|
| Next Open Design Project? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Zherog |
 Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Contributor
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 586
Location: Bensalem, PA
|
| Neal wrote: |
| I wouldn't be quite as anti-epic statblocks if the amount of effort that goes into creating epic critters actually produced EPIC critters. |
Yeah, I know what you mean. A lot of times, they just feel like piles of large numbers rather than cosmos-shattering creatures.
And, of course, another problem with epic is balance. There's likely a huge disparity between two groups of the same level, due to style differences and such.
_________________
John Ling
Freelance Writer
Kobold Fan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Neal |
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Baton Rouge
|
| Zherog wrote: |
Yeah, I know what you mean. A lot of times, they just feel like piles of large numbers rather than cosmos-shattering creatures.
And, of course, another problem with epic is balance. There's likely a huge disparity between two groups of the same level, due to style differences and such. |
The last time I was in a group that went epic, there were two groups of players - those of us who played full casters and everyone else. My sorcerer killed approximately fifty monsters of the invading evil army per round, while the noncasters attacked the closest soldier.
This was early in the lifespan of 3e (the group was filled with a mix of 2e veterans and newbies), before we knew better than to play non-casters. After a few games of stuff like this, the DM had to run special sessions without the casters present so the players of non-casters would feel important - and this while he was finishing his dissertation! His prep time was getting more and more daunting, and it ultimately killed the campaign.
After that, I haven't gone epic as a player or DM since. I'm optimistic that 4e will handle things a little better, but the prevalence of large modifiers to d20 rolls still gives me pause.
I'm hopeful that this can be avoided in the next Open Design project.
-neal
_________________
Neal Hebert
Editorial Assistant
Kobold Quarterly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dan Voyce |
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 1123
|
| Neal wrote: |
| If OD does end up doing an extra-planar deal, I strongly suggest we avoid epic levels - for 3.5e, the complexity of doing the necessary statblocks will sacrifice needed page count for flavor, story and more. |
Have to agree. OD loves interesting monsters and unusual situations, and they devour wordcount even at the lower levels we've seen so far. Plus epic is a feel, not a 'tier' - and that's something we can do in spades even with the lowliest PC.
Looking at the 'what level should this be?' discussions that OD has thrown up previously, there seems to be general trend of "Epic could be a nice idea..." but not enough actual 'marke't (i.e. patrons) to support it; lots of people vaguely like the idea, but not enough actually want to see an adventure of that level to get it off the ground. Interestingly, the '10-13 crowd' seems always a strong contender but just keep missing out. Maybe this is their time at last? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| varianor |
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 602
|
| A planar book would be very cool. If it featured encounters for parties between 1 and 20, that would be an interesting and different way to go. You could set it up so that there are between 3 and 5 common planes where background gets built with the adventures. Leave it loose so there's no path but you can slot stuff together and tie it in (informally) with BCD and Planescape stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neostrider |
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 316
|
I'd be up for a planar adventure, but I do have 2 concerns with it if we do: 1) is that by the time planar travel is feasible the strengths and weaknesses of the party differ a lot more. 2) The cosmology has changed so much that we'd either have to create our own demi-plane to go to or pick and choose the few places that are still the same.
The 4e cosmology is... different. Alien almost. I liked the fey plane but I'd always put fey into the 3e plane of the wild anyway, and Ebberon had done something similar (wild plane + fey).
Offering a few coins for the horror adventure cup, What if instead of a villain we offered a handful of villains but with 1 twist. Long before the final showdown, each villain tempts each player with power, lust, etc. Imagine an adventure where each player is wary of his friends, the NPCs spread lies and deceit about who in the party has allied with him, and the players are as scared of each other as they are the enemies?
This goes will with the trapped horror idea. Once the players are trapped and see the evil they can be tempted by it one at a time as they try to escape.
"I will give you power and freedom, but give me the life of the dwarf." eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neal |
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Baton Rouge
|
| Neostrider wrote: |
| The 4e cosmology is... different. Alien almost. I liked the fey plane but I'd always put fey into the 3e plane of the wild anyway, and Ebberon had done something similar (wild plane + fey). |
We could just, you know, make something up for ourselves. I have it on good authority that WoTC and Paizo won't send ninjas to our homes to verify whether we're actually employing their default setting assumptions.
I tend to ignore D&D cosmology - my master's degree is in philosophy, and my command of metaphysics is (no offense meant to any D&D designers who read this) a lot more consistent than anything I've seen in a WotC or Paizo product. Planescape was good, and succeeded in spite of the shakey metaphysics behind the Great Wheel; Beyond Countless Doorways was great because it unapologetically did its own thing.
The thing that 4e gets "right" as far as I'm concerned is the Shadowfell and the Feywild - one plane is the mythical, arboreal and unreal imagined past of the prime material plane, while the other is the corrupted and polluted "industrial" future. This stuff is actually consistent with the metaphysics of most successful fantasy novels that deal with Fey - so it's the one thing I'd hope OD would consider keeping. Abolishing alignment planes is something else I'd hope we do - alignment, simply put, is incoherent (from a philosophy standpoint) and actively prevents the simulation of a fantasy world from a metaphysical/ethical perspective.
This is something we can discuss should we cross that bridge - but from where I'm sitting, there isn't really a compelling intellectual reason to retain the Great Wheel aside from sentimentality. Especially since we can just pick any random pre-socratic philosopher, read his fragments and turn them into the most compelling universe RPGs have ever seen.
| Quote: |
Offering a few coins for the horror adventure cup, What if instead of a villain we offered a handful of villains but with 1 twist. Long before the final showdown, each villain tempts each player with power, lust, etc. Imagine an adventure where each player is wary of his friends, the NPCs spread lies and deceit about who in the party has allied with him, and the players are as scared of each other as they are the enemies?
This goes will with the trapped horror idea. Once the players are trapped and see the evil they can be tempted by it one at a time as they try to escape.
"I will give you power and freedom, but give me the life of the dwarf." eh? |
I would want to do this in a non-D&D one-shot, preferably Unknown Armies. I would be very hesitant to do something like this in an ongoing game - where intra-player trust is an implicit requirement.
_________________
Neal Hebert
Editorial Assistant
Kobold Quarterly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neostrider |
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 316
|
That's just my own idea for the flavor of the new adventures. Early it seemed Cthulhu was on everyone's mind and that sort of subtle tension horror will be hard to achieve when most encounters play out as 1 encounter. Putting the characters at odds means that as long as they're together they'll need to trust one another, something that's hard to do when evil beings are making tempting promises.
A little too psychology in-depth? maybe. It definitely would be tense and different but it does trust the players to roleplay and be nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
A few times other systems have been mentioned in this thread, including Unknown Armies, Scion and Exalted, Risus, and others.
Here's a question: Open Design has always been D&D. Is there even a realistic possibility that it would be done in another system?
I dont' mean to quash discussion, particularly using other systems as examples (chulu-esque is a great way to concisely present a number of assumptions, but I'm assuming a cthulu presentation would not be in their, if I remember correctly, basic roleplaying system).
I guess I assume that Open Design is a D&D producer. Maybe it doesn't need to be, but that opens up a whole other can of worms.
Wolfgang, you have an opinion here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolfgang |
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobold Overlord
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 4987
Location: The Mines
|
As a designer, I've produced work for Alternity, Amazing Engine, Cthulhu (both BRP and d20) and MERP.
There's no reason that Open Design *has* to be a D&D project, and I've been quite public that I'd love to do a Pulp Cthulhu version of Lost Lords of Arbonesse.
However, I don't think that the patron dollars are necessarily there. I'd be happy to test that theory, though. The fall project could be announced as Cthulhu, for instance, and (if that falls through) D&D could be a fallback.
How many people would support a non-D&D design?
_________________
Wolfgang Baur
Publisher, Kobold Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| deinol |
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 380
|
I would definitely support a non-D&D project. But I don't know how many others would. I mean, I would support you, as an author, in just about any endeavor you wanted to pursue. I like exploring different game systems, so I'd try a system I've never heard of just to see where it went.
That said, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer FRP, Talislanta, Traveller, Rifts, Dogs in the Vineyard and Earthdawn are all systems that I really enjoy and keep on my primary bookshelf. I certainly find the D&D vs others debate much more interesting than the 3e/4e debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Aberzanzorax |
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 276
|
Going against my own best interests here:
I would support a non D&D open design, BUT it would depend on what. Cthulhu? Yep.
Would I prefer a D&D product? Yeah.
So, since I'd vote with my opinion: 3e being a 100% chance of being a patron, 4e being a 95% chance of being a patron, and non d&d being a 90-5% chance of being a patron (depending on if it is Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, Unknown Armies, etc versus Rifts), it is still likely that I'll be on board.
Here's another option: I think trying to get patrons for Cthulhu is a good idea, but should it fall short, why not freelance for Chaosium (or one of the other publishers)? I'd certainly buy a Wolfgang Baur Cthulhu product, open design or not.
Either way, I'm excited, but a bit skeptical in terms of numbers (and as I've admitted...not quite SOOOO excited for a non D&D product).
Finally, on the other hand, I've recently (past 3 to 6 months) gotten REALLY personally interested in just about every other system out there, with all the options they have to offer. My group is another story...I've yet to inspire the same interest in them.
hmmm. I guess, in the end, I'm on board for whatever, though I certainly have my own desires/opinions.
Go OD! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| richgreen01 |
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 774
Location: London, UK
|
Hi,
I would support a Call of Cthulhu OD project, definitely!
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neal |
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Baton Rouge
|
I'll throw out something I'm quite sure I'll regret:
If you do an actual Call of Cthulhu patron project, I'm happy to handle an Unknown Armies/One Roll Engine conversion. The space required for such a conversion would be - how do I put this - absolutely fucking negligible.
I would think that any patronage project offering support for Unknown Armies would have a fair chance of getting support from the RPG.net community. That being said - and this is something to strongly consider for any Open Design project - you might want to consider revisiting the "Only available for a limited time" clause.
RPG.net is often problematic, but the arguments many posters there have raised vis a vis the whole "only patrons can buy the finished product" struck me as exceptionally compelling. I've seen some patrons on RPG.net point to historical precedent to justify limiting access to the finished product, which is (ahem) incorrect. My undergraduate degree is in art history (specifically theatre history) and my Master's degree is in aesthetics. The entire point of the patronage system in the Renaissance was to ensure that the patron would have a work of art of such high quality on display that everyone of import would envy the good fortune of the patron. This also afforded the client enough financial security to have some artistic freedom in their non-patron work.
Though I know many patrons have discussed how they like getting a product that others can't have, I think this desire can be met by limiting print editions of products to patrons and selling finished copies of the .pdfs for anyone who wants to buy them via the KQ store. I think that such a move will afford OD with a lot more artistic freedom to pursue non-standard projects in the future - though I'm not foolish enough to think .pdf sales and .pdf users comprise anything approaching a stable or particularly meaningful source of revenue (i.e., a source of revenue that purchases solely .pdfs and makes buying decisions based solely on .pdf availablity), I think the aggregate of .pdf sales combined with normal patronage membership fees to get in on the design could eventually allow OD to undertake riskier material by defraying the cost of taking that risk.
Speaking solely in money, 15 .pdf sales of $20 .pdfs could give us $300 dollars toward a Cthulhu supplement - which would pay for editing and some of the art. Would this be enough to make up the difference between patron interest and necessary budget? Perhaps, or perhaps not. But it's the kind of thing I'd like to see Open Design start planning toward.
It's also something tha I think would be good for Open Design - we need to create an environment that sells the value of being a patron, and the best way to do that is to show off the kind of product patrons are receiving and designing. In a perfect world (and even more imperfect worlds) a few of these .pdf buyers might sign up to be patrons for a future project if they like the finished product - and with the economy the way that it is now, giving consumers that kind of information up front makes it easier for them to justify the larger fee to help design these things through patronage.
Such a move would also be great for those patrons who are getting design credits, too - having an ENNY-nominated adventure you freelanced on that's available for purchase makes it very easy for other companies - or individual gamers who want to write a supplement themselves - have a quality example of the kind of work our patrons do.
I think Monte Cook's Ptolus has given us an excellent example of why this is a good thing - Monte limited availability, but made sure anyone so inclined could buy a copy of Ptolus online right now.
-neal
_________________
Neal Hebert
Editorial Assistant
Kobold Quarterly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Neostrider |
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patron
Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 316
|
Alternity!!! the best system ever. I'm happy to see you bring it up Wolgang. We ever meet I'll have a stack of Alternity stuff for you to sign.
Alternityrpg.net is still active and would almost gaurantee a list of patrons. They've tried something similar to Open Design in the forums, I think. I know a system for insanity has already been proposed somewhere.
As psyched as I would be to see Alternity revived, I know it would be difficult for people to find the books. I've had to resort to rpgnow.com for pdfs of some of them. Alternity would definitely offer the high risk feeling for a horror game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolfgang |
| Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobold Overlord
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 4987
Location: The Mines
|
| Aberzanzorax wrote: |
| Here's another option: I think trying to get patrons for Cthulhu is a good idea, but should it fall short, why not freelance for Chaosium (or one of the other publishers)? I'd certainly buy a Wolfgang Baur Cthulhu product, open design or not. |
Glad to hear there's *some* level of support for non-D&D projects. Maybe there's a way to make that happen.
RE: Freelancing for Chaosium, I did exactly that in 2003, when I wrote an adventure to be included in the Pulp Cthulhu book. It still hasn't been published, though, and the Chaosium release schedule for RPGs is very thin these days.
I guess I'm saying I'd be more likely to write for SuperGenius, Pagan Publishing, or another CoC publisher.
_________________
Wolfgang Baur
Publisher, Kobold Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
