TheRPGSite

I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

Stick to the OSR and to the games you love.  Look between the D&D hacks and B/X that the guys behind the Wormskin zines had done there really isn't much point to buy 6th edition D&D whenever that comes out.  I mean there should already be a company out there making a 5th edition alternative if WotC goes 6th just like how Pathfinder was made when there was D&D 4th edition.

GURPS 5e. I fully expect it either in the next 30 years or never. My golden years never looked so bright!

That's a big hypothetical...but most likely I'll go back to 2E long term, though short term I hope to try the Wendy's RPG next year, starting January with any luck.

Only racists and misogynists won't devote themselves to the woke perfection of 6e. In fact, by then it will be xoke to reflect its extra Xokeness and get rid of that pesky "w" which starts too many problematic words.

As for my future games, I plan to play what I write and publish...once I finish the damn things!!

Where did they announce 6e? I can't find any concrete details. This surprises me as I didn't think they ever would make a sixth edition.

I'll keep playing the games I'm already playing.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1117573I'll keep playing the games I'm already playing.

Yeah, this.

I really haven't seen a lot of useful innovation from newer games.

Is 6E coming out anytime soon? Last I heard it was still a ways off.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117568Only racists and misogynists won't devote themselves to the woke perfection of 6e. In fact, by then it will be xoke to reflect its extra Xokeness and get rid of that pesky "w" which starts too many problematic words.

Like white?

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

If I was currently using D&D 5e, I'd just stick with that.

One of the many, many game systems I already own.  Based on "Sage" Advice and their twitter rules judgments I don't want to purchase a system built by Mearls or Crawford.

Quote from: KingCheops;1117582One of the many, many game systems I already own.  Based on "Sage" Advice and their twitter rules judgments I don't want to purchase a system built by Mearls or Crawford.

Greetings!

Well, everything I have read seems to indicate that WOTC is quite happy with how 5E is going, and have no plans on doing a 6E anytime soon. In some quote from Mike Mearls himself, he said any new edition at this point would easily be several years off into the future, and at present they are not even considering producing a 6E.

So, beyond that chewy thing, I'm not worried about 6E. I think 5E is fine. I also like old school OSR stuff, ala AD&D. Having said that, I would certainly be opposed to putting more stupid SJW nonsense into the game, or any hypothetical new edition. As you mentioned, KingCheops, Crawford is definitely a questionable game designer, given his particular ideology, and I fear that Mearls has drank the Kool-Aid as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117568Only racists and misogynists won't devote themselves to the woke perfection of 6e. In fact, by then it will be xoke to reflect its extra Xokeness and get rid of that pesky "w" which starts too many problematic words.

LMAO at this, a fully woke "D&D" would be tossed in the trash if someone gave it to me(just to make sure that a child in my family was not exposed to it). I surely would not buy it. I haven't needed any new games in a very long time.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1117579Like white?

Like woke is the word you are shooting for.
Xoke defintion: moronic idiots that drink the SJW Koolaid to the last drop and beg for more.

Quote from: Orphan81;1117577Is 6E coming out anytime soon? Last I heard it was still a ways off.

Like the supernova of Betelgeuse, 6E is either imminently upon us all or virtually guaranteed within the next 200,000 years.

Thus we must begin the speculation!!

Quote from: ElBorak;1117592Like woke is the word you are shooting for.
Xoke defintion: moronic idiots that drink the SJW Koolaid to the last drop and beg for more.

I don't know...  All those, "It is okay to be white," posters certainly stirred them into a frenzy.  Those 4chan trolls love to poke that beehive with innocent stuff that the SJWs bend and twist into something they find to be evil.

I doubt 6E will be for me, but I like 4E and 13th Age so 5E isn't my thing, either.

I sometimes think about going back to 3.5E and giving it the old fantasy heartbreaker treatment, but that will have to wait until my proper retirement (if at all).

Quote from: Snowman0147;1117601I don't know...  All those, "It is okay to be white," posters certainly stirred them into a frenzy.  Those 4chan trolls love to poke that beehive with innocent stuff that the SJWs bend and twist into something they find to be evil.

I also enjoyed the earlier "Muslims are right about women"-posters in Canada (IIRC).

There's nothing quite like trolling the whole world.

Probably sticking with a version of 3e.

Since I'm only using the core 5E rules in a home campaign (supplemented with a few of the Kobold Press books, true), I can keep doing that.  I'm using nothing electronic, and between the players we've got easily 20+ copies of the PHB.

I finally got some playtests started with my own system, in the last couple of months.  I'm sure that will take some time.

I've got a hankering to run several other games and/or campaigns.

If WotC doesn't go completely woke, I might try 6E after it has been out a few years.  Assuming the word is that it has something to offer.  As it stands now, I've easily got what I want to run the next 4-5 years.  If 6E sucks, then other things on the list will bump if off entirely.  If not, it might eventually rise to the top.

I didn't even adopt 4e, don't plan on adopting 5e either (might try it out for curiosity's sake, but that's it) and D&D isn't even necessarily my preferred system per se (although I prefer d20+Mod mechanics, but hate class-based systems), so adopting 6e is looking unlikely.

Also...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1117569As for my future games, I plan to play what I write and publish...once I finish the damn things!!

^This

Well, GURPS of course, and maybe some Rolemaster, maybe not.  I might end up running my own games.  That usually means finding faults that need fixed so maybe not.

1e AD&D, always.

I don't understand why people think they "Have to" play the new edition if they're happy with the old.  As far as I'm concerned, 2e didn't "fix" anything I hadn't already "fixed" with 1e, and so on.

I played 5E once, and fun was had, but I didn't buy into it. I never bought into any of the earlier editions either.

I did pick up Shadow of the Demon Lord and a bunch of OSR stuff. I'll be fine just using that and all the non-d20 games I already own.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

5e PHB is in the top 25-35 of all books sold in the nation (it's number 27 right now as I type this - right below the Keto Diet book, selling well for the new years dieting rush). Over 5 years after it was released.

I wouldn't hold your breath on a 6e. The pattern is well and truly busted at this point. We're in uncharted territory now in terms of sales this far our from release - including 1e and B/X. I don't think we will see a 6e in the next 5 years either.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1117571Where did they announce 6e? I can't find any concrete details. This surprises me as I didn't think they ever would make a sixth edition.

They definitely did not announce a 6e. Original post is kinda trolling.

Quote from: Orphan81;1117577Is 6E coming out anytime soon? Last I heard it was still a ways off.

As far as anyone can tell, it's not even in planning stage. They have at least 3 years of material planed for 5e already being tinkered with.

Quote from: SHARK;1117584Having said that, I would certainly be opposed to putting more stupid SJW nonsense into the game, or any hypothetical new edition. As you mentioned, KingCheops, Crawford is definitely a questionable game designer, given his particular ideology, and I fear that Mearls has drank the Kool-Aid as well.

It's not the SJW stuff that bugs me (although it does).  I can always scrub out the idiotic purse puppies that litter their writing.  Its the fundamental lack of understanding what's fun and how to judge "their" own rule system.

Palladium Fantasy 1st Ed., Alternity, WFRP 1st & 2nd Ed., and probably random other Palladium Titles.

I'm currently running Rolemaster.

Later this year, I'll be shifting to Traveller.

Beyond that, my current plan is ACKS, probably commencing mid to late 2021. I'd like to get three years out of that.

Best guess to follow ACKS is Al Qadim using Mythras.

D&D 6e doesn't factor into my plans at all, and I can't see that changing.

I've been developing my own system for a few years now and just about have it done. I've been using the playtest version for all my games ever since it reached a playable state so I don't see why that would change. WotC has long since said they don't want me as a customer and I'm happy to oblige their wish.

Quote from: KingCheops;1117651It's not the SJW stuff that bugs me (although it does).  I can always scrub out the idiotic purse puppies that litter their writing.  Its the fundamental lack of understanding what's fun and how to judge "their" own rule system.

Greetings!

*Laughing* "Purse Puppies!":D Interesting, my friend. I like 5E, but there are certain subsystems that I have mixed feelings on for sure. Can uou elaborate on how they lack understanding of what's fun and how to judge their own rule system? I wanna hear this, KingCheops!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Honestly, I'd say Big Eyes Small Mouth for gaming in general (looking forward to trying out BESM 4E) and for D&D specifically, I'd turn to the OSR and Pathfinder 1E.

I run and play 5E, but I could easily run Shadow of the Demon Lord for the rest of my life and not worry about any other game. Rob is writing a more general fantasy game, Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which I'm certain I'll buy when it comes out. I could also keep playing 5E or any OSR game.

Quote from: Sunsword;1117748I run and play 5E, but I could easily run Shadow of the Demon Lord for the rest of my life and not worry about any other game. Rob is writing a more general fantasy game, Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which I'm certain I'll buy when it comes out. I could also keep playing 5E or any OSR game.

Weird. I never found Shadow of the Demon Lord to be anything but a slightly darker take on generic fantasy. Sure, it has some different flavor here and there (e.g., elves are actual fey), but nothing too radical and it still fits firmly into generic fantasy as far as I see it.

Quote from: SHARK;1117740Greetings!

*Laughing* "Purse Puppies!":D Interesting, my friend. I like 5E, but there are certain subsystems that I have mixed feelings on for sure. Can uou elaborate on how they lack understanding of what's fun and how to judge their own rule system? I wanna hear this, KingCheops!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well the straw that broke my back was their rulings on Beholder eye rays.  We ran the beholder fight in Tomb of Annihilation (which I badly messed up but that's a different story) and one of my players asked if they could dispel an eye effect because the barbarian had been charmed for several rounds.  As a group we quickly settled on "determine an equivalent spell and dispel as that."  So we said it was dominate monster and he went ahead and rolled.  I reserved the right to change the house rule pending further rules research later.

Well Crawford says they are neither spells nor spell-like effects therefore you cannot dispel the effects (lol wut?).  Mearls said you can but you use the monster's CR as the spell level (lol wut?).  Neither of these are fun because a) they shut down player options, or b) they make it prohibitively hard.  Also neither ruling seems to take a consistent approach to all the subsystems (which are admittedly not always coherent or the best) already existing in the game.

Crawford has contradicted himself several times in his sage advice (especially in regards to using shields) and has shown he doesn't really know what's in the rule book.  I don't think Mearls was ever really involved given he brought in consultants and doesn't seem to have touched the rules since.

I don't know what "D&D" even means anymore. If we're talking about "system" - I'm open to checking out any system in play. If we're talking about settings, "D&D Settings" from WotC have completely skyrocket-jumped every shark imaginable.

IF I were to GM a D&D d20ish system, anything 3e, 4e, or 5e is a non-starter. If 6e comes out... I'll do my due-diligence and evaluate it, but I have little faith that 6e, when it arrives will be anything that interests me. If I were going to GM D&D - it would be 1e/2e and I'd seriously consider doing OSR.

In the meantime - I've got PUH-LENTY to run for the next decade: Talislanta, Deadlands, FFG Star Wars, MSH, Savage , but I'm eyeballing Mythras/RQ6e, Warhammer (and if they drop the Original World it's a SHOE-IN, otherwise WHFRP 2e), Cyberpunk Red.

I mean... realistically? "D&D" has become almost provincial in it's mainstream iteration. OSR is more innovative and useful than 5e imo mechanically by dint of flexibility. And while I'm a system's wonk, I love good settings. I'm happy to convert what I want to other systems, if it suits me. Right now - WotC gives me nothing that I want that I don't already have. Sad to say. But it's true.

As with all editions of D&D, I'll have mild interest to hear about what it's like, and I'm sure I'll continue playing GURPS and TFT.

I still have Dungeon Crawl Classics, My own homebrew, ACKS. Godbound, and my unholy DCC/Godbound/ 5e abomination to run.

Quote from: Slambo;1117794my unholy DCC/Godbound/ 5e abomination to run.

... Now that is a 50/50 intriguing/terrifying. HAHAHAHA

I'm going to create a thread - I'd like to know what you're doing with these disparate systems!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;11176331e AD&D, always.

I don't understand why people think they "Have to" play the new edition if they're happy with the old.  As far as I'm concerned, 2e didn't "fix" anything I hadn't already "fixed" with 1e, and so on.

I don't get it either.  It's pure consumerism and herdism.  "I have this thing that works perfectly for me, but my corporate overlords have declared a new tax - what will I do if I don't want to pay it?"  

Just keep playing what you know and love.  If you have to run a new edition to get players, then what's happening between the four corners of the table isn't most important to anyone involved in the activity.

I've never felt the need to upgrade to a new system just because it came out. I played AD&D back in the day, but moved on to other RPGs for a while (and took a short break from gaming, too) and pretty much missed out on 2nd Ed. 3E came out and rekindled my interest, so I played it, and enjoyed it, but I skipped 4E altogether after reading through the PHB. It took nearly four years for friends to convince me to play 5E, but I have, and I think it's the best system yet. I'll check 6E out, when it's released in five years or so. Maybe.

Mostly, though, my go-to system is Genesys, and there hasn't been anything I couldn't do with it yet.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

My plan is the same as it's been for years, now: run and play the games I like. I'm way off the edition carousel (and very happy to be off it). The last edition I bought because it was latest thing was 3.0. After I decided that wasn't for me, I made my way back to editions I like the best, and have stayed with those. It's worked well for me.

That's not to say I won't check out new editions or new games. I looked at 3.5, 4e, 5e, et cetera. I just didn't see anything there that made me want to "buy in" or change what I'm doing. So I'm sure I'll take a look at 6e, whenever it appears. But I have no reason to think it will hold great appeal to me. Never say never, but I'd be really surprised if it did.

I haven't played any edition of D&D past 3.5, so I'm not likely to pick up 6e.  I'm pretty much playing Cypher System exclusively these days, and that's okay by me.

That said, if it's a choice between a new system and not gaming, I'll learn a new system.

Quote from: KingCheops;1117787Well the straw that broke my back was their rulings on Beholder eye rays.  We ran the beholder fight in Tomb of Annihilation (which I badly messed up but that's a different story) and one of my players asked if they could dispel an eye effect because the barbarian had been charmed for several rounds.  As a group we quickly settled on "determine an equivalent spell and dispel as that."  So we said it was dominate monster and he went ahead and rolled.  I reserved the right to change the house rule pending further rules research later.

Well Crawford says they are neither spells nor spell-like effects therefore you cannot dispel the effects (lol wut?).  Mearls said you can but you use the monster's CR as the spell level (lol wut?).  Neither of these are fun because a) they shut down player options, or b) they make it prohibitively hard.  Also neither ruling seems to take a consistent approach to all the subsystems (which are admittedly not always coherent or the best) already existing in the game.

Crawford has contradicted himself several times in his sage advice (especially in regards to using shields) and has shown he doesn't really know what's in the rule book.  I don't think Mearls was ever really involved given he brought in consultants and doesn't seem to have touched the rules since.

Mearls has never been competent with the rules of any edition with which he was involved.

In his days as a freelancing OGL spambot, he displayed very little grasp of the 3.xE rules (much like the WotC designers and developers, to be frank). He didn't grok his own incompetent ruleset, Iron Heroes. His 4E products were the worst and he was the only 4E designer who didn't improve over the course of the edition. And the 5E playtesting process revealed he should be ignored until WotC rolled out Rodney Thompson and then the Rainbow Connection to more accurately state what needed to be said.

MM is the mad scientist who clearly comes up with ideas but struggles with implementing them, especially in the context of existing systems. As such, no doubt he's reasonably creative (creative enough to have previously built a living as an OGL spambot) but he's not the guy whose opinion should be sought out or valued. As for the Rainbow Connection getting things wrong, it's 5E and so we are back to the days of AD&D where you really just need to make your own rulings.

Well I guess Spheres of Annihilation aren't fun either because they shut down PC options too.

But hey - people love 5e and will keep buying their products. Saturation point might hit at some point in the near future... but I wouldn't plan on seeing 6e anytime too soon. It was a mere 5-years between 4e and 5e... and 5e is still going strong.

My take is two things:

1) Because they slow-cook the content release of 5e stuff, it's keeping new and returning GM's cutting their teeth on it at length. Established GM's that have adopted 5e can pretty much create their own content and more likely will convert older material as needed. All of this has been extending the life of this edition *regardless* of what detractors think.

2) The time it will take for the players that *stick* to the hobby will eventually get interested in trying other things out, and this goes for the new/returning GM's as well, but it will take some time. MOST of them that do stay, will stick with D&D as their go-to game as intended. We saw this with previous editions of D&D who got their Tribal Stripes on specific editions. GM's especially. 5e is doing well by all accounts. It has plenty of life left in it and Old GM's support it - those that don't, have long moved away from it. It's the same cycle. When 6e eventually drops... you'll see the 5e die-hards lose their shit, the rest will say "Get over it." And they will form the Neo-OSR and that will be time for a new round of tribal warfare in the name of a system no one agrees on anymore, but keeps buying stuff with the brand on it, or knockoffs that are actually better.

But most of you already know this. It's better to just "wait and see", but I realize it's hard to (and more delicious to talk about) all the obstacles that will likely prevent 5e from being as great as it could have been* much less how 6e won't be any better.

* relative to my subjectivity.

Quote from: KingCheops;1117787Well the straw that broke my back was their rulings on Beholder eye rays.  We ran the beholder fight in Tomb of Annihilation (which I badly messed up but that's a different story) and one of my players asked if they could dispel an eye effect because the barbarian had been charmed for several rounds.  As a group we quickly settled on "determine an equivalent spell and dispel as that."  So we said it was dominate monster and he went ahead and rolled.  I reserved the right to change the house rule pending further rules research later.

Well Crawford says they are neither spells nor spell-like effects therefore you cannot dispel the effects (lol wut?).  Mearls said you can but you use the monster's CR as the spell level (lol wut?).  Neither of these are fun because a) they shut down player options, or b) they make it prohibitively hard.  Also neither ruling seems to take a consistent approach to all the subsystems (which are admittedly not always coherent or the best) already existing in the game.

Crawford has contradicted himself several times in his sage advice (especially in regards to using shields) and has shown he doesn't really know what's in the rule book.  I don't think Mearls was ever really involved given he brought in consultants and doesn't seem to have touched the rules since.

Greetings!

Ah, yes. Good stuff, my friend! Yeah. The Beholder. I admit, I don't pay attention to any "Sage Advice" in the modern era. The last "Sage Advice" I paid attention to was whatever they talked about in Dragon Magazine in the 80's.

Crawford more and more seems entirely out to lunch. Mearls, well, I have to admit, I have never been a big fan of his game design. Even when he was a solo developer, doing Iron Heroes and whatever, his supplements never seemed to work really well with the game system. Oftentimes adding layers of complexity that seemed to me more of a headache than solving some problem, or improving on something.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1117839Mearls has never been competent with the rules of any edition with which he was involved.

In his days as a freelancing OGL spambot, he displayed very little grasp of the 3.xE rules (much like the WotC designers and developers, to be frank). He didn't grok his own incompetent ruleset, Iron Heroes. His 4E products were the worst and he was the only 4E designer who didn't improve over the course of the edition. And the 5E playtesting process revealed he should be ignored until WotC rolled out Rodney Thompson and then the Rainbow Connection to more accurately state what needed to be said.

MM is the mad scientist who clearly comes up with ideas but struggles with implementing them, especially in the context of existing systems. As such, no doubt he's reasonably creative (creative enough to have previously built a living as an OGL spambot) but he's not the guy whose opinion should be sought out or valued. As for the Rainbow Connection getting things wrong, it's 5E and so we are back to the days of AD&D where you really just need to make your own rulings.

Greetings!

*Laughs* Well said, Scrivener of Doom! The "Rainbow Connection!":D You are spot on about Mearls, as well. I agree.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: tenbones;1117841Well I guess Spheres of Annihilation aren't fun either because they shut down PC options too.

Generally used as arbitrary gotchas id say few players actually enjoy them in games.

While I think many good things come from ogl, i feel so many of its fans are desperate about preserving the bath water with the baby.

I forgot that the Lyonesse RPG is supposed to launch in 2020.  Unless it is horrible, it is sure to bump the latest D&D back a year or two in my play list.  Along with everything I listed earlier, there just isn't time to do any other new system.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1117856I forgot that the Lyonesse RPG is supposed to launch in 2020.  Unless it is horrible, it is sure to bump the latest D&D back a year or two in my play list.  

  The Design Mechanism has a preview up (https://bit.ly/35Vep7n) if you want to get a sense of it.

  I didn't buy into 5E to begin with, am planning to sell off the one book I purchased (Curse of Strahd), and expect 6E's logo to be the rainbow ampersand in an inverted pentagram. ;) I'm probably going with d6 or Savage Worlds as my default, with d100 (Mythras, Revolution or OpenQuest) or HERO System as dark horse candidates. For my D&D fix, I'm intrigued by The Hero's Journey 2E and will see how it unfolds; aside from that, I have 2E as a grab-bag and 4E for when I want a more tactical feel. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1117861I'm probably going with d6 or Savage Worlds as my default, with d100 (Mythras, Revolution or OpenQuest) or HERO System as dark horse candidates.

I am really enjoying my HERO game. I've barely scratched the surface of the system and I feel like I have no idea what I'm doing half the time, but holy cow is it fun and I'd love to see it get more mindshare.

Quote from: tenbones;1117841Well I guess Spheres of Annihilation aren't fun either because they shut down PC options too.

Uh not any differently than a killing blow with a sword or a fireball to the face shut down options.

In terms of why anyone would bother with a new edition in my case it is due to on-boarding 2 new players.  They are okay trying older systems but rule books are easier to get for the latest edition and quite honestly 5e does provide a very easy entry point.  They nailed it on the head with making it accessible.

Since I only have D&D Basic 5e, which is all .pdf, I guess I will have to commit virtual Sati when I am obliged to recycle bin+delete my D&D 5e material upon D&D 6e's arrival. :( plz play 'Hamster Dance' in memory of me.

I play a few RPGs outside of D&D. Mostly BRP-based stuff: Call of Cthulhu or homebrew fantasy/pseudo-historical stuff (often based on RQ or on a custom set of rules from the BRP Gold Book). My eldest son likes to run Warhammer Fantasy (I think he's running the second edition). For wargaming, it's typically Field of Glory, these days (I have four armies, at the moment: Mid-Republican Romans, Ptolemaic Egyptian, Galatian, and Early Successor States). I'd like to get into L'Art de la Guerre, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

I haven't bought into any new D&D since 3.5... And I've pretty much abandoned that. I run an OD&D game and play in an AD&D 1e game. I also started a BX game but abandoned it.

Beyond D&D, I actively play RuneQuest 1st ed (1978) and Classic Traveller (using the 1977 rules) and play in L5R 1e and The Fantasy Trip (using the new kick started rules).

If none of those satisfy my needs, I have tons of other games that could be played...

Quote from: KingCheops;1117911Uh not any differently than a killing blow with a sword or a fireball to the face shut down options.

In terms of why anyone would bother with a new edition in my case it is due to on-boarding 2 new players.  They are okay trying older systems but rule books are easier to get for the latest edition and quite honestly 5e does provide a very easy entry point.  They nailed it on the head with making it accessible.

Oh sure I'm just being snarky! (No saves for SoA's buddy!)

I would say this - and I've said this in other threads - while 5e is intensely popular. It's that way because of Brand more than substance. It's what people use. But I'd argue there are better systems that are equally accessible in terms of acquisition (I mean... Amazon... DTRPG etc.) that are arbitrarily better systems that anyone could get into and faster for beginners and GM's alike.

But I get it. D&D is the sun around which everyone in the TTRPG hobby orbits. But I want to maintain this is by choice for those aware, not because of anything else, tradition, popularity and marketing for those that aren't, and not necessarily for quality of design. This is true now. This was true in 1e, and 2e. It will be true when 6e drops.

Quote from: tenbones;1118015But I get it. D&D is the sun around which everyone in the TTRPG hobby orbits. But I want to maintain this is by choice for those aware, not because of anything else, tradition, popularity and marketing for those that aren't, and not necessarily for quality of design. This is true now. This was true in 1e, and 2e. It will be true when 6e drops.

I call it the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Effect. We have no idea why it works, but it does.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1118018I call it the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Effect. We have no idea why it works, but it does.

Well, maybe it (D&D) will have its Star Wars moment. Maybe it already has, if I'm an example. It's time for me has come and gone for the exact same reasons. Corporate interests have turned it into something not entirely made for my uses, but theirs. And people consume it and enjoy it. More power to'em.

It'll be interesting to watch the next Edition War. I'll sit that one out, and watch the stands (well you know.. I might toss in some instigation for fun). It's become tradition. And I love me some tradition.

Quote from: tenbones;1118015I would say this - and I've said this in other threads - while 5e is intensely popular. It's that way because of Brand more than substance. It's what people use. But I'd argue there are better systems that are equally accessible in terms of acquisition (I mean... Amazon... DTRPG etc.) that are arbitrarily better systems that anyone could get into and faster for beginners and GM's alike..

QFT

And this has always been my feeling about D&D in general. Mechanically speaking, there are better systems out there than D&D, and many of the things I think helped streamline D&D for the masses since 3e are things that were already present in other systems years for decades.

Pre-3e D&D's roll mechanics were a bloated mess, with a different type of roll for just about every type of thing--ability checks, attack rolls, saves, breaking doors, hearing stuff, using "thieves skills", etc.--EVERYTHING used a different roll. Then 3e came in an streamlined everything under a common core mechanic--BRILLIANT, except that almost every single other RPG already used a common core mechanic and some (such as Cyberpunk 2020/Interlock) even used a simple Die+Modifier mechanic as well. D&D just had to wait for like a decade or two till they also joined the club.

One thing I think has helped 5e in particular is the further simplifying trend in roll mechanics, which eventually led them to entirely drop combat stats (THAC0/Combat Modifier) and saving throws, and just make everything a skill (or "Proficiency") that works the same way--further simplifying and consolidating things into common mechanical components to handle everything, making them easier to learn and more accessible to the masses.

Except that, AGAIN, most other games had already handled all actions and defenses as skills for decades. But D&D needed its classes, so they had to relegate skills to some strictly supplementary role to emphasize classes. And they're still doing it in 5e--with their limited detail skills and bloated class abilities to justify a class+level progression--it's just that now they have skills riding on their core mechanics, handling every action you make. So even if they try to downplay it, skills are at the heart of everything cuz they handle every action roll.

So a lot of the mechanics that have made D&D better and more accessible have been things that were already perfected in other games. It's just that most normies don't even know what a tabletop RPG is, and if they've even heard about them, the only one whose name they recognize is D&D. And most casual players barely even learn one system--it's usually the GM and hardcore gamers who tend to go deep into the rules. So whenever new people make their way into the hobby they tend to go with the one game most people recognize and stay there.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

Well, I skipped 3E, 3.5E, 4E and 5E, so when 6E eventually comes out, I'll probably skip that one too as I keep playing O/AD&D and some flavorful clones (like AS&SH).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118031Mechanically speaking, there are better systems out there than D&D, and many of the things I think helped streamline D&D for the masses since 3e are things that were already present in other systems years for decades.

Pre-3e D&D's roll mechanics were a bloated mess, with a different type of roll for just about every type of thing...Then 3e came in an streamlined everything under a common core mechanic--BRILLIANT, except that almost every single other RPG already used a common core mechanic...

One thing I think has helped 5e in particular is...[making] everything a skill...that works the same way...Except that, AGAIN, most other games had already handled all actions and defenses as skills for decades. But D&D needed its classes...

So a lot of the mechanics that have made D&D better and more accessible have been things that were already perfected in other games...

Hmm. A lot here I disagree with, but it's subjective stuff (what is "better" and such). I don't think a unified roll mechanism is necessarily better. Can be simpler to understand, but not necessarily better in game terms. I also don't agree that making everything skill-based is necessarily better. Different approach, certainly, but one that has pros and cons.

Don't get me wrong, I do like skill-based RPGs. I enjoy RQ/BRP, for example. However, I'm not a fan of skill systems grafted onto D&D's class/level approach, and I'm not a fan of unified die rolls for the sake of unified dice rolls. To me, D&D is best in its earlier forms, before too much of that stuff crept in. That's why I went back to original D&D and 1e AD&D rather than staying on the edition train. As you note, if I want to play a skill-based RPG, or one with unified dice mechanism, there are other systems that do that well, without any of "uneasy marriage" of class/level and skill-based design that comes from trying to wed the two approaches while keeping D&D's traditions/history.

The Far Away Land RPG

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118041Hmm. A lot here I disagree with, but it's subjective stuff (what is "better" and such). I don't think a unified roll mechanism is necessarily better. Can be simpler to understand, but not necessarily better in game terms. I also don't agree that making everything skill-based is necessarily better. Different approach, certainly, but one that has pros and cons.

Don't get me wrong, I do like skill-based RPGs. I enjoy RQ/BRP, for example. However, I'm not a fan of skill systems grafted onto D&D's class/level approach, and I'm not a fan of unified die rolls for the sake of unified dice rolls. To me, D&D is best in its earlier forms, before too much of that stuff crept in. That's why I went back to original D&D and 1e AD&D rather than staying on the edition train. As you note, if I want to play a skill-based RPG, or one with unified dice mechanism, there are other systems that do that well, without any of "uneasy marriage" of class/level and skill-based design that comes from trying to wed the two approaches while keeping D&D's traditions/history.

You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true (though, I am using "better" to mean "more efficient", which is more objective).

What exactly is gained by making your chance to break a door (for example) some arbitrary figure derived from your Strength score that doesn't even take into account the material strength of the door vs simply assigning a difficulty value based on the door's strength and just using the same mechanic you'd use for any other Strength check? Or using a completely different yet equally arbitrary percentage value (also based on your Strength without taking into account object material strength) to bend bars or lift gates? Or an even more different 1 in 1d6 mechanic that doesn't take into account ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to check if you heard enemies approach?

If anything it's this type of distinct roll mechanics that are different for the sake of being different. Granted, I understand that a lot of these mechanics are probably distinct because a lot of these concepts didn't exist originally and slowly made their way into the game as they became a factor during gameplay. Want to break down a door? Well... how about roll under X on a d20? Want to know if you spotted an ambush? Um...roll 1 on a d6! Etc. It wasn't till later on that people figured out that character and opponent ability, as well as circumstantial factors, should factor in when making these types of tests and more standardized mechanics were developed (mostly in other systems).

With consolidated task resolution mechanics you can produce consistent results across the board while accounting for action difficulty, situational factors and character (including opponent) ability when making rolls. Granted, some rolls might not neatly fit into this mechanical scheme, but those are in the extreme minority and typically related to things that are completely unaffected by character ability, such as rolling for random encounters or loot, which can use their own separate roll mechanics. But the vast majority of things that characters (including enemies/NPCs) can do does neatly fit into this mechanical scheme of standardized task resolution.

Regarding classes vs skills, the issue with merging skill mechanics with classes is that skills can pretty much handle everything that characters can do, so once you have skills as a game concept classes become superfluous, outside of special benefits or abilities dealing with things beyond core skill function. So trying to use them both at once does tend to become clunky, but IMO inevitable because classes don't account for the whole gamma of actions and other game functionality that characters can engage on in a RPG, which is why skills (as a game concept) were eventually invented.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118066You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true...

Yep. I guess I'm not really in it to argue about it. It's a discussion that's been done many, many times before, and never really changes anyone's mind (mostly because of the subjective nature of preferences, and the variable nature of "what works best" when people start off with different goals/contexts).

I expect I'd keep running 5e D&D, with the occasional bit of 4e D&D maybe. But recently I've been getting excited over the prospect of running the Primeval Thule setting using the Mini Six RPG, so we'll see how that goes. I'm a bit burnt out on D&D and fancy more pulp-level gaming. Plus nostalgia for WEG d6 Star Wars!

X in D6 solves most of my problems in OD&D. I can easily extrapolate STR vs. Door or WIS vs. sneaky goblins or whatever, then break down the odds on D6. For instance, let's say 1-2 on D6 breaks down a stuck door. But this door isn't just stuck, it's barred shut. Hmm, that's bad. But both Fighters who are hitting the door have 16 STR. Hmm, that's good. But they want to do it quietly! Hmm, that's bad. But the cleric just noticed door has been smashed open before, and there might still be a weak spot. Hmm, that's good. AKA, I can easily go back and forth weighing modifiers, having advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and coming up with easy X in D6 solution.

Could I break the odds down "better" on D20 or D100? Sure, but I don't care about deep grain. A range of -3 to +3 on D6 is enough to simulate the odds so there is "realistic" variance, but quick and dirty enough so I can keep the game moving along.

And that's what really matters to me. Keeping the flow of the game moving to maximize immersion.

Quote from: Kersus;1118047The Far Away Land RPG

Never heard of it! What's it about?

Don't think a new edition of D&D would worry me. as many of my more 'serious' games are D100 based, like BRP (RuneQuest, Call of Cthulh) and Warhammer.
I also dabble in Fate Core, PDQ, HeroQuest, Barbarians of Lemuria, Modiphius Conan, as well as OpenD6 (WEG Star Wars).

I don't mind D20 at times, but D&D 5E is my third preference for when people specifically want to play in a D20 Fantasy games - I will tend to choose 13th Age and Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells first. I also don't mind Swords & Wizardry (with AAC), it does the trick for a simple game, and for me I find Class/Archetype games 'hum' better when they have a simple structure.

Happy to stick with one of these, although 5E is reasonable for a bit as well. Also might take a squizz at Lion & Dragon soon.
So if D&D 6E is about trimming things down further, I might consider it. But if it's about the same as 5E or more complex, then I doubt I'll pick it up.
Lots of stuff to keep me going.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118070Yep. I guess I'm not really in it to argue about it. It's a discussion that's been done many, many times before, and never really changes anyone's mind (mostly because of the subjective nature of preferences, and the variable nature of "what works best" when people start off with different goals/contexts).

That's understandable. And what works best can depend a lot on preferences, what you're looking for in the game and what sort of basic constraints you're working with.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118121X in D6 solves most of my problems in OD&D. I can easily extrapolate STR vs. Door or WIS vs. sneaky goblins or whatever, then break down the odds on D6. For instance, let's say 1-2 on D6 breaks down a stuck door. But this door isn't just stuck, it's barred shut. Hmm, that's bad. But both Fighters who are hitting the door have 16 STR. Hmm, that's good. But they want to do it quietly! Hmm, that's bad. But the cleric just noticed door has been smashed open before, and there might still be a weak spot. Hmm, that's good. AKA, I can easily go back and forth weighing modifiers, having advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and coming up with easy X in D6 solution.

Could I break the odds down "better" on D20 or D100? Sure, but I don't care about deep grain. A range of -3 to +3 on D6 is enough to simulate the odds so there is "realistic" variance, but quick and dirty enough so I can keep the game moving along.

And that's what really matters to me. Keeping the flow of the game moving to maximize immersion.

Eyeballing difficulty numbers on a d20+Mod mechanic is really easy: Average is 10; 15 for Challenging tasks; 20 for really Tough.

If 5 point increments seem too much for the task go by 2 point increments instead, but if you just wanna keep the game moving 10-15-20 should be enough. And you don't have guestimate how much you want character ability scores to affect the roll, the roll mechanic accounts for it directly. You just say:

• Average/Default 10
• Challenging 15
• Tough 20

You don't even need to eyeball how tough it is to detect the sneaky goblin, just roll WIS (Listen*) vs DEX (Stealth*), and maybe add +4 or -4 (or so) modifier to the character's roll if circumstances favor or are against them.

*if skills are used.

Certainly WotC is going to release something in 2024 to celebrate D&D's 50th birthday. What will it be if not 6e?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;11176331e AD&D, always.

Correct answer.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118066You're not really giving me much to go on beyond you "disagree", other than maybe pointing out that these are different approaches with different pros and cons, which I mostly agree (though, I still consider consolidated skill rolls to be mechanically superior to class & level with inconsistent roll mechanics). Or that the word "better" is subjective, which is also mostly true (though, I am using "better" to mean "more efficient", which is more objective).

What exactly is gained by making your chance to break a door (for example) some arbitrary figure derived from your Strength score that doesn't even take into account the material strength of the door vs simply assigning a difficulty value based on the door's strength and just using the same mechanic you'd use for any other Strength check? Or using a completely different yet equally arbitrary percentage value (also based on your Strength without taking into account object material strength) to bend bars or lift gates? Or an even more different 1 in 1d6 mechanic that doesn't take into account ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to check if you heard enemies approach?

If anything it's this type of distinct roll mechanics that are different for the sake of being different. Granted, I understand that a lot of these mechanics are probably distinct because a lot of these concepts didn't exist originally and slowly made their way into the game as they became a factor during gameplay. Want to break down a door? Well... how about roll under X on a d20? Want to know if you spotted an ambush? Um...roll 1 on a d6! Etc. It wasn't till later on that people figured out that character and opponent ability, as well as circumstantial factors, should factor in when making these types of tests and more standardized mechanics were developed (mostly in other systems).

With consolidated task resolution mechanics you can produce consistent results across the board while accounting for action difficulty, situational factors and character (including opponent) ability when making rolls. Granted, some rolls might not neatly fit into this mechanical scheme, but those are in the extreme minority and typically related to things that are completely unaffected by character ability, such as rolling for random encounters or loot, which can use their own separate roll mechanics. But the vast majority of things that characters (including enemies/NPCs) can do does neatly fit into this mechanical scheme of standardized task resolution.

Regarding classes vs skills, the issue with merging skill mechanics with classes is that skills can pretty much handle everything that characters can do, so once you have skills as a game concept classes become superfluous, outside of special benefits or abilities dealing with things beyond core skill function. So trying to use them both at once does tend to become clunky, but IMO inevitable because classes don't account for the whole gamma of actions and other game functionality that characters can engage on in a RPG, which is why skills (as a game concept) were eventually invented.

It all boils down to some people like spending lots and lots of time on dozens and dozens of things that slow the game to an anemic crawl and others prefer a fast paced game. Some people enjoy flipping between endless tables and charts during the game and others do not enjoy that. Some people like to gut the game of all of its flavor and idiosyncrasies and others don't like bland, tasteless pap. You can have your allegedly superior mechanics while some of us get 3-5 times as much gaming done in the same length of time that does not involve bean counting.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118213It all boils down to some people like spending lots and lots of time on dozens and dozens of things that slow the game to an anemic crawl and others prefer a fast paced game. Some people enjoy flipping between endless tables and charts during the game and others do not enjoy that. Some people like to gut the game of all of its flavor and idiosyncrasies and others don't like bland, tasteless pap. You can have your allegedly superior mechanics while some of us get 3-5 times as much gaming done in the same length of time that does not involve bean counting.

How exactly does having consolidated task resolution mechanics that handle everything in the game devolve into bean counting while having a completely different and inconsistent mechanic for every single tiny thing in the game does the opposite?

I feel like the only thing 5E D&D has going for it is the large built in player base and product support(DnDBeyond, Fantasy Grounds, etc). If 6E was announce that'd pretty much kill any desire to continue on with 5E since it was going away, and I'd probably just jump over to Pathfinder 2E. It's out now, I doubt 6E D&D will innovate majorly over it, and it has a player base and solid product support(Hero Lab, Fantasy Grounds).

Also I'm fairly confident Paizo won't replace 2E anytime in the next decade or so.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118231How exactly does having consolidated task resolution mechanics that handle everything in the game devolve into bean counting while having a completely different and inconsistent mechanic for every single tiny thing in the game does the opposite?

Because some people bottle the bath water and throw out the baby.

I've been working on a system for the past several years now and one of my core design principles was "question everything" and if it's not the best approach, change it to something that is.

There are definitely things in various editions of D&D that pass a "best practices" test (depending what you're testing for obviously). For example, Armor as a target number (vs. DR) with rolled damage (vs. basing it on a margin of success) is easily the most effective setup for fast-moving combat with minimal math (the operations are "addition then compare" and "addition, target then subtracts" where both rolls can be done at the same time).

DR and margins of success might be more realistic, but both add extra operations to the resolution that slow it down (DR turns damage into "addition, then subtraction, then subtraction again... margin of success turns addition and compare to addition then subtraction, possibly followed by addition or multiplication if the attack has a base value or damage multiplier). If you're writing a game about personal dueling then such detail might be needed. If you're writing a game where heroes are cleaving through a dozen mooks in multiple combats per session... it's probably just slowing things down.

Likewise, a lot of 4E clones keep the idea of saves as defenses (i.e. the guy casting fireball rolls to hit vs. the target's reflex defense; an approach I agree with because it makes resolution more consistent and thus easier to remember; the person taking the action always rolls is easy to remember), but then try to consolidate the number of defenses down because they think three or even two defenses will be more elegant (typically by trying to merge armor/reflex into a single value; sometimes merging part of reflex into armor and another into fortitude).

Except that, what I found in testing was that there was no meaningful increase in complexity from having four defenses because the only operation you're performing with them is a comparison to the attack roll.

In terms of best principles a lot of pre-WotC mechanics were just not best at all. Attacks were resolved one way, saves another way, non-weapon proficiencies still a third (and that just three using a d20), some others uses percentage, others used one or more d6s.

Knowing "if I want to do something with a chance of failure then I'm always going to roll a d20 and add something to it and the higher the result the better" is just flat out better design because it reduces the number of things players and GMs have to internalize without stopping to reference the rules document (by contrast, the individual modifiers needing to increase at a consistent rate is far less important because players/GMs are only dealing with the current number on the character sheet, not what it might have been last level or what it will be next level).

OD&D gets props for being first, but viewing its mechanics as best would be like considering the OS/360 (introduced in 1964) as the be all and end all of computer operating systems.

Too much streamlining of established Cows only turns the game to tactical D&D skirmish game (see 4e). The real question is deciding where you as a designer want those operational calculations to matter in your head, or on the paper.

There is a sweet spot for how many operations "feels" right. I question whether your example makes the game "samey" along the lines of linear armor-types <> Difficulty numbers - then the extra modifiers for Stats on top of that, minus differences if you play with weapon-types vs. armor types etc.

If you don't care about any of that stuff... then you're still using the same basic operators. Especially when you toss in miscellaneous modifiers.

Whereas you could do something like assuming Active Defense, where the Difficulty to hit someone is based purely on their combat rating with whatever weapon they have in hand. All those modifiers are already making the operation one-stop shopping and has elements of "realism" for combat. And you can allow armor to do DR as normal, which is a modifier to damage.

There are downstream effects to this... but they're minimal. But you know... for some, it's killing sacred cows. For other's it's mutating the cow. It's still not going to be enough to "kill" D&D. Only WotC can do that. But you (and everyone else willing to do the work) can roll the dice and be there to offer that alternative. The players will make the final decision, of course.

I think your claim about pre-WotC mechanics weren't best is... murky. Post-WotC introduced the most detrimental design element of D&D ever: the 20-lvl Progression. It's *horrible*.

Quote from: tenbones;1118267If you don't care about any of that stuff... then you're still using the same basic operators. Especially when you toss in miscellaneous modifiers.

This is one of the few areas I give 5e credit for (that I didn't at first until I actually tried using it for a playtest).

In testing I found that an advantage/disadvantage mechanic created far more fun (the best description I ever got from a tester for advantage was that it felt like a "save vs. failure") than even bonuses that were statistically better than those advantage would provide. It's also resolved via simple comparison (i.e. is this number better/worse than that number?) and easy to apply post-hoc if forgotten about in the moment (i.e. you don't have to remember the original roll number, just roll again if it might change the outcome; i.e. you don't have to roll again if you already hit with advantage or if you failed with disadvantage; and use the new result).

I knew it was a winner for myself the moment a person rolled a 1 on the die to hit, then remembered they had advantage and rolled a nat-20. There was no way that even a +10 modifier would have giving the same endorphin rush that gave the players.

As a result my flat-footed mechanic changed from "-X to defense" to "roll twice, use better result" and a number of my penalizing conditions got consolidated into "roll twice, use worse result."

QuoteBut you know... for some, it's killing sacred cows. For other's it's mutating the cow. It's still not going to be enough to "kill" D&D. Only WotC can do that. But you (and everyone else willing to do the work) can roll the dice and be there to offer that alternative. The players will make the final decision, of course.

For me its only about killing cows that aren't performing.

Like I said before, "Roll to hit vs. Armor, then roll damage" easily passed muster as a good mechanic.

Hit Points (though I had to call them something else due to all the associations with meat whereas mine are entirely non-physical) easily passed muster as the best balance between realism and playability in a heroic fantasy setting (i.e. the heroes get banged around with minor/cosmetic injuries a lot, but only if they're dropped to 0 do they suffer a serious life-threatening injury).

The six ability scores spread roughly equally between mind (Intellect and Presence for mine), body (Strength and Endurance) and speed (Reflexes and Wits) also were the most well received.

Using a d20 as the primary task resolution die also proved the best for people to work with as it provided a big enough range for someone's abilities to be overridden by a particularly good or bad roll, and was mathematically easy enough for people to judge "easy, medium, hard" because of the flat bell curve for a single check (multiple checks are another matter entirely and why attack roll vs. defense target number with variable damage that ablates hit points actually still results in bell curve like results to battles while feeling swingy in a round-by-round sense... which is my ideal for how combat should feel).

One area where modern D&D falls short by my findings though were too many skills (even 5e); my list ended up chopped down to an even dozen.

Having the proficiency for weapons and skills improve at identical rates also wasn't all that great a design choice for 5e (because skill results are often entirely binary and generally need a wider range of difficulties to represent tasks, but combat isn't usually determined by a single die roll and strength of an opponent can be modeled using damage and hit points in addition to just the target number needed to hit them).

Using skills at all for success on basic climbing, jumping and swimming movement; particularly with requiring multiple checks to succeed and rather horrible results for a failure; is another area where WotC-era D&D was poorly done.

QuoteI think your claim about pre-WotC mechanics weren't best is... murky. Post-WotC introduced the most detrimental design element of D&D ever: the 20-lvl Progression. It's *horrible*.

I was speaking of task resolution mechanics, not leveling up. I also make a distinction between "mechanics used during a game session" (where you want them to be as intuitive as possible so the game keeps moving) and "mechanics for leveling up/calculating the numbers used during a game session" (where you can go in less intuitive directions because its generally something you're doing between sessions).

In terms of the 20 levels (or 30 for 4E) I agree with you. My system only has 15 levels with level 11+ mapping pretty cleanly to OSR's name levels and few campaigns even needing to get all the way to level 15 in order to be finished (the bulk of a PCs career will occur during levels 5-10). It technically has level 0 for NPCs and levels 16-18 for certain powerful monsters (mostly semi-divine beings like elder dragons, angels and demons), but those aren't relevant to player characters.

Another element I felt 3e and 5e do particularly badly is multi-classing (4e did better; but relied way too much on feat taxes).

I don't think 5e went far enough in terms of backgrounds (I split skills and all non-combat features out of classes and made those a function of background... while classes provide only combat abilities). Being a barbarian or outlaw is a background, not a class (i.e. you could be a barbarian berserker, a barbarian hunter/stalker or barbarian spellcaster... a wizard could be an outlaw and pick up rogue-ish skills as easily as guy who uses a short sword to stab you in the back).

I also found that pre-WotC's approach to hirelings and and support NPCs to also be generally preferable whether the play-testers were grognards or had never gamed before. So it includes that (and the combat rules/statistics were assembled in such as way as to be able to conduct mass battles without needing separate statistics for mass battle rules; one of the benefits of starting the design from the ground up).

Bottom line; no game is going to be perfect (mine included), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the time to explore "best practices" when building a system. "Tradition" and "Change is Always Good" are both extremes that do design no favors. For my own system I started with what my own interests were for a game system and then took play-tester feedback on what they found enjoyable and fun to mold it into something that will hopefully appeal to anyone willing to try it. Overall that did favor the unified mechanics approach over the old-school "use a different resolution mechanic for everything" so take that as you will.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1118231How exactly does having consolidated task resolution mechanics that handle everything in the game devolve into bean counting while having a completely different and inconsistent mechanic for every single tiny thing in the game does the opposite?

I have watched those games with those so-called superior mechanics and watched a 10 minute combat take an hour and a half hour combat take two hours.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118246OD&D gets props for being first, but viewing its mechanics as best would be like considering the OS/360 (introduced in 1964) as the be all and end all of computer operating systems.

That's funny!

The first computer I used was a Mac+, zero freeze ups, never slow, never had a problem, user friendly to an extreme. 10 years later, Macs had freeze ups and crashes just like other computers, ran slow just like other computers and much less user friendly just like other computers. Today's computers with infinite power compared to a Mac+ have many freeze ups and crashed, run noticeably slower, lots of problems and the concept of user friendly was long ago left by the wayside.

All that advantage in computing power is squandered with poorly written programs.

OD&D runs fast and uncomplicated. Today's games are monolithic monstrosities by comparison that run slow and difficult.

Yes, OD&D could have been improved on, but WotC and Pathfinder failed to.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118335That's funny!

The first computer I used was a Mac+, zero freeze ups, never slow, never had a problem, user friendly to an extreme. 10 years later, Macs had freeze ups and crashes just like other computers, ran slow just like other computers and much less user friendly just like other computers. Today's computers with infinite power compared to a Mac+ have many freeze ups and crashed, run noticeably slower, lots of problems and the concept of user friendly was long ago left by the wayside.

All that advantage in computing power is squandered with poorly written programs.

OD&D runs fast and uncomplicated. Today's games are monolithic monstrosities by comparison that run slow and difficult.

Yes, OD&D could have been improved on, but WotC and Pathfinder failed to.

Really "Today's computers with infinite power compared to a Mac+ have many freeze ups and crashed, run noticeably slower, lots of problems and the concept of user friendly was long ago left by the wayside"?

That does not seem credible.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118246There are definitely things in various editions of D&D that pass a "best practices" test (depending what you're testing for obviously). For example, Armor as a target number (vs. DR) with rolled damage (vs. basing it on a margin of success) is easily the most effective setup for fast-moving combat with minimal math (the operations are "addition then compare" and "addition, target then subtracts" where both rolls can be done at the same time).

DR and margins of success might be more realistic, but both add extra operations to the resolution that slow it down (DR turns damage into "addition, then subtraction, then subtraction again... margin of success turns addition and compare to addition then subtraction, possibly followed by addition or multiplication if the attack has a base value or damage multiplier). If you're writing a game about personal dueling then such detail might be needed. If you're writing a game where heroes are cleaving through a dozen mooks in multiple combats per session... it's probably just slowing things down.

What works best in certain situations definitely depends on what you're attempting to accomplish and includes an element of give and take. In my case I prefer the trade off of more "realistic" DR over faster "Armor as TN" mechanics, because I'm too autistic to stomach the idea that "armor makes you harder to hit" as opposed to "armor mitigates damage". Plus armor and evasion (however it's treated in the game) tend to compete with each other mechanically, since armor tends to limit how much you benefit from "dodge defense" (such as max DEX bonuses in D&D). Which makes armor overall less useful in "Armor as TN" games vs treating it as DR, since DR serves as a trade of for losing "dodge defense" while in "Armor as TN" mechanics you get nothing in return.

I also like Degree of Success, but tent to keep them limited to just five (including fails): Critical Fail, Complete Fail, Partial Success, Complete Success, Critical Success. It's an extra thing to track, but it's not that difficult and I always keep track of critical success and failure in D&D when rolling natural 20s and 1s anyways. So it's a trade off I'm willing to make.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118246In terms of best principles a lot of pre-WotC mechanics were just not best at all. Attacks were resolved one way, saves another way, non-weapon proficiencies still a third (and that just three using a d20), some others uses percentage, others used one or more d6s.

Knowing "if I want to do something with a chance of failure then I'm always going to roll a d20 and add something to it and the higher the result the better" is just flat out better design because it reduces the number of things players and GMs have to internalize without stopping to reference the rules document (by contrast, the individual modifiers needing to increase at a consistent rate is far less important because players/GMs are only dealing with the current number on the character sheet, not what it might have been last level or what it will be next level).

That's what I was trying to say in the post that kicked off this side discussion.

Quote from: tenbones;1118267There are downstream effects to this... but they're minimal. But you know... for some, it's killing sacred cows. For other's it's mutating the cow. It's still not going to be enough to "kill" D&D. Only WotC can do that. But you (and everyone else willing to do the work) can roll the dice and be there to offer that alternative. The players will make the final decision, of course).

Sacred cows are a dish best served cold, cuz I like to kill 'em with a vengeance.

Quote from: tenbones;1118267I think your claim about pre-WotC mechanics weren't best is... murky. Post-WotC introduced the most detrimental design element of D&D ever: the 20-lvl Progression. It's *horrible*.

20 LV progression already existed pre-WotC, though. Granted, WotC made it worse, with more bloated class features and power creep across levels, but 0D&D even had rules for 36 level progression. Regardless, that's a separate topic from consolidated task resolution mechanics vs "every single thing has its own specialized and totally different roll" mechanics, which WotC D&D did do better than TSR D&D.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118333I have watched those games with those so-called superior mechanics and watched a 10 minute combat take an hour and a half hour combat take two hours.

I watched 0D&D games be ground to a halt by bickering over a DM ruling. Not that that proves anything on it own, but since we're exchanging empty anecdotes in leu of addressing actual points or making actual arguments I thought I'd pitch in mine.

I don't even want to buy into 5E, but I've bought some of the books. I’d still rather DM 1E AD&D.
Are they seriously planning a 6E?

No edition of any ruleset will ever be perfect for everyone.  It's just fairy dust to even think that it's possible; but if you can appeal to a large market segment, you can make a living off of your game.  So, I expect the next edition of D&D to chase the winds of change; because they know that it can't be a rerelease of 5E, with new artwork.  They will try to attract people who aren't already playing 5E.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284Like I said before, "Roll to hit vs. Armor, then roll damage" easily passed muster as a good mechanic.

If the game has high HP amounts, yes. If the game has lower HP amounts, I like armor as DR.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284Hit Points (though I had to call them something else due to all the associations with meat whereas mine are entirely non-physical) easily passed muster as the best balance between realism and playability in a heroic fantasy setting (i.e. the heroes get banged around with minor/cosmetic injuries a lot, but only if they're dropped to 0 do they suffer a serious life-threatening injury).

Agree.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284The six ability scores spread roughly equally between mind (Intellect and Presence for mine), body (Strength and Endurance) and speed (Reflexes and Wits) also were the most well received.

Nice schema! I might steal that. Is Presence also Willpower?

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284Using a d20 as the primary task resolution die also proved the best for people to work with as it provided a big enough range for someone's abilities to be overridden by a particularly good or bad roll, and was mathematically easy enough for people to judge "easy, medium, hard" because of the flat bell curve for a single check (multiple checks are another matter entirely and why attack roll vs. defense target number with variable damage that ablates hit points actually still results in bell curve like results to battles while feeling swingy in a round-by-round sense... which is my ideal for how combat should feel).

Agree, but I like 3d6 as well. Depends on the game.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284One area where modern D&D falls short by my findings though were too many skills (even 5e); my list ended up chopped down to an even dozen.

I like the precision of longer skill lists. Not too long, though.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284In terms of the 20 levels (or 30 for 4E) I agree with you. My system only has 15 levels with level 11+ mapping pretty cleanly to OSR's name levels

I like 20 levels. Not sure why. Maybe because of the D20?

Quote from: Chris24601;1118284Bottom line; no game is going to be perfect (mine included), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the time to explore "best practices" when building a system. "Tradition" and "Change is Always Good" are both extremes that do design no favors. For my own system I started with what my own interests were for a game system and then took play-tester feedback on what they found enjoyable and fun to mold it into something that will hopefully appeal to anyone willing to try it. Overall that did favor the unified mechanics approach over the old-school "use a different resolution mechanic for everything" so take that as you will.

Excellent work. Thanks for sharing your design notes.

Let's just skip 6e and go to 7e.

Quote from: Orphan81;1117577Is 6E coming out anytime soon? Last I heard it was still a ways off.

The OP didn't say it was coming out he said WHEN it comes out.  Why are people thinking 6th edition is coming out?

Quote from: Aglondir;1118444If the game has high HP amounts, yes. If the game has lower HP amounts, I like armor as DR.

This is true. Smaller numbers are always easier to work with. The trick to a good system using DR is that damage should also be pretty static lest DR either become irrelevant (if DR doesn't scale) or impervious to weaker foes (if it scales up too much - unless that's what you're going for).

Another interesting design element is that if your damage is based purely on margin of success then a defense score acts functionally as DR in that the smaller the margin by which it's overcome, the less damage is dealt. As such, you really only need DR or MoS damage; both is over-complicating things for a table-top game.

I ended up tweaking my "hit point" values several times in relation to my damage numbers to find what seemed the best range. Ultimately, people responded best when the values were in the double-digit range.

Less than 10 and they felt too fragile to encourage heroic fantasy style action (i.e. any hit could drop them so players were risk averse... if they see a family being attacked by a half-dozen goblins they don't try to rush to the rescue).

Conversely, at higher levels people started to check out when their hit points were above a hundred and damage had scaled up to match. Subtracting 18 points from 50 is one thing; subtracting 37 points from 112 is another.

So the range I ended up with for PCs (monsters can go lower or higher) started at about 25 at level one (for comparison a level one monster would do about 10 damage per hit) and climbed to about 75 by "name level" and capped around 95.

QuoteNice schema! I might steal that. Is Presence also Willpower?

Part of it. I use four defenses; Armor, Dodge (you can also use it in place of Armor if it's higher), Fortitude and Willpower.

Armor uses its value plus Strength or Reflexes (though heavier armor needs sufficient Strength to avoid penalties) and mostly reflects using your armor to turn aside blows (you don't have to dodge completely, just enough for it to glance off your armor). Because "hit points" are non-physical skill, fatigue and luck, a successful attack means you're having to spend some of your stamina and position to turn an otherwise lethal blow into one that still glances off and are now closer to the point where your skill and stamina won't be enough to save you from a telling blow; a missed attack is one you turn aside with virtually no effort.

The other defenses each use the better of those two attribute pairs;

- Reflexes or Wits for Dodge, Reflexes is you're physically quick enough to dodge, Wits is that you're aware enough of your surroundings to not need to (you noticed the dragon was getting ready to breathe fire a few seconds before everyone else did and were already running for cover).

- Strength or Endurance for Fortitude.

- Intellect or Presence for Willpower (Intellect resists things like illusions or enchantments with logic, Presence resists with sheer force of personality).

QuoteAgree, but I like 3d6 as well. Depends on the game.

3d6 is nice, but I ran play-tests for a wide range of ages (I believe the youngest was 10) and the d20 helped speed things up because you didn't have to add up the dice in addition to adding the modifier (which I kept pretty low).

One could argue that kids should learn to do math better and having to add 3d6 rolls will help that, but my findings were that instead it led to disengagement from what was supposed to be a fun activity (side-bar: I think my favorite playtest was for two of my friends and their kids... playing RPGs as family fun time is about my favorite thing ever).

Kids (and adults) also have an easier time grokking a linear distribution. It's not exactly intuitive that needing a 14+ on 3d6 is only about a 15% chance when a roll of 14-18 is 30% of the possible range. By contrast, knowing they need an 18+ on a d20 is very intuitive for school age kids (18 out of 20 questions on a quiz means you need to do really well... 14 out of 18 is only a C grade so not as hard).

So that's why, at least for my game, I decided a d20 would be the most fun for the largest range of players. I also opted to make all player damage use only a single die (that scales up with level) plus a modifier instead of multiple dice to be added together.

QuoteI like the precision of longer skill lists. Not too long, though.

In the end I went with the idea that fantasy heroes are generally portrayed as broadly competent, but the attributes alone didn't quite give me the range I wanted.

The list I ended up with was; Acrobatics (Ref), Arcana (Int), Culture (Int), Deceit (Pre), Engineering (Int), Fitness (End), Insight (Wit), Intimidate (Pre), Medicine (Wit), Nature (Wit), Persuade (Pre) and Stealth (Ref).

Strength was potent enough on its own it didn't need any skills tied to it; it already determined how much you could carry, how quickly you could climb and swim, how far you could jump, was the default score used for melee attacks and damage and could by applied to your Armor and Fortitude defenses.

Endurance got Fitness because it represented both things like resisting fatigue, but also that if you did need to lift more, swim or jump harder, climb just a bit further it was because you were digging deep into your physical reserves; Endurance is also the ability score most responsible for how far you can push in a day (it doesn't determine your "hit points", but it does determine how quickly they recover and how deep you can dig to pull off exceptional feats) which is why it only gets one skill.

Reflexes gets two because it's also used for initiative, is the default for ranged attacks and might determine your Armor and Dodge defenses. Of note, sleight of hand and picking pockets also falls under the Stealth skill.

Each of the others gets three skills each to respresent common areas of expertise.

Background talents can also improve specific actions with those skills to further differentiate them (Guttersnipe gives a bonus to using Stealth to pick pockets for example).

QuoteExcellent work. Thanks for sharing your design notes.

You're quite welcome. I appreciate your own feedback as well.

25 Hit Points at Level 1?  Shucks, they can each go off on solo adventures and survive.

Quote from: tenbones;1118449Let's just skip 6e and go to 7e.

The odd numbered editions do seem to rock harder, don't they?

Quote from: Razor 007;1118485The odd numbered editions do seem to rock harder, don't they?

   They do seem more focused on being hardcore Dungeons & [strike]Demons[/strike] Dragons. To meld two of my more outlandish predictions, I expect that 6E will be announced, designed, and cancelled before launch for not being D&D enough, and 7th Edition will launch with the logo of the rainbow dragon ampersand inside a blood-red inverted pentagram. ;)

Quote from: Chris24601;1118470This is true. Smaller numbers are always easier to work with. The trick to a good system using DR is that damage should also be pretty static lest DR either become irrelevant (if DR doesn't scale) or impervious to weaker foes (if it scales up too much - unless that's what you're going for).

Another interesting design element is that if your damage is based purely on margin of success then a defense score acts functionally as DR in that the smaller the margin by which it's overcome, the less damage is dealt. As such, you really only need DR or MoS damage; both is over-complicating things for a table-top game.

I ended up tweaking my "hit point" values several times in relation to my damage numbers to find what seemed the best range. Ultimately, people responded best when the values were in the double-digit range.

Less than 10 and they felt too fragile to encourage heroic fantasy style action (i.e. any hit could drop them so players were risk averse... if they see a family being attacked by a half-dozen goblins they don't try to rush to the rescue).

Conversely, at higher levels people started to check out when their hit points were above a hundred and damage had scaled up to match. Subtracting 18 points from 50 is one thing; subtracting 37 points from 112 is another.

So the range I ended up with for PCs (monsters can go lower or higher) started at about 25 at level one (for comparison a level one monster would do about 10 damage per hit) and climbed to about 75 by "name level" and capped around 95.

I'm trying out something different for my system that incorporates elements of Hit Point systems and Damage Condition systems. Characters have DR instead of HP, which is based on both, personal toughness as well as armor.
DR is subtracted from all damage taken (to a minimum of 1) and once characters reach a certain Damage Threshold (such as 50) they are considered to be in "Critical Condition" and must make a Survival check each time they take damage or die. The roll's degree of success determines whether the character flat out dies, passes out, or becomes dazed for one round.

This same damage mechanic can used across the board to handle damage for characters as well as objects, and can also be used to handle non-physical damage types, such as Strain, Mental/Sanity or Social/Reputation (which are optional, except for Strain, which is used for powers). In the case of non-physical damage the end result becomes something other than death, such as unconsciousness, insanity or an NPC or group/faction becoming permanently hostile.

I'm also adding cumulative penalties every X amount of damage sustained (such as -1 to rolls and-10% to move speed every 10 DMG), but keeping it optional for gritty combat rules, since it becomes an extra thing to track I don't want to impose on everyone unless the group wants hard core play or if combat in the setting is supposed to be deadly.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118470Part of it. I use four defenses; Armor, Dodge (you can also use it in place of Armor if it's higher), Fortitude and Willpower.

Armor uses its value plus Strength or Reflexes (though heavier armor needs sufficient Strength to avoid penalties) and mostly reflects using your armor to turn aside blows (you don't have to dodge completely, just enough for it to glance off your armor). Because "hit points" are non-physical skill, fatigue and luck, a successful attack means you're having to spend some of your stamina and position to turn an otherwise lethal blow into one that still glances off and are now closer to the point where your skill and stamina won't be enough to save you from a telling blow; a missed attack is one you turn aside with virtually no effort.

The other defenses each use the better of those two attribute pairs;

- Reflexes or Wits for Dodge, Reflexes is you're physically quick enough to dodge, Wits is that you're aware enough of your surroundings to not need to (you noticed the dragon was getting ready to breathe fire a few seconds before everyone else did and were already running for cover).

- Strength or Endurance for Fortitude.

- Intellect or Presence for Willpower (Intellect resists things like illusions or enchantments with logic, Presence resists with sheer force of personality).

I went with a more consolidated list of four attributes in my system because I found D&D-style six (or more) attributes to be harder to balance or make useful, and I don't like superfluous or weak attributes, or attributes that exist only to cover a specific game stat (such as movement speed in systems like Cyberpunk 2020/Interlock). I ultimately reduced attributes to two physical and two mental abilities dealing with Power/Resilience or Speed/Precision, each. Defenses are handled by skills, which cover tasks, but may also cover resistances and certain game stats.

Attributes include:

Might--physical power and resilience (equivalent to STR & CON in D&D, minus melee accuracy). Skills: Health, Toughness (Physical DR) and Strength.
Reflexes--physical speed and precision (equivalent to DEX in D&D, plus melee accuracy). Skills: Athletics, Fighting, Marksman, Piloting and Stealth.
Bearing--mental power and resilience (equivalent to CHA in D&D, plus WIS willpower component). Skills: Interaction, Perform and Willpower.
Awareness--mental speed and precision (equivalent to INT in D&D, plus WIS perceptiveness component). Skills: Craft, Lore, Perception, Medicine and Technical.

Quote from: Chris24601;11184703d6 is nice, but I ran play-tests for a wide range of ages (I believe the youngest was 10) and the d20 helped speed things up because you didn't have to add up the dice in addition to adding the modifier (which I kept pretty low).

One could argue that kids should learn to do math better and having to add 3d6 rolls will help that, but my findings were that instead it led to disengagement from what was supposed to be a fun activity (side-bar: I think my favorite playtest was for two of my friends and their kids... playing RPGs as family fun time is about my favorite thing ever).

Kids (and adults) also have an easier time grokking a linear distribution. It's not exactly intuitive that needing a 14+ on 3d6 is only about a 15% chance when a roll of 14-18 is 30% of the possible range. By contrast, knowing they need an 18+ on a d20 is very intuitive for school age kids (18 out of 20 questions on a quiz means you need to do really well... 14 out of 18 is only a C grade so not as hard).

So that's why, at least for my game, I decided a d20 would be the most fun for the largest range of players. I also opted to make all player damage use only a single die (that scales up with level) plus a modifier instead of multiple dice to be added together.

I went with d20 for much the same reason. I've tried multiple die mechanics before, but found that people would stare at the dice for too long trying to add them up, vs simply rolling a single die and adding modifiers. So I decided to use a single die, and went with d20 cuz it has a nice variable range and is neatly divided in 5% increments.

For damage I ultimately went with d6s per damage level. I found rolling buckets of d6s for damage fun and felt "powerful", which is a tradeoff for having to count dice.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118470In the end I went with the idea that fantasy heroes are generally portrayed as broadly competent, but the attributes alone didn't quite give me the range I wanted.

The list I ended up with was; Acrobatics (Ref), Arcana (Int), Culture (Int), Deceit (Pre), Engineering (Int), Fitness (End), Insight (Wit), Intimidate (Pre), Medicine (Wit), Nature (Wit), Persuade (Pre) and Stealth (Ref).

Strength was potent enough on its own it didn't need any skills tied to it; it already determined how much you could carry, how quickly you could climb and swim, how far you could jump, was the default score used for melee attacks and damage and could by applied to your Armor and Fortitude defenses.

Endurance got Fitness because it represented both things like resisting fatigue, but also that if you did need to lift more, swim or jump harder, climb just a bit further it was because you were digging deep into your physical reserves; Endurance is also the ability score most responsible for how far you can push in a day (it doesn't determine your "hit points", but it does determine how quickly they recover and how deep you can dig to pull off exceptional feats) which is why it only gets one skill.

Reflexes gets two because it's also used for initiative, is the default for ranged attacks and might determine your Armor and Dodge defenses. Of note, sleight of hand and picking pockets also falls under the Stealth skill.

Each of the others gets three skills each to respresent common areas of expertise.

Background talents can also improve specific actions with those skills to further differentiate them (Guttersnipe gives a bonus to using Stealth to pick pockets for example).

One issue I've found with skill based systems is that they tend to be too specialized for their own good. One problem I've found with this is that you end up having to learn and train independently a bunch of variations of the same type of skill (such different melee weapons or vehicles) without contributing to each other, which is unrealistic and adds to the complexity of character progression. Another problem is that a lot of these specialized skills are highly situational and hardly come up during play, so you end up splitting your effort between a bunch of variant skills that you're never going to use.

To deal with this issue what I ended up doing was using a combination of highly consolidated skills dealing with broad areas of activity and common game functions, which are supplemented by a secondary class of abilities called Techniques that expand on what skills can do. So that Skills handle the "level" component for all similar tasks while Techniques handle specific training or specializations. Some skill functions may also be handled by Powers, which are based on an effect system (crafting objects, for example, is covered by the Create Object effect). That way skills are simplified and more useful, but you can still cover more specific functions that require specific training when necessary.

Quote from: Razor 007;111848425 Hit Points at Level 1?  Shucks, they can each go off on solo adventures and survive.

Note that the average level 1 monster deals about 10 damage (a crit deals about 15); so three hits (or a hit and a crit) and you're down. Numbers are relative.

That's not too different than 3e or 5e's max HD+Con at level 1 (so typically 11-13 hp for a fighter) vs. attacks that deal 1d10 or so damage (about three average hits to drop). The difference is that one bad roll (ex. an orc with a greataxe for 1d12+2 damage rolling a 12) doesn't drop you to zero with a single hit. It's basically filing off the extremes in the starter levels.

The system also has a much slower incline; "Hit Points" increase at 5 per level so a level 6 PC has only twice the amount as a level 1 and a level 11 only three times as much.

Compared to "6 HD + 6 x Con" at level 6, and "11 HD + 11 x Con (or 9 HD + 9 x Con + 4 in AD&D)" that's a much less extreme climb (a level 2 is about 20% tougher than a level 1 instead of up to 100% tougher in D&D).

And again, the setting is one designed for heroic fantasy where the PCs are larger than life heroes akin to fictional protagonists after their origin stories/pilot episodes (you're Oliver Queen after he returned from the island, not immediately after the shipwreck). The entire point of the world is that there are threats out there in the wilds too dangerous for ordinary men to handle and it needs heroes willing to go out into the wilds and face them so that civilization can be safe.

So yes, 25 points is right about what I'm looking for. Your starting fighter character (labeled a Veteran in AD&D) is about as tough and competent as 2-3 ordinary soldiers. His abilities are enough that he could face a couple of orc warriors or a single Lesser Wight (i.e. not an energy drainer, just a generic intelligent undead warrior) with a good chance of success, but a single orc veteran would be real challenge and he would absolutely be eviscerated by a single wyvern or dire wolf.

But if that's too powerful for you and you want the true zero-to-hero experience, my GM's Guide has optional rules for level 0, -1 and -2 PCs with correspondingly fewer hit points (20, 15 and 10 respectively) and abilities (negative level characters don't even have their specific class abilities yet, just the generic warrior or spellcaster traits).

Palladium 1e, where Satan has 666 hit points.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4067[/ATTACH]

I have two fantasy games I like Wizards' World and Labyrinth Lord. If D&D 6 is a pile of steaming rot these will keep me going for years.

What is Wizard's World? What's special about it?

It is an old school fantasy game from 1983 that has some unique features. My favorite parts are monsters/npc"s have to have stats generated just like player characters. All races have unique to them dice rolls for stats.  attacks are made with percentile dice instead of a D20, There are some fun monsters like the valley giants if you old enough to remember the 80's you will get the joke. I have players who play monsters as good guys and it is a lot of fun to GM for this. It never gained much popularity outside of California but thanks to Goblinoid Games it is now back in print.

5E more than fulfills my craving for a complex tactical dungeon crawler. When I don't crave that, there's plenty of juice in DCC and the various OSR offerings.

Just recently I've come across Best Left Buried and Esoteric Enterprises, so should I develop an interest in occult WoD-type games one of those would more than suffice.

There's plenty of good games out there, more than I will ever have time to play. :)

Quote from: Shasarak;1118342Really "Today's computers with infinite power compared to a Mac+ have many freeze ups and crashed, run noticeably slower, lots of problems and the concept of user friendly was long ago left by the wayside"?

That does not seem credible.

On this odd side-note, I recently recycled an old Windows 2000 machine with very meagre hardware. I tried it out first and it was lightning fast compared to what we're used to now whether MacOS or W10. Even 8 cores all decked out is slow with Windows 7 compared to the old stuff. Sigh. We just get used to long load times.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118121X in D6 solves most of my problems in OD&D. I can easily extrapolate STR vs. Door or WIS vs. sneaky goblins or whatever, then break down the odds on D6. For instance, let's say 1-2 on D6 breaks down a stuck door. But this door isn't just stuck, it's barred shut. Hmm, that's bad. But both Fighters who are hitting the door have 16 STR. Hmm, that's good. But they want to do it quietly! Hmm, that's bad. But the cleric just noticed door has been smashed open before, and there might still be a weak spot. Hmm, that's good. AKA, I can easily go back and forth weighing modifiers, having advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and coming up with easy X in D6 solution.

Could I break the odds down "better" on D20 or D100? Sure, but I don't care about deep grain. A range of -3 to +3 on D6 is enough to simulate the odds so there is "realistic" variance, but quick and dirty enough so I can keep the game moving along.

And that's what really matters to me. Keeping the flow of the game moving to maximize immersion.

QuoteThe Far Away Land RPG

Never heard of it! What's it about?

X in d6 is a solid mechanic.

Far Away Land is really two things.

1) excellent mechanics
2) gonzo fantasy/post apocalyptic setting

faruniverse.com

It's the mechanics I love. Very similar to Silhouette used for Jovian Chronicles and other DP9 games. It uses a dice pool mechanic where you roll a number of d6s and take the highest one. If you roll multiple 6s, each 6 after the first is +1.

Other than perhaps ORE (which powers Godlike), it's one of the simplest and fastest combat I've dealt with. It hits a lot of sweet spots for me and is very easy to use in multiple genres. From D&D style fantasy to modern horror to far future.

The included setting also has Poomkins. Pumpkin-headed humanoids. Great for Halloween. ;)

Free quickstart rules at https://faruniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/adventures/FAL-QSR-2nd-Edition.pdf

We are still happy with 3.5E, with some rules taken from Pathfinder and some house rules to help our "theatre of the mind" way to solve combats. Outside this, either Call of Cthulhu 7E or Star Wars D6.

Quote from: Reckall;1119274... Star Wars D6.

While not perfect, the d6 system seems underrated. I think Silhouette improved the d6 dice pool method but classic ol' d6 system was great for Star Wars and bigger than life character action. I absolutely love d6 Ghostbusters to this day.

Quote from: Kersus;1119271On this odd side-note, I recently recycled an old Windows 2000 machine with very meagre hardware. I tried it out first and it was lightning fast compared to what we're used to now whether MacOS or W10. Even 8 cores all decked out is slow with Windows 7 compared to the old stuff. Sigh. We just get used to long load times.

I like using my Medion Erazer Gamer PC for stuff like Chrome & Word - actually boots up & runs at a reasonable pace!

Quote from: Kersus;1119310While not perfect, the d6 system seems underrated. I think Silhouette improved the d6 dice pool method but classic ol' d6 system was great for Star Wars and bigger than life character action. I absolutely love d6 Ghostbusters to this day.

My copies of d6 Fantasy & d6 Space arrived yesterday. Presentation is pretty crude compared to the amazing Mini Six, but still choc full of good ideas.

I've been going through my d6 Star Wars Imperial Sourcebook from 1988 adding the static defences from Mini Six and upping Stormtrooper blaster skill to 5d6 (and strength to 3d6) so they can finally have revenge on those pesky PCs...

Ran my Mini Six playtest last week to iron out a few things, and starting my Mini Six Legend of the Silver Princess campaign Feb 5th - https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-valley-of-scorn-palace-of-silver.html

I can definitely see myself going to Mini Six as my default RPG, especially once 5e D&D is no longer current.

Just as a reminder seeing all this d6 love: Gallant Knight Games is planning their own relaunch of the system with the immanent release of the Zorro RPG, followed by a "West End Games D6 Second Edition."

I've backed the Zorro kickstarter and seen a couple of system previews, and it looks to hearken back to the 1st Edition of the game--5 attributes, with 4 skills under each.

Quote from: S'mon;1119350I can definitely see myself going to Mini Six as my default RPG, especially once 5e D&D is no longer current.

S'mon, please consider doing a thread about Mini-Six, perhaps a mix of review, actual play and evangelism for the system.

Quote from: S'mon;1119350Ran my Mini Six playtest last week to iron out a few things, and starting my Mini Six Legend of the Silver Princess campaign Feb 5th - https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-valley-of-scorn-palace-of-silver.html

Nice map.

What makes the obelisk impossible? I must know!

Quote from: Aglondir;1119402Nice map.

What makes the obelisk impossible? I must know!

From the Primeval Thule campaign setting:

The Impossible Obelisk: High on the slopes of the Starcrown Mountains, where the snows never melt and the rocks take on a strange purple hue, a towering obelisk stretches from deep below the ground to impressive heights. Its exterior is disturbingly smooth to touch and is carved from an unknown material; seams, tool marks, and even edges are hard to define. The obelisk itself would be remarkable, but it also seems to exert a pernicious effect on the land nearby. The structure appears to radiate a souring aura, rapidly spoiling organic matter if it's already dead. Venturing too close to the obelisk can swiftly foul an entire pack of provisions. In living creatures, this unwholesome aura triggers disturbing dreams and violent urges, causing mental distress rather than physical harm (although the latter often becomes a result of the former).

Most peculiar of all are the tales of great mysteries hidden within the obelisk. Some travelers claim that they have approached the titanic structure and found an archway at the base of its east-facing side. The contents of the obelisk differ depending on the teller of the story: Weapons of great might, scrolls of horrific portent, or even the key to immortality are said to be hidden within. The dungeons beneath the obelisk are home to a strange nonhuman sorcerer known as Tessali the MindMage. Tessali's origins are unknown, as are its connections to the building of the ancient structure, but the sorcerer has certainly inhabited the location for longer than any record can contradict. Tessali is said to welcome some visitors and enthrall others, occasionally seeking exchanges of eldritch power and knowledge. Undoubtedly malevolent, yet occasionally reasonable, Tessali is almost as mysterious as the edifice in which it dwells.

The PTCS is full of this stuff - I love it to bits. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1119397S'mon, please consider doing a thread about Mini-Six, perhaps a mix of review, actual play and evangelism for the system.

Sounds good - I'm still in the research phase, eg I only realised last night while reading a review that Perks cost skill dice, not Attribute dice. :o

It's not exactly that the game is just a toolkit, but I am finding I need to do a fair bit of reading up on the d6 system to understand how stuff is supposed to work. Eg Mini Six includes sci fi battleships shooting hundreds of laser cannons. Reading d6 Space & d6 Fantasy I realised that you can just take an average roll (for Mini Six, that's a "3" per die, not 3.5)  + Wild Die for each shot (& assume every 6 shots also go Wild); in fact it's perfectly possible to run battles with hundreds of ships, or have Poe Dameron take on a Star Destroyer.

My first proper Mini Six Thule session is on 5th February, can maybe start a thread then. And I'm looking at running d6 Star Wars 1e Tatooine Manhunt with some of the later innovations like the static numbers to higher wound value (4-8 over STR = wounded, 16+ over STR = dead), Force Points giving a flat +6, and the Wild Die. I think that will make for a more challenging game, deal with issues like the invulnerable Wookie, but keep the SW spirit.

Man, I can't wait till 6e comes out so all those 5e fans eat crow about how wonderful their edition is. I'll join the chorus of saying "you have to play 6e now! It is newer and therefore better!" Meanwhile, I'll just quietly keep playing my AD&D home game that I always have played! :D

There won't be 6th edition.  D&D is getting the full Monopoly treatment from Hasbro now.  They'll just keep putting out the same game with different skins on it forever.   They're already doing this - D&D Stranger Things, D&D Rick and Morty, etc.

Quote from: goblinslayer;1119438There won't be 6th edition.  D&D is getting the full Monopoly treatment from Hasbro now.  They'll just keep putting out the same game with different skins on it forever.   They're already doing this - D&D Strange Things, D&D Rick and Morty, etc.

3e had its Diablo supplement too so I wouldn't take the Stranger Things or R&M boxes as proof they'll never do a new edition.

Unlike Monopoly or Risk though the level of involvement in RPGs is higher and the system complex enough that it's mechanics can run with or counter to the culture's prevailing trends and preferences (ex. compare the complexity/focus of 1e to 3e to 5e)... so mechanics do need to be tweaked to keep current.

That said, I think the inevitable 6e will be more like 2e was to 1e than the radical departures 3, 4 and 5e were from their predecessors. It will most likely be some cleanup of clunky bits (ex. to-hit tables replaced by THAC0), class/race tweaks and some reorganization and new art. The end result being you can probably mostly still use your 5e stuff with 6e without too much fuss.

Quote from: goblinslayer;1119438There won't be 6th edition.  D&D is getting the full Monopoly treatment from Hasbro now.  They'll just keep putting out the same game with different skins on it forever.   They're already doing this - D&D Stranger Things, D&D Rick and Morty, etc.

I think you're right about this. You don't need a new edition, when you can just put out new PHBs for every new tie-in/campaign world. And speaking of that, I'd like to see a Karameikos D&D book soon.

If WOTC tries to keep 5E evergreen, that would be pretty cool; but it's hard to believe that at some point the SJW influencers won't feel the need to create additional safe spaces in D&D.

Quote from: Razor 007;1119592If WOTC tries to keep 5E evergreen, that would be pretty cool

My only issue with '5e 4ever' is that it's so heavily geared to a Forgotten Realms 'high magic' setting, with most PCs being spellcasters. I'd like more support for lower-magic play. It seems a bit high magic even for Greyhawk.

Not saying they will do it, but a much better option for 6E would be a "5E+" version:

- 5E brought forward essentially unchanged (errata cleaned up, very careful selection of a few problems fixed that aren't terribly invasive and can be easily explained in a page or two of text).
- Bunch of additions worked into the normal flow (extra class paths that have been well received listed along with the rest, a few more spells, etc.)
- A bigger monster manual with a more varied selection, possibly pruning a handful of the least useful creatures.  After all, the original manual is still useful if you don't change the rules.  With hindsight, should be able to do a better "first manual" for new players.
- Since they aren't redoing everything and messing up launch schedules, can release the 3 core books at once.  Which means all the optional rules can be put into the correct books, and organized more clearly.
- Then for new things, expand into a domain book, a sandbox book, a new setting, etc.   Since the above is mainly cleanup, should be able to do a new good book about every 6 to 12 months.

But mainly, fire all the idiots that write the novels disguised as travel guides, that are self-indulgent clap trap.

To go the 5e+ route... would entail *WAY* too much forward thinking. And frankly, WotC would be far more invested in simply whipping out a new edition to get the whole cycle rolling again and reprinting yet ANOTHER iteration of whatever sold reasonably well in 5e.

I think the question of the OP should focus more on whether WE will be playing 6e or *whatever else* we think we'll still be doing in the near future. The "whatever else" is far more probable for me. 4e as a set was gifted to me - 5e I bought the core books, then gave them away after realizing this game wasn't really made for me. I have zero reason to believe 6e or any edition going forward will be trying to cater to anyone but the lowest common denominator, with mechanics that are useful *more* than what currently exists in the wild.

I love your ideas - they resemble my own if *we* owned the IP. Because we care about good gaming. WotC has other dictum's in play beyond "making the game better". Or if we're being less charitable - they not interested or don't care about these things. End result is the same.

Has WOTC actually announced a 6th edition?

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1119646Has WOTC actually announced a 6th edition?

- Ed C.

Not that I know of. But a 6th edition is inevitable. Eventually the books will hit saturation and they'll have to create a new edition to sell more books.
Which I don't even mind, if they did it smart. Keep the core rules 'evergreen' and release a 6th edition with a few rules updates, new art, and hey presto.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119648Not that I know of. But a 6th edition is inevitable. Eventually the books will hit saturation and they'll have to create a new edition to sell more books.
Which I don't even mind, if they did it smart. Keep the core rules 'evergreen' and release a 6th edition with a few rules updates, new art, and hey presto.

Or they just wait for new people to need books... Like how monopoly sells.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1119631Not saying they will do it, but a much better option for 6E would be a "5E+" version.

They kind of already have. They're on the 10th printing with multiple pages of changes, not just fixing typos but actually changing the rules. If I sell my earlier printings I'll have to tape a stack of errata sheets to the inside covers.

I'd think that a 6E would be too much of a marketing event not to eventually happen. Even the third parties that support it would probably be on board. DnDBeyond/Fantasy Grounds would be able to sell new core rule books.

Quote from: Timothe;1119706They kind of already have. They're on the 10th printing with multiple pages of changes, not just fixing typos but actually changing the rules. If I sell my earlier printings I'll have to tape a stack of errata sheets to the inside covers.

Yeah now that we are up to a few pages of massive "changes" like:

Quote[New] Weapons (p. 14). In the bulleted item about ranged weapons, "A weapon that has ..." is now "A melee weapon that has ..."
[New] Beyond 1st Level (p. 15). In the first sentence of the third paragraph, "add the total" is now "add the total (mini-mum of 1)
[New] Magical Secrets (p. 50). In the first and third paragraphs, "any class" is now "any classes."
[New] Spell Slots (p. 53). In the first sentence, "your spells" is now "your bard spells."

It's basically 5.5e ;) Honestly, it kinda amazes me that anybody needed this stuff cleared up in the first place, but I guess it shouldn't. I mean, it's great that they fixed the errors but the "clarifications" seem like perfectionism.

Quote from: happyhermit;1119783Yeah now that we are up to a few pages of massive "changes" like:



It's basically 5.5e ;) Honestly, it kinda amazes me that anybody needed this stuff cleared up in the first place, but I guess it shouldn't. I mean, it's great that they fixed the errors but the "clarifications" seem like perfectionism.

That's exactly the kind of useless crap I don't want in a 5E+ or 6E.  That's what I meant by limit the changes to the parts that really matter.  It's essentially page bloat brought on after the launch, and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the game should work.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1119791That's exactly the kind of useless crap I don't want in a 5E+ or 6E.  That's what I meant by limit the changes to the parts that really matter.  It's essentially page bloat brought on after the launch, and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the game should work.

Minor changes for reading clarity bother you that much? If you don't use them then nothing much really changes, but it's a win for those that want more accurate wording. So why is this such a big deal to you?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1119795Minor changes for reading clarity bother you that much? If you don't use them then nothing much really changes, but it's a win for those that want more accurate wording. So why is this such a big deal to you?

Because rather than focusing on the micro-issues that any competent GM can probably understand the intended meaning - there are larger issues with the system that could be amended or given optional mechanics for.

At least that's how *I* see it. I can look past nit-picky verbiage or odd wording that is trying to describe mechanics. Give me some meat, not crumbs!

Quote from: tenbones;1119802Because rather than focusing on the micro-issues that any competent GM can probably understand the intended meaning - there are larger issues with the system that could be amended or given optional mechanics for.

At least that's how *I* see it. I can look past nit-picky verbiage or odd wording that is trying to describe mechanics. Give me some meat, not crumbs!

That. Plus all that putzing around with the technical language gets away from the central point, which is to convey the idea readily of how the thing is supposed to work and then let the GM adjudicate.  Specifically, those "minor clarifications" as WotC usually obscure rather than clarify, and they aren't always minor.

There are rewording exercises that could be of use, but they should typically make the text shorter overall, not longer.  Combine WotC's tendencies with their other tendency to confuse "ease of use" with "repeat the same boiler-plate text over and over again on the grounds that the idiot reader can't look anything up because WotC's indexing and organizing skills suck"--and you get their books.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1119815That. Plus all that putzing around with the technical language gets away from the central point, which is to convey the idea readily of how the thing is supposed to work and then let the GM adjudicate.  Specifically, those "minor clarifications" as WotC usually obscure rather than clarify, and they aren't always minor.

There are rewording exercises that could be of use, but they should typically make the text shorter overall, not longer.  Combine WotC's tendencies with their other tendency to confuse "ease of use" with "repeat the same boiler-plate text over and over again on the grounds that the idiot reader can't look anything up because WotC's indexing and organizing skills suck"--and you get their books.

Greetings!

*Laughs* Ahh, so true, Steven Mitchell! Steven, are you an Editor? Your commentary reminds me of one of my History Professor mentors who was like a Viking ruthlessly chopping and slashing at various papers. Cut this out. Reword that. Too long. It's confusing. Be concise! Always look for stronger words to convey your message! *laughs*

I sometimes wonder why WOTC seems to have such poor writers. Sometimes the whole way they attempt to describe or explain something, I'm thinking, geesus. I can think of several good professors that this stuff would be bled all over and trashed hard.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1119824Greetings!

*Laughs* Ahh, so true, Steven Mitchell! Steven, are you an Editor? Your commentary reminds me of one of my History Professor mentors who was like a Viking ruthlessly chopping and slashing at various papers. Cut this out. Reword that. Too long. It's confusing. Be concise! Always look for stronger words to convey your message! *laughs*

I sometimes wonder why WOTC seems to have such poor writers. Sometimes the whole way they attempt to describe or explain something, I'm thinking, geesus. I can think of several good professors that this stuff would be bled all over and trashed hard.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I find that unless you are literally Tolkien or Shake-a-fucking-speare, the best thing you can do as a writer is develop the skill to say as much as you can using as few words as you can manage.

As for the original question...hell, I'll just keep playing all the other systems I already have. As long as I'm alive and have the books, I don't really care about what a new edition does to the market. And if everyone wants to play the new edition (and I happen to think it sucks for some reason), I'll just do what I would've done during 4E D&D, namely wait. Fortunately, nobody around me had any interest in 4E, so we just kept playing what we were already playing.

We can expect 5E to last another 3-5 years though, since it seems to be generating steady profit and staying relevant.

I do have some skills and practice as an editor, but not professionally.  It's a crap shoot, as you can see by the error right there in my previous post, which I didn't notice until Shark quoted it.

Point being, though, that there are professional people who edit a whole hell of a lot better than I do, and they don't cost that much to employ.  If I can see the problem this easily, you bet the professionals can.

Of course, if those editors were unleashed on some of the books, someone would need to write more content to hit the page count limit.  Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide would be about 17 pages.  Oh wait, that would be a good thing.

Look to the Unearthed Arcana class revamp playtest for an idea of what 5.5e would look like.  They mostly made things more flexible (fighters can change fighting styles now) and a few changes to how things work (rangers being the notable exception with a full rework).

Started playing D&D at age 8 with the red box set, when elf was a class, played up until 3e when we started to get new players that ruined it for me with blue hair weaboo characters or whose mission it was to win or break the game. I only do D6 Fantasy/Adventure/Space now and refuse to do a game that uses hitpoints or has things like tieflings or fairy dragons or draconians or magic powered droids as player races, or which has magitech in general unless its old stuff found in ruins that is not reproducable.

If I run a game of fantasy it will look like conan or arthurian or pirates of the carribean, if run D6 adventure it's old west, ww2, or modern-near future, beyond that it's star wars or star trek using D6 space or D6 starwars 2e reup.

If i buy a product that is not for D6 its usually for art/maps.

Quote from: Razor 007;1119592If WOTC tries to keep 5E evergreen, that would be pretty cool; but it's hard to believe that at some point the SJW influencers won't feel the need to create additional safe spaces in D&D.

That would almost certainly be the most probable, and disastrous, reason for a premature adoption of a new edition. It would of course be a massive "get woke, go broke" scenario.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1119903Started playing D&D at age 8 with the red box set, when elf was a class, played up until 3e when we started to get new players that ruined it for me with blue hair weaboo characters or whose mission it was to win or break the game. I only do D6 Fantasy/Adventure/Space now and refuse to do a game that uses hitpoints or has things like tieflings or fairy dragons or draconians or magic powered droids as player races, or which has magitech in general unless its old stuff found in ruins that is not reproducable.

If I run a game of fantasy it will look like conan or arthurian or pirates of the carribean, if run D6 adventure it's old west, ww2, or modern-near future, beyond that it's star wars or star trek using D6 space or D6 starwars 2e reup.

If i buy a product that is not for D6 its usually for art/maps.

Do you have Templates for d6 Space Star Trek type PCs? Been looking for those. :D

Quote from: Slipshot762;1119903Started playing D&D at age 8 with the red box set, when elf was a class, played up until 3e when we started to get new players that ruined it for me with blue hair weaboo characters or whose mission it was to win or break the game. I only do D6 Fantasy/Adventure/Space now and refuse to do a game that uses hitpoints or has things like tieflings or fairy dragons or draconians or magic powered droids as player races, or which has magitech in general unless its old stuff found in ruins that is not reproducable.

If I run a game of fantasy it will look like conan or arthurian or pirates of the carribean, if run D6 adventure it's old west, ww2, or modern-near future, beyond that it's star wars or star trek using D6 space or D6 starwars 2e reup.

If i buy a product that is not for D6 its usually for art/maps.

Mom bought me the Basic set when I was in Junior high. I was used to race being class for dwarves and elves. In high school all the kids were using these strange new hardback books and it was mind-boggling to see elves that were not automatically fighter/magic users. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1120483Do you have Templates for d6 Space Star Trek type PCs? Been looking for those. :D

sadly no, never hardly used templates because players always want to tweak them, swapping skills or pips, so i usually just encourage dice distribution per the make your own template rules.

However, a few months back while tooling around the net I seem to recall finding some D6 star trek stuff.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011026144648/www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/3901/trek/index.html

Quote from: RPGPundit;1120452That would almost certainly be the most probable, and disastrous, reason for a premature adoption of a new edition. It would of course be a massive "get woke, go broke" scenario.

Which raises an interesting question.

How resilient would WotC be to an edition failure?

When 4E hit, it was initially successful, outselling 3.0/3.5 for the initial run. However, as time went by, the issues created by the rules became too much to bear and it collapsed under its own weight (bloat being a compounding factor). All accounts seem to convey the notion that WotC's RPG division came close to critical status within the overall WotC/Hasbro structure, and if 5E hadn't performed as it did, they might not even have an RPG division today, and D&D would likely have been sold to a prospective buyer in the industry.

So, what do you guys think? What if they fail with 6E? Has 5E given them enough clout to weather the failure, or would WotC's RPG division go under?

P.S.: Assume a complete failure here, not a partial long-term failure like 4E.

D&D 5E has shown profitability, brand name recognition, and staying power.  There is little likelihood of a 6E being a total flop.  But I think history has shown that; from time to time, people are reluctant to repurchase what they already own.  There would be some 5E holdouts, who touted 5E as being plenty good enough.  Why keep reinventing the wheel?  Oh yeah; SJW frustrations....

Quote from: Slipshot762;1120488sadly no, never hardly used templates because players always want to tweak them, swapping skills or pips, so i usually just encourage dice distribution per the make your own template rules.

However, a few months back while tooling around the net I seem to recall finding some D6 star trek stuff.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011026144648/www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/3901/trek/index.html

Thanks!

Quote from: Razor 007;1120532D&D 5E has shown profitability, brand name recognition, and staying power.  There is little likelihood of a 6E being a total flop.  But I think history has shown that; from time to time, people are reluctant to repurchase what they already own.  There would be some 5E holdouts, who touted 5E as being plenty good enough.  Why keep reinventing the wheel?  Oh yeah; SJW frustrations....

5E means that if they are half serious about it, they can do a 6E when they are ready.  If they decide they can do any stupid thing they want, then there won't be a 7E.

Honestly I'm waiting for 6e because I don't like 5e. I'd rather play most OSR games than 5e.

5e is great for the first 4 levels. I'm willing to admit that. That's not my problem with it though.

Quote from: BronzeDragon;1120492Which raises an interesting question.

How resilient would WotC be to an edition failure?

When 4E hit, it was initially successful, outselling 3.0/3.5 for the initial run. However, as time went by, the issues created by the rules became too much to bear and it collapsed under its own weight (bloat being a compounding factor). All accounts seem to convey the notion that WotC's RPG division came close to critical status within the overall WotC/Hasbro structure, and if 5E hadn't performed as it did, they might not even have an RPG division today, and D&D would likely have been sold to a prospective buyer in the industry.

So, what do you guys think? What if they fail with 6E? Has 5E given them enough clout to weather the failure, or would WotC's RPG division go under?

P.S.: Assume a complete failure here, not a partial long-term failure like 4E.

I think the issue would depend on what causes the roll-out of 6e.

First of all, there's somewhat of an error in your original premise: you assume that for 6e to be a disaster, it would have to suffer catastrophically low sales.

But that's not true. If 6e was coerced into publication by people in the WoTC staff, presumably to make it "more woke", and it had sales that were considerably lower than 5e even without being a total failure, that would still be catastrophic from Hasbro's point of view.

For example, a theoretical 6e could sell better than 4e did overall, and still only sell half as well as 5e; that would be a disaster.

So if 6e was pushed out when 5e was still selling well (and right now it's still selling EXTREMELY well), it would need to sell AT LEAST slightly BETTER than 5e for it to be seen as a good idea.

If it failed to live up to that, there would be extremely serious repercussions for WoTC from Hasbro. How serious would depend on just how poorly it sold. If it failed to live up to 5e's great expectations, but was not a complete catastrophe (say, it still outsold 4e by a considerable margin), this would still be seen as a big failure but it would likely be blamed on the people who pushed for its roll-out and the designers involved. You'd see huge staff changes at WoTC, and a potential change of culture.
If it sold as badly (or worse) than 4e, and you saw a mass abandonment of the customer base, you might see D&D being mothballed, at least for several years, if not turned into a legacy product that would just release reprints of older books.

There's a number of books sold per year which equals "good" for the bean counters at WotC and Hasbro.

6e won't even be considered until that number sold drops from "good" to "okay".

And if "okay" books sold is enough to keep "good" sales of the "D&D lifestyle brand", they still might not do 6e.

AKA, if Hasbro can sell "D&D" TV or movies, video games, etc, then they might not want an edition change and the always ensuing online shit fests to rock the boat on their "lifestyle brand" plans.

In fact, a multiyear TV show contract could even require Hasbro to keep D&D "as-is" so the TV fandom don't get conflicting narratives on social media. AKA, the TV show would be the prime driver of "new content", and the games would flow in line with the TV show.

There was a mindset that came with new players starting in 3e that I'd never seen before which contributed greatly to ruining the whole thing imho, one which seemed to be more proper for board game players which i called computer logic. They would insist first that everything must be RAW and then interpret such in a literal computer like fashion ignoring rule zero, so they could thereby declare the whole thing broken.

Examples: Take most any spell, say astral projection. Obviously the spell is for adventuring on other planes, but the description did not say that specifically, so they'd want to use it to go to sleep on the prime, go to the astral, then exit back to prime in an astral clone and thus adventure with implied virtual immortality. When told it doesn't work that way, that returning to the plane where the spell was cast effectively ends the spell, they cry "RAW! RAW! *like a crow?* the description doesn't say that!" When told how many pounds the bag of dicks they can eat weighs, they'd claim to be vegetarian despite their obvious dick breath.

Another example; they would insist magic items are for sale at listed prices in anytown of whatever size and thus they can buy whatever they want whenever so long as the population center is large enough and if you don't let them its not RAW...what are you turds doing flipping through the dmg anyway? Or any other of a million combinations of absurd shit based one a literal intentionally senseless reading of text, flavor or not, surrounding any obscure rule interaction; such as using diplomacy like charm person or doing great cleave with a bag of rats or whatever, just absolutely childish retarded shit that would never fly with any dm i ever played with and everybit of it based on this computer logic computer glitch reading of text.

and they did not like being told no. like preschool age tantrum throwing children, and they could not be reasoned with, they did not care that even IF they were right NO ONE at the table would have fun as a result of their bullshit. And that i think is what they were after all along, they wanted to win or "prove" the game was "dumb or broken". they also didn't like being told what kind of little shits they are and being hit with hurled objects either (presenting crucifix didn'y work, so, plan B i guess)

Slipshot,

That behavior is not new.  It's been around as long as the games have been--and longer, as long as people have been around.  What is new is that frequently such people who do this kind of thing don't even try to hide it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1120947Slipshot,

That behavior is not new.  It's been around as long as the games have been--and longer, as long as people have been around.  What is new is that frequently such people who do this kind of thing don't even try to hide it.

I do not doubt that what you say is accurate, it's just that I did not encounter or at least notice anything like it until 3e.  At first I thought it was just a cadre of folks who were sore that hasbro bought D&D, but the common denominators I saw in all these cases were that these were typically younger than the rest of us, did not have prior xp with earlier versions, were dedicated mmo players, and loved anime to the extent that all their characters were broody mcangsty or cutsie lollipop. Applying my ven diagram of paranoia, I decided its just a quirk of the blue hair anime generation & to tell them all to get off my lawn.

I mean we always had powergamers, minmax types, munchkins, but they did not approach this level of anger inducing "i have moral authority and this game sucks" type of behavior. The older type of munchkin at least wanted to munch within the framework, this new breed seemed to want to be the center of everything and destroy all in order to prove they were "right", as if "the game is broken because you let me do this (and you MUST let me do this" was any sort of valid argument at all.

I wonder if 2 or 3 of the WOTC crew have met in private, and at least had a brainstorming session about a hypothetical 6E?  Just to get some ideas on paper for later....

Quote from: Slipshot762;1120933There was a mindset that came with new players starting in 3e that I'd never seen before which contributed greatly to ruining the whole thing imho, one which seemed to be more proper for board game players which i called computer logic. They would insist first that everything must be RAW and then interpret such in a literal computer like fashion ignoring rule zero, so they could thereby declare the whole thing broken.

Examples: Take most any spell, say astral projection. Obviously the spell is for adventuring on other planes, but the description did not say that specifically, so they'd want to use it to go to sleep on the prime, go to the astral, then exit back to prime in an astral clone and thus adventure with implied virtual immortality. When told it doesn't work that way, that returning to the plane where the spell was cast effectively ends the spell, they cry "RAW! RAW! *like a crow?* the description doesn't say that!" When told how many pounds the bag of dicks they can eat weighs, they'd claim to be vegetarian despite their obvious dick breath.

Another example; they would insist magic items are for sale at listed prices in anytown of whatever size and thus they can buy whatever they want whenever so long as the population center is large enough and if you don't let them its not RAW...what are you turds doing flipping through the dmg anyway? Or any other of a million combinations of absurd shit based one a literal intentionally senseless reading of text, flavor or not, surrounding any obscure rule interaction; such as using diplomacy like charm person or doing great cleave with a bag of rats or whatever, just absolutely childish retarded shit that would never fly with any dm i ever played with and everybit of it based on this computer logic computer glitch reading of text.

and they did not like being told no. like preschool age tantrum throwing children, and they could not be reasoned with, they did not care that even IF they were right NO ONE at the table would have fun as a result of their bullshit. And that i think is what they were after all along, they wanted to win or "prove" the game was "dumb or broken". they also didn't like being told what kind of little shits they are and being hit with hurled objects either (presenting crucifix didn'y work, so, plan B i guess)

The only reason you are running 3e or expecting players to bother learning the system is the reward that players can visualize what their character can do without constant GM-feedback. It's the pain from learning the system that creates the expectation that the rules work the way they say they do (though your examples are erroneous, astral projection doesn't work like that and population center size directly effects town size, Wealth-by-Level and magic items are so assumed in the combat engine that not having them readily available breaks things).

Quote from: Slipshot762;1120933There was a mindset that came with new players starting in 3e that I'd never seen before which contributed greatly to ruining the whole thing imho, one which seemed to be more proper for board game players which i called computer logic. They would insist first that everything must be RAW and then interpret such in a literal computer like fashion ignoring rule zero, so they could thereby declare the whole thing broken.

Examples: Take most any spell, say astral projection. Obviously the spell is for adventuring on other planes, but the description did not say that specifically, so they'd want to use it to go to sleep on the prime, go to the astral, then exit back to prime in an astral clone and thus adventure with implied virtual immortality. When told it doesn't work that way, that returning to the plane where the spell was cast effectively ends the spell, they cry "RAW! RAW! *like a crow?* the description doesn't say that!" When told how many pounds the bag of dicks they can eat weighs, they'd claim to be vegetarian despite their obvious dick breath.

Another example; they would insist magic items are for sale at listed prices in anytown of whatever size and thus they can buy whatever they want whenever so long as the population center is large enough and if you don't let them its not RAW...what are you turds doing flipping through the dmg anyway? Or any other of a million combinations of absurd shit based one a literal intentionally senseless reading of text, flavor or not, surrounding any obscure rule interaction; such as using diplomacy like charm person or doing great cleave with a bag of rats or whatever, just absolutely childish retarded shit that would never fly with any dm i ever played with and everybit of it based on this computer logic computer glitch reading of text.

and they did not like being told no. like preschool age tantrum throwing children, and they could not be reasoned with, they did not care that even IF they were right NO ONE at the table would have fun as a result of their bullshit. And that i think is what they were after all along, they wanted to win or "prove" the game was "dumb or broken". they also didn't like being told what kind of little shits they are and being hit with hurled objects either (presenting crucifix didn'y work, so, plan B i guess)

If you think that any of these were problems then the shenanigans that ADnD Players got up to would have blown your mind!

Quote from: Rhedyn;1121012your examples are erroneous, astral projection doesn't work like that

"The character projects the character's astral self into the Astral Plane, leaving the character's physical body behind on the Material Plane in a state of suspended animation. The spell projects an astral copy of the character and all the character wears or carries onto the Astral Plane. Since the Astral Plane touches upon other planes, the character can travel astrally to any of these other planes as the character wishes. The character then leaves the Astral Plane, forming a new physical body (and equipment) on the plane of existence the character has chosen to enter.
If the second body or the astral form is slain, the cord simply returns to the character's body where it rests on the Material Plane, reviving it from its state of suspended animation. Although astral projections are able to function on the Astral Plane, their actions affect only creatures existing on the Astral Plane; a physical body must be materialized on other planes."
They took this to mean they could play with clone bodies on the prime even though they started on the prime.

QuoteWealth-by-Level and magic items are so assumed in the combat engine that not having them readily available breaks things

I disagree, an assumption about being able to overcome DR with magic weapons, sure, but the assumption that you should be able to buy whatever you wanted simply because there were enough people nearby, that is something I call foul on.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121028I disagree, an assumption about being able to overcome DR with magic weapons, sure, but the assumption that you should be able to buy whatever you wanted simply because there were enough people nearby, that is something I call foul on.

WBL was tied into the math and was critical in designing "fair" encounters, which was the main route of play for Adventure Paths and newer players.

Now I personally ran a 1-36 campaign in D&D 3e and didn't give a rats ass about "WBL", shit was wack though, the fighter particularly struggled. Honestly it was so long ago that I think I eventually let people get WBL for the epic level half of the campaign.

I dealt with RAW clowns pre-3e, but there was an explosion of those shitbags post-3e.

They're easy to deal with. Cast upon them the magic word of "NO", and if necessary, summon thee the incantation of "FUCK OFF".

If any piece of shit disrupts your table, toss them at an open window, or door if you must. Let organized play groups at game stores suffer those imbeciles because they have no place at a home game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1121030there was an explosion of those shitbags post-3e.

Is there any concrete answer as to why though? was it hate for hasbro? was it anime or mmo's? what was the cause of this? was it the rules themselves? why did they behave as if rule zero is not RAW?

It was just an increase in the number of players generally, so we got more good players, and more players who... needed education and correction. As well, when players are new to a group they're more likely to engage in shenanigans. As they get to know everyone in the group and settle in, they learn their proper place - so long as the GM is competent to teach them.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121032Is there any concrete answer as to why though? was it hate for hasbro? was it anime or mmo's? what was the cause of this? was it the rules themselves? why did they behave as if rule zero is not RAW?

It was the 3e rules and video games.

The 3e rules intentionally wanted to reward rules mastery. If you developed rules mastery, your skills could only manifest at the table if the GM enforced the RAW. Otherwise, the GM's house rule or lack of care for RAW nullified your rules mastery.

Video games always play by the RAW. If you made a killer build in Diablo 2, the computer didn't do anything to nerf your build. Becoming OP for the game WAS the game for many people. For many MMO and video gamers, its all about exploiting combos to break the game.

I don't fully blame these players, but just like rabid dogs, I may feel sorry for them, but I won't invite them to my table.

Quote from: BronzeDragon;1120492All accounts seem to convey the notion that WotC's RPG division came close to critical status within the overall WotC/Hasbro structure, and if 5E hadn't performed as it did, they might not even have an RPG division today, and D&D would likely have been sold to a prospective buyer in the industry.

I don't think they'd sell it. I think they're already in failure mode. In their minds the RPG division is probably just a write off and they see the value of the brand in movies once they get the rights to that worked out. I think the reason why the 5E team had such the latitude they did was because the suits at Hasbro just want them to not be a major loss lead in regards to bringing in new players(loyal customers) into the brand. I don't think we would've gotten the OGL, DM's Guild or third party licensing if the suits saw any potential for real profit in the RPG division. But the RPG division is talking about low millions, max potential, when Transformer movies are making a billion. Even GI Joe is hundreds of millions.

If 6E turned the ship away from being newbie friendly/popular in media, I think the suits would just do some firing and bring in new leads who could promise to make the brand popular again. They ultimately just want the next D&D movie to be on the Potter/LoTR franchise level. And honestly, they do have a lot of source material to work with.

I think versioning is a demonstrable chimera in role-playing games and the framing of your question suggests otherwise.

5e is its own game. It isn't a better version of D&D, but it is new and different. Versions in role-playing games are like flavors of ice cream, not new types of desserts. RPG companies can go the 'new type of dessert' method by re-purposing IP into new types of products and services (and hybrids of both) but that doesn't apply to RPGs themselves.

I believe the DM's Guild is an acknowledgement by Hasbro of this being true. You can buy any old version you want that they can make available. They aren't trying to force you to buy refreshed versions of old content. What matters to them is that they are making $$$ off of the content making you happy, no matter what version you play.

Likewise, the new books like Xanathar's Guide to Everything are 'versioned' in that they target 5e users but they don't differentiate between players and GMs in making new content.

D&D isn't D&D anymore.

It went from survival horror exploration to superhero exploration. It's a different animal. The GMs have spoken.

But, it's that SJW romantic story where if you don't know story writing & plot points you end up a "bad GM who railroaded players - wow!"

But the reality is most players have no idea of characterization in regards to screenwriting or stories. I've had players vanish when I addressed their arcs.

Vanish.

I've written stories. I know about character transformation and plot arcs.

You vanished. Not me.

Most of these narrative players are bullshit.

Quote from: Dracones;1121088... In their minds the RPG division is probably just a write off and they see the value of the brand in movies once they get the rights to that worked out. ...
But the RPG division is talking about low millions, max potential, when Transformer movies are making a billion. ...

You aren't being a very good write off when you keep growing revenue, profit, and userbase for years, sometimes by as much as 50%. By "low millions" I assume you mean tens of millions.

Quote from: happyhermit;1121414You aren't being a very good write off when you keep growing revenue, profit, and userbase for years, sometimes by as much as 50%. By "low millions" I assume you mean tens of millions.

That depends on whatever you can justify writing off, and that isn't always obvious.

The value of D&D and all related IP has skyrocketed far beyond simple multipliers of annual revenue * X. To maintain and keep building that value, it has to maintain enough presence in the market. I think they are doing a very good job at that, and they've clearly optimized their overhead and minimized their risks.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

I've read most of pathfinder 2e and...meh....I'm not overly impressed. I like some of the concept, like how Shields can take damage and after a few shots either need repaired or it's destroyed. But having to say "I raise my shield" every round to get the bonus is just plain stupid. Also, I like that you can spend more of your time on your action to cast a spell and it gets stronger. as a minor action, it has a little effect to a full-round where it has a greater effect. But then again, they continue to push dumb penalties to attacks (*sigh*) so I'm mostly not going to continue with that system.

I like 5E for what it is, but as Geralt said in The Witcher "it's like ordering a pie and finding it has no filling.[/i] That isn't to say it's not fun and doesn't have merits but coming from a predominantly 3e/4e background it just lacks round-to-round fun for me.

I'll probably continue to revolve systems as we see fit: 4e then 3.5/PF then 5e then something new or a board game; repeat.

I will say that I FINALLY got my hands on the 13th Age core rulebook and I'm very pleasantly surprised! I knew that it had 4e elements and that's certainly true but I like a lot of the concepts such as more broad skills that can be applied to a number of situations, the way feats work with talents and Spells, and the tight way in which it is bounded up into 10 levels. So I'm now putting time into delving more into that system than traditional d20s.

Quote from: Batman;1121459I like some of the concept, like how Shields can take damage and after a few shots either need repaired or it's destroyed. But having to say "I raise my shield" every round to get the bonus is just plain stupid.

I'm sure it evolved from: "You have a card that represents your shield. Place it next to your character sheet when it is equipped, and place three tokens on it. Each turn you may tap the shield as a free action to raise it. While raised, it can absorb a hit, which removes a stone and untaps the card. At the beginning of your turn, you untap the card during your prep phase before taking any actions. When the last stone is removed from the card, your shield is destroyed and the card is discarded. Some effects can return stones to the card, up to the maximum of 3 (unless the effect specifically allows it to exceed 3)."

Or maybe that'll be Pathfinder 3.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1121297D&D isn't D&D anymore.

It went from survival horror exploration to superhero exploration. It's a different animal. The GMs have spoken.

But, it's that SJW romantic story where if you don't know story writing & plot points you end up a "bad GM who railroaded players - wow!"

But the reality is most players have no idea of characterization in regards to screenwriting or stories. I've had players vanish when I addressed their arcs.

Vanish.

I've written stories. I know about character transformation and plot arcs.

You vanished. Not me.

Most of these narrative players are bullshit.

This is why I hate on Critical Role.  It encourages the narrative players to do their bullshit because to them this is how it is suppose to be.  Well it isn't and yes the player is in the wrong for just vanishing because it didn't go with narrative in your head.  Though who are in the greatest of wrongs are the fucking game devs and Matthew Mercer that make it into a big OK for players to act this way.

What we need is to force these players to play funnel systems till they can eventually get over the fact that yes character's can and will die.  They need to figure out that narratives are for bullshits and it is wise to just leave it for dead.  In short players need to man the fuck up.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1121297D&D isn't D&D anymore.

It went from survival horror exploration to superhero exploration. It's a different animal. The GMs have spoken.

But, it's that SJW romantic story where if you don't know story writing & plot points you end up a "bad GM who railroaded players - wow!"

But the reality is most players have no idea of characterization in regards to screenwriting or stories. I've had players vanish when I addressed their arcs.

Vanish.

I've written stories. I know about character transformation and plot arcs.

You vanished. Not me.

Most of these narrative players are bullshit.

This, which is why I stay with the OSR older D&D editions or the other systems I already own instead of buying 5e. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Currently reading Star Frontiers in order to maybe play it in the future.

Quote from: Batman;1121459I've read most of pathfinder 2e and...meh....I'm not overly impressed. I like some of the concept, like how Shields can take damage and after a few shots either need repaired or it's destroyed. But having to say "I raise my shield" every round to get the bonus is just plain stupid. Also, I like that you can spend more of your time on your action to cast a spell and it gets stronger. as a minor action, it has a little effect to a full-round where it has a greater effect. But then again, they continue to push dumb penalties to attacks (*sigh*) so I'm mostly not going to continue with that system.

Coming from a DnD background it is a shock to have to say anything about your shield at all!

There is just no way I ever see myself going back to D&D. Sure the fondest memories are of bcmi d&d, but going back to that would be like going back to holding hands in the moonlight after a long prestigous porn career, it just doesn't break through the calloused barrier of cynicism that has since grown. I could not tolerate anything with a great deal of crunch anymore, either. Nothing with hitpoints, hitpoints are a major turn off. I've looked at the basic rules for 5e wotc pdf download and it does nothing for me, looks to be a forced simalacrum to my eye with no soul, doesn't inspire or evoke, and reading about 5e on the net is plagued with word salad "problematic" and "build" and "but crawford says", I just cannot do it.

Why does 5e even have classes if everyone wants balance so badly, why not just use a classless system if balance is so important? What is this videogame mindset and why cater to it, banish it already it does not belong.  

I've looked at a lot of games both down through the years and recently, I couldn't go back and be happy with earlier versions of D&D and I don't like 4e/5e, I pretty much can only enjoy WeG D6 system now. Its ogl too, I've considered making a setting or version of it to suite my own tastes and making it free, just to run my own game my way out of my own book with my own name on it. Because starting with 3e and beyond, for me, the new players and mindset have just soul crushingly ruined d&d, I don't think there is any shred of a possibility of going back or picking up a new wotc bastardization.

I mean at this point I even hate dice that are not 6, 8, or 10 sided and even 10 sided is starting to rub me the wrong way because I tried playing that vampire: the angsty twat game a couple times and would flat rather suckstart a shotgun than endure that system or the types i found to be playing it.

As god is my witness we will play "D&D" with D6 fantasy or we won't play at all. No I won't play 5e, or 4e, or 3e, or your cdrom version of 2e, or your overpriced rare and treasured ebay purchased 1e or even basic.

Maybe if i had happened upon 5e without exposure to the people that love it so much, or had never seen critical turd (tal'dorei? boy wtf did i tell you about apostrophes in fantasy names?) or never wandered upon the special breed of people who say things like "half drow half dragon  half tabaxi all fabulous 4 fighter/9 goat herder/ 3 harlot with dark furrykin subclass and androgynous kit named kittikens" maybe i might have liked 5e.

But I can't. To thine own self be true, and I just can't. When i ask about your character and you say, rather than knight errant or apprentice wizard, something like "soul forged warbound shadow striker with EMP build" I really, really, just really want to strangle you to death and make furniture from your bones. cheap crappy furniture that no one wants.

So, really, it doesn't matter to me if it's 15th edition, unless its D6 system or something close, I hate you, and I dismiss you, and I am not ashamed of such.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534There is just no way I ever see myself going back to D&D. Sure the fondest memories are of bcmi d&d, but going back to that would be like going back to holding hands in the moonlight after a long prestigous porn career, it just doesn't break through the calloused barrier of cynicism that has since grown.

I ran BECMI for 5 years or so as my son's first experience of D&D. Worked really well and gave him a proper Grognard attitude - "Kids today and their easy-peasy 5e! Why, back in my day..." :D
I'd definitely recommend trying it again, especially starting over with just Basic then Expert, rather than the Full Rules Cyclopedia version. I used a lot of BasicFantasy.org adventures which kept things fresh.

OTOH I did just start running Mini Six & I understand your love for d6 System! https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-valley-of-scorn-palace-of-silver.html
The power level of starting d6 PCs is certainly very 'action hero' and is taking a bit of getting used to - I worried about TPK when I had the party of five PCs attacked by a knight & 8 guards, but they slaughtered them all with the only injury being one Stun.

Quote from: S'mon;1121536The power level of starting d6 PCs is certainly very 'action hero' and is taking a bit of getting used to - I worried about TPK when I had the party of five PCs attacked by a knight & 8 guards, but they slaughtered them all with the only injury being one Stun.

"Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young solider, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wroth, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.

But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing that they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign parts.

Conan the Cimmerian, Queen of the Black Coast

damn skippy.

Quote from: S'mon;1121536OTOH I did just start running Mini Six & I understand your love for d6 System! https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-valley-of-scorn-palace-of-silver.html
The power level of starting d6 PCs is certainly very 'action hero' and is taking a bit of getting used to - I worried about TPK when I had the party of five PCs attacked by a knight & 8 guards, but they slaughtered them all with the only injury being one Stun.

I'm not sure about that version of D6, but I ran a game of D6 Star Wars Revised & Expanded about a year ago and one of the players was shocked that his character died in one hit. Admittedly, he had spent all five of his character points and his one Force point previously being awesome, so he had held nothing back to save his bacon. Enemy fired a sporting blaster rifle at him and hit (his Dodge roll was poor) then the Wild Die on the damage came up "6" while the PC's Strength roll produced a "1" on the Wild Die. When the roll was compared, the difference was 18 points--enough for instant death. The player was shocked, but also thought is was pretty cool that one shot from a gun could actually kill someone (unlike in the FFG SW game he was in).

Quote from: S'mon;1121536I ran BECMI for 5 years or so as my son's first experience of D&D. Worked really well and gave him a proper Grognard attitude - "Kids today and their easy-peasy 5e! Why, back in my day..." :D
I'd definitely recommend trying it again, especially starting over with just Basic then Expert, rather than the Full Rules Cyclopedia version. I used a lot of BasicFantasy.org adventures which kept things fresh.

OTOH I did just start running Mini Six & I understand your love for d6 System! https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-valley-of-scorn-palace-of-silver.html
The power level of starting d6 PCs is certainly very 'action hero' and is taking a bit of getting used to - I worried about TPK when I had the party of five PCs attacked by a knight & 8 guards, but they slaughtered them all with the only injury being one Stun.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1121543I'm not sure about that version of D6, but I ran a game of D6 Star Wars Revised & Expanded about a year ago and one of the players was shocked that his character died in one hit. Admittedly, he had spent all five of his character points and his one Force point previously being awesome, so he had held nothing back to save his bacon. Enemy fired a sporting blaster rifle at him and hit (his Dodge roll was poor) then the Wild Die on the damage came up "6" while the PC's Strength roll produced a "1" on the Wild Die. When the roll was compared, the difference was 18 points--enough for instant death. The player was shocked, but also thought is was pretty cool that one shot from a gun could actually kill someone (unlike in the FFG SW game he was in).

lol yeah, i know right, it certainly captures the right feel. one can always pair back starting skill dice if they want to begin more bilbo baggins than conan, but even conan can bleed and die if he gets hit. DON't GET HIT....the one rule players need bother to memorize.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1121543I'm not sure about that version of D6, but I ran a game of D6 Star Wars Revised & Expanded about a year ago and one of the players was shocked that his character died in one hit. Admittedly, he had spent all five of his character points and his one Force point previously being awesome, so he had held nothing back to save his bacon. Enemy fired a sporting blaster rifle at him and hit (his Dodge roll was poor) then the Wild Die on the damage came up "6" while the PC's Strength roll produced a "1" on the Wild Die. When the roll was compared, the difference was 18 points--enough for instant death. The player was shocked, but also thought is was pretty cool that one shot from a gun could actually kill someone (unlike in the FFG SW game he was in).

Mini Six has the wild die, but defences are static by default, so this is possible but fairly unlikely. And you can spend a Hero Point if you have one to turn dead into mortally wounded once/session.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121544DON't GET HIT....the one rule players need bother to memorize.

I definitely love this aspect of d6, so different from D&D after 1st level. I held my breath when a guard NPC managed to stab the barbarian PC Rolo - then he rolled crap and didn't even penetrate Rolo's leather cuirass; no effect.

Quote from: Razor 007;1117558I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

RuneQuest.

I haven't bought a copy of D&D since AD&D. I saw 3e and thought it was closer to RQ, but didn't see the point of buying it. Haven't played any D&D but AD&D.

Quote from: Dracones;1121088I don't think they'd sell it. I think they're already in failure mode. In their minds the RPG division is probably just a write off and they see the value of the brand in movies once they get the rights to that worked out. I think the reason why the 5E team had such the latitude they did was because the suits at Hasbro just want them to not be a major loss lead in regards to bringing in new players(loyal customers) into the brand. I don't think we would've gotten the OGL, DM's Guild or third party licensing if the suits saw any potential for real profit in the RPG division. But the RPG division is talking about low millions, max potential, when Transformer movies are making a billion. Even GI Joe is hundreds of millions.

This is not reality. Hasbro issues quarterly and yearly reports to investors like every major company. The prominence of mention of D&D, and praise of it from a profit perspective, has grown from "never mention" to "almost always mention" with 5e. Indeed it was recently highlighted as a major bright spot after some losses in other divisions. And these are statements covered by Federal Trade Commission rules for truth and against misleading shareholders. The company can and often is subject to shareholder lawsuits if they fudge these statements. It's not like advertising or public relations. We KNOW 5e is a meaningful division for Hasbro. They can't even make note of it like they are without it being a meaningful portion.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1121498This is why I hate on Critical Role.  It encourages the narrative players to do their bullshit because to them this is how it is suppose to be.  Well it isn't

Oh look, a declaration of badwrongfun. How lovely.

Quote from: Mistwell;1121561Oh look, a declaration of badwrongfun. How lovely.

Oh shove it, or better yet try to understand that this is a actual problem.  If the PC suffers a horrible consequence over a series of horrible rolls, or flat out unlucky results because it is a tabletop role playing game that uses dice then the player should just accept that.  He shouldn't give off bad attitude because, "That ISN'T how it works".  He shouldn't have to tell the GM he is no longer player right in front of the other players like a spoiled brat who got told no.  The dice rolls are the dice rolls.  To even think about the long term plans, or how your PCs story going to be is just stupid because you don't know if they are going to make it that far.  The fact that there are games that not only encourages this shit, but try to cater to it.  It makes the hobby worst for it.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1121498This is why I hate on Critical Role.  It encourages the narrative players to do their bullshit because to them this is how it is suppose to be.  Well it isn't and yes the player is in the wrong for just vanishing because it didn't go with narrative in your head.  Though who are in the greatest of wrongs are the fucking game devs and Matthew Mercer that make it into a big OK for players to act this way.

What we need is to force these players to play funnel systems till they can eventually get over the fact that yes character's can and will die.  They need to figure out that narratives are for bullshits and it is wise to just leave it for dead.  In short players need to man the fuck up.

Greetings!

Snowman, why do you think Critical Role and Matt Mercer are so popular? As much as I favour traditional RPG styles, in my experience, most women in particular LOVE the narrative stuff. They love writing books of backstory for their characters. They love having all kinds of relationship drama and so on, lots of triangles and deep emotional problems and challenges for their characters, as well as for their girlfriends.

I'd say all of that kind of style is far more appealing to women players, in particular, than a more standard dungeon-crawl where you systematically go through dungeons like the Terminator, killing, burning, and plundering treasure.

From what I have also seen at Adventurer's League groups, many young millennial men also love narrative style gaming. They also can get into writing books of backstory for their characters, and projecting all kinds of future drama and so on with their characters, all drawn from their drama-fest narrative backstory.

There definitely seems to be a huge audience for the narrative style in gaming.

Not that traditional style gaming is dying, far from it. However, there does seem to be more appeal for the Narrative style for many people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1121565Greetings!

Snowman, why do you think Critical Role and Matt Mercer are so popular? As much as I favour traditional RPG styles, in my experience, most women in particular LOVE the narrative stuff. They love writing books of backstory for their characters. They love having all kinds of relationship drama and so on, lots of triangles and deep emotional problems and challenges for their characters, as well as for their girlfriends.

I'd say all of that kind of style is far more appealing to women players, in particular, than a more standard dungeon-crawl where you systematically go through dungeons like the Terminator, killing, burning, and plundering treasure.

From what I have also seen at Adventurer's League groups, many young millennial men also love narrative style gaming. They also can get into writing books of backstory for their characters, and projecting all kinds of future drama and so on with their characters, all drawn from their drama-fest narrative backstory.

There definitely seems to be a huge audience for the narrative style in gaming.

Not that traditional style gaming is dying, far from it. However, there does seem to be more appeal for the Narrative style for many people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Meaning women and low-T soyboys. Sorry not sorry it's a fact hormones alter the way our brains work. I'm not saying their preferred style is wrongfun, bad or evil, just not my cup of tea, and it does poison the well for people to try the other style when your first intro was that.

But then again, if that's really YOUR thing, go wild, and I doubt many who really go for that would ever enjoy the other style of play. And vice-versa.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1121568Meaning women and low-T soyboys. Sorry not sorry it's a fact hormones alter the way our brains work. I'm not saying their preferred style is wrongfun, bad or evil, just not my cup of tea, and it does poison the well for people to try the other style when your first intro was that.

But then again, if that's really YOUR thing, go wild, and I doubt many who really go for that would ever enjoy the other style of play. And vice-versa.

Greetings!

*laughing* Women and Low-T Soyboys! *ROLLING* That's exactly right, my friend! Yeah, it is something of a challenge when a narrative style is many people's introduction to gaming. It makes it difficult for them to embrace a traditional style.

Hormones affect the way our brains work. So damned true, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Snowman0147;1121498What we need is to force these players to play funnel systems till they can eventually get over the fact that yes character's can and will die.  They need to figure out that narratives are for bullshits and it is wise to just leave it for dead.  In short players need to man the fuck up.

Personally I would rather play a game based on skill then one based on luck but I get that gambling is a thing.

Quote from: SHARK;1121565Greetings!

Snowman, why do you think Critical Role and Matt Mercer are so popular? As much as I favour traditional RPG styles, in my experience, most women in particular LOVE the narrative stuff. They love writing books of backstory for their characters. They love having all kinds of relationship drama and so on, lots of triangles and deep emotional problems and challenges for their characters, as well as for their girlfriends.

I'd say all of that kind of style is far more appealing to women players, in particular, than a more standard dungeon-crawl where you systematically go through dungeons like the Terminator, killing, burning, and plundering treasure.

From what I have also seen at Adventurer's League groups, many young millennial men also love narrative style gaming. They also can get into writing books of backstory for their characters, and projecting all kinds of future drama and so on with their characters, all drawn from their drama-fest narrative backstory.

There definitely seems to be a huge audience for the narrative style in gaming.

Not that traditional style gaming is dying, far from it. However, there does seem to be more appeal for the Narrative style for many people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

RPGs is a poor way of doing it because of the one factor know as dice.  The random chance for utter failure is always there and just waiting to ruin someone's precious narrative.

Quote from: SHARK;1121565Greetings!

Snowman, why do you think Critical Role and Matt Mercer are so popular? As much as I favour traditional RPG styles, in my experience, most women in particular LOVE the narrative stuff. They love writing books of backstory for their characters. They love having all kinds of relationship drama and so on, lots of triangles and deep emotional problems and challenges for their characters, as well as for their girlfriends.

I'd say all of that kind of style is far more appealing to women players, in particular, than a more standard dungeon-crawl where you systematically go through dungeons like the Terminator, killing, burning, and plundering treasure.

From what I have also seen at Adventurer's League groups, many young millennial men also love narrative style gaming. They also can get into writing books of backstory for their characters, and projecting all kinds of future drama and so on with their characters, all drawn from their drama-fest narrative backstory.

There definitely seems to be a huge audience for the narrative style in gaming.

Not that traditional style gaming is dying, far from it. However, there does seem to be more appeal for the Narrative style for many people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You might be right. But since I can only base this on my own experience (which might be the outlier and not the norm), I'd have to disagree. I lost count of the number of my wife's characters (at the time she was just the g/f) that I murdered in college. Hell the whole table lost more characters than one would expect as they all learned how to play. Heck they even killed each other's characters and no one got too bent out of shape, granted there was a few choice words at the time but everyone showed up each week ready to go.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1121596You might be right. But since I can only base this on my own experience (which might be the outlier and not the norm), I'd have to disagree. I lost count of the number of my wife's characters (at the time she was just the g/f) that I murdered in college. Hell the whole table lost more characters than one would expect as they all learned how to play. Heck they even killed each other's characters and no one got too bent out of shape, granted there was a few choice words at the time but everyone showed up each week ready to go.

Greetings!

Women that love violence in the game are so much fun!:D You don't think that there are many women that love a Narrativist style? Or many men as well? I don't know. Who are rabid fans of Vampire games? Who are all the fans of Critical Role and Matt Mercer? It seems like they have hundreds of thousands of fans and now, millions of dollars in support, as well as game products made for them by WOTC. I would guess that is indicative of a pretty strong support for Narrativist style games. I would also guess that a majority of fans for Narratavist games and styles are women, based on what I have seen from more women than men at game stores, game conventions, and in private home games.

I hope that Narrativist style games or gaming does not grow into a huge beast.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Last week I had to sit through two hours of a gnome druidess coming to terms with her newfound ability to Wildshape as some kind of a puberty metaphor. I just wanted to kill goblins. :confused:

Quote from: S'mon;1121665Last week I had to sit through two hours of a gnome druidess coming to terms with her newfound ability to Wildshape as some kind of a puberty metaphor. I just wanted to kill goblins. :confused:

Honestly, my experience is that if all I want to do is kill stuff without much character development, then any of a dozen video games ranging from single-player to MMO to real time strategy can scratch that itch.

That's a big chunk of WHY I think you're seeing a shift in focus for tabletop RPGs. There will always be those who enjoy writing stories by hand in a moleskin notebook, but modern word processing programs are many times more efficient for most folks.

Tabletop is NOT the most efficient for those sort of scenarios, but as anyone who's dealt with a Siri or Alexa knows; video games are utterly inept at running anything other than a railroad with pre-canned dialogue choices. THAT is the niche that new people seeking out the tabletop experience are looking to have filled that only a live GM with other live players can fill (and they'll put up with the inefficient orc killing mechanics to get it... either that or expand on that too by trying to go outside the box and/or creatively describe their actions there too).

At least that's been my experience in testing my system. Older players enjoy combat mechanics, younger ones see that part as clunky compared to video games, but are drawn by the ability to paint outside the lines that tabletop offers.

Quote from: Chris24601;1121683At least that's been my experience in testing my system. Older players enjoy combat mechanics, younger ones see that part as clunky compared to video games, but are drawn by the ability to paint outside the lines that tabletop offers.

Well, yeah.

The GM accused me of being Against Roleplaying. :(

Quote from: Snowman0147;1121576RPGs is a poor way of doing it because of the one factor know as dice.  The random chance for utter failure is always there and just waiting to ruin someone's precious narrative.

The old saying still is true. You write the story after the game is played because then you know what to write about.

Quote from: S'mon;1121665Last week I had to sit through two hours of a gnome druidess coming to terms with her newfound ability to Wildshape as some kind of a puberty metaphor. I just wanted to kill goblins. :confused:

This is why gnomes should be banned from games. :D

And really, the problems with thespians at the game table is the same as having comic relief players. The people who choose those character styles typically do not have a good sense of the dramatic or the comedic and they do not know when it is appropriate in game.

Quote from: S'mon;1121690Well, yeah.

The GM accused me of being Against Roleplaying. :(

Tell him that you like roleplaying so much that you think more than one person ought to be able to do it in a two hour span. :)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1121709Tell him that you like roleplaying so much that you think more than one person ought to be able to do it in a two hour span. :)

The GM is a her, but yeah. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1121690Well, yeah.

The GM accused me of being Against Roleplaying. :(

You can still role play when killing Goblins

Quote from: Shasarak;1121769You can still role play when killing Goblins

I did!

Quote from: S'mon;1121771I did!

Not if you are waiting for the Druid to get over leveling up.

Quote from: S'mon;1121665Last week I had to sit through two hours of a gnome druidess coming to terms with her newfound ability to Wildshape as some kind of a puberty metaphor. I just wanted to kill goblins. :confused:

Greetings!

*Laughs* Oh, damn, S'mon! It's always the Gnomes!:D

Were you able to drink a few pints, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shasarak;1121773Not if you are waiting for the Druid to get over leveling up.

We did spend the second two hours killing goblins.

Quote from: SHARK;1121775Greetings!

*Laughs* Oh, damn, S'mon! It's always the Gnomes!:D

Were you able to drink a few pints, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Oh yeah. Quite a few. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1121665Last week I had to sit through two hours of a gnome druidess coming to terms with her newfound ability to Wildshape as some kind of a puberty metaphor. I just wanted to kill goblins. :confused:

Can you feel my eye twitching? Yeah...
What is there to "come to terms" with? Reminds me of the first time I met an SJW instructor in college:
Took a class called environmental justice thinking its about EPA regulations or something, no, no it's not; Behold!
Here cometh a young lass with problem glasses, all the way from Cali to hale ole Kaintuck (this was the first warning sign, but don't be a bigot) who was a good 5 years my junior and yet an instructor (second warning sign) and from day one its less a class about anything and more a cult where everyone learns to worship ceasar chavez with a healthy sprinkling of diatribes about unrelated things like gender roles abortion and (landmine, lady, heads up!) gun control. *Boom*

We learn absolute falsehoods about gun control & ownership, terrible phony stats, its en epidemic you see, the founding fathers was racist, guns is racist, bible racist, i'm racist you racist we be racist, wouldn't you like to be racist too? I loved the part where she described how backwards we are in kaintuck, she had just moved here and ran over a squirrel, but when she called the emt's (apparently she didn't mention the rodent, just car accident, or they would not have rolled) they "shamed and harrassed her" those sexist pigs and refused to help the lil rat. (I would have starting cooking it just to see her face but I digress)

There was an assignment to write some kind of BS about the oppressive order vanishing and how it would improve things; my wife had the class with me but she was a nursing student, a science type, writing bullshit is not her thing. So, I wrote both! Now, funny enough, mine, which was defiance granted, was a story about the joys of starvation in the absence of whiteys civ done gone nuked. Got like a D for it...but I also wrote the wifes, same thing only bio-war caused the wipe, people are still starving, animal level, pooping and mating in public, and main character was normal modern woman leaving the bunker, acting as doctor for new world savages, and they called her lady of the night for only coming out at night to optimize her chances via night vision and also refusing the public sex poop....A frickin plus, hailed as literary genius...because this twit thought a woman wrote it.

When she started back in about gun control, I set her straight, I emailed her links that tell you plainly what the actual laws are and what the founders actually said, asked her to at least be honest when spreading her propaganda, made the mistake of being very polite and calling her "lass" in my best fedora tipping mi'lady impersonation. Next thing you know, I'm summoned in front of interim director, apparently I threatened her via email, I'm unstable, she wants me mentally evaluated and removed...problem is though, I still have the emails and can prove otherwise....oopsie, commutard.

Seeing emails, director is like "well its past time to change classes but i'll let you out and into a different one, you can catch up and we'll forget about it". Her lying and trying to get students removed from school and committed to mental facilities is just a minor trifle, not something she should be removed or sanctioned for.

I'm like not so fast buddy, does this bitch know its illegal to be a communist, that the communist control act is still law just unenforced, did you guys not tell her she cannot pull this crap here where people will still actually find a way to help you die accidentally should you upset the natural order? He's all like I'll talk to her you just forget her.

A few months later I graduated, never heard anymore about her, other than the reports my wife would give since she was still in that class. After I left the gun control talk stopped but the anti-white shit ramped up, poor nick was left behind as the only white male so bore the brunt of her hassle, got accused of things twice for defending himself against her sweeping generalizations. Now understand nick was a fedora tipping neckbeard w/o a shred of backbone or a political opinion beyond "weed good", an absolute non-target in my book, so to hear she went aggro on him was both bewildering and sad, not to mention funny.

Moral is I suppose, when you smell crazy, call it out and stick to your guns, or run, run far and fast forest.

Coming to terms with wildshape....how about you come to terms with wildrape, yeah i said it, as dm i would have other animals trying to rape her while wild shaped, chance increased during aunt flows visit, what, its just nature don't panic now...

Gradually I began to hate them.

Lol wildshape

Considering I've been playing and writing RPGs for enough time now, it is likely that 5e D&D is my last attempt at playing someone else's game.

So, probably something I write myself (am I'm quite tempted to write my own version of 5e; which will probably not happen with 6e unless it is an awesome game AND included in the SRD).

Realistically, I don't think we'll see 6e soon.

Currently I am alternating between Mini 6 and 5e, and I'll likely be doing that for a few years even if 6e comes out early. I would likely buy a 5.5e cleanup.

Quote from: SHARK;1121775*Laughs* Oh, damn, S'mon! It's always the Gnomes!:D

To be fair... sometimes it's Kender (a halfling being played like a Kender anyway because the DM rightly said "Hell NO!" to playing a Kender).

At times I think gnomes are just the preferred choice for those who haven't yet discovered Kender.

Quote from: Chris24601;1121800To be fair... sometimes it's Kender (a halfling being played like a Kender anyway because the DM rightly said "Hell NO!" to playing a Kender).

At times I think gnomes are just the preferred choice for those who haven't yet discovered Kender.

We'd never paid much attention to gnomes, pro or con.  I didn't think the players had thought much on the matter.  Then in my current campaign I made them diabolical bogey men instead of player characters.  Thought I'd get some push back, but the players took that in stride, almost in a "that makes sense" manner.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534I tried playing that vampire: the angsty twat game a couple times and would flat rather suckstart a shotgun than endure that system or the types i found to be playing it.

"Suckstarting a shotgun" should become the new standard way of describing what was previously known as "Pulling a Cobain".

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534(tal'dorei? boy wtf did i tell you about apostrophes in fantasy names?)

This one reminded me of Forrester's lecture on old ENWorld, "Nyiming yur charaectyr".

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534or never wandered upon the special breed of people who say things like "half drow half dragon  half tabaxi all fabulous 4 fighter/9 goat herder/ 3 harlot with dark furrykin subclass and androgynous kit named kittikens"

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534When i ask about your character and you say, rather than knight errant or apprentice wizard, something like "soul forged warbound shadow striker with EMP build" I really, really, just really want to strangle you to death and make furniture from your bones. cheap crappy furniture that no one wants.

"Build" is indeed a fucking retarded way of describing any character. Here I have to lay the blame squarely on 3E (even 2E kits weren't the same, or nearly as poisonous).

Ok, I have to have some time to stop laughing. This post is a fucking gold mine.

Quote from: Batman;1121459I will say that I FINALLY got my hands on the 13th Age core rulebook and I'm very pleasantly surprised!

13th Age is solid and plays great at the table. I was very happy with the campaign we played when the game came out. Too bad the clown company didn't promote the game like gangbusters when they had 12-18 months without a current D&D on the shelves.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534As god is my witness we will play "D&D" with D6 fantasy or we won't play at all.

Start a thread on D6 Fantasy. We must all speak more upon this!!

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121534I really, really, just really want to strangle you to death and make furniture from your bones. cheap crappy furniture that no one wants.

It's from the Black Metal Ikea collection!

Quote from: Batman;1121459(snip) I will say that I FINALLY got my hands on the 13th Age core rulebook and I'm very pleasantly surprised! I knew that it had 4e elements and that's certainly true but I like a lot of the concepts such as more broad skills that can be applied to a number of situations, the way feats work with talents and Spells, and the tight way in which it is bounded up into 10 levels. So I'm now putting time into delving more into that system than traditional d20s.

From the single session I have run, it seems like a great game and I cannot wait to find the right group so I can get more than a session out of it. And running theatre-of-the-mind in a system designed for TotM is just such a simple joy: Why didn't TSR or WotC ever do this? (That's rhetorical, obviously.)

I'm also really looking forward to one day running a 13th Age Glorantha campaign. I think that might do certain parts of the Glorantha experience (the high fantasy parts) much better than RuneQuest ever could (and I have the greatest respect for RQ as a game).

It's Out!!!  It's Out!!!  D&D 6E Is Out!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4156[/ATTACH]

Greetings!

*LAUGHING*!!! Oh, geesus. This made me choke on my coffee from laughing so much! Fucking brilliant!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1122102Greetings!

*LAUGHING*!!! Oh, geesus. This made me choke on my coffee from laughing so much! Fucking brilliant!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just doing my part....

If 6e is shit, then that will either lead to a resurgence of the OSR or a new indie movement of some kind of good gaming.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122332If 6e is shit, then that will either lead to a resurgence of the OSR or a new indie movement of some kind of good gaming.

Or another push from Paizo, either with PF2 or something else.

Razor I am stealing that.

Honestly, I would probably play Pathfinder 2e if it wasn't so fucking SJW sanitized. With that being said, I'm DMing a 5e campaign right now, and its fine. Its not great, it doesn't blow me away, its just fine. I'll probably switch to 1e pathfinder with the 3 action rule from Pathfinder Unleashed.

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1122561Honestly, I would probably play Pathfinder 2e if it wasn't so fucking SJW sanitized. With that being said, I'm DMing a 5e campaign right now, and its fine. Its not great, it doesn't blow me away, its just fine. I'll probably switch to 1e pathfinder with the 3 action rule from Pathfinder Unleashed.

Pathfinder Unchained?

Quote from: Razor 007;1122570Pathfinder Unchained?

Yeah, that lol.

Would it even be possible for 6E to flop? Since it seems, especially post-CR, to be 99% of peoples only exposure to anything resembling a P&P game, it seems most would likely roll over and accept it at best, or else go full cultist and defend their consooooumption to the death. It'd be a lot like Games Workshop products, wherein people don't know any better and have no other metric of experience to judge what does or doesn't make a 'good' game and stick with The Brand no matter what. At least back when 4th came out it seemed like most of the playerbase at least had the awareness other games existed (see: how Pathfinder exploded).

Quote from: Spinachcat;112188913th Age is solid and plays great at the table. I was very happy with the campaign we played when the game came out. Too bad the clown company didn't promote the game like gangbusters when they had 12-18 months without a current D&D on the shelves.

Yeah it never really became a huge household name other than "Haven for 4e folks" that I was aware of anyways.  Shame because the more I'm reading, it should've had a bigger impact. The unique lore of the setting alone is pretty cool and involved unlike the more common D&D settings we have

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1121964From the single session I have run, it seems like a great game and I cannot wait to find the right group so I can get more than a session out of it. And running theatre-of-the-mind in a system designed for TotM is just such a simple joy: Why didn't TSR or WotC ever do this? (That's rhetorical, obviously.)

I'm also really looking forward to one day running a 13th Age Glorantha campaign. I think that might do certain parts of the Glorantha experience (the high fantasy parts) much better than RuneQuest ever could (and I have the greatest respect for RQ as a game).

Glorantha is the Critical Role setting right? Ill be honest, I've never seen a single episode, lol. My buddy just got the setting for 5e so I probably should at least check it out. As for the system, aside from the Paladin class - which is kind of just basic - I'm really interested in trying a session. Looks like I may start with just their own siding and then possibly converted to other settings I'm more comfortable running in.

Quote from: Snark Knight;1122704Would it even be possible for 6E to flop? Since it seems, especially post-CR, to be 99% of peoples only exposure to anything resembling a P&P game, it seems most would likely roll over and accept it at best, or else go full cultist and defend their consooooumption to the death. It'd be a lot like Games Workshop products, wherein people don't know any better and have no other metric of experience to judge what does or doesn't make a 'good' game and stick with The Brand no matter what. At least back when 4th came out it seemed like most of the playerbase at least had the awareness other games existed (see: how Pathfinder exploded).

Well it depends on how much buy-in they get from the existing 5e player base, especially the people who only really know 5e. I'm sure they could fuck that up. But it really isn't that hard to make a 6e that people would go for. You just have to:
1. Wait a couple more years. I don't think 6e coming out, say, 12 years after 5e came out would be seen as unreasonable.
2. Keep the changes conservative, mostly tinkering with things that pretty much everyone agrees need tinkering with (Beastmaster ranger, Lucky feat, etc. etc.).
3. Don't put out too many books between now and 6e.
4. Have a fairly permissive SRD so that people don't feel like they have to buy books RIGHT NOW in order to play.
5. Add a few simple bits of new shiny. Maybe add in additional abilities for races that kick in at higher levels. That'd clutter up the game a bit but people want some new shinies. Maybe remove feats entirely to make space for that?

Can't see too many people getting up in arms about that. I personally would prefer bigger changes to 5e than that, but keeping things small would make it easier to swallow.

There could be another big company competitor to a theoretically crappy 6e D&D, but it wouldn't be Pathfinder.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122728There could be another big company competitor to a theoretically crappy 6e D&D, but it wouldn't be Pathfinder.

Kobold Press could do a 5e clone yup.
I don't think a 6e is on the horizon. I think even for 2024 they may just clean up 5e.

For me Ill keep running Barbarians of Lemuria, Basic Role Play and my variant of the black hack for most of my games.

Quote from: Batman;1122722Glorantha is the Critical Role setting right? Ill be honest, I've never seen a single episode, lol. My buddy just got the setting for 5e so I probably should at least check it out. As for the system, aside from the Paladin class - which is kind of just basic - I'm really interested in trying a session. Looks like I may start with just their own siding and then possibly converted to other settings I'm more comfortable running in.

  Greg Stafford is rolling in his grave right about now. :)

  No, Glorantha's the setting associated with Runequest, HeroQuest, and 13th Age Glorantha. I've never gotten into it myself--my tastes run High Medieval Epic Romantic Fantasy, and Glorantha seems to be very much Bronze Age Sword-and-Sorcery Mythic--but it's one of the oldest and most well-developed settings in the hobby.

Quote from: Batman;1122722(snip) Glorantha is the Critical Role setting right? Ill be honest, I've never seen a single episode, lol. My buddy just got the setting for 5e so I probably should at least check it out. As for the system, aside from the Paladin class - which is kind of just basic - I'm really interested in trying a session. Looks like I may start with just their own siding and then possibly converted to other settings I'm more comfortable running in.

Kull wahad! (You have heard of Dune, right? Please say you have.)

Um, no, Glorantha is Greg Stafford's world (he actually first began work on it in 1966, well before RPGs) and it is heavily connected to the Runequest game.

The Critical Role world is Exandria. It has trannies, poofs, and "they" as a singular pronoun so it's awesome.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1122745Greg Stafford is rolling in his grave right about now. :)

No, Glorantha's the setting associated with Runequest, HeroQuest, and 13th Age Glorantha. I've never gotten into it myself--my tastes run High Medieval Epic Romantic Fantasy, and Glorantha seems to be very much Bronze Age Sword-and-Sorcery Mythic--but it's one of the oldest and most well-developed settings in the hobby.

Glorantha also has a high fantasy element (heroquests and godtime) that RQ never handled well but which seems suited to 13th Age Glorantha. (IMO. YMMV. I am not a Glorantha purist.)

Quote from: S'mon;1122734Kobold Press could do a 5e clone yup.
I don't think a 6e is on the horizon. I think even for 2024 they may just clean up 5e.

Kobold Press is a great little company but it is just one man and his freelancers.

Quote from: Snark Knight;1122704Would it even be possible for 6E to flop? Since it seems, especially post-CR, to be 99% of peoples only exposure to anything resembling a P&P game, it seems most would likely roll over and accept it at best, or else go full cultist and defend their consooooumption to the death..... At least back when 4th came out it seemed like most of the playerbase at least had the awareness other games existed (see: how Pathfinder exploded).

Well, in my opinion D&D's 5e growth has not really trickled down to the rest of the hobby for exactly the reasons you state.

And WOTC is perfectly happy for it to remain that way.

In WOTC's defense it's not like any of D&D's erstwhile competitors have had the business savvy to stay around and relevant long enough to matter.

In their defense, D&D has been bailed out of seriously bad decisions by big $$$ no less than three times already.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1122728There could be another big company competitor to a theoretically crappy 6e D&D, but it wouldn't be Pathfinder.

Pozzio was in a very unique position not of their own making for them to do what they did when 4e went off like a fart in a cathedral.

Who is even in a position, with a system that doesn't suck, to even be able to transition to become a Not D&D (*cought* totally D&D *cough*) competitor to 6e like Pozzio was? They're pot invested in PF2 so they're a no go...

WOTC would have to make worse than 4e level mistakes on 6e.

And then someone would still have to get lucky and trap lightning in a bottle, to be noticed from the 6e juggernaut.

Quote from: Scrivener of DoomUm, no, Glorantha is Greg Stafford's world (he actually first began work on it in 1966, well before RPGs) and it is heavily connected to the Runequest game. .

Gorlantha, the setting tie-in that ensured that RQ would never, ever, in any way, be a competitor to D&D.

Quote from: Shasarak;1122761Kobold Press is a great little company but it is just one man and his freelancers.

Plenty to scrape an SRD and do a retro clone - look at all the OSR clones from OSRIC on.

Quote from: S'mon;1122767Plenty to scrape an SRD and do a retro clone - look at all the OSR clones from OSRIC on.

If you want to pick random game companies then why not go for Rob Schwab?  He has plenty of experience at creating and supporting his own RPG: Shadow of the Demon Lord.

Quote from: Snark Knight;1122704... Since it seems, especially post-CR, to be 99% of peoples only exposure to anything resembling a P&P game, it seems most would likely roll over and accept it at best, or else go full cultist and defend their consooooumption to the death. ...

Critical Role has streamed themselves playing a ton of systems, I don't know if they have completely separate "feeds" for that or whatever but I am sure fans see all of it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1122776If you want to pick random game companies then why not go for Rob Schwab?  He has plenty of experience at creating and supporting his own RPG: Shadow of the Demon Lord.

I went with the most active 3rd party publisher for 5e DnD. They do nicr glossy stuff that gets on the FLGS shelves beside the WotC books.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1122745Greg Stafford is rolling in his grave right about now. :)

Apologies for my ignorance :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1122745No, Glorantha's the setting associated with Runequest, HeroQuest, and 13th Age Glorantha. I've never gotten into it myself--my tastes run High Medieval Epic Romantic Fantasy, and Glorantha seems to be very much Bronze Age Sword-and-Sorcery Mythic--but it's one of the oldest and most well-developed settings in the hobby.

Oh, well I still have an almost complete version of the board game HeroQuest - if we're talking about the same game/setting - that we've done during our games nights a few times. Brings back a lot of memories! I didn't know that and Runequest were in the same setting! I'll have to delve more into the setting and the games.

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1122748Kull wahad! (You have heard of Dune, right? Please say you have.)

I have had heard of Dune, but only so far as that I've only seen the 80's movie and little else.

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1122748Um, no, Glorantha is Greg Stafford's world (he actually first began work on it in 1966, well before RPGs) and it is heavily connected to the Runequest game.

The Critical Role world is Exandria. It has trannies, poofs, and "they" as a singular pronoun so it's awesome.

Gotcha! Well Glorantha sounds interesting and I'm looking at pdf/books to get for 13th Age now, lol.

Quote from: Batman;1122819Oh, well I still have an almost complete version of the board game HeroQuest - if we're talking about the same game/setting - that we've done during our games nights a few times. Brings back a lot of memories! I didn't know that and Runequest were in the same setting! I'll have to delve more into the setting and the games.

   I forgot about the board game HeroQuest--no relation. The HeroQuest I was thinking of is what the Pundit would call a storygame. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: happyhermit;1122777Critical Role has streamed themselves playing a ton of systems, I don't know if they have completely separate "feeds" for that or whatever but I am sure fans see all of it.

I forgot about that, because I'm now remembering the day I went to search for Call of Cthulhu-themed content and all of a sudden 99.9% of what I found was, out of nowhere, gifs and memes of Critical Roll's cast in vaguely early 1900 attire, as well as fanart. That being said I don't recall anything else they've played that wasn't Pathfinder in the early days. At the very least, their core fandom doesn't seem to care for anything that's not their main campaign.