The Gaming Den

Here's a challenge:

Write a micro RPG using the same management philosophy that D&D Next is apparently using. Heck, let's steal the name too and call the game NEXT. This requires at least five different participants. Each of whom should write one of the following sections of this game:

1. Setting
2. Chargen
3. Combat
4. Adversaries
5. Running NEXT

To keep this short, let's go with a target range of say 400-1500 words for each section.

To make it as entertaining as the D&D Next development is, none of the participants should co-ordinate their efforts at all. Merely post to claim a section and then PM it to me once it's complete. When I have all 5 sections I will post them all and a MadLibs style hilarious RPG text will result. And hey, in the spirit of D&D Next, if more than one person writes the same section, then all will be included with the additional versions appended as "rules modules".

Any takers?

I think that we should get to coordinate at some level. I'm sure the 5E developers at least were in the same room at one point talking past each other.

Indeed, something as simple as how saving throws, AC vs to hit, and HP/DR should be worked out in coordination.

Just the basics obviously, I'll design the monsters with no idea what an appropriate AC for level 10 PCs is, but still with some idea of at least how AC/saving throws work, so that I don't at some point say:

"Fort save X to resist." while someone else is using 4e saving throws and someone else is using Saga/4e Fort defenses.

Okay fine.

If you want, when you claim a section, you may post up to 5 buzzwords to describe the main selling point of your work. Examples would be 'The Math Just Works!", "Bounded Accuracy", "No more 5 minute workday" and so on and so forth.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Okay fine.

If you want, when you claim a section, you may post up to 5 buzzwords to describe the main selling point of your work. Examples would be 'The Math Just Works!", "Bounded Accuracy", "No more 5 minute workday" and so on and so forth.

I know you aren't actually this retarded.

That has literally nothing to do with what anyone said.

That has literally nothing to do with what anyone said.

Exactly what part of "using the same management philosophy that D&D Next is apparently using" did you miss?

The point here is not to produce a playable game. We already know that multiple authors with no collaboration is doomed to failure. The point is to produce an *entertaining* failure that also pokes fun at the the mess that 5e is shaping up to be.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Exactly what part of "using the same management philosophy that D&D Next is apparently using" did you miss?

The point here is not to produce a playable game. We already know that multiple authors with no collaboration is doomed to failure. The point is to produce an *entertaining* failure that also pokes fun at the the mess that 5e is shaping up to be.

Except that they do coordinate, so you are just wrong. They do know if their are 3 saves on the Fort/Will/Ref, or 5 on the Breath/Spell/Wand/whatever, or the 1 of 4e.

No one is making monsters with 3 saves while PCs have 1.

Just sayin' that we, as a lil team should get to coordinate. Just because the people workin' on 5e don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean we have to. Also, I'm in if you can get 3 to 4 other people on board.

Kaelik wrote: Except that they do coordinate, so you are just wrong. They do know if their are 3 saves on the Fort/Will/Ref, or 5 on the Breath/Spell/Wand/whatever, or the 1 of 4e.

No one is making monsters with 3 saves while PCs have 1.

Kaelik, you have assumed undue competence on the part of the WOTC designers.

Thompson, in the bounded accuracy article wrote:Getting better at something means actually getting better at something. Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some basic competence level. When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more often. This means that characters, as they gain levels, see a tangible increase in their competence, not just in being able to accomplish more amazing things, but also in how often they succeed at tasks they perform regularly.

Mearls, in the monster creation article wrote:The minotaur’s AC is a good example of where we can introduce factors such as skill and natural armor on top of the ability scores. For the minotaur, its AC is 10 without armor due to its average Dexterity. We don’t expect the typical minotaur to wear armor, but it should have a tougher than normal hide and fur to protect it. I peg its AC at 16, average for a level 5 creature and the equivalent of chainmail in our revised armor tables. Thus, it has a base AC of 16 due to its hide and fur.

Mearls, in the monster creation article wrote:The ability scores form the basis of the minotaur’s attacks. Its 18 Strength gives it a +4 attack bonus, which is on target for its level. I settled on the greataxe as the default minotaur weapon. Since minotaurs are size Large, their weapons deal one more die of damage than normal size weapons. Thus, the minotaur attacks at +4 with its greataxe, inflicting 2d12 + 4 damage on a hit. Those are in line with its level and power rating.

MGuy wrote:Just sayin' that we, as a lil team should get to coordinate. Just because the people workin' on 5e don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean we have to. Also, I'm in if you can get 3 to 4 other people on board.

Back when I was a mere lurker, the was some talk of making a new edition. What ever happened to it?

Duke Flauros wrote:

Kaelik wrote: Except that they do coordinate, so you are just wrong. They do know if their are 3 saves on the Fort/Will/Ref, or 5 on the Breath/Spell/Wand/whatever, or the 1 of 4e.

No one is making monsters with 3 saves while PCs have 1.

Kaelik, you have assumed undue competence on the part of the WOTC designers.

No, saying that the numbers will be X, and having them instead be Y is not an example of no coordination, it's an example of bad coordination.

If one of them was making Minotaurs that had a DC 24 save against Breath, while the PCs have the Fort/Will/Ref set up, that would be what I am talking about.

If one of them talks about PCs moving along the condition track, while the monsters actually can't move the PCs, that would be an example.

Number confusion is just an example of bad coordination. I'm perfectly fine limiting the coordination, but you need to agree on a core fucking mechanic.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Here's a challenge:

Write a micro RPG using the same management philosophy that D&D Next is apparently using. Heck, let's steal the name too and call the game NEXT. This requires at least five different participants. Each of whom should write one of the following sections of this game:

1. Setting
2. Chargen
3. Combat
4. Adversaries
5. Running NEXT

To keep this short, let's go with a target range of say 400-1500 words for each section.

To make it as entertaining as the D&D Next development is, none of the participants should co-ordinate their efforts at all. Merely post to claim a section and then PM it to me once it's complete. When I have all 5 sections I will post them all and a MadLibs style hilarious RPG text will result. And hey, in the spirit of D&D Next, if more than one person writes the same section, then all will be included with the additional versions appended as "rules modules".

Any takers?

This is the best thing that has ever happened. I choose #2: Chargen. In the spirit of this challenge, I will announce the buzzword announcements that I will endeavor to use. Those are:

• Every class from every PHB edition will make an appearance.
• Complexity dials up with themes.
• Skills are optional.
• Races and Classes make up the core math.
• Smaller damage and hit point numbers.

Note: I am not going to even try to use Bounded Accuracy, because that shit is fucking insane.

-Username17

Duke Flauros wrote:

MGuy wrote:Just sayin' that we, as a lil team should get to coordinate. Just because the people workin' on 5e don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean we have to. Also, I'm in if you can get 3 to 4 other people on board.

Back when I was a mere lurker, the was some talk of making a new edition. What ever happened to it?

Frank stopped bothering with it because too many posters would flip their poop about a design/flavour decision he made and would be relentless about trying to convince him otherwise. That poisoned the entire attempt by others, from what I could tell. Really, the main thing learned from that is that unless you get roughly five people on board and willing to work together with clear goals, things get too bogged down.

Curious: What does the "Running NEXT" section include? If its something my simple mind can handle iIll do that and if its not I'll jump on the setting.

Kaelik wrote: No, saying that the numbers will be X, and having them instead be Y is not an example of no coordination, it's an example of bad coordination.

If one of them was making Minotaurs that had a DC 24 save against Breath, while the PCs have the Fort/Will/Ref set up, that would be what I am talking about.

If one of them talks about PCs moving along the condition track, while the monsters actually can't move the PCs, that would be an example.

I'll trim the quotes down a little:

Thompson, in the bounded accuracy article wrote:Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some basic competence level. When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more often.

Mearls, in the monster creation article wrote:I peg its AC at 16, average for a level 5 creature

Mearls, in the monster creation article wrote:Its 18 Strength gives it a +4 attack bonus, which is on target for its level.

So, according to Thompson, monster accuracy and AC will not scale with level.
According to Mearls, monster accuracy and AC will scale with level.

This isn't just bad coordination, they've contradicted each other on how the core design philosophy will work.

Kaelik wrote: Number confusion is just an example of bad coordination. I'm perfectly fine limiting the coordination, but you need to agree on a core fucking mechanic.

This isn't just an issue of number confusion. The 4e playtest packet was a fine example of number confusion, with monster entries in the adventure and the bestiary differing significantly.

That fact that the minotaur has x armor and x attack isn't the issue- it's the fact that they've explicitly stated in one article that armor and attack would not be based on level and in another said that it would.

This isn't just a few guys posting their houserules online, and then sorting them out based on feedback. Mearls and Thompson are working for a large company and had several weeks to prepare each of their press releases. In Mearls case, he could have even looked Thompson's article to make sure that they were not contradicting each other. But he didn't. Apparently, every editor at WOTC has failed to catch that two major members of their design team have contradicted each other on how the product will function at its core- and nobody there has caught on, despite being a large website that receives thousands or Millions of hits per day, hundreds or thousands of comments, and the occasional telephone call.

Dibs on #5.

Key Design Implements (KDI's, or as we call them, kiddies. If you don't make the kiddies happy, no one's going to be happy).

*Tight strategic grid-based tactics
*Free-form Gameplay with no gimmicks or frills.
*Seating Arrangements For Optimal Table Time
*Essential DM Tools To Add To The Game Experience
*How to Handle Players

MGuy wrote:Curious: What does the "Running NEXT" section include? If its something my simple mind can handle iIll do that and if its not I'll jump on the setting.

The Running the Game section includes several things:

• A pretentious tirade about design goals.
• Some advice to DMs that ranges from "obvious" to "laughably bad".
• Encounter Guidelines. Possibly including non-combat encounter guidelines.
• Rewards
• Campaigns

It's basically anything you want to include from the first 147 pages of the 4e DMG or anything you want to include from the first 102 pages of the 3.5 DMG.

-Username17

So to be clear, since, this is sort of actually happening. Dips on Adversaries.

Duke Flauros et al: While there's obviously a huge case of confusion and contradiction here, the fact remains that everyone agrees, say, that monsters and players should all have a number labeled "AC." So there wasn't zero coordination. There was just really bad coordination.

Ok so I guess I'll do setting.

• Steampunk.
  Unique versions of classic races.
  Clash between Fantastic Science and High Fantasy
  Setting neatly integrated with mechanics
  Unique campaign itsy bits

I can do chargen. Do I just make up D&D-esque numbers and shit, or should I actually tell combat what to-hit bonuses are going to look like?

...You Lost Me wrote:I can do chargen. Do I just make up D&D-esque numbers and shit, or should I actually tell combat what to-hit bonuses are going to look like?

Frank already got Char-gen. Only Combat is left.

It might be interesting to include some far-reaching goals in creating a setting, such as:

* A living campaign; a collaborative narrative that recognises the influences of distinguished authors like R.A.Salvatore. Notable achievements at sponsored convention games. As well as retconns of the most popular heroes, villains and themes from D&D's expansive history, for the benefit of a new generation of players.

* Top down-bottom up approach to integrating your game into the living campaign.

* flexible continuity, to enable participation in the living world at all levels of play, regardless of class, race or gender.

I dunno, maybe the game world can feature the construction of a highway or railroad between various Points of Interest or something.

Ah, combat. OK, I'll do that. Frank, give me some chargen skeleton.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dr ... th_Edition

In case anyone is suffering from writer's block, /tg/ has made some helpful suggestions.

Winnah wrote:It might be interesting to include some far-reaching goals in creating a setting, such as:

* A living campaign; a collaborative narrative that recognises the influences of distinguished authors like R.A.Salvatore. Notable achievements at sponsored convention games. As well as retconns of the most popular heroes, villains and themes from D&D's expansive history, for the benefit of a new generation of players.

* Top down-bottom up approach to integrating your game into the living campaign.

* flexible continuity, to enable participation in the living world at all levels of play, regardless of class, race or gender.

I dunno, maybe the game world can feature the construction of a highway or railroad between various Points of Interest or something.

There's a word limit. i don't know how much I can cover in 1500 words so I'm using buzzwords to give people making the other parts what they need. I assumed that's what Frank did so I'm following suit.

So far, in the half an hour I mulled over it I'm thinking of some kind of 5 way splt power source wise for the setting. You have your mecha tech, biotech, magic, "chi", and supernatural stuff (gods, demons, ancestor spirits, etc).

Setting wise I'm thinking about having a bunch of marvels spotting the landscape. No direct real world analogue cultures. I'm gonna probably mine the board for good cultural/racial ideas. I'm gonna wait for Frank to give me a list of classes and races and o get a list of adversaries before I get specifics.