I've taken up painting my terrain, as well as using combat "Zones". I've posted many of my paint jobs on The Tabletop Crafter's Guild page on Facebook. Some folks put forward the idea of my starting a youtube channel for painting. The job market isn't panning out so why not?
Here's the first few videos!
They announced a new edition of D&D, as well as the promise of a new setting.
Here's my prediction:
...a 5E version of BECMI, with Mystara as the setting. I believe (hope) that they come up with an even more simplified D&D5e ala Basic Edition. It will come in a boxed set like the original (maybe multiple boxed sets). Then revive the Gazeteers of Mystara.
Why?
Because modern 5e is too super-powered. That's why many people still play Basic or search out OSR. And while I love the indy press, WotC has the means to crank out support books on a regular basis.
Also because, while 5e is easier than many predecessors, it requires a $50 buy in per core book and each book is a hefty tome for a new player to wade through. That's why they created the Essentials boxed sets. But making an rules-lite-r version of D&D may hook a broader audience. Some may stay with Basic, while others may move on to advanced, but support both game styles.
Of course, I'm probably way off base. I suspect my crystal ball is actually plexiglass.
In recent months I have been gravitating toward more rules lite RPGs. Partially because of how hard it is to get new players to understand the complexities of RPGs, and partly because I have found them too limiting. Then I discovered RUNEHAMMER. I suggest you go check him out.
Hankerin has stepped away from the crunch talk of D&D to talk about the philosophy behind it all. It was all stuff I understood in the early days of the hobby but lost as new RPG systems wrote rules for everything under the sun.
The truth is, you don't need that many rules. Here's what you need -
I've played a variety of RPGs over my lifetime. Many of them have substituted Wound levels for Hit Points, such as Savage Worlds and WEG's Stars Wars. As a system, I don't mind them and they seem more realistic than Hit Points. There is already a huge RPG philosophical debate over what Hit Points actually are. Are they a measure of health and blood loss? Are they a measure of luck and combat prowess?
My friends... they are TIMERS. That is all they have ever truly been. If a 4 heroes do X damage per round, my creature needs Y Hit points to survive long enough to do its cool abilities. If you want an encounter to last longer, give the villain more Hit Points. If the players change the timer speed by doing more damage in a round, BRAVO!
Well that's definitely an argument against Hit Points, right? If we know it's a meta-measurement, we should stick with the realistic Wound systems?
Not exactly. One of the things I've found with Wound systems is a lack of suspense. Often times a hero or villain can be taken down in one hit (realistic), but that eases tension imho. The player accepts the possibilities of their character being in one of three states: Fine, Wounded, or KO'd. If fine, keep attacking. If wounded, keep attacking. If KO'd, kick back and wait until you revive.
But with Hit Points, the results are more nuanced and random. You might be hit for a point of damage or you might be slammed leaving only one hit point. As a result, there is greater range of dread. Hit Points build suspense because it is a timer that can move a little or a lot, but still leave you alive long enough to worry how you'll be next round. You hope you might only take 1 Hit Point of Damage while you scurry for safety.
You know, the older I get, the more I realize that a game will always be abstract, never realistic. And that my players want "Movie-verse" reality, and that we are so well versed in that reality they we don't necessarily need complicated rules to emulate that. We can just use the Rule of Cool (That's cool so yeah, you can try it), and all be accepting of the ruling, and we remember that in an RPG, everyone is supposed to win.
