Opinions requested on Orcs & Ogres (AD&D 2.5...)

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

I'm one of about six people in the world who rather enjoyed AD&D 2e. Despite its many flaws, I far prefer it to the dross of 3e. I"ve started creating a game based on what I wish 3e had been. I refer to it as D&D 2.5, or Orcs & Ogres. You can take a look at the start of this at http://excaliburvideoproductions.com/Orcs%20%26%20Ogres%20draft%201.pdf.

I'd like to hear anything you have to say.

[Zachary_Wolf]

It actually looks interesting. All the old-school D&D artwork brought me back to the early days of playing RPG's. I'd like to look at it in more detail when I get a chance.

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

It actually looks interesting. All the old-school D&D artwork brought me back to the early days of playing RPG's. I'd like to look at it in more detail when I get a chance.

Great, I would appreciate it. Keep in mind that the fianl version will not used this artwork (as it is a slight copyright issue!).

[Eero Tuovinen]

I like your draft, it's easy on the eyes and to the point. I happen to think that reworking D&D, of which I have some experience myself as well, is mostly a matter of personal aesthetics - many of the things you do in the draft could be done in different and just as good ways, but the designer himself will often have a clear preference on how to do things, which formulations make the most sense and so on. Thus I won't go into detailed wrazzling of how cross-class skills "should" work or stuff like that - you have a strong mechanical vision that conforms to your own preferences, and that is as it should be.

The basic ideas are good and there is plenty of stuff that I've established in my own D&D reworking as well. It's interesting that you've decided to use skills - personally I'm more than happy to drop them from the system as useless, on the principle that character class already defines what a character is supposed to know. I guess that skills allow more granular individuality for individual characters, although personally I prefer to achieve that by expanding on the feat system. Clearly this has much to do with the fact that I interpret D&D in a much more challenge-based manner than this draft does, though - skill definition helps in detailing characters, while feats are better for introducing mechanical subsystems, which is definitely not your goal here.

It seems to me that you have a good handle on the features of 2nd edition AD&D that make it unique among D&D editions. Your version seems well-suited to classically balanced, setting-intricate adventure gaming with medium-level mechanical points of contact and no hardcore rules optimization. I would have no particular objection to using your version of the system to run a traditional adventure campaign with a focus on character acting, in-character dialogue and experiencing fantasy adventure - a particular kind of simulationism, if I'm allowed to use GNS terminology. Certainly your system is much more suited to this type of adventure campaign than the later D&D editions, so in that regard this seems successful. I also much prefer your cleaned-up and streamlined mechanical approach compared to the original second edition AD&D, so that is good as well.

I'd be interested in seeing more about the experience and training system, if you're not just using the original. Your own thoughts on dual- and multiclassing, as well as class balance, would be appreciated - I count at least five different methods traditionally used to balance characters in D&D, which doesn't count the variants where you're not supposed to balance them, so I'm interested in what your thinking is on that regard. If you'd like to tell us more about the kind of adventure gaming you yourself do with this system, that might help us understand it better. I'm also interested in your design goals in a more abstract sense, mostly from the viewpoint of suggesting connections or references that might prove helpful.

[NN]

I like it, except for the the stat generation method.

It just seems wrong to have to pick a class and race before rolling the dice. It would really suck to decide to be a fighter, but roll 13 on strength, and have great stats for a thief.

Every bit of my D&D brain screams "Roll six stats, arrange to suit, then pick a race and class". !

Or even have point buy - you could give races more or less points depening on how good their race abilities are.

[Creatures of Destiny]

There's another guy on the web that published an "AD&D 3E" that was a development of 1e, then there's stuff like OSRIC that uses the SRD to create an old school ruleset without breaching copyright.

If you intend to publish this, you may wish to contact the OSRIC developers for some advice on the copyright (they made a book much like 1e, but just different enough to not breach copyright).

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

I like it, except for the the stat generation method.

It just seems wrong to have to pick a class and race before rolling the dice. It would really suck to decide to be a fighter, but roll 13 on strength, and have great stats for a thief.

That is a problem, and one that I will deal with. I like the idea in general because it plays up racial archetypes without restricting them.

Or even have point buy - you could give races more or less points depening on how good their race abilities are.

There will be a point buy system as well. Each race/class will have a "starting point" and then you can add points however you wish. For instance, a dwarf fighter will have a CON value starting at 13, while an elf would start at 10.

[/quote]

[Sir Privy Toastrack]

The basic ideas are good and there is plenty of stuff that I've established in my own D&D reworking as well. It's interesting that you've decided to use skills - personally I'm more than happy to drop them from the system as useless, on the principle that character class already defines what a character is supposed to know.

I like that approach as well, but C&C did it to great success so I don't think I could improve on it.

I guess that skills allow more granular individuality for individual characters, although personally I prefer to achieve that by expanding on the feat system. Clearly this has much to do with the fact that I interpret D&D in a much more challenge-based manner than this draft does, though - skill definition helps in detailing characters, while feats are better for introducing mechanical subsystems, which is definitely not your goal here.

It's just a personal prefernce really. As a DM I find it easier to deal with skills.

It seems to me that you have a good handle on the features of 2nd edition AD&D that make it unique among D&D editions. Your version seems well-suited to classically balanced, setting-intricate adventure gaming with medium-level mechanical points of contact and no hardcore rules optimization. I would have no particular objection to using your version of the system to run a traditional adventure campaign with a focus on character acting, in-character dialogue and experiencing fantasy adventure - a particular kind of simulationism, if I'm allowed to use GNS terminology. Certainly your system is much more suited to this type of adventure campaign than the later D&D editions, so in that regard this seems successful. I also much prefer your cleaned-up and streamlined mechanical approach compared to the original second edition AD&D, so that is good as well.

Thank you!

I'd be interested in seeing more about the experience and training system, if you're not just using the original.

I haven't decided on the experience system to be honest. A lot will depend on whether the classes seem to be balanced. If they are, I'd probably stick with something like 3e. If not, I would use the C&C model of differeing XP levels for each class, or the True20 method of leaving it all up to the DM as to when you advance (which I personally prefer).

Your own thoughts on dual- and multiclassing, as well as class balance, would be appreciated - I count at least five different methods traditionally used to balance characters in D&D, which doesn't count the variants where you're not supposed to balance them, so I'm interested in what your thinking is on that regard.

Generally, my preference is "the fewer restrictions to multiclassing, the better". Right now I just want to get the basic classes nailed down before I handle multiclassing.

If you'd like to tell us more about the kind of adventure gaming you yourself do with this system, that might help us understand it better. I'm also interested in your design goals in a more abstract sense, mostly from the viewpoint of suggesting connections or references that might prove helpful.

That's hard to put into words, but I'll try:
- I want the "epic quest" feel of 2e, rather than the dungeon-bashing, power-up stuff of 3e.
- I want to include character themes as a crucial part, such as in FATE/SOTC. I've never seen a D&D game that emphasizes character. That's a very important part to me.
- I want to be able to use a lot of the 2e supplements, especially the kits from the "Complete" books of the early 1990s. Complete compatibility is not a goal; I want to create a game that is better than 2e and if that means stepping on some 2e sacred cows, so be it. Armor class remains the same, and ultimately so do hit points (although I wanted to include a more definitive death spiral mechanic).
- special abilities will be all class-based, or skill-based. I don't want a lot of them around so as to avoid the feat bloat of 3e. And I don't want power gaming to be a goal of players either, at least not to the level of 3e or 4e.
- mechanics should make sense. I hate mechanics that are introduced only to function as game balance. So that's a bit on the simulationist side.
- I want lots of optional rules, including a system for class-less PC generation, non-inflating hit points, active defense, etc. MAybe for an Orcs & Ogres Companion?