Topic: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Started by: chronoplasm
Started on: 4/23/2009
Board: First Thoughts
On 4/23/2009 at 9:08pm, chronoplasm wrote:
I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
One of the points I keep hearing regarding old OD&D is that the system is so simple and threadbare that it can support any character concept and any situation through DM fiat and houserules.
What if you houserule it so extensively though that it ceases to be the same game? Why bother with the original rules in the first place?
In D&D 4E, the rules are a lot tighter and more complex. It is still easy to houserule and come up with your own content for anything that the rules don't already support, and I do that a lot.
There are a lot of things about 4E that I like, a lot of things I don't like, and a lot of things I think can be expanded upon.
At some point though, these changes have accumulated to a point where they are no longer even the same game.
Eventually, after breaking the game down and rebuilding the game from the ground up, I may end up with something that is noticeably based on Dungeons and Dragons, but very much a new kind of creature.
Is there any point in releasing this beast into the wild?
First off it would have to compete with its forebears.
If somebody does buy it, they would likely tinker with it to the point that is no longer even the same game it started as... so what is the point of even making the game in the first place?
I guess I'm just wondering if there is any point in publishing my ideas or if I should just keep them to myself and my group.
Your thoughts?
On 4/23/2009 at 9:32pm, Vordark wrote:
Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Okay, right off, I am incredibly biased against the putrid pile of excrement that some call Fourth Edition. I'm sorry, but it's just not D&D, and I think it's arguable as to whether or not it's even playable. For me, the last edition of D&D was 3.5, and I'll gladly wrestle anyone that says otherwise.
That said, I am always interested in reading about people's house rules when it comes to any system I know or play. I'm not suggesting that every "Wonder Tommy" mod to a system is praiseworthy, but hearing what other people have done with a system that falls "outside the lines" often gives me ideas about how to run my own campaigns. And if what the person came up with sucks, it at least gives me a new appreciation for how the actual rules work. :)
The only thing I think could be a problem, is whether or not your system might infringe on the original author's copyrights and whatnot. Questions that really can't be answered on a forum, unfortunately. Posting a collection of house rules for System X is one thing. Packaging those house rules and calling them System Y might be a different story.
On 4/23/2009 at 9:42pm, chronoplasm wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Well... I was wondering what you thought of this idea then?
Heroism Points
Each character starts out with a number of heroism points equal to their level. Humans gain an extra heroism point per day. The referee may award additional heroism points at hir discretion.
Players may spend an action point to have their characters recover 50% HP.
In addition, each class and race may have its own use for heroism points.
• Elves
Whenever you make an attack roll, and you don't like the result, you may spend a heroism point to reroll it. Use the better of the two results.
• Hobbits
Whenever an enemy makes an attack roll against you, and you don't like the result, you may spend a heroism point to make the enemy reroll it. Use the better of the two results.
• Dwarves
Whenever you roll a saving throw, and you don't like the result, you may spend a heroism point to reroll it. Use the better of the two results.
• Fighters
You may spend a heroism point to make an additional attack this round.
• Wizards
You may spend a heroism point to regain a spell you have used today.
• Clerics
You may spend a heroism point to allow one ally to recover 50% HP.
See... I'm thinking of possibly making an expansion for OD&D that incorporates ideas I liked from 4E.
I'm not sure though...
On 4/23/2009 at 10:10pm, Vordark wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
I like the general idea of a having a reserve of points you can spend to accomplish certain effects (I've actually written a plug-in for my system that does this). The only two gotchas are...
1. Not every GM wants a game where the characters can use points to "brute force" their way through obstacles in the absence of proper planning or tactics.
2. Balancing the various uses can sometimes be problematic.
On the more general topic of porting 4E ideas into 3.5, you might want to check out Pathfinder. It's by a publishing outfit that put out crap tons of content for 3.5, and they are trying to make what some people are calling "The Real Fourth Edition". I believe the rules are available as a free download.
On 4/23/2009 at 10:38pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
chronoplasm wrote: See... I'm thinking of possibly making an expansion for OD&D that incorporates ideas I liked from 4E.
I would be interested in seeing such a thing. I've heard many good things about 4E, but OD&D has always been a favorite for me in terms of playability and ease of play. I know OD&D isn't quite as balanced (or overwrought) as 3E, but unlike 3E it is actually playable at higher levels, which is a big plus for my sensibilities.
So, question, will this be something similar to Castles & Crusades (the 3E/OD&D mash-up)? Because seeing some of the innovations of 4E thrown in to the mix would be very interesting. Also, which OD&D do you mean? Which I ask because some folks use that to mean just the old white box rules, and some folks expand that to mean the red box and similar.
On 4/23/2009 at 11:34pm, Brimshack wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Couple thoughts...
You might want to limit re-rolls to any die roll other than a 1 or a 20.
Another thing you could do, it will give it more of a modern gaming feel, but it will save you ink and finger tapping is try to concoct a complete lost of the special Heroism options, label them, and then just add the label to any creatures or classes you want to have them.
On 4/24/2009 at 12:15am, chronoplasm wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
White box OD&D; that's the only edition I know actually (I bought it in pdf when that was still kosher).
I haven't seen Castles and Crusades yet but I did check out Pathfinder and I've been trying to get my old play group to give it a try along with 4E. So far they are pretty stubborn in their insistance on 3.5 though.
The Heroism points would be an optional rule that GMs can permit or exclude depending on their tastes. If groups don't want to use it, then the system will function and be balanced without it.
What I'm imagining here is a modular rules-set where the parts are built to interlock, but function well enough on their own and retain their integrity when other parts are removed.
I also want rules with layers that can be added for gritty simulationism or removed for abstract gamism. I saw stuff like this in the AD&D 2nd edition books, and I liked the idea, even if I don't prefer the implementation.
On 4/24/2009 at 12:39am, chronoplasm wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
chronoplasm wrote:
White box OD&D; that's the only edition I know actually (I bought it in pdf when that was still kosher).
Blech. I put this wrong.
That's the only version of OD&D I know. I am well acquainted with the other editions of D&D.
Anyway, heres the things I like about 4E:
System transparency. Wizards really did a good job on this one of letting the players in on their design process.
The 'Roles' (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader). I want to include these as optional features that can be added onto the OD&D classes.
Page 44 of the DMG. OD&D needs something like this.
Disease rules. I like how they are done in 4E.
Healing Surges and Action Points, only I'd like to combine them into Heroism Points.
Powers. They are really easy to design. I'd like to see some kind of guide similar to Page 44 to help balance them though.
Monsters. Like powers, they are very easy to design and reskin.
On 4/24/2009 at 4:50am, whiteknife wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
chronoplasm wrote:
Anyway, heres the things I like about 4E:
System transparency. Wizards really did a good job on this one of letting the players in on their design process.
The 'Roles' (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader). I want to include these as optional features that can be added onto the OD&D classes.
Page 44 of the DMG. OD&D needs something like this.
Disease rules. I like how they are done in 4E.
Healing Surges and Action Points, only I'd like to combine them into Heroism Points.
Powers. They are really easy to design. I'd like to see some kind of guide similar to Page 44 to help balance them though.
Monsters. Like powers, they are very easy to design and reskin.
Well, I actually like 4e, so take my ideas with a grain of salt.
System transparency is easy to keep.
The roles. Well to graft these onto an existing edition is actually not that hard. Each role sort of has its own "thing" if you'll notice:
Defenders mark enemies so that foes will focus on them, and have straight up damage and weaken foe powers. Strikers have an ability allowing them to deal extra damage, and usually have movement or ranged attack powers. Controllers have powers that inflict conditions and deal damage to multiple targets, and tend to do better outside of combat than other roles. Leaders can heal, and have powers focused on buffs or debuffs, also using allies in their powers.
I checked, pg44 is about falling damage. You might have quoted the wrong pg # there (or I looked it up wrong, or you think that's a valuable game feature)
The disease rules are fine. Easily portable.
Combining surges and action points...well it would work, but you could end up with some people going a bunch of times in a row and then running out of HP, and others who are less effective in combat due to less use of action points but can heal more. I don't see how this would help much, but it wouldn't be that bad either.
Powers...I actually thought these were rather hard to design. But they are fun.
Monsters. Yeah, they're easy.
On 4/24/2009 at 6:55pm, chronoplasm wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Okay, so heres a sample of the table of contents I'm thinking of...
CHARACTERS
• Alternate Methods for Rolling Ability Scores
• Classes
• Variant Fighting-Men
• Optional Rule: Fighting-Man Exploits
• Variant Magic-Users
• New Magic-User Spells
• Familiars
• Variant Clerics
• New Cleric Spells
• New Class: Savage
• Savage Evocations
• Races
• Variant Humans
• Variant Elves
• Variant Dwarves
• Variant Hobbits
• New Race: Orc
• New Race: Devil
• New Race: Angel
• New Race: Dragon
• Tips and Advice for Creating New Races and Classes
• Optional Rules
• Variant Rules: Removing Race/Class Restrictions
• Optional Rule: Heroism Points
• Optional Rule: Roles
• Optional Rule: Feats
• Optional Rule: Paragon Paths
• Optional Rule: Epic Destinies
COMBAT
• Classic Style (THAC0)
• Contemporary Style (BAB)
• Converting BAB to THAC0 and vise versa
• Variant Matrices for Arms and Armor
• Optional Rules: Movement and Terrain
• Optional Rules: Status Conditions
• Variant Rules for Diseases and Poisons
How is that for a start?
On 4/25/2009 at 4:51pm, MacLeod wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
Seems like a solid start.
I tell you what I would be interested in, a variant Player's Handbook for 4E that completely changes the Powers system. :) I would get that, and I don't even own any 4E products. ;)
On 4/25/2009 at 8:11pm, Seamus wrote:
RE: Re: I'd Like to make a Heartbreaker...
chronoplasm wrote:
One of the points I keep hearing regarding old OD&D is that the system is so simple and threadbare that it can support any character concept and any situation through DM fiat and houserules.
What if you houserule it so extensively though that it ceases to be the same game? Why bother with the original rules in the first place?
In D&D 4E, the rules are a lot tighter and more complex. It is still easy to houserule and come up with your own content for anything that the rules don't already support, and I do that a lot.
There are a lot of things about 4E that I like, a lot of things I don't like, and a lot of things I think can be expanded upon.
At some point though, these changes have accumulated to a point where they are no longer even the same game.
Eventually, after breaking the game down and rebuilding the game from the ground up, I may end up with something that is noticeably based on Dungeons and Dragons, but very much a new kind of creature.
Is there any point in releasing this beast into the wild?
First off it would have to compete with its forebears.
If somebody does buy it, they would likely tinker with it to the point that is no longer even the same game it started as... so what is the point of even making the game in the first place?
I guess I'm just wondering if there is any point in publishing my ideas or if I should just keep them to myself and my group.
Your thoughts?
I would be wary of releasing anything that has too much of a homebrew flavor. Nothing wrong with homebrew, but I've found homebrews are so personal to the group that produces them, they just don't connect with other gamers. I play with a bunch of guys who homebrewed a kind AD&D/3e fusion. For us it works, because we share a gaming history, we know what everyone likes and doesn't. But anytime someone new comes to the table, you can tell they just aren't digging our homebrew system.
In my opinion, 4E is a great system. Tight and Steamlined, just like I like it. But I have to agree with one of the other posters. It doesn't feel like D&D anymore. This is one of those cases where the rules really determine the feel of the game, and if it were called anything else, I would love it. If green ronin had put it out as a new fantasy system, I would probably be playing it every week. But I play D&D to play D&D. And 4E just doesn't ring the right emotional chords for me. I never had this problem with editions before either. I loved D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E and 3E. I played them and loved them all. Something about 4E doesn't feel like D&D to me, I think its all the powers and the way spells work now, but to be honest it has been difficult for me to put my finger on it.
That said, I salute the designers of 4E. I do think it is a really great system. I had to admire the presentation, the mechanics, and the no BS approach. I just wish they had called it something else.