree. D&D is made to be houseruled and that's what this is. It's a heavily modified system, but the basic mechanics are still in place.

Uh.. No, it's not. It's E6. E6 just happens to be a system that uses the d20 OGL rules established by D&D. It's not D&D in and of itself.

After all, we can't count d20 OGL as D&D. By that basis, d20 Modern is D&D. As is all the other d20 [X] supplements. Just imagine throwing a d20 Modern book on the table during a D&D session, flipping it open, and saying your character now has an assault rifle?

"But thats not D&D!"
"It's OGL and all the basic mechanics of D&D are there, so it's just heavily modified D&D."

[PinkysBrain]

http://static.flickr.com/49/149521745_a131816035.jpg

[Matthew]

Uh.. No, it's not. It's E6. E6 just happens to be a system that uses the d20 OGL rules established by D&D. It's not D&D in and of itself.

After all, we can't count d20 OGL as D&D. By that basis, d20 Modern is D&D. As is all the other d20 [X] supplements. Just imagine throwing a d20 Modern book on the table during a D&D session, flipping it open, and saying your character now has an assault rifle?

"But thats not D&D!"
"It's OGL and all the basic mechanics of D&D are there, so it's just heavily modified D&D."

Veh? D&D is more than just D&D 3.x. The lines are blurry as to what constitutes D&D. Is it still D&D if you remove Sorcerers as a Base Class? Is it still D&D if you use some Third Party Feats? Is it still D&D if you introduce Fire Arms? E6, I would say, is sufficiently far apart from D&D to say it is no longer D&D, but the criteria by which such a conclusion could be reached are not likely to be universally agreeable.

[ZeroNumerous]

Personally, I feel that point is when you're changing the basics about character growth on top of setting up a low-magic campaign(as well as removing Dragons from the equation by not letting PCs reach their CR). You're not D&D at now. You're Dungeons&Mooks.

And Matthews, I completely support that line of questioning. By just saying that d20 OGL = D&D, you're already far off from D&D simply because of the sheer amount of things contained in the OGL.

[Jayabalard]

By just saying that d20 OGL = D&D, you're already far off from D&D simply because of the sheer amount of things contained in the OGL.Some people tend to think of a gaming system in less narrow terms than you; myself, anything that is even vaguely based off of the D&D rules, any edition I'll call D&D; it's mostly related to how important you think the game mechanics are to the game.

Really though, the point is that "the criteria by which such a conclusion could be reached are not likely to be universally agreeable." and arguing over what is or isn't D&D is kind of silly.

[Dervag]

Some people tend to think of a gaming system in less narrow terms than you; myself, anything that is even vaguely based off of the D&D rules, any edition I'll call D&D; it's mostly related to how important you think the game mechanics are to the game.

Really though, the point is that "the criteria by which such a conclusion could be reached are not likely to be universally agreeable." and arguing over what is or isn't D&D is kind of silly.What makes the game is the way that the mechanics interact with the style.

For instance, D&D uses hit points and armor-as-reduced-hit-probability. Now, switching it to armor-as-damage-reduction doesn't stop it from being D&D. But going from hit points to a wound point rule does reduce the 'D&D-ness' of the system, because two of the major features of D&D roleplaying are that:
a)Characters can withstand a great deal of 'damage' with no ill effects, then fall over dead; and
b)Powerful beings usually have many times more ability to withstand damage than ordinary beings.

Remove those two things, and the system is less like D&D and more like some other game system.

If you make enough similar house rules, until there's nothing left but the basic D20 mechanic, you don't have D&D anymore. You have some other game that uses the D20 mechanic and a few of the same parts as D&D, but which will play totally differently. Powerful beings will not have many times more ability to take damage than ordinary ones; characters will not become more powerful by overcoming monsters and dangers in a predictable way, and so on.

[Matthew]

I dunno. I liked ZeroNumerous' suggestion - it's got to have Dungeons and Dragons to be Dungeons & Dragons!

Let's make a list of things it has to have, much easier than things it cannot have. I would add that Player Characters have to be Level Based and have Hit Die, THAC0/Attack Bonus and Armour Class.

[Edit]
Oh yeah, it's got to have Warriors/Fighters/etc... and Wizards/Mages, possibly also Clerics/Priests and Rogues/Thieves

[Raum]

Is D&D the mechanical system, the setting, or some combination of the two? I'd argue that it's the system. It certainly was in the days before d20 and OGL. It's been played in nearly as many different settings as there are people running games. Everything from historical, to fantasy, and even science fiction.

As a system, it's robust enough to survive just about everything done to it. It's gone through multiple revisions, has been expanded, and even house ruled. The real question is what attributes must the system maintain to still be D&D. So what is common to D&D through all the editions, expansions, and house rules? Matthew mentioned a couple I'd agree with including being level based and using an attack attribute. I'd add class based, abstract combat & health, and a repeatable spell system to the list. By repeatable, I mean the same spell does the same thing with minimal variation each time it's cast.

Alternatively you could just say it's a trademark. :smallwink:

[Talya]

So what you're saying is that you have no experience, and yet would like to remove all the customizability, player-options, and fun from the game, and look scornfully upon those who like those things?

You're right. I wouldn't play.

(I don't mind removing grid-combat, although it makes the system much harder to work with.)

[Talya]

The AD&D 2e monk was in the Scarlet Brotherhood book. It isn't core and it came out near the end of 2e production, but it does exist. Assassin too I think.

Huh. How long ago did Salvatore publish his "Cleric Quintet?" Danica was a monk, that had to be fairly early in 2e...

[Matthew]

As noted above, there were Second Edition Products published using Oriental Adventures and the Monk Class. Essentially, it never disappeared from D&D, just from the PHB.

[Raum]

Huh. How long ago did Salvatore publish his "Cleric Quintet?" Danica was a monk, that had to be fairly early in 2e...Monks were in AD&D, probably even in the original boxed sets though I no longer have one to check.

[Kurald Galain]

I dunno. I liked ZeroNumerous' suggestion - it's got to have Dungeons and Dragons to be Dungeons & Dragons!

Good point. I encountered dragons in a number of games, and none of those were D&D :smallsmile:

[LotharBot]

I don't mind the mechanics the OP described... I could be persuaded to try them, whether we called it "D&D" or "D&D lite" or "True20" or "my homebrew system".

But I'm not sure I'd want a DM who displays the particular form of people-management skills we've seen thus far. As squishycube mentioned, virtually everything stated was negative -- remove this; restrict that; you wouldn't play with me. Get rid of the negativity and just describe the game, and you'll get a lot more takers.

[Matthew]

Monks were in AD&D, probably even in the original boxed sets though I no longer have one to check.
They first appear in the Blackmoor (O)D&D Supplement to the best of my knowledge, which can be downloaded for free from Dave Arneson's Website.

[horseboy]

Some people tend to think of a gaming system in less narrow terms than you; myself, anything that is even vaguely based off of the D&D rules, any edition I'll call D&D; it's mostly related to how important you think the game mechanics are to the game.

Really though, the point is that "the criteria by which such a conclusion could be reached are not likely to be universally agreeable." and arguing over what is or isn't D&D is kind of silly.
Dear God, I'm in agreement with Jayabalard. Will wonders never cease. Of course, for me the answer runs along the lines of: Does it use a d20 to hit? Is it based on/by/for Hasbro? If the answer is yes, it's D&D.

1) I never use anything not in the core books anyway.
2) Miniatures only belong in 40K.
3) A little bit too close to Vampire(the equipment part), but I'm ok with the "no xp" part. It's not that uncommon a campaign I've been in that the dm didn't just award levels if/when he felt appropriate. So long as you're not bogarting levels I'm good with it.
4) Totally agree. The only thing that should be purchasable would be something like pots of CLW, Neutralize poison, and/or cure disease, as these could be made non magically.
5) Odd but interesting.
6) So long as I've got some way of being able to get a chance at detecting the ambush. Of course, without character skills and a very loose inventory, you're going to be upset after the second time I've blown up the BBEG's fortress with Vaseline and Morton's Lite salt.
7 & 8) yeah, no problem

All in all is sounds like an OG night.

[Bosh]

It seems that you don't want to play D&D so you took D&D and changed it until it basically isn't D&D anymore. Now there's nothing wrong with that and the sort of RPG that you want to play is a lot like the sort of RPG that I want to play but you can't turn D&D into the sort of RPG that you want to play just by making the list of changes that you propose since the core mechanics of D&D don't fit the kind of game that you want to play and a lot of your changes will destroy what little balance exists in D&D.


Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.
Which would make druids, already one of the most powerful classes, more powerful and several weak classes (like fighters) even weaker since they're very equipment-dependent.


I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.
That would make TWF, which is already weak, even weaker.

House rules are all well and good but you have to be very careful about balance when implementing them and trying to make D&D something that another system (True20) already does better is rather silly.

If you're just playing D&D because everyone else in your group plays it then either suck it up and actually play D&D or get the group to trust you as a GM and then get them to play the game system that you really want to play for the next campaign. That's what's going on in my gaming group, we're a bunch of people who've mostly played D&D who are now branching off into other gaming systems because we're getting frustrated with some of the problems with D&D.


If someone wants an unarmed combatant-type, they should be using Fighter.
But then they would suck. Balance is important in D&D.


AD&D2e did perfectly well without the Monk.
Then why not play AD&D2e? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm in the same boat as you and am tired of D&D 3.5, so I've stopped playing it (for now at least).


Just say "I play a rules-light, roleplaying focused fantasy game" and have fun.
Because taking D&D and hacking off bits that aren't rules-light leaves you with a fairly crappy game. Its much better to play a game that's designed to be rules-light (like Fate).

[skywalker]

@Bosh: Run, do not walk, from a poorly-run game of FATE.

@Kiero: You live up to your avatar. Everything you're saying seems rather nasty and stuck-up. Like your opinion is SO much better than everyone else's. The title of the thread itself is very borderline. It really is inviting negativity.

1st level was the most fun level I ever played. I smote some mooks and the wizard nearly died and we went crazy over 100XP because it was a 10th of what we needed to level up.

What's with all these threads talking about: "If *I* ran D&D" lately? Did we suddenly get tired of optimizing weird stuff like claw-builds and criticizing monks? CoD-zilla lose his luster, suddenly?

[Skjaldbakka]

A while back, someone said this wasn't vanilla D&D. I disagree, it is extra virgin vanilla D&D. There isn't anything terribly interesting to do in terms of character build or combat. You may as well just make it interactive narrative, and don't even bother with stats at all. Yep, unsold. Absolutely, 100% would not play in this game. There isn't anything interesting about it at all. And I've played in games where everyone played NPC classes.

[Behold_the_Void]

I think the thing most preventing me from playing in your game is your attitude about it, to be honest. You seem to come across with a holier-than-thou persona that grates on my nerves to say the least.

That being said, I must echo many and say why D&D? Seriously, you obviously don't want to be playing D&D so why gut the system in such a way as you'll destroy what little balance it had and make it wholly unplayable? Just use a different system that you like more. D&D is designed for really epic, high-magic settings. Just use a different game that isn't, since you obviously don't want that.

[squishycube]

Because taking D&D and hacking off bits that aren't rules-light leaves you with a fairly crappy game. Its much better to play a game that's designed to be rules-light (like Fate).

This was not the point. I was addressing attitude rather than workability.

[Deepblue706]

I wouldn't like your game because of the fact the combat is purely cinema. I enjoy the in-game tactics, and I like having a specific layout for everything. I prefer to have a set rule parameters in place, and work within them. When things get too "open", I feel like I'm no longer playing a board game, but rather cops and robbers. That just isn't something I enjoy much.

I wouldn't enjoy paying no heed to wealth, and just "agreeing upon" XP isn't something I would like, either. Sure, wealth and XP are things that can be "expected" to come at certain intervals, but I don't like actually "expecting" anything. I actually do my best to keep myself from assuming anything about what the DM will send my way, and just play the game. Part of the fun in RPGs, for me, is not knowing what'll come next. I enjoy sometimes being short on cash, or having an abundance. I also enjoy having some numbers on a sheet under "XP", telling me just how much harder I need to try to get to the next level. As I said, I don't presume when it'll come - the anticipation is still enjoyable, though. Discussing and agreeing upon stuff like this openly...would ruin some of the fun, for me.

Also, I was never a fan of carrying loads of items and carrying it despite any lacking of strength. "Okay, I'll just carry 100+ potions of cure severe wounds....and 100+ of cure moderate..."-etc just doesn't appeal to me. Too much like Final Fantasy for a game that's not Final Fantasy (even if the first FF stole some stuff).

So, in short, I probably would not join a game with these rules. And when I say "probably", I mean "absolutely". I would be enticed by an interesting storyline, if you had one (as that's usually something I look at first), but the rules mentioned above just don't match what I would look for in a game. Armor with DR is neat, as are generic classes and no-more cross-classing...

But, what you call "guff" and "bean-counting" are things I see as important to the game. Honestly, I think they can be very interesting tools for a DM to use - and throwing them out just makes me expect less. Really, I think I'd be bored with this kind of game, because it seems too far into the "action hero" realm. I hate action movies, nearly as much as I hate romantic comedies. And...well...let's say that amount of hate would be equal to the average intelligent person's hatred towards Water World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld).

[ZeroNumerous]

What's with all these threads talking about: "If *I* ran D&D" lately?

Most of them were responses to this thread.

[CyberWyld]

I didn't get far past the original post here, but I will say this. In my experience, the 1st type of game whether it be version or just game type is the one that people always build up. What happens is you play a NEW game to you and it's exciting and you're in awe by it. Then it's upgraded and versions change....then you decide your old version was better. When in reality it's you that has really changed in a negative way, not the game. You've changed in a negative way because you've not adapted and grown with the game.

Ask anyone that plays MMORPG's. What do they always say? I'm a WoW player and all I ever hear is "Man this is bull****, back in Everquest this was so much better"! I do it myself in reference to Ultima Online. Actually if those 3 games had be released all at once, no one would even know the names of EverQuest or UO...because we would've all been playing WoW. Same goes for this discussion.

I love D&D, but when I think of playing a d20 game, the one that sticks out in my mind is TMNT after the bomb. :smallbiggrin: Because it was the very first experience I'd ever had with d20 style game at age 13.

My point is that I feel your pain, but it is in fact that...your pain. The game is better then it was back in 2nd Ed. It's allowed TONS of freedom and you can basically make WHATEVER type of character you want as long as you keep in balanced and stay in the paramiters of what the rules allow. To the majority this is an amazing thing and it's why people play D&D I think. Anyways, that's just what I think.



hasta

[Dervag]

I dunno. I liked ZeroNumerous' suggestion - it's got to have Dungeons and Dragons to be Dungeons & Dragons!

Let's make a list of things it has to have, much easier than things it cannot have. I would add that Player Characters have to be Level Based and have Hit Die, THAC0/Attack Bonus and Armour Class.Well, armor as damage reduction wouldn't dramatically change the feel of the system; but I see what you mean.

I don't want to be narrow-minded here. You can change one or two major features and still have a game that is essentially D&D. But when you knock out character progression and experience points and several combat mechanics and several major classes and hit point progression by level...

you don't have D&D anymore. You have some other system operating in a similar setting.


Monks were in AD&D, probably even in the original boxed sets though I no longer have one to check.And Second Edition was pretty much entirely backwards compatible with First Edition (I remember a campaign where we used the Second Edition Players' Handbook and the First Edition DM Guide and Monster Manuals with no ill effects). So you could play a First Edition monk in a Second Edition campaign if you had the literature to tell you how to do so.


2) Miniatures only belong in 40K.They come in handy. I'm fond of using Legos for miniatures, since 'real' miniatures are ludicrously expensive and since you can't possibly hope to have miniatures that realistically represent everything in the campaign universe anyway.

[Irreverent Fool]

I've never run 3.x, nor even played it besides Neverwinter Nights. My main experience with D&D was several years of weekly play with AD&D2e. Much of what I see in the current edition is stuff I just have no stomach for. Indeed, I don't play anything anywhere near as crunchy nowadays.

That really should have ended the thread right there for most of us. If you run other games, cool. If you run 2e, cool. I really don't understand your point at all. (But dear lord would I love to play second edition. I had all the core books and knew my stuff up and down. By the time I got a group, it was all 3e. ;_;)

[Dausuul]

1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes. Furthermore, the Monk class is removed. I'd be tempted to get rid of the Wizard as well.

Preach it, brother.


That's if I didn't got the UA route of replacing all the classes with the three generic ones like True20 does. Why don't I just play True20? For the purposes of this scenario, I can't. I'd also probably go all-human.

I like all-human. Not familiar with the "three generic classes," but that's probably fine.


2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.

I certainly have no problem playing without a tactical map--it makes for faster, lighter combats, and God knows D&D could use some of that.


3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.

Sounds fine to me, as long as people apply some common sense as to what they can and can't carry--the sorceror with Strength 8 should not be able to pick up the seven-foot fighter in full plate and go half a mile at an all-out sprint.


4) Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.

Good deal. Ordinarily I'd have some balance concerns about a drastic cut in magic item availability, but...


5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level. I'd probably use something like E6 as well, to stop hit points spiralling to ridiculous levels later on. Also cuts out dull high-level combat with "buff-buff-dispel attempt-buff-finally we get on with the fighting".

This addresses a multitude of problems with D&D, including the aforementioned magic-item-balance issues. If people cap at level 6, the world can be low-magic and it works just fine.


6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).

Yeah, baby, yeah! (Sorry, Austin Powers moment there...)


7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.

Eh, neutral on this. The AC mechanic is not entirely realistic, but it's simple and easy to work with.


8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.

So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

No, actually, I'm pretty well sold. Except for the bit where your gaming table lies on the other side of a largish ocean. Otherwise, I'd totally be there. :smallbiggrin:

[Kiero]

They come in handy. I'm fond of using Legos for miniatures, since 'real' miniatures are ludicrously expensive and since you can't possibly hope to have miniatures that realistically represent everything in the campaign universe anyway.

For certain styles of play, yes. But I can honestly say in almost fourteen years of play on and off, I've never used minis for any system, nor with any group I played with. That includes playing OD&D, AD&D2e and others.

[Thinker]

I think Deepblue's rules were way better.

[Bosh]

Bosh: Run, do not walk, from a poorly-run game of FATE.
I can see how FATE would be a crappy game in the hands of the wrong players, but with the group of people we have in our gaming group now I don't have too many worries...


This was not the point. I was addressing attitude rather than workability.
Right, I just don't think that 3.5ed D&D is really the best game system for playing with that particular attitude, no matter how much you mod it.

Oh for a lot of the low magic item/armor as DR/etc. stuff take a look at the Conan d20, it has some balance issues but for a low magic version of d20 rules it works fairly well. Maybe wait until the 2nd edition that's due out next month, that should hopefully fix the problems with the magic system.

[Tallis]

Assassin was a 1st edition original.

Yes, and monks appearred in OD&D. I don't know about the Blackmoor supplement, but I do know that Mystics, which were the same thing as monks, were in the Masters Set DMG.
Both were updated as full fledged classes for AD&D 2e. Though, as pointed out, they were kits first.

[Tallis]

What's amusing here is you only ever level up once.

E6+start at level 5?

He said a system like E6. With a starting level of 5, I assumed the top level would be higher than 6. THough my interpretation could be wrong.

[Tallis]

Uh.. No, it's not. It's E6. E6 just happens to be a system that uses the d20 OGL rules established by D&D. It's not D&D in and of itself.

After all, we can't count d20 OGL as D&D. By that basis, d20 Modern is D&D. As is all the other d20 [X] supplements. Just imagine throwing a d20 Modern book on the table during a D&D session, flipping it open, and saying your character now has an assault rifle?

"But thats not D&D!"
"It's OGL and all the basic mechanics of D&D are there, so it's just heavily modified D&D."

I understand your point, but I still respectfully disagree. The core is D&D. Even if he decided to do something like E6, it's still based on D&D. Level limits are nothing new in D&D. In OD&D 36 was the limit. In 2e core it was 20 IIRC. 3.X core it's 20 again. OD&D through 2e had lower level limits for demi-humans. Quite low in some cases. This just sets a different level limit. The idea of gaining power after hitting a level limit also appeared in OD&D for demi-humans.
The suggested rules changes here are extensive, but most are nothing new. Compare OD&D to 3.X, there isn't much mechanical similarity, but they're both D&D.
It is difficult to define what makes something D&D. A lot of people will disagree. I don't see a solution to that other than just accepting that we see the game differently.

[Wizzardman]

Nothing tactical or with AoOs?

So what, no tripping or disarming in your campaign? That loses a lot of cinematic quality. I always thought games and movies got pretty exciting when you had people knocking each other's weapons out of their hands, or knocking an opponent on his back and swinging their axe downward at his face.

And how do you stop people from randomly punching their opponents when they don't have Improved Unarmed Strike? Or tackling the guy with the two-handed warsword? And how about flanking and feinting--do those still exist, or are they out, too?

I don't think you're setup's that bad [although I like having separate arcane and divine spellcasters, at least for the sake of flavor], but I would really miss some of the tactical combat aspects. I've only used "minis" once (and even then, they were actually mints and Hershey's Kisses that I used to represent different types of bad guys, and awarded these candy corpses to the PCs who defeated them), but even without the use of minis or a grid, I'd still miss the chance to use cooperation or tactics against my opponents.

Although I definitely agree with you on avoiding lvl 1 PCs. I've always considered levels 1 and 2 as 'training time', to indicate the PCs weren't born immediately before the game began, and have had at least some experiences in their lives. After all, even commoners are usually one or two levels above 1st; have these commoners had more experience in their battles against the common housecat than the PCs who have gone out to fight goblins? Besides, I'd like my PCs to be able to fight more than one goblin without risking their precious hps, and I've seen far too many first level characters die via crit in their first session to assume any group of 1st level PCs can take on one.

[d12]

I most likely wouldn't play in a game run as described by OP. I actually don't hate a number of your alterations, now that I look back on the block of text I threw down there, but there are a few things that would definitely lead me to passing on any such game.

1) If you've got thematic reasons for doing so, simply excluding some classes isn't really a big deal. I like the idea of the monk class, despite its lack of actual power/use, so wouldn't likely exclude it, myself. But if they don't fit in your particular version of Vaguely Medieval Europe Except with Elves, Magic, and Dragons (except for where you also mentioned maybe doing all-human, which, again, probably isn't a huge deal) then there isn't really a problem excluding them (unless you have someone who always plays monks, in which case it could get problematic). Can't really say either way on wizards--I've never played a wizard in a game that went past 2-3 sessions. What I do have problems with most of the time are pointless, arbitrary restrictions (eg, the multiclassing restrictions on monks/pallys, the whole trapfinding thing, etc), but that mostly comes down to how the classes are presented in the books, and as such is a problem I have with the developers.

2) If you've got problems with using minis, then don't use minis. I was in a game a couple years ago where I just used a rook to represent my character (a couple other people used dice for their characters :smalltongue: ). I enjoy being able to actually see where everything is in relation to everything else (online games got much better once our DM got apache set up on his computer), so a shift away from grid-combat wouldn't really endear me to the game. My main issue with feats is that there just aren't enough feat levels.

3) I actually don't have problems with not tracking encumbrance. I find it to be one of the many aspects of D&D that just isn't worth worrying about. I'm a bit more skeptical on the not tracking XP or gold part, but if it's done right I don't see it being a problem.

4) Like encumbrance, the origin of magic items is one of the many things that just isn't worth worrying about, and I tend to be suspicious of DMs who spend an inordinate amount of time hyperventilating over the idea of the party being able to acquire useful magical doodads in a timely fashion (ie, not needing to sit on your thumbs for three months while it gets put together).

5) I definitely like the idea of starting out around level 5 though (7 would be better, but 5 would be good enough for an actual game). For various reasons (such as the wizards I've played that haven't made it past 3 sessions that I mentioned above), I just don't play low levels anymore. They're just tedious. You can't really do any neat tricks. You die a lot. You only ever end up fighting the same 3-4 creatures over and over again until you can get to a real level--if the game even survives long enough to get to a real level. If it comes to a choice between having fun now, or possibly having fun at a later date should the stars be aligned in such a fashion as to permit the game to have such rare continuity, it is always better to have fun now. I have no idea what an E6 is, so I can't comment on that part, though I would find your comment about hit points getting "ridiculous" a bit worrying.

6) Un-cross-classifying skills is an appealing idea to me. I don't see how it's a necessary impossibility for a fighter to be good at being aware of things around him, or a cleric to be able to tell when someone's probably trying to pull a fast one.

7) By "damage reduction in place of armor" do you mean using something like the armor-as-damage-reduction variant? If I remember correctly (and that may be a big 'if', who knows) doesn't that variant actually make you incredibly easy to hit? Especially if it's freaking impossible to get something so exotic as an amulet of natural armor or something of similar utility.

8) The whole arcane/divine split thing--I dunno. I probably don't tend toward 'spellcasters are spellcasters' to the same degree as you, though it would hardly be a dealbreaker. As for my personal thoughts on casting classes, in my less careful moments I can be pretty quick to declare the arcane/divine split one of the things the devs did wrong, but most of the problems I have could be at least partially solved by juggling spell lists. Most of the differences in casting between classes could be handled just by having their spell lists or class abilities reflect a particular focus. For instance, I always imagine clerics being especially good at buffing allies (hate that most of the good buffs are self-only), protection spells, all things alignment related, and healing. Sure, wizards, sorcerers, druids, rangers, and so on should be able to do all those things as well, but most of them probably wouldn't be as good at many of those things. Yes, that does mean wizards and sorcerers should be able to use healing magic in my estimation, but that bleeds over into a different discussion probably (see pointless, arbitrary restrictions).

[Feralgeist]

Okay, while you're at it. Why not just remove ALL the classes, AND weapons, and in fact, character names.Better yet, remove any part of the game that has a reference to numbers, or dice, or anything like that. Everyone gets to be a stick. They have to ask REALLY nicely to get to choose what colour it is. Then, for combat, just argue for a while saying
"MY stick chops your stick!"
"nuh-uh, cause my stick had initiative first so he coul-"

but oh wait, since we dont want anything to do with numbers in THIS "better" version of "D&D" combats are completely unresolvable.

Don't like having much rules, go play Risus or something. quit trying to rape the system like Pun-Pun vs. the Material Plane

[Kiero]

He said a system like E6. With a starting level of 5, I assumed the top level would be higher than 6. THough my interpretation could be wrong.

I'd quite happily do the two together. Or even start them at 6 with no further progression beyond feats. I'm not overly attached to advancement, and the simpler it is the better. Which is why I like True20's "level up at agreed intervals" schema.


Nothing tactical or with AoOs?

So what, no tripping or disarming in your campaign? That loses a lot of cinematic quality. I always thought games and movies got pretty exciting when you had people knocking each other's weapons out of their hands, or knocking an opponent on his back and swinging their axe downward at his face.

And how do you stop people from randomly punching their opponents when they don't have Improved Unarmed Strike? Or tackling the guy with the two-handed warsword? And how about flanking and feinting--do those still exist, or are they out, too?

Have you played Feng Shui? That's a cinematic game. I don't consider any game "cinematic" when a single combat takes the better part of an hour to resolve.


Okay, while you're at it. Why not just remove ALL the classes, AND weapons, and in fact, character names.Better yet, remove any part of the game that has a reference to numbers, or dice, or anything like that. Everyone gets to be a stick. They have to ask REALLY nicely to get to choose what colour it is. Then, for combat, just argue for a while saying
"MY stick chops your stick!"
"nuh-uh, cause my stick had initiative first so he coul-"

but oh wait, since we dont want anything to do with numbers in THIS "better" version of "D&D" combats are completely unresolvable.

Don't like having much rules, go play Risus or something. quit trying to rape the system like Pun-Pun vs. the Material Plane

The One True Way-ism is strong in this one...

[Sotha_Cid]

Y'know, if there's no wholesale purchase of magical items, and you're starting at level 5, I figure that there really isn't any REASON to count gold.

In an all-human hardcore-vanilla settings, it's unlikely that you're going to be able to buy that mithril fullplate armor that you've been lusting after. And it's unlikely that you'd be able to own property. And with no wizards, theres likely no convenient shops in which you can buy your various magical components.

Man. It's like playing a game of WoD mortal where you're not allowed to take combat skills and you're constantly up against combat-aspected werewolves who happen to also be demolitions experts.

And you've got a stick.

[nagora]

1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes.


Agree.


Furthermore, the Monk class is removed.

Depends on setting; probably disagree.


2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.

Agree big time. This stuff is a waste of trees and uniformly badly designed and written garbage.



3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.

Disagree. Fame, wealth, and increasing competance are too core to heroic fantasy to be treated that way. Every three sessions is far too fast.


Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.

Agree. I only allow one of each magic item in the game, except potions and +1 swords.


5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level.

Absolutely disagree unless for a one-off session.


6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).

3rd edition skills system is a joke; I'd just ditch it and make house rules if I were you; the written rules are unsalvageable.


7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.

I'd ditch damage reduction and go back to "+x to hit" which much better reflects written fantasy and myth.


8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.

Clerical magic done as per 1st edition was a nicely different approach without being a burden in terms of rules.


So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

I do think you're looking for a different game, frankly. Which is not to say 3rd edition hasn't screwed up D&D in many areas (which itself is not to say that 1st edition was perfect, just better).

[Kiero]

In an all-human hardcore-vanilla settings, it's unlikely that you're going to be able to buy that mithril fullplate armor that you've been lusting after. And it's unlikely that you'd be able to own property. And with no wizards, theres likely no convenient shops in which you can buy your various magical components.

Nah, I'd ditch the requirement for material components anyway. That's more bean-counting and resource-tracking.


Man. It's like playing a game of WoD mortal where you're not allowed to take combat skills and you're constantly up against combat-aspected werewolves who happen to also be demolitions experts.

And you've got a stick.

Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

[Dervag]

Kiero, in all seriousness, are you sure it would work?

You're hacking out a lot of components of the game. D&D is supposed to be at least vaguely balanced, and the players are supposed to have a fighting chance.

By taking out so many parts of the system, like material components that force spellcasters to pay if they want to use their bigger spells, magic items to allow warrior-types to oppose large monsters, and substantial increases in character power through levelling up, you may end up creating a setting where the deck is so hopelessly, pointlessly stacked against the PCs that no one would want to play with you. And I don't see the point in doing that; why create a game nobody would want to play because they're doomed to lose?

From what you've said, you don't have a lot of experience playing D&D, so how do you know how many of the rules you can afford to cross out? Have you tested any of this stuff?

[Kurald Galain]

Clerical magic done as per 1st edition was a nicely different approach without being a burden in terms of rules.

Please explain?

[Swooper]

Yup, you're right. I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't mind taking away the monk, but I would kind of miss - oh I don't know - the rules? :smallconfused: Seriously, you're stripping away much of the important bits. It's been said about fifty times in this thread, but why are you even playing D&D?

[Meschaelene]

The OP is right -- I would not play his game.

Pretty much everything I really liked doing in D+D 3.x is gone in his system. The tactical rules of AoO were pretty much the only thing that made the fighter interesting at all. Previous incarnations were "roll one die, do math, if greater than X, roll another die, do math, request a wake-up call when it was your turn again." I like the wizard (and hate the sorcerer) because chosing the spells for the day, based on guesswork of what the day might bring, is a form of gambling that I find almost as much fun as the rest of the adventure. On encumbrance, I list where everything I am carrying is and how it's attached, and usually have a full-on description.

When I read the message-board at my local hobby-shop, and see a game with the "cinematic" descriptor, I pass it by. "Cinema" is all about the vision of the director, not the actors. My experience is that, the more free-form and rules-light a game is, the more room there is for the DM/GM to cheat, to treat people differently on the basis of who he likes more, and to railroad his story. Quite frankly, the OP's "I know best" attitude supports my assertion.

I've had people in my games who really preferred to not have a lot of decision-making in playing their characters. While that is as foreign to me as a sushi bar in an Iowa truck stop, I urged them to build characters that did not have those decisions -- and it's interesting that, in 3.x, you can make characters in that mold that are decent. *** begin edit *** I forgot -- the reason I added this last part is because I recognize that there are folks who are not as anal as I am, nor as thrilled by detailed record keeping, so I make accommodations for them. There's more than one way to enjoy this game, and, when I GM, I am hosting.

[Kiero]

From what you've said, you don't have a lot of experience playing D&D, so how do you know how many of the rules you can afford to cross out? Have you tested any of this stuff?

Haven't, and won't. This was an entirely hypothetical exercise highlighting all the parts of the system I could do without. Precious little chance I'd agree to running D&D rather than saying, how about we play True20 instead.


When I read the message-board at my local hobby-shop, and see a game with the "cinematic" descriptor, I pass it by. "Cinema" is all about the vision of the director, not the actors. My experience is that, the more free-form and rules-light a game is, the more room there is for the DM/GM to cheat, to treat people differently on the basis of who he likes more, and to railroad his story. Quite frankly, the OP's "I know best" attitude supports my assertion.

I take it you've never really played any rules-light games then? Most tend to require a much greater deal of consensus between players and GM than crunchier ones do.

And frankly the idea that you need crunchy rules to ensure the GM "plays fair" is a total crock. GM fiat covers a wide range of stuff...like throwing whatever they please at a party, which doesn't require any bending, breaking, interpreting or otherwise twisting of the rules. The idea that more rules protects the players is a fallacy.

[Tack122]

Have you played Feng Shui? That's a cinematic game. I don't consider any game "cinematic" when a single combat takes the better part of an hour to resolve.



Alright, so you haven't used the system before, yet you assume that combat in a normal encounter will take an hour to finish?

[Tengu]

The One True Way-ism is strong in this one...

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ058.jpg

[Kiero]

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ058.jpg

Rich, coming from you of all people.

[Overlard]

Yeah, I agree, I really wouldn't want to play in your game. I don't understand why you're taking a functioning system, and then stripping and altering it so much when there are other systems that seem to suit your purposes much better.

The only thing I might go with is the cross-class skills thing. I think classes are doubly penalised by having to pay twice as much for a cross-class skill, and having maximum of half ranks.

[Tengu]

Rich, coming from you of all people.

I'm not some kind of vox populi.

I do not deny people playing whatever they want - be it DND in any form (3.x, AD&D, first edition, a mangled hybrid of all of them...), Paranoia, Monster: The Angst or anything. But I can state my opinions about disliking something, and I do not get all defensive and holier than thou when someone does not like what I do.

How old are you? You're not very mature for someone with 14 years of roleplaying experience.

[Meschaelene]

I take it you've never really played any rules-light games then? Most tend to require a much greater deal of consensus between players and GM than crunchier ones do.

And frankly the idea that you need crunchy rules to ensure the GM "plays fair" is a total crock. GM fiat covers a wide range of stuff...like throwing whatever they please at a party, which doesn't require any bending, breaking, interpreting or otherwise twisting of the rules. The idea that more rules protects the players is a fallacy.


My guess, based on the maturity level that you have been demonstrating, is that I have been playing D+D for longer than you have been alive. As a result, I am willing to rely upon my experience to guide me. I just do not find your argumentative stance or your continuous repetition that "my way is the best way" compelling enough to give serious challenge to my views. However, please feel free to play whatever you like. Heck -- I once tried using the rules for "Bunnies and Burrows" to run a Cyberpunk campaign.

Rules-light systems do require a much greater level of consensus between players and GM -- a consensus that is not demonstrated when the opening of the discussion is "I have declared that we are tossing out the rules and relying upon my judgement, as I am DM and infallible ex-cathedra. So mote it be."

[Tallis]

I've only used "minis" once (and even then, they were actually mints and Hershey's Kisses that I used to represent different types of bad guys, and awarded these candy corpses to the PCs who defeated them),

Haha. Now that sounds like a fun game!


Although I definitely agree with you on avoiding lvl 1 PCs. I've always considered levels 1 and 2 as 'training time', to indicate the PCs weren't born immediately before the game began, and have had at least some experiences in their lives. After all, even commoners are usually one or two levels above 1st; have these commoners had more experience in their battles against the common housecat than the PCs who have gone out to fight goblins?

While this is a reasonable way of looking at things (I'm considering doing this myself), it's not true of all campaigns. In every campaign I've been in most of the commoners were first level.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I've never run 3.x, nor even played it besides Neverwinter Nights. My main experience with D&D was several years of weekly play with AD&D2e. Much of what I see in the current edition is stuff I just have no stomach for. Indeed, I don't play anything anywhere near as crunchy nowadays.

But for argument's sake, if I was persuaded to do so, I'd make some pretty sweeping changes to what was "in" my game.

- Ok, so this is all just speculation... So you're new to 3.x and don't like some aspects of the game. Let's see where this leads:



1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes. Furthermore, the Monk class is removed. I'd be tempted to get rid of the Wizard as well. That's if I didn't got the UA route of replacing all the classes with the three generic ones like True20 does. Why don't I just play True20? For the purposes of this scenario, I can't. I'd also probably go all-human.

- Alot of people play Core only, and I usually pick a class that's good all the way through (no need to PrC). Can't stand the Monk, so that's fine. I don't know what True20 is, so I won't comment. All human... why? Unless you create a 'class' for the other races (like elves and dwarves in 1st ed.), why ban them outright? I can understand banning sub-races, but I don't see how the other races can cause headaches...


2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.

- I used to play 2nd ed. (for many years) and one of the weirdest changes was combat grid. Once I started playing 3.x, I got used to it and enjoy it. Do you also get rid of flanking? If so, you've relegated rogues to skill monkeys with non-existant melee prowess. As for the feats, all this and you've pretty much just negated Combat Reflexes and Mobility... unless all the special attacks (trip, disarm, etc....) are included in 'all that guff'.


3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.

- That's fine, no huge sweeping change here.


4) Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.

- Ok, that's cool, again, it's a generic (and semi-popular) houserule to make magic items rare. Except, why bother tracking wealth? Your best weapon costs 300gp more than your average one, and gives a 'huge' bonus of +1. If no one can buy anything better than masterwork, there's no reason to bother counting gold since there's no in-game benefit for it (unless you want the PCs to retire early).


5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level. I'd probably use something like E6 as well, to stop hit points spiralling to ridiculous levels later on. Also cuts out dull high-level combat with "buff-buff-dispel attempt-buff-finally we get on with the fighting".

- Ummm... so we start at 5 and cap at 6th? What happens when we want to fight something past CR 6? I think combat would get dull if you're always fighting the same strength enemies all the time. Extra feats don't make characters strong enough to be viable against higher CR enemies, and fighting other E6 humanoids ad nauseum will eventually get dull too.


6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).

- Saga edition already started the merging of skills (and I'm sure 3.75 or 4th ed. will do the same).



7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.

- It's more realistic, though it will definately mean more dice-rolls and math, since things will get hit way more often. Personally, I'm not too keen on the Armor=DR rules. Numbers wise, your armor will prevent alot more damage as an AC bonus than as DR.


8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.

- Ok... that won't have a heavy impact on the game and seems more like a nitpick.


So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

- I don't see the point of your thread... It sounds like the only purpose is to make yourself seem like an ogre. As others have posted, there's more negativity in your originial post than in the negative energy plane...

- As for being unsold, before anything else, what unsold me is that you intend to make these changes despite never having played the game. Druids will be king at level 6, and the others melee-ers will lag behind the spellcasters even more with nothing but feats and mundane equipment to fall back on. If your group likes to play D&D 3rd ed., they likely won't like your hack-up of the rules anyways... why not just play the system you like?

[Indon]

I've never run 3.x, nor even played it besides Neverwinter Nights. My main experience with D&D was several years of weekly play with AD&D2e. Much of what I see in the current edition is stuff I just have no stomach for. Indeed, I don't play anything anywhere near as crunchy nowadays.

I suspect much of your exposure has been from this forum?

Many, many D&D sessions are, in practice, very little like this forum would give you the impression they are.



1) Corebooks only, and no Prestige Classes. Furthermore, the Monk class is removed. I'd be tempted to get rid of the Wizard as well. That's if I didn't got the UA route of replacing all the classes with the three generic ones like True20 does. Why don't I just play True20? For the purposes of this scenario, I can't. I'd also probably go all-human.

This is a rule I generally implement in my campaigns, actually, because I own very few D&D books and I absolutely hate having to click through PDF's all the time.

Campaign-specific, I have one environment in which all characters are either human or a homebrewed elven race, and the only classes they can start as are Fighter, Rogue, and (a nonmagical variant of) Ranger.

I have another campaign environment in which all characters must be a human 'culture' (effectively human race), and the starting classes exclude cleric, druid, monk, and paladin, and include a homebrewed divine caster.

So what?



2) Out goes tactical combat, and everything related to Attacks of Opportunity, 5-foot steps and all that guff. I don't play with minis, never have and never will. That should hopefully cut the Feats list down to something more manageable.


I do nontactical combat but I keep in 5-foot steps and such. My group just models combat in their heads and anything that isn't outright absurd they can do. Other DM's in my gaming group do the same.



3) I don't do bean-counting. We don't track encumberance, XP or gold. Only important equipment like weapons and armour are recorded, certainly not shopping lists of "adventuring gear". Levelling up happens at agreed intervals, like every three sessions, or the end of a discrete story arc, or whatever. On wealth we'd work something out.


My group's pretty big on the shopping lists, actually, because there's nothing like having that 1,000 gold spyglass save the day.

One of my group's games has narrative level-gains, though.



4) Out goes that whole purchasing of magic items thing. Magic items are rare, not commonplace, and people don't automatically start with them. Indeed I'd only be a step away from removing them from the gameworld altogether.


I do believe they used to call this 'low-magic'. No doubt you'd spice up the crafting system with a bit of AD&D-borrowed flavor, too (requiring rare materials, etc for creating magic items), which is something I'm fond of.



5) I'd start the characters out at least 5th level. I'd probably use something like E6 as well, to stop hit points spiralling to ridiculous levels later on. Also cuts out dull high-level combat with "buff-buff-dispel attempt-buff-finally we get on with the fighting".


Okay. *shrug*

And I'll have you know, high-level combat in the campaigns I participate in generally still involve handfuls of damage dice.



6) I'd be tempted to get rid of cross-class skills. And cut down the skills list by merging some (again as per True20).


One variant I've played is that you pick a certain number of class skills simply based on what is appropriate (so that a Fighter could have Spot and Listen, which would make sense if he's a guard).



7) I'd consider pluging in Damage Reduction in place of armour making you harder to hit. Though if that really did mean more dice-rolls I might not bother.


DR shouldn't mean more die rolls, but you should co-implement the Class Defense variant with this, IMO.



8) If I were using generic classes, it would also have gotten rid of the divine/arcane split. Spellcasters are just spellcasters.


I personally wouldn't, but each to their own.



So, everyone completely unsold yet? :smalltongue:

I will never play D&D with you...

...because we live nowhere near each other.

[Tormsskull]

And frankly the idea that you need crunchy rules to ensure the GM "plays fair" is a total crock. GM fiat covers a wide range of stuff...like throwing whatever they please at a party, which doesn't require any bending, breaking, interpreting or otherwise twisting of the rules. The idea that more rules protects the players is a fallacy.

This I totally agree with. A lot of players think the rulebooks are their defense against the DM who is out to get them. Which shows to me that they missed a huge aspect of the game.


All in all, I think some of your ideas would be interesting to try out, but I am not completely sold on them one way or another. I would love to find a way to streamline D&D combat because it is crazy when the battles can take an hour or so just to resolve them.

I'm designing my own entire system at the moment, and while it is based off of D&D and other systems, and the players will be able to see a lot of similarities, I am specifically not calling it D&D so that it is a blank slate.

This gives me the freedom to mold the system to do exactly what I want it to do, and also allows me to prevent powergaming to a large degree (though I don't really have much of a problem with that in my usual group).

[Roog]

Precious little chance I'd agree to running D&D rather than saying, how about we play True20 instead.

Which is the best reason why we would not play. Who wants to play in a game the GM does not want to run?

[Tallis]

I'd quite happily do the two together. Or even start them at 6 with no further progression beyond feats. I'm not overly attached to advancement, and the simpler it is the better. Which is why I like True20's "level up at agreed intervals" schema.

Alright Arbitrary, you win that one.
This a point against the game for me. I don't mind limiting advancement, but I like some. I'd still consider playing a game like this , but the DM would have to be that much better to keep my interest.

[Kiero]

I suspect much of your exposure has been from this forum?

Many, many D&D sessions are, in practice, very little like this forum would give you the impression they are.

Years of exposure to many fora, lots of which do actually sound like this. Although some are less, and a few more conservative when it comes to mucking around with the rules.

[Tengu]

We certainly do not like houserules and homebrew material here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

Seriously, you came here with a "messiah arrives to give the uneducated crowd the wisdom of E6" attitude, and went all defensive when people said they do not like it. As I said before, chill out.

[ZeroNumerous]

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART182/OBJ058.jpg

Tengu. I disagree with you alot, but this wins this entire thread. We can let it die now.

[nagora]

Please explain [pre 3rd ed Clerics]?

In 1st edition, clerics recieve their higher level spells from the agents of their diety or, at the top levels (which were 6th and 7th in those days) from the deity itself. The player could request any spell from the clerical list, but the god (ie, the DM) was free to give something else or even refuse. Thus, a diety of the afterlife might never give any raise dead type spells, and a god of healing refuse any "cause" spells.

This was more flexible than the 3rd edition system which just talks about domains and alignment. High level clerics literally had a realtionship in-game with their dieties and their agents (devas, lesser devils, whatever). Lesser gods could not grant higher level spells (although this was a later refinement).

Clerics had to constantly and promptly explain any dubious use of their spells and the strictures for clerics who had inadequate explanations were quite harsh, the more so for the higher level spells.

So, generally, although the spells were cast in largly the same way, there was a huge difference between clerical and magic-user spells which was played out (or was supposed to be played out) as part of the role-play rather than the dry mechanics.