Goodman Games

Anyone else notice how close the D&D Next "expertise die" is to "deed die"? Are there any of games that use a similar mechanic? I can't think of any right now.

This is why D&D Next didn't excite me at all. Whenever I heard about it, I was like "Hmm, DCC already exists. And it doesn't suck."

The version of it that I read was not much like the Deed die, mainly because you would "spend" your expertise dice instead of just needing to roll a certain number on its face to accomplish something other than "smash my foe until it dies."

I will admit, I did not read much beyond the fist instance of the word expend because I have much better things to do than try and push WotC to make D&D more like a game I'd want to play - namely playing the game I want to play because Goodman Games already made it.

That said, I don't think D&D Next sucks, I actually like it well enough to have appropriated a few rules for my home-brewing of expanded materials for DCC.

The similarities from latest rules are the expertise die roll is now added to attack and damage, and the expertise die increases in size as a character levels. Rather than deeds, you get maneuvers which is like a restricted list of deeds. If I recall there was even a line suggesting you create custom maneuvers.

TheNobleDrake wrote:I don't think D&D Next sucks, I actually like it well enough to have appropriated a few rules for my home-brewing of expanded materials for DCC.

I'm the same way. I've been in a playtest of Next for several months and am enjoying it. I will say, however, that it's a rules set I enjoy playing more than I enjoy running. It has a few too many details for my liking as a GM.

finarvyn wrote: I will say, however, that it's a rules set I enjoy playing more than I enjoy running. It has a few too many details for my liking as a GM.

Sounds like 3rd ed!

I quite liked the idea that WoTC would reclaim the OGLthingy by taking all the cool ideas other companies found for it and then using the very best of them.

What they have done started out looking pretty cool and much to my liking but with each iteration of the playtest I have downloaded...I have become less and less interested as they seem to have the concept that because cola is nice and because lemonade is nice and because orange juice is nice if they add them together everything will be three times as nice...ahh it doesn't quite work like that Mr.Mearls.

At the moment it seems to be losing identity. The expertise dice seems like it will be a huge codified mess to me. Why bother? It's just bloat. Even worse as they add it to Monks and Thieves...just seems like too many things going on...backgrounds, themes, expertise, feats, class abilities...why bother? DCC does all this type of thing with much simpler mechanics and with separation between classes and only taking up a handful of pages per class.

D&D is and always has been a class based game. That is one thing that defines it. WoTC seem to want to blur boundaries to such an extent as to make class distinction pointless. They should maybe try writing a new game system that is more fluid?

I am not totally down on D&D Next. I hope it is fantastic, as I hope all new games that come out are great...but...it just seems to be unravelling as they get more into it.

Also, it is interesting that they seem to be one playtest ahead... What is the point of that?

I know we'll make our decisions about testing before we release it for testing. In other words...the playtest looks like a pure marketing exercise rather than an interactive process. If they already decided why bother asking for input?

I was planning on getting this new D&D when it comes out but I find myself moving away from it in favour of DCC, AD&D and Labyrinth Lord when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons type games.

I have no idea if anybody feels the same, what say ye?



(Sorry bit of a rant there)

That all seems very insightful to me, RevTurkey.

Personally, I haven't even looked at it and don't really plan to. For me, the game got about as good as it could with 3.0, as long as the DM controlled things well enough and knew when it was right for his group to modify things a little. The quick release of 3.5 with a bunch of pointless changes soured me and then when 4.0 hit the shelves it just seemed to me that WotC had completely missed the point and gone the route of just trying to mimick the Games Workshop business model (keep releasing flawed new material so that all the same customers can keep spending money over and over again) so they could make as much money as possible.

Sorry, I freely admit I am bitter about it. But then, that's why I decided to take a look at DCC...

I'm hoping to experience many different systems over the years. I used to be a D&D-only guy for years. 1E for 20 years, then 3E, 3.5 and 4E for the last 10. Somewhere in those last ten years, I also started finding others systems, other games: Cthulhu, Warhammer, Paranoia, Star Wars, a couple of homemade systems, and now DCC. I'm most probably going to look at D&D Next when they're done, in the meantime I pop over the WotC website once a week to see if there's anything special about my former favorite game. I think it's early to declare anything about Next as Next is not done designing yet. We'll see when they're done. I admit to not being overly excited about it, but we'll see.

RevTurkey, good sir, I do believe you have a pretty fair assessment of D&D Next, bar one detail.

Most of that cluttered up, fiddly "junk" is specifically optional - meaning that while you could use every last bit of it (background, theme, etc.) that you aren't "forced" into doing so by the game assuming that you have.

At least, that's what it was like the last time I cracked open a playtest packet... if they have changed the "here are the options, listed as options" approach, then they will likely have lost me as a potential customer - I see that approach as the main difference between AD&D 2nd and D&D 3rd edition, and is one of the main reasons that I was never all that excited about 3rd edition and its derivatives despite running them all the time.

The way I see things..those themes, backgrounds, feats, expertise talents and all the other little shiny things look to me as though they will probably be standard but they way you acquire them will be down to varying degrees of complexity depending on whether you fancy playing 'Basic', 'Standard' or 'Advanced' D&D Next. A bit like how 'Essentials' changed the way you built a character in 4e but at the end of the day you were or still are playing that system.

Anyway...back on topic...

Yep, I think they got the idea of 'expertise' dice from DCC and at the moment I think they are making a right convoluted mess of the whole thing.

I hope they manage to get things on track and start to get a clearer vision and direction so that when it comes out it is the most amazing version ever. I doubt it but I can dream eh?

I hate with a passion min/max power mongering players who make up characters purely to defeat all the other players (notice I didn't say monsters) and when I see a system offer so many little backroads to character generation I begin to worry that it panders to that sort of player. I will make a Hill Arctic Dwarf Fighter Gladiator Troll Slayer Priest of Pelor with a hint of Sorcerer and a dash of Thief. My background will be Medicine man Blacksmith weapon enchanter and my theme will be 'I am better than everyone else...look at me look at me' Dragon trainer. I wield a self loading crossbow I made myself and use a two handed long bow sword in my other hand. I wear full plate armour which doesn't affect my spellcasting because I took the feat 'mage armour' and i have four buckler shields, one on each arm and leg....

But but but...you can't do that! Oh yes I can...I made him up on the official character generator website so you can't stop me

Again....I started ranting lol...sorry.

beermotor wrote:This is why D&D Next didn't excite me at all. Whenever I heard about it, I was like "Hmm, DCC already exists. And it doesn't suck."