one dour badger ([info]dour) wrote,
@ 2007-08-22 00:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Nice while it lasted...
Last week at GenCon, Wizards of the Coast announced that they will, next May, be releasing the 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons. The D&D website has full coverage of the announcement, with links to video of the GenCon seminar on YouTube.

I'm not going to rant about everything I didn't like in their presentation, and let's not even get started on how quickly they decided to invalidate all the books I've purchased this time around, but a couple of things they said caught my attention more than the rest. One of them was "subscription-based," and the concerns this raises are obvious enough. But far more worrying to me was this:

"We're defining the roles of the character classes. Like a sports team, you're going to know what your character, depending on what class he is, is supposed to do in encounters and in the game as a whole."

This does not appeal to me, not one little bit. I started playing D&D about the time 2nd Edition came out, and it whetted my appetite for roleplaying, but the rigid class definitions got stale the instant I first encountered a game which didn't have them. Starting with Palladium games (perhaps the stiffest system still on the market), and then moving to the likes of Storyteller, Legend of the 5 Rings, Earthdawn, the old d6-based Star Wars game, Ironclaw/Jadeclaw, and even Deadlands: I've seen a fair number of gaming systems, and learned a lot about what I like and don't like. And toward the end of the '90s, I had started working on a gaming system (and world) of my own, trying to gather together the good bits and avoid the bad from all the games I'd played.

D&D 3rd Edition was released in 2000. The core rules were pruned, multiclassing was simple and viable, and the skill and feat systems allowed a fair degree of character customization. It wasn't perfection, but nothing about it distinctly turned me off... and with the WotC marketing powerhouse behind the D&D trademark, it rapidly became the game that everyone knew how to play, which was the most important thing. Much as I resigned myself to Windows at about the same time, I've played almost nothing but D&D since 3rd Edition was released.

But now, as best I can interpret, we have been told that D&D is bucking for a slice of the WoW pie, and as such will soon become more rigid again. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe stronger guidelines won't actually hinder you straying off the path... but I think I'd like to prepare myself for things being just as bad as I expect.

I'm pulling my old project off the shelf. Expect updates.

This post, and others on the subject, will be mirrored at lapsing.blogspot.com.



(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]penrynsdreams
2007-08-22 06:03 pm UTC (link)
I had the same revelation the first time I played a non-D&D setting and I have the same preference for looser systems.

Right now I'm in a game that I love, where the only dice you need are 2d6, where the character creation & advancement process is very heavily rooted in, well, role-playing. You come up with a character and the GM (who made up the system) just sits down with you and chooses skills (manual labor +3, trustworthy +1 1/2, packing +1/2 are examples from my character) and based on how you role-play you get adds to those skills. There's more to the world and the system, but that's the basics and oh, GOD, I love it! *g*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dour
2007-08-22 08:16 pm UTC (link)
That sounds a lot like a system I remember from way back when, called Fudge. Web searching reveals that it's still around and has gotten significantly bigger, heh... but yeah, there's definitely a place for the ultra-simple systems when you'd rather just wing it than spend time on detailed simulation. :)

My system, for which I've yet to hit upon a properly catchy name, is just a bit heavier... roughly in the same class as Storyteller or Ironclaw, but without the stifling granularity those systems have. There's nothing more frustrating than needing four successes, and only having three dice! I've got rolls that are astronomically unlikely, but none that are literally impossible.

You need a little more than 2d6 for mine, too... but not too many more. 4d6 (used as 4d2), and a few d10... probably no more than 4 of those either. Technically it's open-ended, but I like to keep the numbers fairly small.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…