5E?

[Agent 333]

As someone who plays all kinds of non-computer games, I think the gaming industry as a whole could benefit from taking a page out of Magic's design/development/templating work. The rules for Magic are ever-evolving and changing, but still similar enough that someone who hasn't played since Alpha could get back into it without too much difficulty. In addition, for 99% of cards (especially the newer ones), someone who knows the rules of the game can read the card and know EXACTLY how it interacts with 10,000 other cards. That's pretty impressive when you think about it. Yet RPGs tend to get into a conundrum where there's fuzzy lines "How does this class ability work with this feat and this other piece of equipment? How does that change if we throw on this spell?". Crafty does better than most RPG companies I've seen on this front, but the fact that we've have a 70 page Q&A thread tells me it's still a bit ambiguous in places.
The fact that D&D is published by the same company that makes Magic gives me some hope, but instead we get watered down blech like 4E that makes me sad. Admittedly, 4E took a LOT of steps in the right direction in terms of tightening up the language of RPGs, but it took a lot of steps in the WRONG direction when it came to making fun and unique characters.

With luck, 5th Edition will continue the "tightening up the language" trend while still opening up the playing field to make character building fun again.

[the331st]

Back to the 9 point alignments, I grew up with Eberron ( ) and moved to Planescape with a little dabbling in Ptolus. Eberron threw alignment out the window save for primordial evils, Everyone could be a hero, even that crazy sadist! Everyone could be a Villain, even that lovable paladin over there. Then Planescape introduced me to the metaphysics of D&D. The great wheel is about the only place 9pt alignment makes sense for me. Everywhere else I generally ignore it or base it off of worship.

Ptolus showed how alignment was meant to be used for 3.X and I still felt myself going back to my Eberron roots. It was hard to imagine a place where it's illegal to be a Dark Elf b/c all DE's are so so evil. period. forever! Also, race depiction in RPGs gets under my skin so Ptolus pushed the hot button for me in some respects.

[foproy]

Back to the 9 point alignments, I grew up with Eberron ( ) and moved to Planescape with a little dabbling in Ptolus. Eberron threw alignment out the window save for primordial evils, Everyone could be a hero, even that crazy sadist! Everyone could be a Villain, even that lovable paladin over there. Then Planescape introduced me to the metaphysics of D&D. The great wheel is about the only place 9pt alignment makes sense for me. Everywhere else I generally ignore it or base it off of worship.

Ptolus showed how alignment was meant to be used for 3.X and I still felt myself going back to my Eberron roots. It was hard to imagine a place where it's illegal to be a Dark Elf b/c all DE's are so so evil. period. forever! Also, race depiction in RPGs gets under my skin so Ptolus pushed the hot button for me in some respects.

im guessing you are refering to the guild that "reforms monsters?"

[ThunderMonkey]

That's basically the whole problem I had with the Good Vs. Evil. Who determines what is evil? The good guys? What if the good guys are assholes?

[Crafty_Pat]

As someone who plays all kinds of non-computer games, I think the gaming industry as a whole could benefit from taking a page out of Magic's design/development/templating work. The rules for Magic are ever-evolving and changing, but still similar enough that someone who hasn't played since Alpha could get back into it without too much difficulty. In addition, for 99% of cards (especially the newer ones), someone who knows the rules of the game can read the card and know EXACTLY how it interacts with 10,000 other cards. That's pretty impressive when you think about it. Yet RPGs tend to get into a conundrum where there's fuzzy lines "How does this class ability work with this feat and this other piece of equipment? How does that change if we throw on this spell?". Crafty does better than most RPG companies I've seen on this front, but the fact that we've have a 70 page Q&A thread tells me it's still a bit ambiguous in places.
The fact that D&D is published by the same company that makes Magic gives me some hope, but instead we get watered down blech like 4E that makes me sad. Admittedly, 4E took a LOT of steps in the right direction in terms of tightening up the language of RPGs, but it took a lot of steps in the WRONG direction when it came to making fun and unique characters.

With luck, 5th Edition will continue the "tightening up the language" trend while still opening up the playing field to make character building fun again.

The issue here, of course, is that those goals are actually at odds more often than not (they're not mutually exclusive or anything - just very much at odds). As you can see in our Q&A threads, and everywhere on the boards and greater interwebs really, most of the conflicts can be divvied into two categories...

• Folks want to do something that's not in the rules - which is not only well and good, but encouraged. It is, after all, the greatest strength of tabletop RPGs to take the game wherever your brain leads. Unfortunately, the overwhelming preference in the audience seems to be that not only should a tabletop RPG allow this, it should actually incorporate every new corner case in the official text somehow (because for some reason house rules have become an enemy of fun). No game can manage both these goals - incorporating every desired corner case with an official rule and keeping the rules simple and universally applicable - at least not all the time. It's just not possible, and literally every fulfilled request drags the game further from what's described here as the "ideal."
• Folks crave simplicity and clarity, yes, but they also crave diversity. Witness every post that essentially boils down to "Why can't magic work like that for most folks but like this for my guy? After all, he gets his magic from this other source, or uses it in another way, or..." Every time you mechanically differentiate, for example, psionics and blood magic, you're once again tearing down that presumed ideal of clarity and simplicity.

Not sayin'. Just sayin'.

[Desertpuma]

Simple enough. Thanks Pat.

[Gentry]

I'm going to try and hijack this thread change the subject slightly from the alignment-bashing. Since the alignment argument over on the other forum essentially boils down to "D&D has the core 9, so it's not D&D without the core 9", I wonder what else people feel is "D&D" about D&D. What concepts from gaming do you attribute essentially to "the D&D way", and by extension are concepts the designers should definitely eyeball closely in terms of keeping?

I'll start with my first thought (though I have several): The core 4. Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief. I really feel like D&D did a disservice to itself by getting away from the core 4 classes and glutting the game with subclasses and close neighbors, from the Assassin to the Illusionist. And I'll be honest, I hate Wizard and Rogue (and would have squeed to see FC call the Burglar "the Thief" in the old-school vein). WotC would be well served to put the core 4 front and center in any presentation of Roles in their new Role-Playing Game.

[MilitiaJim]

FWIW, I'm cool with the Burglar.  It brings to mind Bilbo being introduced to the Dwarves.  That said, the billion and seven classes introduced in subsequent books for both 3.x and 4e diluted the "core crew" badly.

[TheTSKoala]

FWIW, I'm cool with the Burglar.  It brings to mind Bilbo being introduced to the Dwarves.  That said, the billion and seven classes introduced in subsequent books for both 3.x and 4e diluted the "core crew" badly.

The "core" became a lobby for discarded half-ideas imo.  While I like choice.. too many of them were nichey as hell...

[Desertpuma]

I certainly enjoy the base ideas of the classes as they were traditionally known: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue/Thief, Wizard, Bard, Ranger, and so on. While I like the idea of the Paladin being an escalated class and the specialist wizards existing, they stretched the boundaries of what was necessary. I think the Sorceror was a positive while the Wildshaper (or equivalent), Psychic Warrior, Warmage, Warlock, Healer, etc are all superfluous.

[Sletchman]

(because for some reason house rules have become an enemy of fun)

I don't think it's that they have become an enemy of fun, I think it's a confidence thing (at least with the people I've gamed under).  I've played in plenty of groups where someone has a fringe case, and the GM simply doesn't have the confidence to change the rule (for fear of breaking the game).  That includes Fantasy Craft games where someone wants to play a "monster" - I've offered up origins (not just my own, but stuff stolen borrowed from the forum), but they (the GM) are too worried about it being balanced with the original work to use it.

In regards to the new topic: I'm going to dissent a little, and say I was a big fan of the Warmage, Beguiller and Co.  Not the super fringe stuff like Healer (and Warlock was far to "Lets play WoW" for my tastes), but the specialists casters were cool - they took a stupidly broken class, and made it pretty close to balanced through enforced specificity.  They were also fun and interesting in most cases (actual class abilities beyond the Wizard's "nothing, nothing and more nothing...oh have scribe scroll...").  Plus I like themed spell lists.  In fact, a balanced set of specialists is the reason I've been jonesing for Spellbound since early 2007.

Beyond that point, Beholders, Illithids, and all the other stuff that no other game is allowed to have - because I can't think of anything that other games I play don't do better (which is why I basically stopped playing DnD a long time ago).

[Mister Andersen]

The problem with houserules is that they are houserules and you can't rely on them being on effect when you game at another table, and that often is not fun

[Agent 333]

As someone who plays all kinds of non-computer games, I think the gaming industry as a whole could benefit from taking a page out of Magic's design/development/templating work. The rules for Magic are ever-evolving and changing, but still similar enough that someone who hasn't played since Alpha could get back into it without too much difficulty. In addition, for 99% of cards (especially the newer ones), someone who knows the rules of the game can read the card and know EXACTLY how it interacts with 10,000 other cards. That's pretty impressive when you think about it. Yet RPGs tend to get into a conundrum where there's fuzzy lines "How does this class ability work with this feat and this other piece of equipment? How does that change if we throw on this spell?". Crafty does better than most RPG companies I've seen on this front, but the fact that we've have a 70 page Q&A thread tells me it's still a bit ambiguous in places.
The fact that D&D is published by the same company that makes Magic gives me some hope, but instead we get watered down blech like 4E that makes me sad. Admittedly, 4E took a LOT of steps in the right direction in terms of tightening up the language of RPGs, but it took a lot of steps in the WRONG direction when it came to making fun and unique characters.

With luck, 5th Edition will continue the "tightening up the language" trend while still opening up the playing field to make character building fun again.

The issue here, of course, is that those goals are actually at odds more often than not (they're not mutually exclusive or anything - just very much at odds). As you can see in our Q&A threads, and everywhere on the boards and greater interwebs really, most of the conflicts can be divvied into two categories...

• Folks want to do something that's not in the rules - which is not only well and good, but encouraged. It is, after all, the greatest strength of tabletop RPGs to take the game wherever your brain leads. Unfortunately, the overwhelming preference in the audience seems to be that not only should a tabletop RPG allow this, it should actually incorporate every new corner case in the official text somehow (because for some reason house rules have become an enemy of fun). No game can manage both these goals - incorporating every desired corner case with an official rule and keeping the rules simple and universally applicable - at least not all the time. It's just not possible, and literally every fulfilled request drags the game further from what's described here as the "ideal."
• Folks crave simplicity and clarity, yes, but they also crave diversity. Witness every post that essentially boils down to "Why can't magic work like that for most folks but like this for my guy? After all, he gets his magic from this other source, or uses it in another way, or..." Every time you mechanically differentiate, for example, psionics and blood magic, you're once again tearing down that presumed ideal of clarity and simplicity.

Not sayin'. Just sayin'.

I definitely understand the struggle between the two, and with Crafty's limited resources I'd rather have fun unique stuff to do than covering every corner case. The thing is, WotC is a big enough company that they CAN cover every corner case, if they only take the time to do it right. With 3.5 they were heading in the right direction with the environment themed supplements like Sandstorm. That's the direction I'd like to see 5th Ed to go. Cover the corner cases. COVER EVERYTHING. They can pump out the books every month, why not actually cover stuff rather than just "Yet Another Monster Book IV".

[ludomastro]

I've been hesitant to join in on this as I have not actually played 4E.  However, the one thing that I find that "makes" DnD, well, DnD is the "kick-down-the-door-and-kill-it-and-take-it's-stuff" mentality that I - as both a player and a GM - loathe.

My current FC group (FLGS open play night) has too much of that in their history for my taste but less than perfect RP opportunities are better than no opportunities.

---~~---

On the other topic:

In a perfect world, the system would be transparent enough and the balance obvious enough that house rules would be superfluous.  You could look at it and just know what was right in that situation.

Very hard to put in practice however.

[Desertpuma]

In a perfect world, the system would be transparent enough and the balance obvious enough that house rules would be superfluous.  You could look at it and just know what was right in that situation.

Very hard to put in practice however.

I think FC is a good ways toward that. ... I do have to admit that I've played a couple of political based games geared around city politics like The Tudors. It's a good change of pace. If they just want to kill stuff, invest in Cyberpunk 2020. Last one standing wins.