There are a metric fuckton of RPGs out there that are based on settings with a lot of canon: Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, the Forgotten Realms, Battlestar Galactica, etc. By turning these popular franchises into games, or in the case of the Forgotten Realms, by publishing a shitload of novels with superstar NPCs like Drizzt and Elminster, gamers have to plan their games around canon events, like Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star, Mal Reynolds releasing the Reaver video, or Drizzt being an angsty dude with scimitars and a panther.
This is an especially big issue when you have settings like Star Wars or Star Trek, with multiple sources of canon: movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and video games. The more popular a setting, the more canon there is, and the more people there are who love that canon and want to adhere to it.
The way I see it, there are three ways to play a game in a heavy-canon setting.
1. Accept canon events and attempt to play around them. This sometimes leads to NPCs that are more important and badass than the PCs and the game being heavily railroaded. Not fun at all. No one wants to play Pilot #3. They want to play someone like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo, someone who influences the plot and is important to the game.
2. Accept canon events and let the players play the important people, like Luke or Han. Also generally not a great idea, because the game is usually still going to be heavily railroaded. The player of Luke Skywalker is almost certainly going to want to blow up the Death Star and, if the game adheres to canon, that's where the plot is going to go.
3. My personal favorite, ditch canon and go nuts with the setting. Imagine a game where Luke Skywalker's uncle never buys the droids. Luke goes back to work on the farm for another season and it's up to the PCs to take on the Empire. Or how about a game where Mace Windu kills the Emperor, Anakin Skywalker kills Mace Windu, and then goes on a Jedi hunt around the galaxy. The Separatists are still around to harass the Republic, the Republic never falls, and the Sith are no more. The PCs are Jedi who are either A) hunted by Skywalker, or B) sent out to hunt down and capture Skywalker.
Now, I love certain canon-heavy settings. Star Wars is fucking awesome, and I really like a lot of the Expanded Universe stuff, like the Yuuzhan Vong War and the super-badass Force powers the Jedi got in the prequel movies. But, when it comes to games, fuck canon. Canon is all about how awesome the characters in the movies/books/TV shows/etc. are, while games should focus more on how awesome the PCs are. Captain Kirk is a badass, but he shouldn't be showing up in games for more than a cameo appearance because he'd steal the spotlight from the PCs. Same with Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, or Elminster.
Let the PCs be the stars of the game. GMPCs are a terrible idea, and that's generally what characters like Elminster become if they show up in a game for longer than a cameo. Give the PCs the spotlight, let them go nuts and do the badass things they'd want to see in a movie or book, and let the NPCs be there as villains or supporting cast.
Showing posts with label Dungeons and Dragons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dungeons and Dragons. Show all posts
23 March 2013
28 January 2013
D&D Next - First Impressions Part 1
I'm going to preface this by saying that I haven't read through much of the previous D&D Next playtest material; I've skimmed it, but since I don't have an opportunity to play anytime in the near future, I didn't really go in depth with it. I downloaded the newest packet earlier today, so here are my thoughts on the latest iteration of D&D. I haven't played D&D Next, and I'm mostly comparing it to my preferred edition, 4E. For this post, I'm only talking about the How to Play section; I'll be adding another post or two on the classes, spells, and other stuff later on.
How to Play
Reading the How to Play file, a couple things are jumping out at me. One, 4E's four defenses have been done away with and the game has gone back to AC only plus saving throws. I don't know that I like that, but splitting the saves into six sections by relevant ability scores looks like a good idea. I like that the ability scores are more relevant than they were in 4E, but I'm of the opinion that they could have done away with the traditional 3-18 scale in favor of making the modifiers the actual scores.
Perception has been changed, going to a "either Wisdom or Intelligence, depending on the situation" model. It's interesting, with Wisdom being used for general noticing of things, and Intelligence being used when looking for something specific, like searching for secret doors. At first glance, I like it more than the "just Wisdom, period" way previous D&D iterations did it.
Combat
Okay, so they've gone away from 4E's move/minor/standard way of doing things and gone to action/move. I don't know if I like that, because it's looking like there's going to be less stuff that players can do per round. On the upside, a lot of stuff like drawing a weapon, digging a potion out of a backpack, and things of that nature don't take up any part of an action, rather than being discrete actions of their own as in some previous games (3.X comes to mind).
A lot of the actions you can do in combat are described as opposed ability checks, like Strength vs. Dexterity. I like it, since it gives everyone a good set of actions that they can perform outside of their class features, and they're all using the same basic mechanic.
I'm not seeing any Delay Action for combat. There's a Ready Action, but a readied action requires you to specify a circumstance for your character to act, and if that circumstance (such as "when the troll comes out of the corner") doesn't happen, it doesn't look like you can take your readied action. If it was me, I'd either have a general Delay Action where you can act anytime in the initiative order lower than your original initiative, or have both Delay and Ready Action where you get a bonus for having a specific circumstance that you choose to act on.
So far everything I've seen has been tied to an ability check in one way or another. Melee attacks are Strength checks, ranged attacks are Dexterity checks, magic attacks go off the relevant ability score (Wisdom/Intelligence from what I've seen). It's not bad, actually. I like that everything is mechanically extremely similar; it's taking 3.X's philosophy of the core mechanic being a d20 roll and taking it one step further.
One thing I am immediately not a fan of: the return of bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage types. I'm cool with stuff like necrotic or psychic damage, as they're supernaturally different, but for some reason I've never been a big fan of the weapon damage types. Casters will (hopefully) have access to different spells to cover stuff like fire or cold damage, but this means that, just in case, weapon-based characters will want to carry around separate weapons (mace for fighting skeletons, sword for other stuff, etc.), which is going to be a problem if a character only has one magic weapon that doesn't work effectively for a particular combat.
They've done away with the bloodied condition, something I don't necessarily agree with. Now, death is your level plus your Constitution as a negative, so if you're level 5 with a 14 Constitution, you die at -19 hit points. I think it was easier to use bloodied as a measure of your health and as a death threshold (negative bloodied value), but this should also work. I just prefer the bloodied condition.
Spell Casting
Spell components and armor casting are back, something I have never been a fan of. Granted, it makes sense to balance casters against martial characters when you have stuff like sunder or disarm in the game, but I wasn't a particular fan of those actions either.
Concentrating on spells is back, though it doesn't look like you can interrupt a spell like you could in 3.X. Instead, it's for prolonging sustained effect, something I don't have a problem with. So, that's an upside.
How to Play
Reading the How to Play file, a couple things are jumping out at me. One, 4E's four defenses have been done away with and the game has gone back to AC only plus saving throws. I don't know that I like that, but splitting the saves into six sections by relevant ability scores looks like a good idea. I like that the ability scores are more relevant than they were in 4E, but I'm of the opinion that they could have done away with the traditional 3-18 scale in favor of making the modifiers the actual scores.
Perception has been changed, going to a "either Wisdom or Intelligence, depending on the situation" model. It's interesting, with Wisdom being used for general noticing of things, and Intelligence being used when looking for something specific, like searching for secret doors. At first glance, I like it more than the "just Wisdom, period" way previous D&D iterations did it.
Combat
Okay, so they've gone away from 4E's move/minor/standard way of doing things and gone to action/move. I don't know if I like that, because it's looking like there's going to be less stuff that players can do per round. On the upside, a lot of stuff like drawing a weapon, digging a potion out of a backpack, and things of that nature don't take up any part of an action, rather than being discrete actions of their own as in some previous games (3.X comes to mind).
A lot of the actions you can do in combat are described as opposed ability checks, like Strength vs. Dexterity. I like it, since it gives everyone a good set of actions that they can perform outside of their class features, and they're all using the same basic mechanic.
I'm not seeing any Delay Action for combat. There's a Ready Action, but a readied action requires you to specify a circumstance for your character to act, and if that circumstance (such as "when the troll comes out of the corner") doesn't happen, it doesn't look like you can take your readied action. If it was me, I'd either have a general Delay Action where you can act anytime in the initiative order lower than your original initiative, or have both Delay and Ready Action where you get a bonus for having a specific circumstance that you choose to act on.
So far everything I've seen has been tied to an ability check in one way or another. Melee attacks are Strength checks, ranged attacks are Dexterity checks, magic attacks go off the relevant ability score (Wisdom/Intelligence from what I've seen). It's not bad, actually. I like that everything is mechanically extremely similar; it's taking 3.X's philosophy of the core mechanic being a d20 roll and taking it one step further.
One thing I am immediately not a fan of: the return of bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage types. I'm cool with stuff like necrotic or psychic damage, as they're supernaturally different, but for some reason I've never been a big fan of the weapon damage types. Casters will (hopefully) have access to different spells to cover stuff like fire or cold damage, but this means that, just in case, weapon-based characters will want to carry around separate weapons (mace for fighting skeletons, sword for other stuff, etc.), which is going to be a problem if a character only has one magic weapon that doesn't work effectively for a particular combat.
They've done away with the bloodied condition, something I don't necessarily agree with. Now, death is your level plus your Constitution as a negative, so if you're level 5 with a 14 Constitution, you die at -19 hit points. I think it was easier to use bloodied as a measure of your health and as a death threshold (negative bloodied value), but this should also work. I just prefer the bloodied condition.
Spell Casting
Spell components and armor casting are back, something I have never been a fan of. Granted, it makes sense to balance casters against martial characters when you have stuff like sunder or disarm in the game, but I wasn't a particular fan of those actions either.
Concentrating on spells is back, though it doesn't look like you can interrupt a spell like you could in 3.X. Instead, it's for prolonging sustained effect, something I don't have a problem with. So, that's an upside.
16 January 2013
Savage Worlds vs. D&D - Which One and Why?
When I first came up with the basic idea for They Came From the Stars, I wasn't sure which game system to go with. Initially I thought about just writing out setting information and adapting it to whichever game system I wanted to play later on, but in the end I changed my mind on that. I instead decided to choose a system, then use that system to inform the style of the setting and the games I wanted to play using the setting. There are plenty of systems to choose from, including a dozen flavors of D&D/retroclones, GURPS, Savage Worlds, a couple fantasy heartbreakers like Radiance RPG or Heroes Against Darkness, and some sci-fi RPGs that could be adapted to the science-fantasy theme of They Came From the Stars. I managed to narrow the list pretty quickly to D&D 4th Edition and Savage Worlds.
4E, being my current favorite edition of D&D, was a natural. I love the tactical gameplay and the powers, but it's also a very crunchy game. As I don't currently have a DDI subscription, I don't have access to all the dozens of classes and races, hundreds of powers, or thousands of feats that 4E has available. Every time I create something for the game, I'd have to be wondering if something officially published might already be doing that job better than I did. Also, I'd have to consider why someone would take a new race or class when they could take something that's already extremely well-supported.
While those may not be the best reasons to avoid using 4E as a system for a new setting, there is at least one more reason why I was hesitant to use it: difficulty. I haven't had much success fiddling with 4E, and even though I've run several games of it, I don't know that I have a handle on the rules well enough to go tinkering around with it without having a better idea of what my tinkering would do to the very tight math and solid game balance.
Still, 4E is my favorite D&D so far, so it was never completely off the table.
In contrast to D&D 4E, I've already had some success tinkering with Savage Worlds. I've run it several times, the same as 4E, but I played around with creating custom races and modifying spells with Trappings and adding in Ritual-style magic.
I also like that Savage Worlds is a much quicker game. I want They Came From the Stars to feel more like an Indiana Jones or Star Wars film, with a lot of fast-paced action. Though 4E excels at battlemat combat, it also takes a long time for combat to resolve, where Savage Worlds can get into combat and be done in maybe twenty minutes at the longest. Honestly, it doesn't hurt that I find the Savage Worlds Deluxe Explorer's Edition to be much faster and easier to flip through for reference than most of the 4E books, and everything I need can be found in just that one book.
In the end, I decided on Savage Worlds, though I will be incorporating some 4E-style elements. I really like how 4E handles ritual magic, so I'll be incorporating a similar system for magic like long-range teleporting, scrying effects, and controlling voidships. I also liked the 4E take on traps as static enemies in combat, so I'll almost certainly be bringing that to Savage Worlds in one form or another. All in all though, I enjoy tinkering with Savage Worlds more than I do with D&D, so hopefully that'll help keep my motivation and inspiration up for They Came From the Stars.
D&D 4th Edition
4E, being my current favorite edition of D&D, was a natural. I love the tactical gameplay and the powers, but it's also a very crunchy game. As I don't currently have a DDI subscription, I don't have access to all the dozens of classes and races, hundreds of powers, or thousands of feats that 4E has available. Every time I create something for the game, I'd have to be wondering if something officially published might already be doing that job better than I did. Also, I'd have to consider why someone would take a new race or class when they could take something that's already extremely well-supported.
While those may not be the best reasons to avoid using 4E as a system for a new setting, there is at least one more reason why I was hesitant to use it: difficulty. I haven't had much success fiddling with 4E, and even though I've run several games of it, I don't know that I have a handle on the rules well enough to go tinkering around with it without having a better idea of what my tinkering would do to the very tight math and solid game balance.
Still, 4E is my favorite D&D so far, so it was never completely off the table.
Savage Worlds
In contrast to D&D 4E, I've already had some success tinkering with Savage Worlds. I've run it several times, the same as 4E, but I played around with creating custom races and modifying spells with Trappings and adding in Ritual-style magic.
I also like that Savage Worlds is a much quicker game. I want They Came From the Stars to feel more like an Indiana Jones or Star Wars film, with a lot of fast-paced action. Though 4E excels at battlemat combat, it also takes a long time for combat to resolve, where Savage Worlds can get into combat and be done in maybe twenty minutes at the longest. Honestly, it doesn't hurt that I find the Savage Worlds Deluxe Explorer's Edition to be much faster and easier to flip through for reference than most of the 4E books, and everything I need can be found in just that one book.
Conclusion
In the end, I decided on Savage Worlds, though I will be incorporating some 4E-style elements. I really like how 4E handles ritual magic, so I'll be incorporating a similar system for magic like long-range teleporting, scrying effects, and controlling voidships. I also liked the 4E take on traps as static enemies in combat, so I'll almost certainly be bringing that to Savage Worlds in one form or another. All in all though, I enjoy tinkering with Savage Worlds more than I do with D&D, so hopefully that'll help keep my motivation and inspiration up for They Came From the Stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)