The Fifth Evolution: Messing with D&D
Earlier I mentioned my problem with D&D's skill system. Thinking about it, however, i'm certain there are several other aspects of the D&D system which bother me.
To me, D&D is the game of fantasy adventure, drawing on Tolkien, yes, but also Leiber, Howard, and Moorcock. It seems like the mix is something like one part High Fantasy, one part Sword & Sorcery, and, perhaps, two parts Dungeons and Dragons. That's okay, I think; a good D&D game should draw upon the greater mythology of D&D.
However, it should also allow you to build your own mythology on top of that foundation. But I'm going to leave that discussion for another time. Right now, I want to talk about system.
What do i need a D&D game to do?
My goal is to accomplish all of those without altering the underlying D&D mechanics too far - this whole endeavor is pointless if at the end I cannot use published d20 modules (with minor alterations, of course) with my game.
So, how do my current D&D options stack up against those criteria?
4e: The newest official D&D game has lots of resources available to it, though not so much as d20, not yet, and by a much less diverse group of voices (or so it seems.) 4e also makes it easy to "re-skin" monsters to use where you need them, although adventure prep is still pretty time consuming. On the other hand, 4e concentrates entirely on the fight scene! Fights are a big part of the D&D experience, but they shouldn't be everything. 4e also isn't big on making things make sense; you have to go out of your way to set a consistent tone, and even then it tends to dissolve during tactical minis combat, anyway. In many ways 4e (as it stands) has lost the feel of D&D.
d20: Third edition D&D has become something of a morass of conflicting designs and supplemental material; it's easy to get lost, and yet it serves as a great starting point for assembling your very own D&D game. The biggest downside to d20/3.5 is the sheer amount of work it takes to put together your own monsters and active NPCs, despite the quality and number of resources available. The combat system is also somewhat flawed and clunky, while traps are not as fun as they should be.
OD&D: The starting point of D&D, it was a system really deserving of being upgraded. It is both unplayable and inspiring. The ease of character creation coupled with the constant danger really gives that nice Sword & Sorcery feel. However, depending on how you interpret the rules, characters die a little too easily to let you get attached to them!
Pathfinder: The "alternative 4th edition" aims to fix d20s flaws while maintaining the feel of the game. I'm not sure the changes go far enough, however; I'd have to actually play it for more than a bit to find out.
So if I'm not happy with any of the games actually out there, what do I want my D&D to do?
Here's a few assertions:
To me, D&D is the game of fantasy adventure, drawing on Tolkien, yes, but also Leiber, Howard, and Moorcock. It seems like the mix is something like one part High Fantasy, one part Sword & Sorcery, and, perhaps, two parts Dungeons and Dragons. That's okay, I think; a good D&D game should draw upon the greater mythology of D&D.
However, it should also allow you to build your own mythology on top of that foundation. But I'm going to leave that discussion for another time. Right now, I want to talk about system.
What do i need a D&D game to do?
- Run published adventures, as adapted to my own "campaign world".
- Challenge the adventuring party with monsters, traps, and environmental hazards - easily and on the fly.
- Allow our grave-robbing heroes to outfit themselves with all manner of gear, including lost relics and new magics.
- Strike a balance between character investment & development and the real deadly dangers of adventuring OD&D style.
- Open up the world for exploration, both of the present wilderness and of history. ("West Marches" style)
- Balance fighting monsters, performing heroic deeds, and exploring the world with a core of dungeon delving.
- Have it all make sense, at least at a glance. (Eg. Associate the mechanics with the fiction, esp. the campaign world.)
- Remember that it is a role-playing game, first and foremost.
My goal is to accomplish all of those without altering the underlying D&D mechanics too far - this whole endeavor is pointless if at the end I cannot use published d20 modules (with minor alterations, of course) with my game.
So, how do my current D&D options stack up against those criteria?
4e: The newest official D&D game has lots of resources available to it, though not so much as d20, not yet, and by a much less diverse group of voices (or so it seems.) 4e also makes it easy to "re-skin" monsters to use where you need them, although adventure prep is still pretty time consuming. On the other hand, 4e concentrates entirely on the fight scene! Fights are a big part of the D&D experience, but they shouldn't be everything. 4e also isn't big on making things make sense; you have to go out of your way to set a consistent tone, and even then it tends to dissolve during tactical minis combat, anyway. In many ways 4e (as it stands) has lost the feel of D&D.
d20: Third edition D&D has become something of a morass of conflicting designs and supplemental material; it's easy to get lost, and yet it serves as a great starting point for assembling your very own D&D game. The biggest downside to d20/3.5 is the sheer amount of work it takes to put together your own monsters and active NPCs, despite the quality and number of resources available. The combat system is also somewhat flawed and clunky, while traps are not as fun as they should be.
OD&D: The starting point of D&D, it was a system really deserving of being upgraded. It is both unplayable and inspiring. The ease of character creation coupled with the constant danger really gives that nice Sword & Sorcery feel. However, depending on how you interpret the rules, characters die a little too easily to let you get attached to them!
Pathfinder: The "alternative 4th edition" aims to fix d20s flaws while maintaining the feel of the game. I'm not sure the changes go far enough, however; I'd have to actually play it for more than a bit to find out.
So if I'm not happy with any of the games actually out there, what do I want my D&D to do?
Here's a few assertions:
- An adventurer's equipment should be more important than his level. (Or at least as important!)
- Fights should be nasty, especially against monsters, but escapable.
- Powerful magics shouldn't be quite so readily available to the characters. Artifacts should be rare and unique. Spells and spell-books should be seen as just another kind of treasure.
- All of the basic classes should play more or less differently. (Fighter, Thief, & Mage? Adventurer & Expert?)
- Each basic class should be readily customizable to match elements of the setting, situation, or player preferences. For instance, the Fighter could be specialized as a barbarian, ranger, paladin, or as one of the legendary Sworn Swords, etc. Classes should be less restrictive.
- Skills are unnecessary; it's better to handle specializations with Feats.
- Characters should, however, be brought to life with Backgrounds and Traits. (Race is a Background!)