| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 14:06:45
|
What might a roleplaying game custom-designed for the Realms look like? What kind of rules? How would it present and organize itself? Summarize and introduce the world? What should it leave out, bring in, refocus on? Which D&Disms have been naturalized into the setting, and which aren't really in tune with it? What kind of art, layout and physical format? To avoid edition-wrangling, let's consider different approaches on their own merits.
1. A game based on how Ed's campaign works, and how he crafts rules as in the 1990s sourcebooks, most similar to AD&D 2nd edition, but following the roleplaying-over-rules style described in Ed's early Dragon articles ("Players don't need to know all the rules", etc.) and elsewhere. (A big reason there isn't yet a 2E simulacrum game/retro-clone is that that edition didn't have a strong or rigid core ethos, but different implementations based on settings, the PHBR/DMGR series or Player's/DM's Option.)
2. Similar ethos to that, but with mechanics designed from scratch to represent the Realms. Perhaps with influence from indie RPGs of the last decade or two.
3. A Realms-customized 3E/Pathfinder, heavier on rules than 1 and 2 (with feats, for instance).
And any other approaches you'd like.
One of the big gaps between the Realms and any version of D&D is its magic, which is somewhat different and much more complex. Some aspects have been covered in scattered lore, others just hinted at, for various reasons. I'd personally prefer not to micromanage that complexity in rules, but on the other hand one can also imagine a whole magical subgame.
|
Edited by - Faraer on 19 Jul 2010 15:42:52
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 14:53:33
|
I'd like to offer a fourth option, one based on two things: 1) My own preference in gaming, which is heavily story-based, and 2) My own friendship with Ed and suppositions on what sort of game he would enjoy best:
4. A game heavily moderated and guided by role-playing and story with very low levels of mechanics--either simplified or completely absent, so that combat more resembles role-playing encounters.
Dice either don't see use in the game at all, or are reduced to simple opposed checks to determine the outcome when opposing desires come up. (In a sense, it's a game entirely based on skill challenges and role-playing.)
Like a utopia, this ideal is probably not feasible, but it's something to consider.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 15:34:59
|
Oh, this is a difficult one, there is of course the problem of the various views of the Realms. I am not all that good at looking objectively at things and the Realms to me is far from the official. There is also the problem of not knowing how Ed's Realms actually played. The best choice would of course be a system completely designed after Ed's ideas.
That being said, here's loose thoughts. I would not go for the third option as I think a level and class based system is wrong for the Realms. The Realms has been fitted to the AD&D system and although I like the TSR games the Realms were always struggling against the limits of that system.
The Vancian magic works, it has been there from the first Dragon articles and a version should be included, but there are so many other forms of magic hinted at that is not easily explained by that system. There should be some way of including many different forms of magic. If the idea of the weave as it is in the official sources is included, then magic should probably be in some way based on the drawing of power from this by various methods.
A logical choice for me is something more or less like Chaosiums Basic Roleplaying. I like rolling dice, so I would not go for a diceless storytelling alternative. Skill based, but easily simplified. Races, classes and species easily made into playable characters and a universal skill and ability system that can be the basis for every action. Some magic can be drawn directly from psyche, some from the texts and some directly from the surroundings. Skill improvements tied to use.
Art? I prefer simple black and white art. Stephen Fabian would be a good choice in my opinion, he can do better than he did in most TSR products and could set a good mood for the setting. Small text, and much writing. Far less illustrations than WotC uses. White paper with black letters and no fancy borders.
Layout. Probably one basic book. There is always the question of whether it is best to include to much setting flavour in the rules itself. It might help the reader to get a feel of the world, but it can also serve to make the rules unclear. I would probably give priority to the clarity of the rules. Not more than about forty pages I think. Then a part about the Realms and the rules, maybe a hundred pages of monsters, spells and character examples. A hundred page overview of the Realms would finish the book. Two hundred and forty pages would make for a big book, but it could be done.
Would it sell? I have no idea, probably not enough, but it is a version I think could work and that I would like. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 16:33:29
|
Like pathfinder, start with 3e as its base. However, have spells at each level, and have 30 levels (I think Monte Cook did something like that). If we really wanted to re-invent the wheel, a path-based magic system (spell pre-requisites for nearly every spell). A sliding-scale point-based system, so Mages can cast more lower level spells as they attain higher levels (something shown in novels, but a feel that could never be captured by the 'limited number' system represented by the standard rules). Have the new spell-point stat be something like 'Inner Fortitude' (Willpower?).
PrCs for each priest/Druid class
Use 'Kits' from 2nd edition (I still do), rather then regional feats, or perhaps have the feat come with a certain kit.
Skill system similar to Runequest's, but figure-in a way to avoid abuses (PCs doing a certain task in-game for no apparent purpose, simply to be able to have a chance of increasing the skill at the end of the session). Skills should be independent of level, otherwise you get the weirdness of 18 year old PCs being better at armor-crafting then a 45 year old blacksmith who's been doing it his whole life.
Magic system similar to Dark Sun's, wherein non-Weave users do damage to the environment. Use of 'Taint' rules, for non-Weave casters. Turn Sorcerors into Elementalists, have them be 'from the south', and bring back 'southern magic'.
A 'random powers table' - something akin to what they had in the Red Steel campaign ('legacies'), that could show-up from time-to-time. I would think a random D100 roll, with a chance of success = to character level, made at each level. Also add-in some psionic 'wild talents' for that table, which could include physical changes (but nothing really weird, like growing an extra arm).
Artwork should serve a purpose - to illustrate something that is hard to fully describe (like a magic item, weapon, strange locale, etc). No art just for the sake of eating page-counts. That's a lazy approach - FR is all about the LORE.
Put stuff not everyone's going to care about in a WE! You know, like those 13 pages of Lineages in the GHotR. I know others liked them, so I won't complain, but stuff like that, that is of little actual use, should always be put in Web Enhancements - the sourcebooks should just be nearly all usable fluff (like the old Gray Box).
Hmmmm... we need a new term, me thinks; crunchy fluff? 
That would describe Ed's style of delivering adventure hooks in a story-like fashion (think Volo's Guides). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jul 2010 17:02:13 |
|
|
|
Knight of the Gate
Senior Scribe
USA
624 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 16:53:36
|
| Insofar as existing RPG rules systems go, I've toyed with the idea of using White Wolf rules for running the Realms. As a non-leveled, skill-based system with a broad interpretation of powers and abilities, I think that it might fit all the criteria. The workload of creating 10 tiered 'powers' that are suitably Realmsian is what has kept me from doing so already. |
How can life be so bountiful, providing such sublime rewards for mediocrity? -Umberto Ecco |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 16:57:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Skills should be independent of level, otherwise you get the weirdness of 18 year old PCs being better at armor-crafting then a 45 year old blacksmith who's been doing it his whole life.
That always seemed a fault in the D20 system, though I think the 'Expert' NPC class from the DMG exist to compensate that. So you could have an Expert (blacksmith) level who knows nothing but his craft, but is damned good at it. Still, it doesn't solve the problem of that 18 years-old fighter level 10 with maxed craft skill who do nothing but swing his sword all day... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 17:10:35
|
Rather then the expert NPC class, which further complicates an already rules-heavy system with more work for a DM - work that will be almost entirely in vain for a character that may never see more then 30 seconds of game time - I developed a very easy system that I use.
For every 5 years of life someone has, they get 1 level's worth of skill points. However, once a character gains a PC level in any class, they no longer get this benefit. Assume max Skill points allowed (still using 5yrs = 1Lev) in the NPC's primary trade. that also gives a bit more Skill points up-front for PCs, and a DM should only allow them to choose skills at the start that they would have had based on their profession (remember, in medieval times, children began their apprenticeships rather young). This goes right back to my suggestion of using 2e's Kits.
If you wanted to complicate this with realism, you could also deduct points from an unused skill every 5yrs, to simulate a PC 'getting rusty' at a trade he hasn't touched in years. I wouldn't bother though - there is a point where rules simulation breaches the 'law of diminishing returns' - it is just a game for people to have fun with, after all. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 Jul 2010 17:13:56 |
|
|
|
Kaz
Acolyte
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2010 : 19:30:16
|
Greetings! I found this site and forum while doing research for a project very similar to the heart of this discussion.
I'm converting the first edition Forgotten Realms (using 2nd and 3rd edition information to flesh things out) using the Epic RPG. (Information about that game system can be found here: http://www.epicrpg.com/)
It's class and level free, based on skills instead. In place of classes, the game uses Occupations, or guilds, to give characters their skills and masteries (a mastery is essentially a feat). At any rate, while looking for a setting for this game system, I realized/remembered that a lot of Forgotten Realms is organization-based. So, I went to work using prestige classes, kits, replacement levels, Gold and Glory, Cloak and Dagger, and wherever else I can draw inspiration from to create a pretty long list of guilds, occupations and organizations for the players to choose from.
It's coming together really nicely. EPIC is a little deadly, and a bit low magic, which might not line up neatly with the spirit of the Realms (especially later novels). I plan to offset this a bit by including quite a few magical weapons. The magic system in EPIC includes Mentalism (which can be used for psionics), Shen (for monks and clerics), Metaphyics (for gnome and dwarf artificers), Philtrology (a herb/plant-based magic for druids) and Alchemy and Theurgy for everyone else.
I'm still hip deep in the conversion (I have to figure out how to get my Faerunian monsters into EPIC) but I feel like it's coming along well, and will ultimately feel a bit more "right" than D&D. That remains to be seen, though, at least until I can get all of this to the gaming table and watch the dice bounce off of it. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 15:38:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I'd like to offer a fourth option, one based on two things: 1) My own preference in gaming, which is heavily story-based, and 2) My own friendship with Ed and suppositions on what sort of game he would enjoy best:
4. A game heavily moderated and guided by role-playing and story with very low levels of mechanics--either simplified or completely absent, so that combat more resembles role-playing encounters.
Dice either don't see use in the game at all, or are reduced to simple opposed checks to determine the outcome when opposing desires come up. (In a sense, it's a game entirely based on skill challenges and role-playing.)
That's the kind of thing I have in mind under 2. I really like Robin Laws's HeroQuest, for instance, with its focus on words (character abilities can be called anything, not just chosen from a list) over numbers, and the same simple mechanic for combat and other challenges. Part of game design is deciding in some coherent way what the rules are for, and what their relationship is to the players, the game world, the unfolding story and everything else. In both Ed's preference and mine, they're very clearly a recourse for the DM rather than the central focus or basis of play. (Which is not, I wish I didn't have to clarify, to say you can't also roleplay well in the Realms in a more gameist way.)
Here's one thought underlying this for me: I feel that those early Dragon articles, while some are quite widely appreciated by the more historically aware parts of the D&D community, are an undervalued part of the Realms. The Old Grey Box can very usefully be seen as the realization or exemplification of the principles Ed discussed explicitly (for instance in his piece on pantheon creation) and implicitly (in his presentation of magic items and spells). You don't need to read the articles or follow their advice to use any version of the Realms, but if you do like Ed's style, they work very well together with the source material and cover a lot of ground.quote:
Like a utopia, this ideal is probably not feasible, but it's something to consider.
Of course, for any of these to be published would need a strategy change at Wizards, a big market or economy change, or a decision to license. But one of the things we see at RPG.net and EN World is people roleplaying what they suppose to be the situation of the publisher and arguing a mix of their preferences and imagined market contingencies -- with usually at least some confusion and a little projection, and sometimes a little Stockholm syndrome. So what I have in mind is that, without forgetting those factors entirely, we talk about what would work for us and other existing and potential new players.quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I would not go for the third option as I think a level and class based system is wrong for the Realms. The Realms has been fitted to the AD&D system and although I like the TSR games the Realms were always struggling against the limits of that system.
From a viewpoint of game design technology, class/level/ability scores (and I never see this discussed, obvious as it seems) is inefficient because it models everything twice, on that level and that of roll modifiers. There certainly are warriors, mages/wizards, priests/clerics and thieves in the Realms; but also characters less well defined in that way: lots of sneaky fighters who aren't really two different things at once, less-martial priests. So I see both ways here.
The main kind of Realms magic has been Vanceian since before D&D, so I'd definitely want that to stay, plus alternative methods, though I like the main one best and Ed's put by far the most work into it.quote:
A logical choice for me is something more or less like Chaosiums Basic Roleplaying.
I played in a wonderful RuneQuest 3 campaign, but I personally feel Faerūn wants something more freewheeling and less nitty-grittily blow-by-blow.quote:
Art? I prefer simple black and white art.
Black and white is, among other things, more literary (and this is a world created by a librarian and clinical bibliophile) -- evocative of classic book illustrations, woodcuts, and imaginatively open and suggestive.quote:
Two hundred and forty pages would make for a big book, but it could be done.
This is in the range of most such games, but it's far too long for new players -- just outside most people's experience to read hundreds of pages of rules for a game . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A sliding-scale point-based system, so Mages can cast more lower level spells as they attain higher levels (something shown in novels, but a feel that could never be captured by the 'limited number' system represented by the standard rules).
I'd want a magic system that on some level modelled or took into account dynamics like
-- the effect of rare magic (exotic, newly crafted . . .) on an opponent used to defending against more common spells, and the arms race for new magic this engenders
-- compound interactions of spells, wards and counterspells without being unwieldily complex
-- wizards' ability to customize individual spell castings, as Ed illustrated with Narm's practice of flaming spherequote:
Use 'Kits' from 2nd edition (I still do), rather then regional feats, or perhaps have the feat come with a certain kit.
That's about my least favourite bit of 2E -- I think as soon as you offer bitty mechanical advantages and disadvantages you're inviting some players to min/max them, however much you advise against it.quote:
Skills should be independent of level, otherwise you get the weirdness of 18 year old PCs being better at armor-crafting then a 45 year old blacksmith who's been doing it his whole life.
What D&D does is directly tie fighting ability (BAB etc.) to other skills, which an ideal custom Realms game probably wouldn't.quote:
A 'random powers table' - something akin to what they had in the Red Steel campaign ('legacies'), that could show-up from time-to-time.
Now and then I'd hear people new to the Realms complain about certain NPC write-ups having unique and arbitrary powers, and have to explain that so do PCs. These are things like magical and 'psionic' wild talents, natural abilities of unknown origin such as to see magic, curses, being watched or subtly aided by a god. In fact 3E models these pretty well with feats, though I don't like feats generally (ways to complicate a simple set of rules by variously breaking them); I'd keep it within DM's discretion rather than have a formal system, but the crucial thing is to discuss it.quote:
Artwork should serve a purpose - to illustrate something that is hard to fully describe (like a magic item, weapon, strange locale, etc). No art just for the sake of eating page-counts. That's a lazy approach - FR is all about the LORE.
And a bloody expensive one! I'd want art direction that works more intensively with the artist than is usual, so you can show players a black-and-white character illustration and say 'She looks like that, down to the cut of her tunic', or a colour plate of Ashabenford or Scornubel.quote:
Put stuff not everyone's going to care about in a WE! You know, like those 13 pages of Lineages in the GHotR.
Well, the practical ways of publishing the thousands of pages of material that we Realms 'scribes' like are through expensive deluxe limited-edition books and some kind of online service. Not just a summarizing encyclopedia like Jim Butler started to organize, but starting with a hypertext-linked database of extant sourcebook texts plus the millions of words Ed's published here . . . But this is a whole other question, as is the idea of what's 'useful', something I think for a different thread. |
Edited by - Faraer on 20 Jul 2010 16:30:47 |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 16:19:16
|
Jorkens, Fabian would be PERFECT - - but I hear from Ed that's he definitely retired. (I didn't share this discussion with Ed and then ask him about Fabian; our talk was aside from Candlekeep entirely.)
Great thread, all. Keep it going . . .
love,
THO |
Edited by - The Hooded One on 20 Jul 2010 16:19:57 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 20:01:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Which is not, I wish I didn't have to clarify, to say you can't also roleplay well in the Realms in a more gameist way.
But, in my experience, players like to 'roll dice' - it makes them feel like they are more-deeply involved in whats happening, instead of being 'just a spectator'. HOWEVER, I am huge proponent of 'fake rolls' - I make players roll the dice sometimes for no reason, when I already know what I want to happen (so in affect, they are being steered, but it doesn't feel that way to them). I will also fudge a roll for the sake of a story - if a player misses it by two points, I might tell them "ohhh... you just made that one by the skin of your teeth" - watch them smile (and that's called 'divine intervention', which is perfectly legitimate). Die-rolls are an integral part of the player-experience; the dice are just another tool of the DM - use them, don't let them use you.
I would not go for the third option as I think a level and class based system is wrong for the Realms... <snip> ..So I see both ways here. <snip & move> What D&D does is directly tie fighting ability (BAB etc.) to other skills, which an ideal custom Realms game probably wouldn't.
Agreed, ideally some sort of hybrid system - pure skill systems tend to be as bad as the abstract level-system. There has to still be a quick way to assess a PCs power-level (to balance encounters), and that will always be character-level.
The main kind of Realms magic has been Vanceian since before D&D, so I'd definitely want that to stay, plus alternative methods, though I like the main one best and Ed's put by far the most work into it.
I think the Vancian system works well for weave-based magic - the spell-matrixes that must be memorized tie-in well to tapping the weave's power. All other magic should be non-Weave based (think 4e's 'power sources').
(Two hundred and forty pages would make for a big book, but it could be done) This is in the range of most such games, but it's far too long for new players -- just outside most people's experience to read hundreds of pages of rules for a game . . .
I think two books, like they did with Iron Kingdoms - One campaign guide and the other a setting-specific rulebook. I can think of several examples of OGL games that had their own version of the 3e rules, that went hand-in-hand with the setting. I also think that 4e's mantra of "One rules to rule them all" was a big mistake - it de-flavors and devalues the settings themselves. The two iron Kingdom books were 400 pages - 800 pages of rules and fluff, cross-referenced, should be enough for anyone to run a good FR campaign. An FR-specific MM would be a semi-optional third book (IK had one as well), and then if the thing 'catches on', Realm-specific 'booklets' (like those $12-$14 ones we used to get) detailing specific regions, including rules for any new 'local magic' (think Hishna, Rune, Fey, etc.. - tie regions to power-sources, but don't limit those to them - anything can be found anywhere in the Realms).
Strangely, the region books that came out for Birthright come to mind. Although that setting tanked, I think that would be perfect for the Realms. Also included in those should be PrCs (including at least one priest PrC per book!), Items, Spells, etc - all the kinds of stuff we saw in the 3e splat-books, except better organized by Realms (that is the name, isn't it?), rather then topic (No 'champions of' or 'Lords of' type books that try to cover the entire realms - it can't be done). The biggest obstacle to new players coming into the Realms is the horrid way the lore is spread all around, in sometimes very unusual places. For instance, the Shining South, Underdark and Unapproachable East are all great examples of region-specific source books (which we needed far more of).
I'd want a magic system that on some level modelled or took into account dynamics like
-- the effect of rare magic (exotic, newly crafted . . .) on an opponent used to defending against more common spells, and the arms race for new magic this engenders
-- compound interactions of spells, wards and counterspells without being unwieldily complex
-- wizards' ability to customize individual spell castings, as Ed illustrated with Narm's practice of flaming sphere
I think meta-magical feats did that fairly well, at least better then prior editions. more realms-specific meta-magic, of course, would be even better. I think Pathfinder 'fixed' the counter-spelling problems in their rules - they are pretty good.
That's {Kits) about my least favourite bit of 2E -- I think as soon as you offer bitty mechanical advantages and disadvantages you're inviting some players to min/max them, however much you advise against it.
Well, it started out as a good idea - sets of skills and gear you can get in a package, to simplify things, with the option that you could forgo taking a kit (which would give you slightly less 'stuff'). If Kits were just backgrounds like they were intended, without any major tactical advantages, they could work very well. When someone decided to turn them into pre-PrC's, with all sorts of 'kewl stuff', then we had the problem of the munchkins all taking specific ones. That's not a flaw in the premise, but rather just a case of poor design. You could even give a list of Feats that could be taken in lieu of the standard regional Feat, thus adding flavor without upsetting balance.
Now and then I'd hear people new to the Realms complain about certain NPC write-ups having unique and arbitrary powers, and have to explain that so do PCs. These are things like magical and 'psionic' wild talents, natural abilities of unknown origin such as to see magic, curses, being watched or subtly aided by a god. In fact 3E models these pretty well with feats, though I don't like feats generally (ways to complicate a simple set of rules by variously breaking them); I'd keep it within DM's discretion rather than have a formal system, but the crucial thing is to discuss it.
Well, I was thinking more like addressing this issue (random 'powers') - which Ed has in both novel and source - and then providing a table with 100 examples, sort of like the Wild magic results table. They would only be suggestions, and it would be made clear that it was a DM's option, just as all the rules should be, and they should be encouraged to come-up with their own that fit their campaign and the PCs involved. As always, a DM can choose simply to ignore this aspect of the Realms.
quote:
Artwork should serve a purpose <snip> No art just for the sake of eating page-counts. That's a lazy approach...
And a bloody expensive one! I'd want art direction that works more intensively with the artist than is usual.
The worst offender, probably, is the MM, where it is clear that artists doften don't bother to read the entries. I can't recall which one, but I remember one that was so bad it was funny as hell - the art was completely wrong, right down to the color of the beast. Another great example is some of the stuff in GHotR, but that was just some major-league penny-pinching on WotC's part. "This is what so-&-so would look like, if she died her hair" - so bad its funny. If you can't be bothered to get it right, leave it the hell out - I'd rather be reading more Realmslore!
Well, the practical ways of publishing the thousands of pages of material that we Realms 'scribes' like are through expensive deluxe limited-edition books and some kind of online service.
The two main books - Player's Guide (rules) and DMG (Setting) would need to contain the crunch for everything discussed within them (and that could be organized in such a way that a player only reads the rules he needs to play in the first, short, chapter). For regional splats, I think all the crunchy stuff should be online. In fact, I think the DDi should be like a 'DM-only' area - let the players read what they want in the splat book - don't give them any 'hard & fast' rules. That way, only DMs would have to pay for that additional info. For instance, they can read about a 'long-lost mine' in a certain area in a splat, but the details of that should elsewhere. Another thing - why should a player be privy to what a PrC can do, unless he is interested in playing one? That judgment should be based on the fluff alone, not how much 'Uberness' the PrC gives him.
Players should never know ALL the rules - that's why its called the Dungeon Master's guide. 
Giving the player's all the rules was probably the biggest mistake D&D could have made - it's akin to writing a novel like one of those old 'Mad Libs' books, where the reader 'fills in the blanks' - you're handing over control to the folks YOU are supposed to be entertaining with the story unfolding. The biggest problem with D&D after the advent of Unearthed Arcana was DM's losing control of their games, and not knowing the rules better then their players. The sheer volume of rules precludes the already-overworked DM from knowing as much as his players.
Which is why I applauded the mindset behind the 4th edition rules - lets just get to playing the game and having fun. Too bad they already screwed that up with umpteenth splat books, like those 'Complete' books that drove 2e into the ground. 
If the DM can't possibly know ALL the rules, then the system is broken. The DM must maintain control of his game, IMHO. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Jul 2010 20:23:13 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 20:19:52
|
| Mark, I know it's not your main point, but let's focus on what we like for the Realms, and plural ways of doing things, rather than what Wizards has done that we don't like. That's too big a subject for this thread! I'll write more later. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 20:35:27
|
I know - can't help but see all the "opportunities missed".
Each setting should have it's own rules - anything less undermines the reason for different settings.
You can do that, and still maintain a 'core mechanic'. Most of the alternative settings/systems that are OGL are still recognizable as 3e, just with different tweaks. Hell, Dark Sun managed to have a different magic system and no priests, and was still considered 2e D&D.
Thus proving it can be done, and that 'One Rules' isn't really necessary.
Anyhow, I shouldn't have step-outside the 'Forgotten Realms' box - sorry. anything I say about D&D in-general should be applied more so to our setting of choice.
To keep the real topic going, how about an underlying 'Wild magic' mechanic to add-in a little of the Realms flavor? Any time any magic is cast, there should be a roll to see if it functions correctly, with adds for high level casters(keeping it under control), and also negative modifiers for things like 'magical fields' - stuff like Mythals - being near a powerful artifact, having more then one spell take effect on the same area/item/person at the same time, etc...
Magic shouldn't always function exactly the same way every time (just most of the time). Magic is supposed to be 'mysterious' - lets add a little of that mystery back in. I love when I read in a novel when someone tries to cast a fireball, and flowers come out instead (and that doesn't happen just during the ToT, or in Wild-magic Zones). IIRC, Elminster was even able to 'de-stabilize' other folks' magic.
Lets get a little randomness going - judging by Ed's books and THO's stories, it seems that 'chaos' was 'business-as-usual' in Ed's games. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 21:15:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Jorkens, Fabian would be PERFECT - - but I hear from Ed that's he definitely retired. (I didn't share this discussion with Ed and then ask him about Fabian; our talk was aside from Candlekeep entirely.)
Great thread, all. Keep it going . . .
love,
THO
That's to bad. For some reason he seems to be forgotten when the 1st and 2nd ed. artists are talked about. But at least he now has a proper website with hundreds of pictures, many of them with comments about their background. Worth checking out for those who like older fantasy art.
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2010 : 21:19:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I would not go for the third option as I think a level and class based system is wrong for the Realms. The Realms has been fitted to the AD&D system and although I like the TSR games the Realms were always struggling against the limits of that system.
From a viewpoint of game design technology, class/level/ability scores (and I never see this discussed, obvious as it seems) is inefficient because it models everything twice, on that level and that of roll modifiers. There certainly are warriors, mages/wizards, priests/clerics and thieves in the Realms; but also characters less well defined in that way: lots of sneaky fighters who aren't really two different things at once, less-martial priests. So I see both ways here.
The main kind of Realms magic has been Vanceian since before D&D, so I'd definitely want that to stay, plus alternative methods, though I like the main one best and Ed's put by far the most work into it.quote:
A logical choice for me is something more or less like Chaosiums Basic Roleplaying.
I played in a wonderful RuneQuest 3 campaign, but I personally feel Faerūn wants something more freewheeling and less nitty-grittily blow-by-blow.quote:
Art? I prefer simple black and white art.
Black and white is, among other things, more literary (and this is a world created by a librarian and clinical bibliophile) -- evocative of classic book illustrations, woodcuts, and imaginatively open and suggestive.quote:
Two hundred and forty pages would make for a big book, but it could be done.
This is in the range of most such games, but it's far too long for new players -- just outside most people's experience to read hundreds of pages of rules for a game . . .
Sorry for not lumping the comments together, but editing so many comments to comments gives me a headache.
My main problem with classes is that it gives to little room for small nuances. A fighter should be able to learn one spell or skill without changing profession.
I agree that that would be far to many rules, but as I see it the rules system wouldn't be more than about 40 pages. Things like monsters, spells and variations, which would make up the next hundred pages would just be building on these 40 pages and memorisation of this part would not be necessary for playing the game. And the last hundred pages would be an overview of the setting. If it was only to be the game, without the setting included, a hundred pages would probably be enough. It would be an intimidating book, but it would still be a very small amount of rules compared to many modern books.
I agree that pure Runequest would be a bit to gritty and (at least I have seen it called that several times) un-heroic for many, though I get more of that feeling from the Dragon articles and the Grey box. But it could easily be adapted, with a very basic structure (with optional rules for combat and magic that can be used as needed) that everything else ran out from. Skill rolls to hit, skill roll to parry. No hit locations. Combat cant be made more simple and the rules would be the same as for spells and skills making it easy to grasp. These are the 40 pages.
I don't see a pure Runequest copy being all that fitting for most people, but a system much like BRP can so easily be modified, either to include setting specific rules or to make it more complicated or less complicated where the rules are concerned. That makes it easy to use by both those who want a looser game and those that prefer more precise rules, thus giving it an appeal to different preferences. The final shape of the system would of course be very much dependant on how the designers chose to weave the rules and the setting together. |
Edited by - Jorkens on 20 Jul 2010 21:23:42 |
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2010 : 00:02:24
|
I think the most important aspect of a customized-to-the-Realms roleplaying game is going to be the first few pages that introduce the world to the players.
More specifically, how one plays a character in the Realms: A very convincing, well worded emphasis on player involvement in the world itself that shows players why they should be just as interested in the setting (through their characters actions via roleplaying) as they will naturally be in things like ability scores and class abilities is paramount to the success of a Realms-centric D&D game (sorry for the almost run-on sentence).
I think the mechanics for starting characters should reflect this idea. Additionally, character creation should emphasize startling location such that players know what words and phrases are common where their character hails from, as well as general views on people from other parts of the Realms.
All IMO of course. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2010 : 08:39:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I think the most important aspect of a customized-to-the-Realms roleplaying game is going to be the first few pages that introduce the world to the players.
More specifically, how one plays a character in the Realms: A very convincing, well worded emphasis on player involvement in the world itself that shows players why they should be just as interested in the setting (through their characters actions via roleplaying) as they will naturally be in things like ability scores and class abilities is paramount to the success of a Realms-centric D&D game (sorry for the almost run-on sentence).
I think the mechanics for starting characters should reflect this idea. Additionally, character creation should emphasize startling location such that players know what words and phrases are common where their character hails from, as well as general views on people from other parts of the Realms.
All IMO of course.
That's the sort of thing I was thinking of in the second part. After a simple basic system that gives the foundation for the game it should be given details that uses the Realms. Examples are "skill bundles" (for some reason I hate that term), the basic role of the major races and some of the cultures. I would be a bit selective here both because of space and so that there would be room enough for modifications as wanted by the group using the game. Much of the world overview would of course be of use here also. Then variations of magic and their use, with some cultural detail. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2010 : 08:41:55
|
There is also the question of some of the old Ad&d elements. Gnomes and halflings have been included from the Grey box, but they never seem to really play a role, especially in Ed's work. Should all the old races be included? The same goes for many of the monsters. I remember Ed criticising the old Fiends Folio in Dragon for having to many creatures without a role in the ecology and game, should this be reflected? The Harpers were built around the ideas of the old 1st edition bard, which were far more powerful and martially inclined than the minstrel type of 2nd editon; should this be reflected in the rules? A skill based system will also make it easier to bring back some of the role of the sages that were seen in the oldest sources.
And what about the cleric. To me it seems like the universal priestly system of the Realms is a bit of a mismatch. Some might have classic fighting clerics, but other gods would be far more cultic and mystically oriented, with unique spells and magical rituals. Many of them might not even be led by a priest in the D&D sense and instead have prophet-like leaders which have one or two strong powers, but not a system of spell casting abilities. This would of course be part of the discussion on how magic worked.
And before it is mentioned by someone, I know that I refer to the older versions mostly here, please don't see this as some sort of input to edition debates. Its just the way I know the Realms and the most interesting part to me personally and therefore for me the natural starting point. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2010 : 22:42:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
More specifically, how one plays a character in the Realms: A very convincing, well worded emphasis on player involvement in the world itself that shows players why they should be just as interested in the setting (through their characters actions via roleplaying) as they will naturally be in things like ability scores and class abilities is paramount to the success of a Realms-centric D&D game (sorry for the almost run-on sentence).
Oh, yes. The world matters at all sorts of levels, including the most immediate and gamey, and this should be unmissably obvious and pressing. You will slip and fall off that sloping rooftop you didn't care to think about. The orcs you didn't pit against their historical rivals will kill you. Those revenants from a vanished kingdom whose history you forgot will steal your soul.
You'd want to make the Realms' communitarian nature -- not more so than much fiction, or real life, but compared to action movies or much D&D -- clear from the start, and embed it at every level. You discuss it explicitly, and you follow that up with source material that illustrates it, rules and play guidelines that facilitate it, and adventure material that embodies it. That latter is a weakness of all phases of Realms publication -- there's always been a disjoint between the complex interrelated busyness of the described and implied world and the conventional location- or plot-based scenarios. Of course this is much easier said than done. (There's been discussion of how Gygaxian D&D is mispresented by the tournament adventures that most modules were, at the expense for instance of the campaign dungeon, but the disparity is much wider in the Realms' case.)
The only type of common or garden D&D sociopath adventurer who survives in Faerūn is the villain or rogue who learns quickly to manipulate everyone brilliantly -- the rest get eaten by rivals and monsters with better information, contacts, magic, allies and leverage. A Realms RPG could push this quite vigorously as an alternative to that mode of thinking where anything except leaving the PCs alone against the bad world is wussy deprotagonization. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2010 : 23:13:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
There is also the question of some of the old Ad&d elements. Gnomes and halflings have been included from the Grey box, but they never seem to really play a role, especially in Ed's work. Should all the old races be included?
I don't know how Ed had demihumans before D&D, but I think that in the Realms the four demihuman races are
(a) parts of the Realms proper. Halflings and gnomes are less exposed in large part because they're less commercially popular than elves and secondarily dwarves; we know Ed has submitted unpublished lore about them, for instance.
(b) marginal: the typical adventuring band is mostly human, just as most characters are in most Realms novels, and in its literary sources. 'Never seeming to play a role', like the forgotten folk, is a valid kind of role, beside the great monuments of empire and stone and Art -- so my gnomish aunt says.
We're talking a world full of nooks and crannies where stranger and rarer things exist, after all. You can perfectly well not mention certain elements -- leaving them marginal and discretionary -- without explicitly writing them out. You might leave some or all of the demihumans out of the introductory players' work.
(One thinks of Tom Bombadil, and the excised gods in Realms-2008 . . .)quote:
The same goes for many of the monsters. I remember Ed criticising the old Fiends Folio in Dragon for having to many creatures without a role in the ecology and game, should this be reflected?
I wouldn't try to list definitively which monsters do and don't exist, but look at how Ed created and published all those Dragon's Bestiary creatures to keep players on their toes and convey Faerūn's variety, or how he spontaneously uses or mentions non-Realms 3E monsters.quote:
The Harpers were built around the ideas of the old 1st edition bard, which were far more powerful and martially inclined than the minstrel type of 2nd editon; should this be reflected in the rules?
There seem to be two kinds of bards in the Realms: jacks-of-all-trades who practice standard Art, and those who create magical effects through music. And how distinct are these? There are unresolved ambiguities here. |
Edited by - Faraer on 22 Jul 2010 23:55:09 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2010 : 23:24:01
|
I'd probably forgo Gnomes in a custom-setting - I find them too redundant with both Dwarves and Halflings. Original D&D had Gnomes because of the Illusionist class - since everyone can be everything there isn't really reason to have them anymore, especially in FR.
I suppose, leaving them out of 4e was good decision, as far as I'm concerned - I like them as a fey race and not as a PC. Not saying they can't be interesting, but as I said above they are too-much like a Dwarf/Halfling crossbreed mechanically in 2e/3e. I prefer them as an 'umbrella' group of small (not tiny) fey creatures, which would include Brownies, Quicklings, Redcaps, and about a dozen other 2-3' tall fey (not near any sources ATM, so I can't name some of the others I'm thinking of).
I think Wemics and the Dragonbait-type Saurial should both be standard races in an FR PC game (rather then standard centaurs, or the Dragonborn). Wemics maybe in a later regional book though - their physiology makes them a bit harder for beginning DMs and players to run properly (special combat rules, etc..)
I really like the way combat is handled in the WarMachine miniatures game, and wish they could emulate it. I know the miniatures in 3e came with cards, which is nice, but in WM you could put a plastic sleeve over the card and check-off boxes as the creature/unit took damage - that is sweet. Everything you need to know and keep track of was on the card, and was reusable (when used with a cover on it). D&D has tried stuff like that several times, and has never gotten it quite right.
Since FR is more RP-based then some settings, I think, perhaps, there could be a double set of rules. You could have a 'basic rules' set - just a couple of pages - to get folks started, and then add more-advanced options in the later part of the rules book. That way, players can choose the style of game they want - Simple, intermediate, or advance mechanics.
So the basic FR rules would be very abstract and 'light' on realism, which tends to slow-down play quite a bit. I don't think the modular approach would work with more advanced rules - part of the problem we had with 2e/3e. I think a tier-based system (like OD&D) for level of simulation would serve the game itself better, if not the Realms.
In fact, if you combine the two ideas above, you have something very similar to the Star Wars/D&D miniatures rules - you really wouldn't need much more then that to get new players into the game. No need to overwhelm them with an encyclopedia of rules from the get-go - I think we need to get newbies into the concept of Tabletop RPGs before scaring them with how complex it can get.
The more i think about it, the more I like the idea of an OD&D style of rules for FR. However, I wouldn't want rules from later books to over-write basic rules, just add to them. The system should be progressive without having to re-learn stuff folks are already using.
Now I'm leaning toward the 150-pg. 'starter set' for the Realms as previously suggested - what I want and what would work are probably not the same thing at all. After-all, adding books later is what the business-end of this hobby is/was all about, and wowing kids with the Realms need to come first. We should probably have a group of pre-made characters for that 1st adventure as well (on cards w/art & stats) - just let them jump right in.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Mr_Miscellany
Senior Scribe
545 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2010 : 23:59:14
|
You ask me, I don't think a custom Realms game system should be meant for younger/newer players. The basic concepts of D&D how to build characters, run encounters, tell a story, manage players, etc... are hard enough on new players.
Asking them to do all that + immerse themselves in a deep, rich-with-history world in order to re-create it at the gaming table are IMO too much to expect a group of new players to achieve, even with excellent game rules meant to help things along.
Players should have mastered the basics of roleplaying games before tackling a custom-Realms game world.
I'm not sure what the average age is where players really start to branch out from D&D into other settings, but I think it's that age where players have enough interest to:
*buy multiple game systems
*learn the particulars of each (that is, they've developed an interest in exploring new game mechanics and the underlying game world concepts and setting themes such [new] mechanics are built around)
*trade of DM/GM duties so everyone gets to have a character in at least one game
...that a custom-Realms should be pointed at.
(I realize this is all very opiniony and not entirely on topic; apologies for the drift) |
Edited by - Mr_Miscellany on 23 Jul 2010 00:05:38 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2010 : 00:23:57
|
I wonder what the basics of roleplaying games are. I'm too tired to think about is so I'll regurgitate something I've thought before: The traditional presentation of introductory RPGs is as souped-up board games, where you start with the basic rules and then maybe later make your character more personally vivid and distinctive. So we have all these RPGers who've been taught that roleplaying is advanced and difficult. My experience is that everyone who's played games as a child, varied their persona in different social situations or told jokes down the pub can roleplay just fine, and the people who struggle have a block of some kind rather than inability.
So much is in the framing, but that framing becomes much less influential to people who already know some way to play. For many kinds of campaign I'd rather have novice players than self-identified gamers, with gamers' habits.
So now I wonder how Ed tackles this with his library campaigns for youngsters -- though how you ease people in without including him in the box is of course not quite the same question.
I can't do better, but I have the definite impression that the pedagogy of RPGs is pretty primitive. Who you're talking to is certainly pertinent to how you might present and organize a game + setting. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2010 : 08:50:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
You ask me, I don't think a custom Realms game system should be meant for younger/newer players. The basic concepts of D&D how to build characters, run encounters, tell a story, manage players, etc... are hard enough on new players.
Asking them to do all that + immerse themselves in a deep, rich-with-history world in order to re-create it at the gaming table are IMO too much to expect a group of new players to achieve, even with excellent game rules meant to help things along.
Players should have mastered the basics of roleplaying games before tackling a custom-Realms game world.
I'm not sure what the average age is where players really start to branch out from D&D into other settings, but I think it's that age where players have enough interest to:
*buy multiple game systems
*learn the particulars of each (that is, they've developed an interest in exploring new game mechanics and the underlying game world concepts and setting themes such [new] mechanics are built around)
*trade of DM/GM duties so everyone gets to have a character in at least one game
...that a custom-Realms should be pointed at.
(I realize this is all very opiniony and not entirely on topic; apologies for the drift)
I agree if the system is very close to D&D or a version of the same specifically created to fit the Realms. But if the system were to deviate a great deal from D&D, shouldn't such a game also be accessible to Realms fans who were not D&D players? D&D may be the most popular and well known game, but it is quite possible that such a game could attract new players and people who only knew the world from novels.
This is of course one of the oldest problems in game design and one that will be discussed for as long as there is gaming. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2010 : 09:06:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
There is also the question of some of the old Ad&d elements. Gnomes and halflings have been included from the Grey box, but they never seem to really play a role, especially in Ed's work. Should all the old races be included?
I don't know how Ed had demihumans before D&D, but I think that in the Realms the four demihuman races are
(a) parts of the Realms proper. Halflings and gnomes are less exposed in large part because they're less commercially popular than elves and secondarily dwarves; we know Ed has submitted unpublished lore about them, for instance.
(b) marginal: the typical adventuring band is mostly human, just as most characters are in most Realms novels, and in its literary sources. 'Never seeming to play a role', like the forgotten folk, is a valid kind of role, beside the great monuments of empire and stone and Art -- so my gnomish aunt says.
We're talking a world full of nooks and crannies where stranger and rarer things exist, after all. You can perfectly well not mention certain elements -- leaving them marginal and discretionary -- without explicitly writing them out. You might leave some or all of the demihumans out of the introductory players' work.
Oh, I prefer to keep them, but I was thinking more about what could be seen as a Ad&dism that had been naturalized into the game and that could potentially be taken out for a custom game. For me the lack of gnomes would be like Runequest without ducks.
This reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking Ed; as Roger Moore's Demi-human deity articles weren't written until the early 80's, I wonder if Ed had any earlier ideas about the religion of the Demi-humans.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
The same goes for many of the monsters. I remember Ed criticising the old Fiends Folio in Dragon for having to many creatures without a role in the ecology and game, should this be reflected?
I wouldn't try to list definitively which monsters do and don't exist, but look at how Ed created and published all those Dragon's Bestiary creatures to keep players on their toes and convey Faerūn's variety, or how he spontaneously uses or mentions non-Realms 3E monsters.
I am not thinking so much about a definitive list, as to what to include in a new system. Some monsters should be included, but what should that selection be based on? Ed has kept mostly to humans and undead, but in a Realms system monsters are to be expected. Aside from monsters created by Ed I have no idea what creatures should ins such a case be seen as the basics.
I prefer to keep as many of the old creatures as possible, but it all depends on how far one wants to go from Ad&D.
|
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2010 : 11:29:38
|
Hmmm, cool question. Of course, everyone's idea what the ideal Realms System should be is a reflection of personal tastes, matter of opinion, no right or wrong, etc, etc, and so forth... With that said...
I'd go in for some kind of thumping great point-buy system, probably using HERO System as a guide, if not simply fine tuning it for the purpose (practical implications of such a titanic system be damned!). As far as rules are concerned, it can simulate just about anything and I've had a whale of a time trying to re-create some of the weird and wonderful Realmsian spells, monsters and what not in the system. It should be brilliant for running mage PCs and portraying their various dabblings in the development of magic, etc, etc.
The only problem is that you need to be a gentleman/lady of leisure with serious gaming OCD to get the damn thing off the ground, but on the game table after it's all been built it's fine. |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2010 : 08:19:51
|
| I just saw that Noble Knight has finally gotten Chaosiums Classic Fantasy for BRP. It will be interesting to see how it handles the D&D elements and if the Realms can easily be adapted. But with summer post being slow it will probably be some time before I get my hands on it. |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2010 : 10:25:13
|
Heh. Finally some time to reply to this one. I agree with Jorkens (again) that this should not be a class-based system. In my view, 3E and 3.5 basically already walked away, in practice, from the class system as practiced by OD&D, 1E, and 2E. With the myriad prestige classes, substitute levels, etc., the classes had become almost meaningless.
One thing D&D mechanics failed to do, in my view, was to establish distinctions between, on the one hand, a 2,000-year old 20th level magic-user lich, and a 30-year old 20th-level magic-user PC. The solution has always been that the difference is in the roleplaying and the way these NPCs are portrayed by the DM. Fair enough. But not all RPG games are "pure RP" as, I suppose, Big Ed's games are/were, and this seems what some scribes here seem to aspire to.
For my part, I like the mechanics to reflect the differences in power (and, I suppose, so did WotC, hence the myriad "special rules and powers" for NPCs, which then, of course, the PCs also "needed" to have access to). No amount of roleplaying will convince players that there are some discrepancies in power like their PCs getting a solid trouncing. Again, skill-based systems are good for this - acquiring skills takes time, and a 2,000 year old lich has had more time, to be sure.
My votes would go to BRP (Call of Cthulhu certainly allows for BIG differences between the hapless Investigators on the one hand, and Great Cthulhu on the other hand), or GURPS, which does a nice job of bringing average Joes and Superheroes in under the same mechanics.
Now, do not get me wrong - duking it fo(u)rever out is not my preferred style of play, but sometimes it's nice to let loose (My group did a four-session running firefight in an otherwise investigation-based Delta Green game a couple of months ago, and it was quite satisfying...). And then it's nice to have a game mechanic on hand that DOES allow Drizzt to run circles around his opponents. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2010 : 01:45:18
|
Well, I'll be running FR in pathfinder, with lots of things converted up from 3.0/3.5.
The IDEAL FR system, to me, would be pretty rules-lite and skill based (no levels or classes). Something like nWoD would be good, but it would need to have huge numbers of powers you could buy with your point-buy, would handle how far into "epic levels" FR can go somehow, and would not touch the nWoD combat system with a 10-foot pole, instead streamlining the oWoD combat in other ways.
You'd need vancian casting, wild magic, and the majority of D&D spells to be ported over.
You'd need mechanics to cover all the special little doodads FR has. Of course, adapting them from D&D would in many cases be trivial. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2010 : 23:28:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But, in my experience, players like to 'roll dice' - it makes them feel like they are more-deeply involved in whats happening, instead of being 'just a spectator'. HOWEVER, I am huge proponent of 'fake rolls' . . .
No surprise that people who play games involving dice-rolling like rolling dice; non-self-identified gamers probably less so. But I do too -- it's related to divination in a way I don't understand well enough to explain. Also: (a) Non-dice RPG resolution systems tend to be at least as mechanistic as dicey ones. (b) If we're basing this on Ed's home campaign, it (the odd times it now happens) uses dice sparingly. (c) We don't want to train people more than they already are to associate die-rolling with fun in-game events so that ones without rolls seem less fun.
quote:
Well, I was thinking more like addressing this issue (random 'powers') - which Ed has in both novel and source - and then providing a table with 100 examples, sort of like the Wild magic results table.
I agree.
quote:
The biggest problem with D&D after the advent of Unearthed Arcana was DM's losing control of their games, and not knowing the rules better then their players. The sheer volume of rules precludes the already-overworked DM from knowing as much as his players.
If rules are clearly positioned as less authoritative than the GM, not more, then players who try to trump the GM's decisions with that knowledge are obviously breaking the social contract of play; so I think that social contract is the more fundamental thing, though personally I have no use for 3E-level rules inflation. (The assumed social play model is also central in the related question of GM' and players' setting knowledge.)quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
One thing D&D mechanics failed to do, in my view, was to establish distinctions between, on the one hand, a 2,000-year old 20th level magic-user lich, and a 30-year old 20th-level magic-user PC.
Which in-world distinctions do you mean?
--
Two things I'd include in a Realms RPG book:
-- Lists of descriptive terms to inspire character creation, an extrasomatic vocabulary drawn from Realms sources: physical traits, voice, manner, nature, etc., plus clothing, jewelry, armor, weapons and gear. I have a working draft of this. So e.g. for voice: quote:
clear, cold, cultured, deep, drawling, gentle, harsh, high, husky, level, light, loud, low, mellifluous, melodious, menacing, musical, nasal, pleasant, purring, quiet, rasping, raw, rough, rumbling, sharp, silky, slow, smooth, soft, stammering, syrupy, throaty, unpleasant, warm
-- Similar material to help the GM work up events, encounters, NPC projects. Getting into ruts and forgetting some options for motivations or methods is easy; creating a continually dense, parallel world is tough, less so with help, and this stuff is as necessary to the texture of the Realms as things that are more easily linearly described, like the history/layout/social structure of places. |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2010 : 23:51:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
What might a roleplaying game custom-designed for the Realms look like? What kind of rules? How would it present and organize itself? Summarize and introduce the world? What should it leave out, bring in, refocus on? Which D&Disms have been naturalized into the setting, and which aren't really in tune with it? What kind of art, layout and physical format? To avoid edition-wrangling, let's consider different approaches on their own merits.
1. A game based on how Ed's campaign works, and how he crafts rules as in the 1990s sourcebooks, most similar to AD&D 2nd edition, but following the roleplaying-over-rules style described in Ed's early Dragon articles ("Players don't need to know all the rules", etc.) and elsewhere. (A big reason there isn't yet a 2E simulacrum game/retro-clone is that that edition didn't have a strong or rigid core ethos, but different implementations based on settings, the PHBR/DMGR series or Player's/DM's Option.)
2. Similar ethos to that, but with mechanics designed from scratch to represent the Realms. Perhaps with influence from indie RPGs of the last decade or two.
3. A Realms-customized 3E/Pathfinder, heavier on rules than 1 and 2 (with feats, for instance).
And any other approaches you'd like.
One of the big gaps between the Realms and any version of D&D is its magic, which is somewhat different and much more complex. Some aspects have been covered in scattered lore, others just hinted at, for various reasons. I'd personally prefer not to micromanage that complexity in rules, but on the other hand one can also imagine a whole magical subgame.
I'm very much interested in replying to this question, but the last time I tried it nearly got me banned, so I don't know if I should  .
Of course you know I would go for 2 (even though I very much disagree about the "players don't need to know the rules" part).
Burning Wheel + custom content built using the Grey Box could do something good, but there is some stuff that would need adaptation to really capture FR's flavor.
Perhaps the most interesting challenge would be to use the particuliar (Ed's style, not "Avatar Crisis" style) gods-mortals relationship of FR as a "narrativist/story now" fuel.
The game should also be able to cope with FR numerous, highly powerful NPCs and its not an easy task. They need to be flawed and those flaws must be "mechanically" grounded to make these characters really interesting in actual play.
I would certainly tone down things like :
1) the array of power given to the Chosen, the idea of not-so-righteous spellcasters with an oath to make the Art flourish is cool though.
2) the "kitchen-sink" idea, where anything in D&D must be available somewhere in FR. Learning to say "no" sometimes is a good thing.
3) what appears to be Ed's fascination about scrying / mind-reaming spells.
4) too much access to perfect healing, RAS books may be a good starting point. |
Edited by - Skeptic on 07 Aug 2010 05:23:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forgotten Realms Roleplaying Game?
