Friday, May 14, 2010


I've been talking about two different paradigms with some friends of mine, in relation to my previous D&D + Cthulhu post. I've got two competing goals with this:
  1. Getting a ruleset that perfectly matches the tone, feel and setting that I want to hit.

  2. Getting a ruleset that is simple to present to my players.

I'm finding that the two are in competition to some extent. In order to meet goal #1, I really should do a serious custom job on the rules; replace lots of classes, replace races, replace the magic system, etc. Of course, I've already got a fairly kludged together galimauphry of rules as it is, so doing that really starts to strain against goal #2. Just saying, "D&D 3.5, folks, with E6, and the action point and skill system changes and a different play paradigm" is much easier. But, of course, then I start bumping into problems where the feel and tone is wrong. Do I really want clerics turning undead? I know I've kept spells down to 3rd level tops with the E6 tophat, but do I really want 3rd level spells running around the setting, easy as pie for anyone to access? In a sword & sorcery dark fantasy hybrid game, is magic really something that you want characters to have ready access to in the first place, without paying a cost for it?

Honestly; I'm not sure. I'm on the fence about the issue.

Feel free to comment and convince me one way or another.


Anonymous said...

You know want, I have never been really in a good relationship with magic...

at least the way it is present in D&D. It seems too easy, like anybody can learn magic.

But, maybe my opinion doesn't really count, since I never really appreciate magic as a player. The more magic I've played was a Dragon Shaman, or a cleric only using his healing abilities...

Joshua said...

I don't disagree; I don't much like D&D magic either, and I rarely play magic-using classes. The paradigm of it just isn't to my taste.