Draconian d20

[metaltoad]

In the last D&D game I played we started coming up with a home brew variation of rules for the d20 system.  The result was a system that stripped down a number of feats and added some new rules to make D&D play a little more brutal and realistic.  This was dubbed Draconian d20 by a member of our group.  That said, here's my question:

Are people interested in playing games where death and mortality are more common?

[abjourne]

D20 has a pretty elaborate character generation process. Many players may be turned off by investing so much time in chargen to be snuffed out so quickly. But before you do anything think, What is it you want to do? Do you want to make a D20 suppliment? Do you want to make a set of "house rules" available to the comunity for free? Do you want to create your own game? Chew on this & let us know?

[neko ewen]

Are people interested in playing games where death and mortality are more common?

I'm not personally, but from what I see people saying online (which is in turn only a certain subset of the hobby of course) there's definitely people out there who want that kind of game.

[Callan S.]

We try to avoid opinion polls at the forge. Perhaps instead you might like to write down three moments of previous play that player has actually enjoyed (where you can see he's sitting forward, looking excited, etc). Write it in one or two sentences (if it takes longer than that to describe, it probably wasn't really a fun moment). It'd also like to see three moments from you, if you can. The reason for this is that 'dark and deadly' might not be the important factor to that player or yourself.

[Wood]

I think that there's legs in having a game where character deaths are common and brutally painful.

As for D20 being the game? Put it this way: a teenaged girl who lives up my street has recently asked if I'll run D&D for her and her mum. No, really. They're both fantasy fiends, so they're well up for it, and the mum, like me, was an AD&D fan in her younger years. Thing is, I am entirely unfamiliar with the current iteration of D20, and I last played AD&D in about 1993. I scored a couple of extra-cheap rulebooks off of eBay and cooked up a whole wicked-sorceress-has-kidnapped-the-queen's-husband-to-be plot. In a tower. With henchmen and henchthings. Except... making up the characters is hell. I cannot get my head round it. I got halfway through the new 3.5 PHB and I was like, "how can anyone get their heads around this?" Character creation really is the problem. If you're not intimately familiar with it, it takes ages and ages and ages. It's the pointy number crunching.

Or maybe I am just getting old.

[Wood]

Forgot to say. the first time I ran Vampire, years ago, character deaths were plentiful, swift and painful. My rationale was, "if you will play a bloodsucking mass-murderer..."

The reason the players had so much fun with the game was they completely bought into that rationale. They were not "gamers", as such, more mates who were curious about the idea, and not attached to their characters. They took delight in playing the parts of vampires, and in getting their just deserts. If you're going to have frequent character deaths, you need to have a reason why it's part of the game, and the players need to buy into it, obviously. Otheriwse, they'll hate you.

But then, that last bit is obvious.

[metaltoad]

But before you do anything think, What is it you want to do? Do you want to make a D20 suppliment? Do you want to make a set of "house rules" available to the comunity for free? Do you want to create your own game? Chew on this & let us know?

I've actually created a rule system, but it is unfinished.  I think it has gone beyond a set of house rules as I've written around 50 pages or so.  Eventually I'd like to release it to the community for free and possibly publish hard copies if the interest is there.  The system is based on the following concepts:

• Game play should be fast
• There are no classes, instead everything is defined by the skills and feats you choose (at least one every level)
• Feats and skills need to be considered as a whole to avoid exploitation of the system
• Rolling d20s and 3-18 stats are fun (those have been kept)

I try also to stay a little closer to physical reality.  For example: the bigger you are the more hit points you have, being burned causes permanent damage, etc.

[metaltoad]

One reason for creating a more brutal combat system is that it drives more non-combat based interaction.  When players know they can cut down dozens (or hundreds) of people without any danger to their character, there's very little to drive them toward non-combat conflict resolution.  In these types of games, the hammer that always keeps people in line is deity intervention or high-powered magic, rather than social repercussions.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello metaltoad,

D20 is a terrific vehicle for marketing all those classes, feats, etc, ad nauseum. Truly, a book is released every hour detailing another class, feat or variation. Oh! You've got skill, class and what big feat you have. Thank the OGL! If you're going to make a brutal, realistic and quick combat system, then don't start with D20. Be creative and develop something unique. Beware! If you make the system too attractive to fight then the players will love it and stop role-playing.

Good luck,
Troy

[Anders Larsen]

Hi metaltoad

I will give you some warning about the direction you are about to take here. Many of the arguments you have for changes are some I have heard many times before, and I have some problem with them.


* Game play should be fast.

This is a reasonable argument, but what is more important is: Game play should be fun! When people say they want to reduce the time some mechanic takes, it is mostly because that mechanic is boring; but is will not be more fun just because it become faster.

* There are no classes, instead everything is defined by the skills and feats you choose (at least one every level).

I can understand if you feel that a simple class system based on simple archetypes can be a limitation for the game you want, but that is not a reason to remove it completely. A class is something that defines a role for the character and that gives the player a framework he can use to determined how his character should interact with the world. If you remove the classes the player will not have any motivations for his character, unless, of course, you make an other mechanic for creating character motivations.

An other approach is to make classes that fit better to your need. If you do not like a generic fighter, then make fighter classes that tie better to the setting: City guard, archer in the king elite army, guerrilla fighter for the rebels etc..

* I try also to stay a little closer to physical reality.  For example: the bigger you are the more hit points you have, being burned causes permanent damage, etc.

The argument of reality is one I have heard many times, but I have never seen an argument for why this will give a better gaming experience. I recommend that instead you think of what effect you want a rule to have in the game. If you want all the fighting character to be big people, then make hit point depend on size, but don't do it just because of 'physical reality' - you risk getting some very weird effect out of it.

* One reason for creating a more brutal combat system is that it drives more non-combat based interaction.

Again an argument I have heard many times, and again I disagree. What will happen when you do this is that the player will use more time on getting there character stronger and tougher so they can survive combat.

When you player solve all problem with combat, punish them (by making combat more brutal) is not the way to go. Here are some thing you should consider:

* As far as I know the player get XP by killing monsters in D&D (I am not very familiar with D&D), so the system actually encourage combat. It you make an mechanic that discourage combat, you risk breaking the game.

* If the players always use combat to solve problem, maybe it is because they can not see any other way to solve them, and if you then close the combat possibility, it will give some frustrations. You should instead open for other possibilities.

* if the most straight forward way to solve the typical situation in the game is by combat, combat is what will be used. If the situation is "You have to get past these guards" it will most likely result in combat, but if it is "You have to help these two parties negotiate a peace treaty", combat is not the logical solution.

* To get away from combat, you can make a game that work more on a level of story and character (here I mean personality, not abilities) development, and thereby make combat irrelevant.


The conclusion is: Use some time to analyse exactly it is in actual play that have lead you to want these changes. And use some time to analyse exactly what effect on the game play you actual want. 

 - Anders

[metaltoad]

* As far as I know the player get XP by killing monsters in D&D (I am not very familiar with D&D), so the system actually encourage combat. It you make an mechanic that discourage combat, you risk breaking the game.

That's a great point and one I am planning to incorporate.  Experience really should revolve around growth which can come in many forms.  Getting points for beating up goblins is ok, but finding creative ways to avoid combat and good roleplaying should also be rewarded.