| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 03:25:40
|
Let's say you would do like Iron Heroes and other setting and rewrite a PHB/DMG with FR in minds, what D&D 3.x rules would you change to fit more the spirit of the setting?
There are a few ideas…
Alignments like in Heroes of Horror...
Different deities = different clerics..
Called outsiders are banished instead of destroyed..
I would also add more spells/magic items with flaws/hazardous results, because it seems to be a fundamental aspect of Ed's dm style. (and it's a big no-no of D&D 3.x)
Ideas/suggestions are welcome!
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 17 Jun 2006 03:27:11
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 17:20:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I still use Banishment instead of Death on most Outsiders, especially Celestials and Fiends.
After all they are supposed to be "Immortal" instead of "Mortal"
Luckily the new Abyss book, at least for demons, shows that if they die on the other planes outside of the Abyss, they are banished instead of the kill thing and demon lords do the 100 years thing. Note: This only happens if they are physically on those planes but this isn't what happens when they are summoned via summoning.
So basically, they returned it to the 1e and 2e rules. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
 |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 17:42:21
|
A D&Dlike game really tailored to the Realms would be radically different, in rules, emphasis, tone, everything. No feats, prestige classes, easy magic item and portal making, superfast character advancement. Simplified combat rules. Radically expanded magic system.
It would be a great thing, because while gifted and experienced DMs can cut through the suffocating dross to make the rules serve the campaign, it's no obvious thing to many newcomers. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 18:52:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
A D&Dlike game really tailored to the Realms would be radically different, in rules, emphasis, tone, everything. No feats, prestige classes, easy magic item and portal making, superfast character advancement. Simplified combat rules. Radically expanded magic system.
Different rules, emphasis, tone ok.
No Feats, PrC ? You need to argue for those, I really don't see why they are a problem. (If u don't like d20, its another matter).
Gates/Portal were always part of the realms, maybe you want to say that it's currently to easy to make them ?
XP advancement ok, default D&D is too fast.
What do you mean exactly by easy magic items ? Creations feats ?
Simplified combat rules, why? Same thing than for Feats, PrC. My question was how to make a d20 PHB variant, not a new FR RPG.
Radically expanded magic system, in which direction?, what is not currently supported ?
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 17 Jun 2006 18:53:22 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 19:50:58
|
Faraer said *easy item AND portal making*, which basically implies that it is too easy to make both, a point to wich I heartily agree.
As far as PrCs and Feats go...I would compromise on a no NEW feats and PrCs.
The magic system as per 3.5 rules is lacking in areas covered by the original 'vision', take for example the spell-changes made from MoF to PGTFR, the spell sequencers are so whimpy now it doesn't make much sense to use them (the reason for me to continue using the MoF ones)
As for combat, well, I dunno, I really like the miniature approach..ever since my head doesn't ache anymore after DMing a game, there might come a time when I will utilize some of the UA rules for HPs or whatnot.
As for XP-progression, well it's always up to the DM to hand out less...who knows maybe in another 5 years my players' characters will have reached lvl 18 or so...
If someone wants to play the D&D equivalent of Diablo in the Realms, while it ain't my piece of cake, all power to them, maybe they grow up some day |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 20:07:06
|
When I talk about feats/PrC, I don't mean I want a book with new ones. I mean that I don't see why they are not a good mechanic to describe the settings in rules terms.
As for magic ideas, I would say that the Realms need more multi-fonctional unique items with history than generic gloves of Dex +6.
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 17 Jun 2006 20:09:25 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 20:29:29
|
I'm talking a game that would match the roleplaying-over-rules style of Ed's Realms campaigns, that's implicit in all his writing. (The fact that this matches my own preferences is part of why I like the Realms.)quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
No Feats, PrC ? You need to argue for those, I really don't see why they are a problem. (If u don't like d20, its another matter).
Current D&D uses fiddly rules bits like feats and prestige classes for stuff that's the domain of DMs. Most of them are gratuitous rules for rules' sake in that they don't represent anything the rules couldn't handle without them. They're also part of a philosophy of acquisition that doesn't match the Realms' cooperative ideals. And every page of this stuff is one fewer page of background.quote:
Gates/Portal were always part of the realms, maybe you want to say that it's currently to easy to make them ?
I did.quote:
Simplified combat rules, why? Same thing than for Feats, PrC. My question was how to make a d20 PHB variant, not a new FR RPG.
The 3E combat system is a complicated, inflated mini-wargame that micromanages tasks that are the domain, from the above point of view, of the DM. The Realms isn't about violent conflict above all else such that fighting needs such fetishistic close attention. These changes are well within the traditional envelope of D&D.quote:
Radically expanded magic system, in which direction?, what is not currently supported ?
I could write an essay on that. Greater depth and variation of learning, creating and casting existing spells, variant magic types, many new common spells including non-adventuring ones, and much more (including some of the content in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical and Magic of Faerûn).quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
If someone wants to play the D&D equivalent of Diablo in the Realms, while it ain't my piece of cake, all power to them, maybe they grow up some day
Sure, but don't instruct them to do it in the book! One of the worst lies RPG books inculcate is the idea that the Diablo stuff is *easier* than the roleplaying. Things framed as difficult become difficult and early attitudes are hard to shift. |
Edited by - Faraer on 17 Jun 2006 20:39:08 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 21:14:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I'm talking a game that would match the roleplaying-over-rules style of Ed's Realms campaigns, that's implicit in all his writing. (The fact that this matches my own preferences is part of why I like the Realms.)
That it what I would like to aim to, but I think that it could be done (not perfectly) under the d20 design principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Current D&D uses fiddly rules bits like feats and prestige classes for stuff that's the domain of DMs. Most of them are gratuitous rules for rules' sake in that they don't represent anything the rules couldn't handle without them. They're also part of a philosophy of acquisition that doesn't match the Realms' cooperative ideals. And every page of this stuff is one fewer page of background.
What I like about these detailled rules of D&D3.x is that it provide a very usefull guide to the DM. The problem is that they are rules, so not following them means that rules lawyers are whining.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 3E combat system is a complicated, inflated mini-wargame that micromanages tasks that are the domain, from the above point of view, of the DM. The Realms isn't about violent conflict above all else such that fighting needs such fetishistic close attention. These changes are well within the traditional envelope of D&D.
The fact that the rules support micromanaged combat doesn't mean that every encounter should be handled wich such details. I think a good DM can deal with this.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I could write an essay on that. Greater depth and variation of learning, creating and casting existing spells, variant magic types, many new common spells including non-adventuring ones, and much more (including some of the content in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical and Magic of Faerûn).
D&D 3.x various accessories already support many variant magic types, I see no fundamental problem here.
Adding non-adventuring spells could be very interesting of course, like detailled religous rituals, and many others things hidden in Ed's basement  |
Edited by - Skeptic on 17 Jun 2006 21:14:50 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 21:20:06
|
Again I agree Faraer, that's why I on the rare occassions it is needed (since I only got one hack'n'slayer in my group) revert to the what-you-say-your-char-says method...very rarely...although it brought the entire party very close to death when the player hollered out something and I thought it prudent to apply the rule there...and down came the mountain...
To un-learn hack'n'slay is always difficult, the rules only hand out mechanics, tools if you like...they don't go one way or another. In an optimal setting a new role-player would be introduced to the game by people who have ROLE-played a long time and know there is something beyond hacking monsters and clearing out dungeons.
Most of the *dungeon-is-the-perfect/controllable-environment-things* in the DMG are for those who just came to the game, and I really cannot imagine guys my age still playing hck'n'slay...
Regarding combat: yes, it takes longer, BUT it prevents arguments:
Player/Wizard(pre minis): I throw a fireball at the (insert monsters)
Me/DM to two other players: Please make a saving throw
Player/Wizard: WHAT? They are there as well?
Me: Of course...they have engaged them in melee...
Player: OK, I am not throwing the fireball...
Now I don't have to deal with this sort of stuff anymore, battles last longer, but I can do fewer of them and still have no headache...plus my players LOVE it!
And although I agree with the Realms isn't all about conflict statement, if you look at most novels you got combat by the trainload |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 23:35:28
|
A problem with feats is that since different classes get different numbers, they're hardwired into the game and can't be ignored or downplayed the way some rules can.
The other thing is, this book should be short. For most people, 8 pages of boardgame rules are intimidating -- many potential players wouldn't consider reading 300. 64 pages of rules and 64 of background would be enough. Since players don't need to know all the rules (see Dragon #49), one approach would be to put most of them in the DMG, as in 1st edition. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 00:06:56
|
I like the different-classes-different number of feats thing, a fighter without feats became kinda obsolete at higher levels in ye olde AD&D, in 3.x the fighter has a role and he keeps this role
As for more rules in the DMG...hell, I still struggle with all the environmental junk in the DMG, let the players know the mechanics of skills, combat etc. it makes the DM's job so much easier to the point that he can enjoy the game as well |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 02:04:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
I still use Banishment instead of Death on most Outsiders, especially Celestials and Fiends.
After all they are supposed to be "Immortal" instead of "Mortal"
I was going to point out that in the Malhavoc book Anger of Angels by Sean K Reynolds, there are feats that outsiders can take that allow them to form a "vessel." If they are destroyed and they have a vessel, then they reform in the vessel. But hey, I like the way the Fiendish Codex is headed, so its all good.
Also in Anger of Angels is an optional rule that says that if a servant of a god that is in their godly realm for some reason gets called to the material plane, and their physical form is destroyed, they are reformed on their god's plane, since they are bound there as "rewarded" servants of their god.
Just thought I'd throw those in, as they were some interesting ideas. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 14:49:19
|
I must admit that my knowledge of D20 is somewhat lacking, but I really don't think the system is right for the realms.I have many problems with the old Ad&d system and I do believe that to present the realms "right" one would need an other rules system. There is something about the "mechanicalness" of all d&d versions that bother me and (in my opinion) the Realms would fit better with a smoother system.
The old Ad&d systems had their weaknesses to, especially were it came to the rigidity of the classes and abilities, but there is something about the new d&d system that doesnt sit right by me. I cant help but feel that the official realms are drifting further and further from the original, mainly because of the rules.
I find it difficult to find explain myself clearly on this, so I am sorry if it seems as if i am rambling. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 16:07:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I must admit that my knowledge of D20 is somewhat lacking, but I really don't think the system is right for the realms.I have many problems with the old Ad&d system and I do believe that to present the realms "right" one would need an other rules system. There is something about the "mechanicalness" of all d&d versions that bother me and (in my opinion) the Realms would fit better with a smoother system.
The old Ad&d systems had their weaknesses to, especially were it came to the rigidity of the classes and abilities, but there is something about the new d&d system that doesnt sit right by me. I cant help but feel that the official realms are drifting further and further from the original, mainly because of the rules.
I find it difficult to find explain myself clearly on this, so I am sorry if it seems as if i am rambling.
I get that feeling all the time, so your not alone. :) And you said basically what bothers me a lot about the current sourcebooks and the third and third.five editions. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 18 Jun 2006 17:45:06 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2006 : 16:18:31
|
I have tried using other systems like GURPS and an old 80's Swedish system called Drakar 0ch Demoner, both to get away from classes, xp's and levels, and I must say that in some ways I think the results are good, if you have players that trust your more or less improvised rulings at times.
I have a dream of one day seeing a gigantic tome called The Realms of Ed Greenwood, with just information on the world as Ed sees it himself and written without thought for system or rules. Well, as I said, it is a nice dream. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 01:49:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I have a dream of one day seeing a gigantic tome called The Realms of Ed Greenwood, with just information on the world as Ed sees it himself and written without thought for system or rules. Well, as I said, it is a nice dream.
Well, I feel we get a little of that each time Ed shifts from the "canon" Realmslore he shares here and tells us how things are in *his* Realms campaign.
It's these insights that I truly appreciate from Ed the most because it always gives me a little buzz each time I learn about what Ed has done in his own campaign.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 07:23:16
|
I agree, but at the same time it only leaves me wanting more. I want to see each country in its pre-published state, notes on each race and monsters place in the ecology and culture. Ed's answers are the most useful source of the Realms we have, but just imagine a 500 page book with very small writing that just shows us the realms as a geographical and cultural whole.
One gets teary at the thought even.
|
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 07:42:33
|
| Id dump the Sorcerer class and replace it with a spontanous spell caster that revolves around Shadow magic ie a 20 level Shadow weave spellcaster class like the War Mage/True Necromancer/Beguiler |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 08:27:34
|
In a perfect world of roleplaying, I would love to see the Realms incarnated as a (mostly) Free Form RPG. Just a few pages of general class ideas.
Maybe give the DM a character history and what you want your character to be "like." And then the DM would respond with whatever restrictions he feels are needed for the kind of game that the group mutually decides to run, and voila.
I've been in several online games in which this approach has worked just fine. But the problem is, only advanced roleplayers could really get a hang of it properly.
Majorly abbreviated example:
I want to play a genasi descendent of the Efreeti Lords of Calimshan. After being banished from a foster home when my eyes suddenly turned red, and living on the streets for the first 8 years of life, my character studied at the Academy of the Eldritch Flame for the majority of his mature life. His long-term goal is to ultimately unbind Memnon from his prison, for he feels that only then will his kind be truly given the place that they deserve. He is zealous, passionate, and appreciates above all else the innately mutable power of fire itself. He is a romantic and artistic spirit, but perhaps a bit misguided in his ultimate goal, for he does not yet know the true havoc it could cause to his homeland or those who he has learned to consider his companions. One of his greatest passions is channeling his innate fiery powers and personal zeal into spontaneous, undulating dance, and he enjoys the crafts of metallurgy that involve melting via heat.
And then the DM might respond, upon initial character creation, with something along the lines of, "While you have not yet mastered the mysteries of the ancient fire magic of your forebears, your natural talent and passion for study have proven you an apt pupil in the arts of fire for one of your age - although you've notably neglected study in other areas of the Art. You have a long path ahead of you, but you've found the best starting point."
This would translate in "mechanical" terms to a low-mid level Fire Elementalist Fire Genasi (I'd say around 3rd-5th); that's all one really needs to know. And if one is a good roleplayer, then one won't need rules to get an idea of how often said character could throw fireballs, or whether or not he could truly comprehend a cryoball variant; and he wouldn't be surprised when a more powerful mage seemingly canceled out his magic missile as if it was nothing, with no dice roll needed.
Does the above make sense to anyone else but me? |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 19 Jun 2006 08:35:56 |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 08:30:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I have a dream of one day seeing a gigantic tome called The Realms of Ed Greenwood, with just information on the world as Ed sees it himself and written without thought for system or rules. Well, as I said, it is a nice dream.
I think there is something like this....they are called 'novels' 
Seriously though... I think that for many people it comes down to two schools of thought. Does D&D serve the Realms or does the Realms serve D&D?
Some people want to be free from the constraining (and at times conflicting) natures that rulesets like D&D place upon people.
Others want to know exactly how & why this or that can or cannot be done.
(Is it law  vs. chaos  ?)
IF you look at many of the popular characters of FR
Elminster
Drizzt
Elaith
The Chosen
Alias
Dragonbait
It is interesting to note that they ALL have broken established notions of D&D for their time. (Good Drow, Evil Elves, golems and half golems, Lizard Paladins, etc) One might even argue that their popularity is in fact due (in part) to that breaking of the D&D mold established by the rules.
But when this goes back to the game...players say "Hey, why can't I do that???" (play a good drow, play a spellfire wielder, etc) So then the rules reshape to allow such...and so the cycle goes.
It is in fact this very effect that seems to have been the initial motivations for the supposedly low powered design of Eberron...(e.g. lowering the levels of key NPCS in the realm, removing the Gods from the picture in terms of direct involvement, but who knows how long it will last...because they lost that feeling in DDO already as well as some of the more recent Sourcebooks)
I am a bit jealous of those who have actually had a chance to see or play a session of Master Greenwood's. I am sure it would be an experience to remember. (*turning green with envy) I guess the closest I can come is playing DDO and hearing Gary Gygax's voice narrating a module ha ha  |
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
Edited by - Chyron on 19 Jun 2006 08:32:26 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 12:14:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
I think there is something like this....they are called 'novels'
No there is nothing like this; a novel is a story, I am talking about a combination of "scientific" approach and travel guide.
Novels are OK to show facets and small components of the Realms, but the kind of novels needed to reality show us Toril are not going to be written, as it would be a radical change from what Wizards approach is. And their argument is a good one. It would not sell.
As to the question of who serves who; I think it is a bad idea to build a world on the ideas of a game. The game should be built around the world or else it becomes artificial by its very nature. Your npc example shows some of my point. None of these characters really work when you put them in to hard and inflexible rules that in the end do them an injustice. You could publish rules for their uniqueness, and at the same sword-stroke ruin the same by making it common and removing the mystery.
As we both agree, one gamers dream is another gamers nightmare. |
Edited by - Jorkens on 19 Jun 2006 19:02:53 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 17:44:54
|
Gothic,
Nope, makes sense to me and at times that's how I run my email and table top games but with 3/3.5e it seems that it's become harder and harder to do because a lot of players now feel a need/desire for "balance" and so its become harder to give one PC something that might overpower them for a little bit until the DM can balance the other members of the party. This wasn't so hard to do in the old rules because some of the core classes were more powerful then others or they had restrictions etc.
Luckily I try to run a rules lite game because 3/3.5e massive amount of rules really make my eyes bleed. :)
And before anyone jumps down my throat this is just my opionion and experience running 3/3.5e games since 2000. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 18:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Gothic,
Luckily I try to run a rules lite game because 3/3.5e massive amount of rules really make my eyes bleed. :)
Kuje, I feel your pain....
I seem to recall that at one time 2nd edition was released to make 1st edition more streamlined and coherent....then the next thing I know there are several thousand supplemental books for every class and race imaginable....
Then it seemed the rally cry for 3rd ed. was to once again simplify and streamline....but now when I look at the list of releases (just for supplemental core books) I am just dumbstruck....because everyone of those has some crunch going on that I don't know about....and for the most part am probably better off without them...and the question rapping on the inside of my skull.... when are they gonna hit us with 4th ed. ???
edited for grammar |
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
Edited by - Chyron on 20 Jun 2006 01:43:17 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 19:39:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Kuje, I feel your pain....
I seem to recall that at one time 2nd edition was released to make 1st edition more streamlined and coherent....then the next thing I know there are several thousand supplemental books for every class and race imaginable....
Then it seemed the rally cry for 3rd ed. was to once again simplify and streamline....but now when I look at the list of releases (just for supplemental core books) I am just dumbstruck....because everyone of those has some crunch going on that I don't know about....and for the most part am probably better off without...and the question rapping on the inside of my skull.... when are the gonna hit is with 4th ed. ???
I don't know on the 4th edition question. :)
However, I was only half awake when I wrote my above reply and so I forgot to include that I meant that in relation to just the core books. 3/3.5e's core sourcebooks contain way to many rules for me to ever read or to understand and I prefer a game that doesn't make my head ache trying to understand them. Yes, I know people had issues with THAC0 but I never did and I taught a few new RPer's using 2e and they never had a problem with it either, yet those same RPer's struggle, like I do, with the 3/3.5e rules, especially for combat.
Gods, the new combat rules.... argh. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2006 : 23:10:43
|
The problem with free-form IMO is that many players cannot be bothered with reading even just a few dozen pages of background for the characters they have now...how should it work with free-form?
If any 5 of us people would get together to play things would be different, but remember, we are the minority... unfortunately |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mazrim_Taim
Learned Scribe
341 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 01:52:45
|
I agree that the rules for this new edition are a little too much. I felt I could get a lot more creative, as a DM and as a player, with 2nd edition (or my hybrid version of it, it was open ended to start with).
But, I have no idea how to begin to break down 3rd edition into a more simplier form. But I still don't know half the rules. =/ |
And if the PCs DO win their ways through all the liches to Larloch, “he” will almost certainly be just another lich (loaded with explosive spells) set up as a decoy, with dozens of hidden liches waiting to pounce on any surviving PCs who ‘celebrate’ after they take Larloch down. As the REAL Larloch watches (magical scrying) from afar. Myself, as DM, I’d be wondering: “Such a glorious game, so many opportunities laid out before your PCs to devote your time to, and THIS fixation is the best you can come up with? Are you SURE you’re adventurers?” -Ed Greenwood
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 02:10:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Gothic,
Nope, makes sense to me and at times that's how I run my email and table top games but with 3/3.5e it seems that it's become harder and harder to do because a lot of players now feel a need/desire for "balance" and so its become harder to give one PC something that might overpower them for a little bit until the DM can balance the other members of the party. This wasn't so hard to do in the old rules because some of the core classes were more powerful then others or they had restrictions etc.
Luckily I try to run a rules lite game because 3/3.5e massive amount of rules really make my eyes bleed. :)
And before anyone jumps down my throat this is just my opionion and experience running 3/3.5e games since 2000.
I was going to say basically the same thing... but Kuje nailed my own feelings on this completely.
Consider it echoed! 
-- It's a practice that comes, mostly, from my earlier days of DMing long-running PS campaigns that would almost entirely be "rules-lite". It's a practice I enjoyed with PS, not so much with 2e FR -- though I always tried to limit the impact of those rules as well... but when 3e came along and the need for new rules and mechanics arose... I started to bring the same campaign mentality I used for my PS games to my 3e FR campaign table. So now, as its been since I ran my first 3e FR campaign in 2001, FR -- "rules-lite" and "roleplaying-heavy".
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 20 Jun 2006 02:22:24 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 03:03:34
|
| I'm glad that I'm not the only pansy who tosses rules out the window entirely. ;) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 07:23:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The problem with free-form IMO is that many players cannot be bothered with reading even just a few dozen pages of background for the characters they have now...how should it work with free-form?
Well, as with any game all must be motivated to play the game at hand. If some players (or the DM for that matter)are not motivated to a free form game it will not work any more than a 3ed game where half the players want a free form game.
I dont realy see the Realms as systembound and any group working together can change to one that fits them better than 2ed or 3ed with a little work and good knowledge of the system they will use. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 08:02:15
|
It's not system bound.. It just so happens that earlier editions, which were built around enforcing/encouraging totally different mindets of roleplay, sadly are not conducive in promoting the kind of roleplay that supports Faerun.
And yes.. Ed Greenwood himself thinks that 3E's mechanical design is not conducive to Faerun (though I'm sure he'd say the same about 2E - but in his words, he seems to have preferred it to the 3E design, which is probably why his own group doesn't play by 3E rules). |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
PHB variant for FR
