Game Designers ASSEMBLE

[Ziegander]

I have been inspired. By the success of Kickstarter, by the not-so-great stuff I'm seeing for D&D Next, and by all of the design mistakes Pathfinder repeated from D&D 3.5. I'm convinced that I can put together a better game than the ones we've got, and I'm of the notion to sell it.

In the past, I've worked with a team of designers and optimizers to attempt a project of this sort. We actually got quite a lot of work done, even without project leads (like Lead Designer or Lead Developer). What we did then was have a section of our forum sequestered for our use only, private (and invisible as far as I know) to the rest of the forum, where we chatted amongst ourselves every day.

What I would like to do for this project is either a version of the same thing, or start a forum of our own (though with the fees that go along with that I may need to start the Kickstarter before that can happen), where we discuss the project.

The thing I want to do differently is to designate teams and leadership. A clear and finite Design Team with a Lead Designer, that works on the creative side of game mechanics. A clear and finite Development Team with a Lead Developer, that works on the functionality and user-friendliness side of game mechanics.

The Lead Designer (ostensibly myself) would be responsible for establishing the design goals and vision, organizing the design process, and, after weighing the opinions of the design team, making the final decisions on what goes over to development for editing/approval.

The Lead Developer (probably not myself unless no one else wants to do it) would be responsible for organizing the editing and rules-approval process, establishing the criteria with which that process operates, and, after receiving documents from the Lead Designer, preparing the game documents for publication.

Design goals:

1) Reproduce the play-style and feel of D&D 3.5 while fixing the problems and at the same time creating a game that is different enough that I don't need any rights to anything. This means making a d20 game and not a D&D rewrite. And that's okay.

2) Keep the "Core" rules simple and functional. The fluff needs to inform the mechanics and the mechanics need to inform the fluff. If the Fighter is supposed to be an elite vanguard, seasoned bodyguard, grizzled veteran, and cunning sergeant all in one, then the mechanics need to support all of that at once (and probably allow specialization to some extent). Everything must be easy to understand and hard to fuck up. Playable out of the box, as much so, if not more so, than Tome of Battle was/is.

3) Maintain a clear vision of what the product aims to be and to do, and include in that vision a picture of the future. While the core product should be simple and functional, plans to offer expansions with more complex, diverse, and interesting sets of mechanics should be accounted for and encouraged.

The Plan:

Here's where you potentially come in. I can't design a whole new game on my own, even if it is a d20 D&D 3.5 heartbreaker. I've tried it before. I don't normally get very far. I want to put together a team of talented designers, writers, and any optimizers who would like to serve as consultants and playtesters to help me build a better game.

I want to write one book that has all of the rules needed to play + a somewhat short section on game mastering which would include encounter guidelines and monster creation guidelines. This one book should be all one absolutely needs to play the game. In this book, I want a few classes that simply do what they say they do, and do it as simply as we can manage.

I want to make sure I have the team together and make sure that there is enough interest in our product, and then, assuming that both remain true, work on expansions to the single, core rulebook. The first of these expansions should likely be a Monster Manual of sorts (though it would be nice to make this book a catch-all encounter guidebook, with social and puzzle encounters drawn up as well, perhaps call it the Grimoire of Challenges). After that we can design sub-systems to our hearts content, creating our own versions of the Complete series, our own Unearthed Arcanas, and our own Tomes of Battle.


This is being cross-posted at giantitp.com.

So, what I want to know is: Your attention, do I have it? Who would join me on this quest? Who would support me, if not in actually writing the game, with monetary donation (in however small amounts)? In spirit? Let me know if you want to help me out in any way.

[sirpercival]

I'll help you design, sure.  It's essentially homebrew on a massive scale.  I love homebrewing.  Therefore my choice is simple

One thing we need to have is a coherent vision.  We need to agree on what's staying and what's going, if we're starting from d20; we also need a clear design philosophy.

Design goals:

1) Reproduce the play-style and feel of D&D 3.5 while fixing the problems and at the same time creating a game that is different enough that I don't need any rights to anything. This means making a d20 game and not a D&D rewrite. And that's okay.

One thing that we're going to have to decide is how much unbalance we're willing to include.  A completely balanced game is boring, especially for optimizers (because there's nothing to optimize).  However, that unbalance is part of what makes 3.5 so borked.

[Ziegander]

One thing we need to have is a coherent vision.  We need to agree on what's staying and what's going, if we're starting from d20; we also need a clear design philosophy.

Well, my vision is a game that plays as closely to the basic rules set forth by the d20 SRD as possible, while making the end result as improved as we can. The design philosophy should consistently be "simple and functional" which feeds into the notion that the rules should do what they say they can do. Design and development honesty between creator and player is important.

Design goals:

1) Reproduce the play-style and feel of D&D 3.5 while fixing the problems and at the same time creating a game that is different enough that I don't need any rights to anything. This means making a d20 game and not a D&D rewrite. And that's okay.

One thing that we're going to have to decide is how much unbalance we're willing to include.  A completely balanced game is boring, especially for optimizers (because there's nothing to optimize).  However, that unbalance is part of what makes 3.5 so borked.

I'm glad you mentioned this. Balance should NOT be a top priority; however, that doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to ignore balance either. While balance doesn't necessarily need to be a top priority, honesty and forthrightness does. If our Fighter isn't as versatile as our Wizard, then the rulebook needs to tell the players that up front. I DO believe that we should strive to make playing both fun, and effective, but I DON'T think it's a problem if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter - as long as the Fighter can also play the game.

This goes back to having the rules do what they say they do. If the Fighter is presented as the guy that wades into melee with Fire Giants, then he'd better perfectly capable of doing that and coming out alive and victorious. If the Wizard can achieve victory against those Fire Giants easier and with less personal risk, that's fine - as long as the rulebook is up front with the players about the Wizard being better than the Fighter. Not that I'm advocating that Wizards automatically be stronger than Fighters; I'm just speaking in hypotheticals.

[zioth]

Balanced isn't boring. Making every class the same is boring. The goal should be that, at each level, all the core classes are roughly equal in power. Ideally, the classes will be doing very different things, but one shouldn't stand out too much over another. In some way, a 14th level fighter should be able to fight as well as a 14th level wizard does magic.

One big problem is that it's very hard to balance things for every group of players. For example, I'm playing a game right now where the 26th level melee fighters are holding their own in a party full of epic casters. If melee classes were made far more powerful, the casters in my game wouldn't be able to do anything. On the other hand, a fully optimized caster is better than an entire party of fighters.

[Ziegander]

One big problem is that it's very hard to balance things for every group of players. For example, I'm playing a game right now where the 26th level melee fighters are holding their own in a party full of epic casters. If melee classes were made far more powerful, the casters in my game wouldn't be able to do anything. On the other hand, a fully optimized caster is better than an entire party of fighters.

Which is why I'm advocating the approach that we should design the game with an eye toward balance, but not get wrapped up in hammering out the wrinkles in balance that are inevitably going to come up. If the final product is functional (which is to say that it does what it says it does), but imbalanced, that's not a problem. The reason that's a problem in D&D 3.5 is that a Fighter is said to be a master of warfare and capable melee combatant, but when you measure his abilities in actual combat situations against actual melee monsters, he doesn't match up. To compound this, D&D 3.5's classes are packaged together and sold to the players as if they are all equally valid choices that are well-balanced against one another. We know that to be false.

As long as everything functions as we advertise, and as long as we are honest with the readers/players about any balance issues that do arise, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[sirpercival]

I propose we package classes together as "Basic" and "Advanced" (maybe more gradations).  Wizards and Druids, for example, would be Advanced, while Fighters would be "Basic".  We make no promises about balancing between the packages.

[Ziegander]

I propose we package classes together as "Basic" and "Advanced" (maybe more gradations).  Wizards and Druids, for example, would be Advanced, while Fighters would be "Basic".  We make no promises about balancing between the packages.

I can't agree with that approach. I think what we need to do is be clear with the readers/players that the "core" rulebook is the "basic" game. That is, player options, including races, classes, and feats, are all very easy to understand, hard to fuck up, and playable out of the box. The "core" rulebook needs to be as simple and functional as we can possibly make it.

Any distinction between "basic" and "advanced" would be between the "core" rulebook and expansions. Like Magic: the Gathering, there are Core Sets, described as "starter level," there are then preconstructed decks described as "advanced level," and then there are the block expansions described as "expert level." In MtG there is not a significant difference in the playability between "starter level," "advanced level," and "expert level" cards; the difference between them lies in the complexity of their rules.

As I see it, our core rulebook and expansions should follow the same pattern. There should be little to no difference in the mechanical soundness of rules and options presented in those books, but the rules and options in the core rulebook should be the simplest and easiest to understand, while those in expansions can be allowed more complexity and challenge (of course, there can be simple mechanics in the expansion books as well).

I don't think we need to specifically label classes as "Basic" or "Advanced" (but perhaps we could with whole books), but even if we do make any kind of distinction like that, it shouldn't be a division based on which classes or other options are better than the others. It should be a division based on which are easier or harder to play with. "Basic" mechanics would be the easiest to use. "Advanced" ones would be more difficult (if also, perhaps, more rewarding from a mental challenge point of view - not from an optimizing point of view).

[TravelLog]

I'm certainly intrigued by the "package" system. It could pay dividends, though we would certainly need to consider whether we want certain base classes to be "basic" and "advanced" or whether we want to have all base classes be "basic" while offering PrCs that allow for greater breadth and depth that we could classify as "advanced".

[Risada]

I remember that... I took part in it - even though I had a lot less system mastery back then...

But yeah, I could try to be of some help to this project...

[Ziegander]

I'm certainly intrigued by the "package" system. It could pay dividends, though we would certainly need to consider whether we want certain base classes to be "basic" and "advanced" or whether we want to have all base classes be "basic" while offering PrCs that allow for greater breadth and depth that we could classify as "advanced".

Isn't that kind of insulting though, to have classes classified as "basic" or "advanced?" I'd rather go the all or nothing route (leaning toward nothing) when it comes to such labels, meaning that an entire book is a set of either "basic" rules or "advanced" rules.

In fact, a very understated usage of those terms might make for good marketing. Let's say we call the product Bears with Swordchucks RPG. Our core book could be called the Bears with Swordchucks Basic Rulebook. Then, a later splat could be called Bears with Swordchucks Advanced Combat. Another splat could be called Bears with Swordchucks Advanced Sorcery. Etc, etc.

But the "basic" stuff and the "advanced" stuff, again, should be divided only be complexity. The "advanced" stuff should decidedly NOT be more powerful than the "basic" stuff, only more complicated. There should be at least an attempt at balance between the "basic" stuff and the "advanced" stuff, and, if we can help it, I think we should avoid using those labels as much as possible.

Now, onto the more specific. As a d20 game, everything in the SRD is up for grabs. In order to maintain the play-style and feel of D&D, I'd say that the six ability scores stay, that races and classes stay, that feats stay, and that hit points stay.

Prestige classes can probably stay, though they would likely not exist until we get to "advanced" rulebooks, since they are an unnecessary add-on to the "basic" rules. It might also be a good idea to explore converting the concept and execution of prestige classes into Alternate Class Features.

Skills... I'm on the fence about. We all know how little they actually add to the game. I feel like they are an unnecessary complication that adds almost nothing to gameplay - especially beyond the first 5 levels of the game.

EDIT: Sorry, my idea for "replacing" the little that skills DO add to the game would be to simply make them ability checks. So Balance is just replaced with a Dex check. Jump is replaced with a Str check. Disable Device is an Int check. Use Magic Device is a Cha check. It would require some fiddling around, but I think the result is much simpler. Any other ideas on skills, how they should work, what should be done with them?

[Jackinthegreen]

I tend to constantly make ideas, though I don't necessarily finish them on my own.  Usually I try to err on the side of fairly balanced and mostly practical, but I realize there are times where going apeshit on the rules is its own reward.

I'd be down for helping.

Do we want to start itemizing the various successes and failures of 3.P and build from there?


A reason skills don't do much is because spells/powers do the stuff better typically. Another is that they tend to require too much investment to get fully off the ground.  Basically what we'd have to do to truly make them viable is make sure spells don't eclipse actual skills and that each skill feels solid and useful.  Making skills feel solid will likely require combining some of them.  Handing out more skill points needs to be looked at since many classes could definitely use more, but having an overflow will be bad design.  Skill monkeys need to have their own shtick such that casters and martials don't step on their toes so much, but there's enough overlap to get the job done in a pinch.

Replacing skills with ability checks could work, but there's the iconic skill monkey role that might be tossed aside with that design.  Having ways to augment those checks would probably boil down to putting the skill system back in.  I think we'd be losing another way to make the game feel awesome if we nixed them without at least trying to make them usable.

[Ziegander]

Basically what we'd have to do to truly make them viable is make sure spells don't eclipse actual skills and that each skill feels solid and useful.  Making skills feel solid will likely require combining some of them.  Handing out more skill points needs to be looked at since many classes could definitely use more, but having an overflow will be bad design.  Skill monkeys need to have their own shtick such that casters and martials don't step on their toes so much, but there's enough overlap to get the job done in a pinch.

My questions are 1) Is all that work worth the complication and headache? and 2) Are skills really so integral to the D&D play-style and feel that we must preserve them in spite of attempts at streamlining?

[sirpercival]

In fact, a very understated usage of those terms might make for good marketing. Let's say we call the product Bears with Swordchucks RPG. Our core book could be called the Bears with Swordchucks Basic Rulebook. Then, a later splat could be called Bears with Swordchucks Advanced Combat. Another splat could be called Bears with Swordchucks Advanced Sorcery. Etc, etc.

Yes let's do this.

But the "basic" stuff and the "advanced" stuff, again, should be divided only be complexity. The "advanced" stuff should decidedly NOT be more powerful or more versatile than the "basic" stuff, only more complicated. There should be at least an attempt at balance between the "basic" stuff and the "advanced" stuff, and, if we can help it, I think we should avoid using those labels as much as possible.

You've convinced me.  However, in terms of explicit detailing of imbalance, we should build a tier system in directly.  It's very easy that way for DMs to adjudicate party balance and power level.

Now, onto the more specific. As a d20 game, everything in the SRD is up for grabs. In order to maintain the play-style and feel of D&D, I'd say that the six ability scores stay, that races and classes stay, that feats stay, and that hit points stay.

Agreed on most points -- I think we need to revisit hit points, though.  I know it's an iconic part of the D&D ruleset in every edition, but (at least in 3.5) it doesn't do what it says it does.  We can keep it in some iteration, but we have to tinker with it.

Prestige classes can probably stay, though they would likely not exist until we get to "advanced" rulebooks, since they are an unnecessary add-on to the "basic" rules. It might also be a good idea to explore converting the concept and execution of prestige classes into Alternate Class Features.

I think Prestige Classes (in some form or another) should stay, for one reason only: dual-progression and mixing of archetypes.  You can't do that with ACFs.  You can handle different forms of reflavoring and specialization with ACFs, but not combined archetypes unless we SERIOUSLY alter the ACF rules.

Just brainstorming here: if you want to do away with PrCs altogether but allow archetype mixing, we could implement some sort of gestalt system, kind of like combining AD&D multiclassing with the modularity of 3.5.  Something like... I dunno... you can take two (or more?) levels at the same time and it counts as 1 level for your ECL, but you take a 50% experience penalty for that level.  Exp is a River helps you stay relevant.  This would obviously need to be tweaked a lot, but it's just an idea.  I'd rather stick with PrCs, though...

If we do away with PrCs, another thing we should do is integrate Affiliations & Organizations much more strongly.  That's one of the largest types of PrC so we'd have to replace it in concept space.

One thing we should definitely keep from 3.5 is the normalized experience progressions.  Nothing is more frustrating than leveling up slower than everyone else because you're a druid and they're all rogues.

Skills... I'm on the fence about. We all know how little they actually add to the game. I feel like they are an unnecessary complication that adds almost nothing to gameplay - especially beyond the first 5 levels of the game.

We'll need some mechanic for adjudicating non-combat non-magic interaction with NPCs and the environment.  Skills allow you to represent the work your character has put into learning how to do particular things (as opposed to Ability checks which are based on natural talents).  We can change the skill system, even axe it completely, but we'll need to replace it with something.

[Jackinthegreen]

My questions are 1) Is all that work worth the complication and headache? and 2) Are skills really so integral to the D&D play-style and feel that we must preserve them in spite of attempts at streamlining?

It's debatable whether the skills were integral to D&D.  Having only played 3.5 myself, a lot of the average DMs will want a way to do things that don't involve smashing faces or casting spells for everything.  Sure rolling ability checks could work, but they'd need some way to be made better over the levels just as martials are better able to kill and casters get access to better spells.  At the point where we have a system to make ability checks better we'd almost be at the skill system itself.  Mostly I'm worried that taking out the possible versatility offered by skills will be detrimental to a game so broad as D&D.

[Jackinthegreen]

Agreed on most points -- I think we need to revisit hit points, though.  I know it's an iconic part of the D&D ruleset in every edition, but (at least in 3.5) it doesn't do what it says it does.  We can keep it in some iteration, but we have to tinker with it.

Prestige classes can probably stay, though they would likely not exist until we get to "advanced" rulebooks, since they are an unnecessary add-on to the "basic" rules. It might also be a good idea to explore converting the concept and execution of prestige classes into Alternate Class Features.

I think Prestige Classes (in some form or another) should stay, for one reason only: dual-progression and mixing of archetypes.  You can't do that with ACFs.  You can handle different forms of reflavoring and specialization with ACFs, but not combined archetypes unless we SERIOUSLY alter the ACF rules.

Just brainstorming here: if you want to do away with PrCs altogether but allow archetype mixing, we could implement some sort of gestalt system, kind of like combining AD&D multiclassing with the modularity of 3.5.  Something like... I dunno... you can take two (or more?) levels at the same time and it counts as 1 level for your ECL, but you take a 50% experience penalty for that level.  Exp is a River helps you stay relevant.  This would obviously need to be tweaked a lot, but it's just an idea.  I'd rather stick with PrCs, though...

If we do away with PrCs, another thing we should do is integrate Affiliations & Organizations much more strongly.  That's one of the largest types of PrC so we'd have to replace it in concept space.

PrC's need to stay or else we need to offer ways for classes and characters to do something different within the chosen class.  The most prominent example for me would be a system like WoW where you have the classes and then specializations within the class that still feel like the class but can play totally different yet still be effective.  Some of those specializations are harder to play for similar reward, but the uniqueness and difficulty can be quite fun.

As far as hit points go, getting those to be more relevant requires fiddling with save or die/suck effects, particularly their typically binary nature.  We need gradual ways for characters to die, yet not so gradual that the difference between effects is barely noticed.

[Ziegander]

You've convinced me.  However, in terms of explicit detailing of imbalance, we should build a tier system in directly.  It's very easy that way for DMs to adjudicate party balance and power level.

Well, making that a design/development goal before any design/development work is done sounds a lot to me like intentionally planning to design/develop player options that are weaker/stronger than others. I'm pretty against that.

Now, I do assume that imbalance will exist, it's basically unavoidable, but I think we should worry about these sorts of guidelines, and what they should entail, when we get closer to a finished product, and not before the work has begun.

Agreed on most points -- I think we need to revisit hit points, though.  I know it's an iconic part of the D&D ruleset in every edition, but (at least in 3.5) it doesn't do what it says it does.  We can keep it in some iteration, but we have to tinker with it.

Well, hit points kind of do what they say they do and they kind of don't, but I do agree that we need to tinker with the concept. I just don't know that we need to worry about tinkering all that much.

I think Prestige Classes (in some form or another) should stay, for one reason only: dual-progression and mixing of archetypes.  You can't do that with ACFs.  You can handle different forms of reflavoring and specialization with ACFs, but not combined archetypes unless we SERIOUSLY alter the ACF rules.

Well, like I said, PrCs can definitely work for an "advanced" product, but as far as dual-progression or mixing archetypes I really feel like a lot of that can be handled, in the "basic" product, by multiclassing that is as good as (and hopefully better) than Tome of Battle multiclassing. The little bit that can't be handled that way should probably be offered as new classes in "advanced" products.

If we do away with PrCs, another thing we should do is integrate Affiliations & Organizations much more strongly.  That's one of the largest types of PrC so we'd have to replace it in concept space.

That's a very interesting idea, but, again, one that works best as an "advanced" splat book product. But I like the direction you're thinking in.

One thing we should definitely keep from 3.5 is the normalized experience progressions.  Nothing is more frustrating than leveling up slower than everyone else because you're a druid and they're all rogues.

Oh my god, yes, that should have never been a question. Phew! Yes, this. Lol.

We'll need some mechanic for adjudicating non-combat non-magic interaction with NPCs and the environment.  Skills allow you to represent the work your character has put into learning how to do particular things (as opposed to Ability checks which are based on natural talents).  We can change the skill system, even axe it completely, but we'll need to replace it with something.

It's debatable whether the skills were integral to D&D.  Having only played 3.5 myself, a lot of the average DMs will want a way to do things that don't involve smashing faces or casting spells for everything.  Sure rolling ability checks could work, but they'd need some way to be made better over the levels just as martials are better able to kill and casters get access to better spells.  At the point where we have a system to make ability checks better we'd almost be at the skill system itself.  Mostly I'm worried that taking out the possible versatility offered by skills will be detrimental to a game so broad as D&D.

But can you both acknowledge at least that the vast majority 3.5 skills basically do nothing relevant at any character level?

[Seerow]

PrC's need to stay or else we need to offer ways for classes and characters to do something different within the chosen class.  The most prominent example for me would be a system like WoW where you have the classes and then specializations within the class that still feel like the class but can play totally different yet still be effective.

Isn't that basically what feats were intended to accomplish? Though I agree prestige classes should stay in, they could easily be expansion material, if there's enough core material (in terms of spells/abilities, feats, and skills) that you can make two characters of the same class feel different.

But can you both acknowledge at least that the vast majority 3.5 skills basically do nothing relevant at any character level?

Skills don't really do much in 3.5, but that doesn't mean they can't ever do anything. Make extra usages of skills based on skill ranks invested and you can be sure they will remain relevant without worrying about +30 enhancement bonus items killing the balance of the game.

[Ziegander]

Skills don't really do much in 3.5, but that doesn't mean they can't ever do anything. Make extra usages of skills based on skill ranks invested and you can be sure they will remain relevant without worrying about +30 enhancement bonus items killing the balance of the game.

Trust me, I don't mean to say that they can't do anything. Adding extra skill uses based on skill ranks invested is a TON of work. Ask TarkisFlux. It's also a vast increase in not only complexity, but also in character power level. If one of the design goals is to streamline D&D, then I don't know that keeping the skill system and adding more bookkeeping (and power) to it is the best idea.

[RobbyPants]

I'm interested in lending a hand. I think it probably would be best for you to lay out most of the design goals and to have veto power, otherwise the same thing that happened at BG will happen here. With one lead designer and a team to farm out work, you can get better results, so long as the others are on board.

I'm not sure how you want to handle certain aspects of the game. We may want to hash out some of that early on.

I've been spending my off time over the past six months doing work on my own project, with the original intent of being quick and dirty. It's grown beyond that, but I do tend to favor simplicity over perfection, so it's been a lot less frustrating than other projects. There may or may not be some ideas in there that you may like.

[Jackinthegreen]

PrC's need to stay or else we need to offer ways for classes and characters to do something different within the chosen class.  The most prominent example for me would be a system like WoW where you have the classes and then specializations within the class that still feel like the class but can play totally different yet still be effective.

Isn't that basically what feats were intended to accomplish? Though I agree prestige classes should stay in, they could easily be expansion material, if there's enough core material (in terms of spells/abilities, feats, and skills) that you can make two characters of the same class feel different.

Feats may have been intended to differentiate individuals within the class, yes.  In practice though, feats will usually be chosen to augment class features.  Having the option of different but similarly effective class features helps enrich the game, but going overboard on them can of course detract from it.  Prestige Classes could be extensions of ACFs and thus would fall under advanced gaming.  That notion is actually somewhat similar to how D&D 3.X has actually handled it given the PrCs were not in the PHB but instead found in the DMG.