Like, basic D&D? I ain’t basic! How dare you, pistols at dawn!
To be fair,
"Basic" wasn't the insult it is now back then.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I think the term basic is something that would be easy to change in a new edition, I doubt anybody is particularly attached to that verbiage.
And yes, part of being well-executed would necessitate cross compatibility. The idea is based on some of my anecdotal experience with 4E, which I initially disliked because the classes felt much more rigid, but also got to see all of my friends who hadn't been playing D&D for the better part of a decade excel in for the exact same reason. A system that allowed for some people to just pick a character sheet and add a name and others to sit around for an hour before game calculating which weapon has the best average damage with a given feat selection to play together is both generally an admirable goal and also I think something that D&D fundamentally wants to be.
+6
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
The initial idea as I had it actually bloomed outward from one of the many discussions about how to fix race in D&D. Specifically the problem of how iconic some of the racial stereotypes (as often reinforced by the rules) have become, and how many people want to be able to retain those in some measure, whether it's through keeping the abilities as they are or through flavor text or what have you.
Which had me thinking about a basic set that accepts and reinforces those ideas - player characters are maybe just the classic core set of races, you have some classic race/class combinations that give you your frail elves and your stout dwarfs, you have a bunch of monster races that are more or less just monsters for you to fight. A back to basics traditional game, being heroes and killing bad guys.
And then for the advanced set you can dispense with stuff like racial ability score modifiers and even racial abilities (personally I would create a set of special feats/abilities/traits that can only be taken at first level to represent those sorts of things and let players mix and match to make their cool person) - the elf was frail and the dwarf was stout because the characters were The Elven Enchanter and The Dwarven Defender, that still follows logically. In doing this, you're adding in additional playable "monster" race options, but largely in the form of player choice - you can choose to play a lizardman by saying you're a lizardman and picking options that you think make sense for a lizardman to have. Include some recommendations for players who want to model their characters after the Monster Manual depiction of those, but don't require that, because it's not required for anyone.
+1
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Which was a good joke in Stranger Things. Eddie asks if Erica has a 1st level dwarf. He was asking if she played Basic without asking if she played Basic.
The worst error in Stranger Things came right after when Erica says she has a 14th level chaotic good half-elf rogue named Lady Applejack.
Rogues weren't a class until 3rd editon. In 2nd edition both bards and thieves were considered subclasses of Rogue, but you couldn't just be a rogue without being a thief or bard (or whatever extra subclass came out in Dragon Magazine). Also, 2E wasn't until 1989.
You also couldn't be a chaotic good thief, since they were limited to neutral or evil alignments.
At first I was going to knock it for her being 14th level since demihumans generally could not get past 10th-12th level, but thieves were the exception and pretty much anyone could get unlimited level as a thief, meaning that nonhumans essentially had to turn to a life of crime to compete with humans.
Lady Applejack also would have had strength and constitution limits based on her race and gender, in addition to her stat changes. She's lucky for being a half-elf, though, because female gnomes, dwarves, and halflings weren't allowed to adventure and rarely left the home. The good news is that half elves had no penalty on the seventh stat, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, Comliness. I think female characters and elves even got a bonus to this innately.
Like, basic D&D? I ain’t basic! How dare you, pistols at dawn!
To be fair,
"Basic" wasn't the insult it is now back then.
I'm pretty sure that even before "basic" came to be used as a common insult about lack of sophistication and such, it still was not a great sound to name one of your products "the edition for dummies".
Which was a good joke in Stranger Things. Eddie asks if Erica has a 1st level dwarf. He was asking if she played Basic without asking if she played Basic.
The worst error in Stranger Things came right after when Erica says she has a 14th level chaotic good half-elf rogue named Lady Applejack.
Rogues weren't a class until 3rd editon. In 2nd edition both bards and thieves were considered subclasses of Rogue, but you couldn't just be a rogue without being a thief or bard (or whatever extra subclass came out in Dragon Magazine). Also, 2E wasn't until 1989.
You also couldn't be a chaotic good thief, since they were limited to neutral or evil alignments.
Like, basic D&D? I ain’t basic! How dare you, pistols at dawn!
To be fair,
"Basic" wasn't the insult it is now back then.
I'm pretty sure that even before "basic" came to be used as a common insult about lack of sophistication and such, it still was not a great sound to name one of your products "the edition for dummies".
TECHNICALLY it was just "Dungeons & Dragons" and not "Basic," but the most iconic product of that line was the red box Basic Set.
You could also play the D&D Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal Sets.
The knots they tie themselves into keeping non-human characters viable after hitting their level cap were increasingly elaborate.
Which was a good joke in Stranger Things. Eddie asks if Erica has a 1st level dwarf. He was asking if she played Basic without asking if she played Basic.
The worst error in Stranger Things came right after when Erica says she has a 14th level chaotic good half-elf rogue named Lady Applejack.
Rogues weren't a class until 3rd editon. In 2nd edition both bards and thieves were considered subclasses of Rogue, but you couldn't just be a rogue without being a thief or bard (or whatever extra subclass came out in Dragon Magazine). Also, 2E wasn't until 1989.
You also couldn't be a chaotic good thief, since they were limited to neutral or evil alignments.
At first I was going to knock it for her being 14th level since demihumans generally could not get past 10th-12th level, but thieves were the exception and pretty much anyone could get unlimited level as a thief, meaning that nonhumans essentially had to turn to a life of crime to compete with humans.
Lady Applejack also would have had strength and constitution limits based on her race and gender, in addition to her stat changes. She's lucky for being a half-elf, though, because female gnomes, dwarves, and halflings weren't allowed to adventure and rarely left the home. The good news is that half elves had no penalty on the seventh stat, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, Comliness. I think female characters and elves even got a bonus to this innately.
Old D&D was fuckin' dumb, folks.
Thieves' alignment rules moved around a lot. The first thief class Gygax wrote, for Original D&D Greyhawk, could be any alignment except Lawful (I believe OD&D alignments were just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic).
In AD&D 1st edition, they could be any non-good alignment; and in 2nd edition they could be anything but Lawful Good.
But yeah OD&D is such a weird-ass game when you look back on it. Especially when you start looking at the creepy sex nerd shit.
Maybe having a character of the wrong alignment was the old school equivalent of playing a half-demon mammoth-man wizard/barbarian with homebrew subclasses.
Which was a good joke in Stranger Things. Eddie asks if Erica has a 1st level dwarf. He was asking if she played Basic without asking if she played Basic.
The worst error in Stranger Things came right after when Erica says she has a 14th level chaotic good half-elf rogue named Lady Applejack.
Rogues weren't a class until 3rd editon. In 2nd edition both bards and thieves were considered subclasses of Rogue, but you couldn't just be a rogue without being a thief or bard (or whatever extra subclass came out in Dragon Magazine). Also, 2E wasn't until 1989.
You also couldn't be a chaotic good thief, since they were limited to neutral or evil alignments.
Got an email about my rewards for the Planebreaker Kickstarter being ready, so the physical book is on the way and I've gone through the PDF and it's full of all sorts of neat shit. Not quite as weird as Planescape's Sigil, but the new planes are pretty cool and there's a lot of stuff that I can stealuse in my own games.
Might even have the Planebreaker itself show up in my custom setting and leave The Path behind. Nothing like watching a moon shatter reality above you, travel across the sky for a couple days, then punch another hole into reality and go elsewhere (sucking up people, things, and maybe even some buildings and pulling them along after it). Or maybe just have The Path be there since eons ago, so the PCs can learn about and tap into it if/when they feel like it.
+1
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Final thoughts: Like a lot of stuff in D&D it’s a particular campaign mechanic that got spread over the whole game. Less so now perhaps, but there has always been a setting baked into this game that tries to be generic.
I forget what novel it’s ripped from, but it’s about your alignment to a particular set of gods rather than a real expression of your morals. The Law gods aren’t lawyers, they’re a purple-green bunch of reality warping entities. The Chaos gods aren’t anarchists, they’re a blue-yellow bunch of reality warping entities. Humans were picked by Law, monsters by Chaos.
Good and Evil were added and they’re much the same. Angels aren’t good, but they are Good. It’s Good when they raze a city to the ground for unknowable reasons. Demons are Evil, but they’re not evil, not really, because evil is a choice a creature with free will makes.
I’ve never used alignments, but I think it’d be interesting to say your alignment is chosen for you by strange, alien gods, and it shouldn’t mean shit to you… but they’ve picked you, and the world bends to them.
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Overall I am anti-alignment
But I think alignment is an interesting framework for a game, and I think the idea of people and characters having some moral standard that they are largely governed by is a potentially useful one in being able to populate and simulate a world
But also my personal alignment is firmly narrativist, not simulationist, so that doesn't count for a lot
Generally speaking I don’t like really sweeping alignments like Law and Good, and much prefer “This order of Knights follow this code and these tenets” and it’s up to the players to decide how they feel about that (both in universe and as players).
Like legit I think a mystery game with lower stakes like that sounds kinda fun
There’s a bunch of games you can use. I haven’t looked into it but there’s one called Brindlewood Bay where apparently you start a session without an answer to the mystery, and instead players roll up a clue at appropriate points, and at the end they have to make it fit together. Found [big footprints], [candle] and a [torn black cloth]? Must have been the tall priest!
Posts
Like, basic D&D? I ain’t basic! How dare you, pistols at dawn!
To be fair,
"Basic" wasn't the insult it is now back then.
And yes, part of being well-executed would necessitate cross compatibility. The idea is based on some of my anecdotal experience with 4E, which I initially disliked because the classes felt much more rigid, but also got to see all of my friends who hadn't been playing D&D for the better part of a decade excel in for the exact same reason. A system that allowed for some people to just pick a character sheet and add a name and others to sit around for an hour before game calculating which weapon has the best average damage with a given feat selection to play together is both generally an admirable goal and also I think something that D&D fundamentally wants to be.
Which had me thinking about a basic set that accepts and reinforces those ideas - player characters are maybe just the classic core set of races, you have some classic race/class combinations that give you your frail elves and your stout dwarfs, you have a bunch of monster races that are more or less just monsters for you to fight. A back to basics traditional game, being heroes and killing bad guys.
And then for the advanced set you can dispense with stuff like racial ability score modifiers and even racial abilities (personally I would create a set of special feats/abilities/traits that can only be taken at first level to represent those sorts of things and let players mix and match to make their cool person) - the elf was frail and the dwarf was stout because the characters were The Elven Enchanter and The Dwarven Defender, that still follows logically. In doing this, you're adding in additional playable "monster" race options, but largely in the form of player choice - you can choose to play a lizardman by saying you're a lizardman and picking options that you think make sense for a lizardman to have. Include some recommendations for players who want to model their characters after the Monster Manual depiction of those, but don't require that, because it's not required for anyone.
The worst error in Stranger Things came right after when Erica says she has a 14th level chaotic good half-elf rogue named Lady Applejack.
Rogues weren't a class until 3rd editon. In 2nd edition both bards and thieves were considered subclasses of Rogue, but you couldn't just be a rogue without being a thief or bard (or whatever extra subclass came out in Dragon Magazine). Also, 2E wasn't until 1989.
You also couldn't be a chaotic good thief, since they were limited to neutral or evil alignments.
At first I was going to knock it for her being 14th level since demihumans generally could not get past 10th-12th level, but thieves were the exception and pretty much anyone could get unlimited level as a thief, meaning that nonhumans essentially had to turn to a life of crime to compete with humans.
Lady Applejack also would have had strength and constitution limits based on her race and gender, in addition to her stat changes. She's lucky for being a half-elf, though, because female gnomes, dwarves, and halflings weren't allowed to adventure and rarely left the home. The good news is that half elves had no penalty on the seventh stat, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, Comliness. I think female characters and elves even got a bonus to this innately.
Old D&D was fuckin' dumb, folks.
I'm pretty sure that even before "basic" came to be used as a common insult about lack of sophistication and such, it still was not a great sound to name one of your products "the edition for dummies".
TECHNICALLY it was just "Dungeons & Dragons" and not "Basic," but the most iconic product of that line was the red box Basic Set.
You could also play the D&D Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal Sets.
The knots they tie themselves into keeping non-human characters viable after hitting their level cap were increasingly elaborate.
Thieves' alignment rules moved around a lot. The first thief class Gygax wrote, for Original D&D Greyhawk, could be any alignment except Lawful (I believe OD&D alignments were just Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic).
In AD&D 1st edition, they could be any non-good alignment; and in 2nd edition they could be anything but Lawful Good.
But yeah OD&D is such a weird-ass game when you look back on it. Especially when you start looking at the creepy sex nerd shit.
I don't think it was a mystery why girls didn't get into D&D.
Curiosity
Glory
Wealth
Power
Revenge
I am a dwarf
I’m just hanging with these guys, no reason
Might even have the Planebreaker itself show up in my custom setting and leave The Path behind. Nothing like watching a moon shatter reality above you, travel across the sky for a couple days, then punch another hole into reality and go elsewhere (sucking up people, things, and maybe even some buildings and pulling them along after it). Or maybe just have The Path be there since eons ago, so the PCs can learn about and tap into it if/when they feel like it.
My last character's alignment was Hungry
I'd like to submit a few more --
Deathwish
Drunk (could replace with "substance abuser")
Survival
I forget what novel it’s ripped from, but it’s about your alignment to a particular set of gods rather than a real expression of your morals. The Law gods aren’t lawyers, they’re a purple-green bunch of reality warping entities. The Chaos gods aren’t anarchists, they’re a blue-yellow bunch of reality warping entities. Humans were picked by Law, monsters by Chaos.
Good and Evil were added and they’re much the same. Angels aren’t good, but they are Good. It’s Good when they raze a city to the ground for unknowable reasons. Demons are Evil, but they’re not evil, not really, because evil is a choice a creature with free will makes.
I’ve never used alignments, but I think it’d be interesting to say your alignment is chosen for you by strange, alien gods, and it shouldn’t mean shit to you… but they’ve picked you, and the world bends to them.
The general frame work idea of what lawful means and what good means being discussion worth is actually good.
Like, I choose an alignment for my D&D PC's to express their concepts in short hand.
But also anyone who uses alignment as a strict thing is a loser.
I can't believe I forgot the most important one of all: Power Word: Family.
But I think alignment is an interesting framework for a game, and I think the idea of people and characters having some moral standard that they are largely governed by is a potentially useful one in being able to populate and simulate a world
But also my personal alignment is firmly narrativist, not simulationist, so that doesn't count for a lot
Good vs evil is useless, shitty alignment, especially when you pair it with lawful to imply someone’s cop regime is always good or evil.
And like, it's a joke, but you could put that sort of structure into the game, it can be used for a lot of the same purpose
Fred Jones
Shaggy Rogers
Velma dinkly
Daphne Blake
Scooby Doo
Scrappy Doo
Lawful Good
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral
Neutral
Chaotic Evil
Background, Artificer subclass, Bard subclass (respectively)
Highly slanderous.
Anyway guys here’s the new chart.
Like legit I think a mystery game with lower stakes like that sounds kinda fun
Thank you for traveling from the future to bring us this .png
Isn’t this just a gumshoe game?
I've never heard of gumshoe!
Is it a family friendly co-op mystery solving game?
Because that sounds dope
There’s a bunch of games you can use. I haven’t looked into it but there’s one called Brindlewood Bay where apparently you start a session without an answer to the mystery, and instead players roll up a clue at appropriate points, and at the end they have to make it fit together. Found [big footprints], [candle] and a [torn black cloth]? Must have been the tall priest!