Why Not d20?
It’s an obvious question to ask me. Why am I designing a new game? Why not just make it a d20 game, or a Pathfinder compatible setting? The answer is complex.
Some of it goes back to what I wrote last week about simpler games. I’d like to offer people something a little simpler, without losing a lot of the depth and robustness that they’re used to. In particular, I’d like encounters that don’t take hours to play through and I’d like GMs to focus their prep time on story and ideas, not synergy bonuses.
And I suppose I could pick a nit or two with some of the changes from the design that I worked on (3.0) to create 3.5, or some of the aspects of Pathfinder that I think were mistakes, but there seems to be little point, I don’t want to focus on the negative, and frankly, they are truly tiny little nits in the vast scheme of things. In the end, I really like 3.5, and Pathfinder, and a lot of the work that’s been done over the years with various iterations of d20.
I suppose one could ask the same about game systems that are out there that I didn’t help develop. While a lot would require me getting special licenses, there’s D&D 4E and its GSL. There’s also FATE, Savage Worlds, and even Chaosium’s BRP, all of seem to be easily licensed or already quite open.
But ultimately, none of them seemed quite right for what I wanted.
And more importantly, it’s just time to do something new. To stretch those game designer muscles and produce a game I really want to play, rather than just adapting something else and making it work. I think I have some fresh variations on some concepts that are in games now, and some wholly new ideas as well.
I hope that a lot of you that have been following my work for all these years will give the game a chance. Even if you’re big fans of other games. I’m planning to announce it and provide even more details next week. As I have mentioned earlier, the plan is that sometime next month I’ll be launching a Kickstarter campaign. Even the Kickstarter itself is going to have some hopefully interesting surprises. So please stay tuned.
-
No hints yet as to the basic mechanics? I’ll be looking forward to future teasers.
-
You may still want to (re-)check WEG’s d6 system. It has an open license and needs some love and new products/ideas. And it still is one of the best, simplest and most flexible gaming systems there are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D6_System
-
Looking forward to it!
-
I really hope that you have talked to/will talk to Robin D. Laws about the Heroquest system, you guys need to compare notes.
-
Yup, the True D20 system.
-
-
Well, I’m fan of D20 system, but I enjoy the RPG, and your work over the years did not disappoint me. I’ll wait for updates from this new system.
-
I can understand the desire completely. It’s good to stretch those types of muscles. I do have another question. How do I go about volunteering for play testing?
-
When I’m at that stage, I’ll make an announcement here. Thanks for your interest!
-
-
New paths should be forged periodically in order to help keep the hobby vibrant and fresh.
Everyone with an inkling to try their hand at a new game should be encouraged to pursue that goal.Consider this my vote of encouragement… and count me willing to give it a chance.
-
I am with you, brother. Lead on.
-
SU&TMM. on the other hand I’ve been playing in Ptolus for almost 7 years now.
-
Curious – are you planning on allowing 3rd parry publishers to create material for it? OGL, or via licensing you specifically approve?
-
Still working on this.
-
-
I’m trying to do the same thing; Make a game. I like 3.5 & Pathfinder to a point. Too much errata though. And I like other games like Dark Heresy, Exalted, and SHARD for focus on role-play, story, and general mechanics. D20 isn’t bad at all. I just enjoy the systems where its more on the character and not the party- but where parties are still important. And stats aren’t ‘book-ended’ or overly balanced to a fault. I don’t mind encounter powers or feats. It’s just that you look at the depth in Shard’s character backgrounds or the importance of non-combat abilities in Exalted over d&d of recent. Pathfinder has a rich game setting, but still lacks emphasis on verbal role-play. Atleast seems to when we play. Savage Worlds is great for it’s lack of over-complexity. And it translates well to other systems. But what you and monsters can do are limited a bit. I like the look of Palladium and that stats can vary, but its too open with some rules- like there’s spells, but what are the specifics for them. exc.
-
I’m also looking forward to this game… but I’ve found out that if you want a game to work, you must bring it with an open playtest and a PC NPC software! Like you said in simplifying the game, GM don’t have much time, and software with automated NPC generator is a fast and furious way to create those NPC Monsters with gear and everything!! Good luck!
-
Monte, while we have never met, I feel as if I know you from the games that you worked on. I trust your ability and look forward to trying it out.
Adam
-
You should totally use those little pigs from those pass the pigs type games for the conflict resolution.
-
Nice, simple explanation. And what creative person wouldn’t want to stretch their creative muscles every once in a while? I’m looking forward to the result (especially after the previous posts about it.
-
Great news. I’ve had a lot of fun with your games in the past, but I like story much more than 2 hour battle grinds. I just wrapped up a Trail of Cthulhu campaign; the Gumshoe system was a nice break from complexity.
Can’t wait to see what you’ve come up with.
-
I’m excited!
Periodically taking a fresh look at ideas and concepts is a necessity after a period of time. It clears your head of clutter and earmarks built up from thinking in the same direction for extended periods of time. -
Thanks to everyone for your kind comments, and willingness to try something new.
-
I LOVE SURPRISES. I know you can bring some good ones into play.
Cheers!
P.S. I love Kickstarter too.
-
Five words from these Brazilian fan: In Monte Cook we trust!
-
Has the sci-fantasy setting impacted on your design approach in any way?
-
Yes, and I’ll be talking about that in future articles. Thanks for your interest!
-
-
I perhaps should blog on this myself in more detail, but for me in many ways d20 CANNOT be used for all games simply because mechanics can impact the FEEL of the game in so many ways, independent of genre. Could you create a Shadowrun d20 game? Sure, but it wouldn’t feel the same. I think the biggest issue I had with the d20 takeover was that homogeneity of mechanics led to homogeneity of feel. Hey! I’m a cowboy now, so I’m going to do that one thing…you know…that’s like Great Cleave but with a sixgun. You really aren’t playing a new game if the mechanics don’t change. I’m not saying, obviously, that to do magic-with-cyberpunk you have to have handfuls of d6, only that whether we notice it consciously or not, the mechanics inform the play.
-
IS one of the reasons I don’t use D20 for everything.
-
-
Great post. I agree wholeheartedly with your approach to simpler, gm-led and empowered experiences. There is fatigue in carrying and caring about rules bloat, in your head, between sessions, preparing for encounters. That didn’t used to happen back in the day. I never balanced an encounter due to math – I balanced it with the needs of the story and the challenge or thrill it would provide the players. these days it appears the gm must care deeply about game balance and power egalitarianism and this directly competes with spending time working on the story. I have just seen wil Wheaton play fiasco on his tabletop show and as a result have ordered a copy. It’s not strictly an rpg, but it does look like heaps of fun. Go indie game development.
If you make it monte, I will buy it.
-
I’m glad you’re creating a new system. I like new systems. I’ll try anything three times. I much as I love D&D’s various versions (including d20) I like variety more.
I think a lot of people like variety in game systems but are hampered by the traditional weekly game session model where everyone plays one continuous game. Doesn’t allow for a lot of experimentation.
-
Try Heroquest and GURPS, I think you’ll like them.
-
-
While I’d love to see some more material for Ptolus or Arcana Evolved, I can’t wait to see what you come up with this time. Your books have been canon now in 2 different groups of mine, on opposite sides of the country. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
-
I’m quite interested in having a science-fantasy campaign packaged default into the core mechanics. I’ve quite honestly been hoping/expecting an original system from you, Mr. Cook, and you have me hooked. I’ll second the playtesting volunteering, and can’t wait to see the results of your hardwork; thanks =)
-
Pingback: Weekly Assembly: Beginning the End. | The Gamer Assembly
-
Good luck on the project. Sounds good
-
Back on your Livejournal, I suggested looking at “Warrior, Rogue, Mage” by Stargazer Games… did you ever look at that system? There are now pulp-fiction and cyberpunk variants of the system. I think it works quite well as a “old school” game in terms of light and simple, but without being TOO simple.
I’m using it as a framework for a set of FUDGE based rules… For me, I love Fudge, but always found it to be “too light”, in that I keep grasping for some structure (what you call “robust and meaty” in another post). My years of experience has given me an addiction to the question “how do I do X?” and then feeling like something is missing if I can’t find that mechanic. I’m fine with simple universal mechanics (in fact, I love them), but then I start to say “did I do X the same way last time it came up? what if I’m creating inconsistency!?” … and then I definitely understand why “consistency” is sometimes characterized as a hobgoblin. Structure gives you protection from the hobgoblin that demands consistency, at the price of open-ended creativity. Simplicity and brevity gives you open-ended creativity and/or quick and fast rules, at the price of exposing you to the hobgoblin. I want just enough structure … and no more. Which is what minimalism really is. It’s not “the minimum”, it’s “the minimum to accomplish the task, and nothing more”. But definitely nothing _LESS_, either. I think, in some ways, Fudge is slightly less :-} But I think a tweaked Warrior-Rogue-Mage, with Fudge mechanics, might be exactly what I’m looking for.
(and, I understand completely if you didn’t look at it: I’m one voice among hundreds
… but, really, the base module is a quick read, and I suspect you’ll like it)
35 Comments