Does size matter?

My wife says "yes" and that I am doing fine.  But, that's not what I'm talking about here.

What I am talking about is Role-Playing Games (well, there went a few of my readers).  I am currently writing my second RPG.  It's actually one that has been in the making for longer than Age of the Sword.  Life of Rage is a simple RPG where the player characters are Orcs in a typical Tolkienesque (or more accurately, a WarCraft-esque) setting.  And mainly because I am doing it alone, it promises to be another slim offering, page count-wise.  So this question naturally comes to mind.

Perusing the RPG shelf in any book store or game store, you can see that professionally manufactured games tend to be thick, hardbound, and chock full of fluff and artwork.  But even though that seems to be the industry standard (even most indie RPG's follow this model), is it really necessary?  I mean, can an RPG be pretty bare-bones, and still be fully functional and fun to play? 

I'd like to think so.  Especially since, at near completion (minus artwork and a lot of background for the setting) LoR is only weighing in at 27 pages right now.  I estimate that when all is said and done, the whole thing won't be much more than 50 pages, if that.  Obviously, I could format it to take up more than that, but I probably won't.  Unless it gains some kind of cult following.

Conversely, how much is too little?  LoR is slim, mainly because I put the mechanics up front, and have very little fluff and flavor-text.  I could go the White Wolf route and put short fiction throughout the book.  But what value does that really add, other than just pure entertainment? 

I'm also leaving out a lot of the "crap" that I personally don't find very useful in other RPG's.  Things like rules for movement, encumbrance, lighting, etc.  Instead, I am replacing all of that with what I call "The Rule of Common Sense."  And finally, combat is streamlined, simple and fast (and brutal).  Not a lot of extra fluff needs to be added there either.

So, as table-top gamers, are you turned off by slim game books?  Are we, as a consumer group, conditioned to view bigger as better when we are shopping for a new book?

D&D Tom Edition – Part 1: The Foundation

So, I had this great idea. In light of WotC’s announcement of 5E, I thought it would be cool to make my own Edition of D&D. This would be the equivalent of forming a mercenary company for the Edition War.

What I am proposing is to take all of the bits I like from all of the previous editions (there are even a couple of things I like in 4E), and see if I can make them all mesh smoothly into one system. Personally, I think it’s doable. All of the various editions have a few elements in common. These I consider the foundation:

Six Attributes – Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. These have never changed. In a variation of 2E there were optional modifications, but the basic attributes stayed the same. So, they will in mine as well. I will probably also add Comeliness from Unearthed Arcana.

Hit Points – This is the one point that seems to get a lot of flack from non-D&D fans. The idea that you can fight at full strength until you hit 0 HP. True, it defies logic, and I may integrate wound rules, but the basic premise of having Hit Points is a good mechanic, so it stays.

Armor Class – There have basically been two variations on this, with various third-party alterations. Either higher is better, or lower is better. I will probably go with Higher for simplicity, but either way, AC stays.

Classes – I have always liked classes, and each edition seems to have a different explanation for their use. Personally, I like 3E’s version, wherein “classes” are not the same as “professions.” Rather they are classifications for a specific set of skills, abilities, etc. So, a level in Fighter doesn’t necessarily mean you have been trained to be a professional soldier. It just means that you have learned to use a set of skills (wielding weapons, wearing armor, etc.) that are typically associated with the Fighter “class.” It’s up to you to determine how you got them.

Levels – Related to Classes are Levels. In the 1E PHB, there is an extensive explanation for the use of the term. Basically, “level” is a way to level the playing field, so to speak. It’s a way to measure one’s ability against the ability of others, including monsters and foes. Also, in 1E character levels had a title associated with them. For the most part, this was just flavor text. But in the case of Clerics, for instance, those titles could be used as Ranks within an organization. This was how I always justified level-limits for non-human characters (though I think in some cases, they were set too low). After all, how many churches would allow a half-orc to gain much power and influence within their hierarchy?

Half-Orcs – 4E lost major cool points with me when they dissed my beloved half-orcs in the Player’s Handbook. True, they included them in the PHB2, but that meant I had to buy a whole other book just to play one. But, all kidding aside, there are basic races that should always be available: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Gnomes. Everything else is optional.

As you can probably surmise, these foundation concepts will lead into some decisions about other rules (such as multi-classing, Advanced/Prestige classes). I will admit that much of my Edition will draw heavily from 3E (or more accurately, 3.5), as that is my favorite edition, all nostalgia aside. But, if I could compile all of this into an actual RPG format, it would definitely have a more old-school feel. B&W illustrations, tables, etc.

I basically have my ideas for this already in place. But, I’m interested in hearing others’ opinions as well.  Have I forgotten or overlooked something you think is essential?

D&D 5E...?

Today Wizards of the Coast announced that it is developing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (technically this will be #7, but who’s counting?). This may cause many people to roll their eyes and wonder “Again?” To that I say “Yes!” And here’s why...

First of all, it’s not like this kind of thing is new. How many editions of GURPS are there? HERO System? Shadowrun? Tabletop RPG’s are supposed to be evolving, ever-changing. Otherwise, we’d all still be using Dave and Gary’s original rules.

Second of all, 4th Edition sucks. Let me just say that right up front. Your mileage may vary, but this is my blog, so I say it sucks. And when I say it sucks, I mean that it just isn’t D&D anymore. It’s an MMO on paper. 4E tries too hard to emulate the button-mashing strategies of MMOs and video games, and leaves behind the nuanced playing and social interactions that D&D pioneered. In short, with 4E they left the D&D track, and now they need to get back…er…on track.

That being said, it’s still a fun game. The problem I had with it the few times I played was that I got easily confused about what my character could do, and when he could do it. So much so, that I found myself concentrating on that, rather than enjoying the story. Maybe I should say it sucks “for me.”

So, what would make a “perfect” edition of D&D? Well, in my opinion (shut up, it’s my blog, I said!) they already did that with 3.5. 3E was innovative in that it created a game that works, no matter how many or how few of the rules you use. At it’s core, using a very few rules can garner a very enjoyable game. But, it also provided tons of rules to make the game as crunchy or as smooth as you like. In short, if people were willing to open their minds to the possibilities presented in 3.5, and get rid of the notion of “If it’s in the rulebook, you have to use it,” it could be ANY game they wanted it to be.

Can WotC do that again, and do it better? Probably. Based on their announcement, they are relying heavily on massive playtest feedback. This will no doubt inundate them with varying ideas. But, I can see that the most popular ones will get some good treatment. And as long as they keep the game itself flexible, the rest can work as well.

One of my all-time favorite
D&D illustrations.  Inspired me on
many levels as a 12-year old boy.

For me, personally, what I would like to see is some scaling back on the presentation. Rules are rules, and with a little adjustment, I can handle most of them. But, something about the recent books (even as far back as the 3.0 books) seems overblown to me. Maybe it’s the full-color art inside. Call me nostalgic, but there was something very charming and inspirational about the B&W illustrations in the old books. Also, I rather prefer the Medieval Europe look and feel of the equipment being depicted. I can see going kind of “alien” with the demi-human races, but for the most part, I like the pseudo-realistic portrayals in older editions.

I think I still have a copy.

Also: Pricing. D&D has a long tradition of requiring the Big Three core rulebooks; Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual. With those three books alone, infinite games are possible. The downside is, with production costs being so high (see my comments on art), these books run about $40 each. That’s $120 just to get the basics! Maybe they can provide variations of the game. A “cheap” version, similar to the old red book that had just about everything you needed in about a hundred soft-bound pages. That would be cool, I think.

However, as a business in it to make money, these may not be valid considerations.

In short, I want a flexible game that allows me to be as detailed or flowing as possible. One that caters to as many different play styles as possible. And most importantly, one that allows for improvised rules on the fly. That right there is, from a rules standpoint, the one issue that separates Tabletop from Computer. If my character wants to improvise by throwing his shield, he should be able to do that without much fuss, and with a reasonable chance for success. Can’t do that at all in WoW.

I wish them luck, and I will no doubt buy at least the core books when it comes out. If for no other reason than to have the right to bitch about and bash them.