What would you like to see in/about Magnamund?

[askhati]

Like the title says: if you could choose any topic to be covered in the upcoming (fingers crossed) publications from the new publishers, what would you choose?
- A source book for the Drakkarim or the Shadakine?
- A "Villains of Magnamund" character class collection?
- A source book for Kalte?
- More detailed maps?
- etc

(And let's exclude books LW29-32 from that list to start with - those are a default on everyone's list )

[Rusty Radiator]

Yeah source book for drakkar. But also different ranges, speeds, damage etc for different weapon types. Stealth rules. Psychic combat simultaneous to physical. Wild horse chases!

[askhati]

Feb 9, 2015 0:32:28 GMT Rusty Radiator said:

But also different ranges, speeds, damage etc for different weapon types. Stealth rules. Psychic combat simultaneous to physical. Wild horse chases!

Care to elaborate what you have in mind there?

[Rusty Radiator]

Well, in the books there is little distinction between weapons, but in a group rp there should be advantages and disadvantages to using a quarterstaff over twin daggers say. Spacing combat scenarios out on 2D diagrams could allow attacking at different ranges and on different terrains. This would also allow for line of sight tests for stealth scenarios and to space out chases on horseback, say.

[askhati]

Hmm, I hear you. However, I think the emphasis has always been on GM discretion in those things - the more rules-heavy you make those elements, the further away you get from LW, and the closer you get to D&D.

[Rusty Radiator]

There's nout wrong with D&D.
If everything is left to GM's discretion then you risk losing immersion owing to arbitrary decisions that don't fully reflect the details of your character build and the vicissitudes of fate. Rules allow us to conceptualise a character in a full and detailed manner. Arbitrary decisions are debatable and risk a conceptual soup. We shouldn't be afraid of rules.

[askhati]

I never claimed there was anything wrong with D&D. What was the point of that statement?

My point is just that LW gains its appeal by being rules-light, by being stream-lined, by being simple. Mongoose tried doing a d20 version of LW, and it was rather... meh, to say the least.

Also, while I agree on the potential hazards of arbitrary decision, should I really need to remind you of all of the infamous insta-death sections in LW? Those can very easily be construed as arbitrary, yet - I choose to believe - follow some unseen and unexplained rule set that Mr Dever had going when writing the books. Rules can help to guide people - but they can also be stupidly complex, like the notorious Grapple rules from D&D. To conceptualise a character in a full and detailed manner, you need a robust imagination - not just rules.

[Rusty Radiator]

I thought the appeal was in the retention of a consistent character through a continuous series of adventures exploring different areas of a rich and varied contiguous fantasy world. I also thought it was in the progressive acquisition of a variety of abilities that give the impression of a steadily improving character. The bluntness and simplicity of the gamebook rules always detracted from the appeal, to me.

[askhati]

I hear you - character progression was one of the great drawing points, as all those "Do you possess the Sommerswerd?" sections proved... The world-building was also amazing - I think most of us are here because we fell in love with Magnamund a long time ago already.

But I think we must agree to disagree, in this case: for me, the simplicity was a welcome break from d20-style complexity. You seem to be more a fan of the d20 rules - have you ever tried the LW version, and - if yes - what did you think of it?

Actually - just thinking out loud now - how would one increase complexity in a gamebook format while still retaining the conciseness of the existing books? (which I see as a desirable trait) More rules means more back-and-forth referencing between where you are in the adventure, and the rules section in the front/back of the book; likewise, the more calculations need to be done for XYZ (armour tests, Glancing Hits vs Mortal Hits, Range and Deflection on missile attacks, etc etc), the more scribbling and background calcs need to happen, potentially increasing the chance for errors and frustration.

Something like the Freeway Warrior books, perhaps? It was already a step up in terms of complexity, compared to LW.

[Rusty Radiator]

Well as for increased complexity in gamebooks... Something like Blood sword is probably as complex as you'd want to get. Some FF books worked in extra stats and I thought they were amongst the best.
But I was referring to an RPG system- I was quite excited by the d20 system when I saw it in a game shop and I was hoping to see it developed further. I don't get a lot of chances to meet with people face to face for tabletop sessions these days owing to work and family, but I would have loved to have started an online campaign based on it. I hear it had a number of problems, I can't believe the only way to fix it was to break it down to skill/stamina level of complexity! Surely, in a party of characters you want some that are good at stealth, some good at psionics, some at magic, some strong, some fast, some that are good talkers etc. I honestly don't see how CS and EN and WP could cover all of that in a satisfying manner. Anyone who gets a cruddy CS score will be kicking themselves because it acts as a proxy for so many different things. EN and WP hardly matter as they are a depleting stock and don't affect how you perform. Surely we are all smart enough to handle a system more complex than one designed for 8 yr olds to understand.
I hear your point about rule complexity breaking up action, but that is down to a good GM who has all the source materials to hand and knows the rules like the back of their hand. The complexity of calculation should not confront the characters necessarily, in fact an online format allows a GM to hide the characters stats ENTIRELY if you so wish. Rules allow a GM to build a complex model of the characters involved so that there are concrete reasons why certain results occur. You can dispense with statistics completely, but then the GM is forced to make arbitrary judgements like; okay, Angry Stoat has run through a forest, fought 3 doomwolves, fallen down a hole, can he now climb up this cliff face successfully? He can make the call whichever way he likes, but if Slimy Eel kills a gourgaz, hits a tree, eats a funny mushroom then tries a similar climb at a later point the result could be different. Would the player be left thinking 'I feel my Hunting discipline wasn't properly taken into account, maybe the GM forgot whatever arbitrary criteria he used last time...' Simple rules can use certain crude methods to fit such complex scenarios to the stats they have- so, for instance the combats are carried out classic LW style, non combat disciplines add or subtract to the EN lost in the other scenarios, then the chance of success is based on proportion of EN left, maybe. The scenario can be managed, but each added layer of complexity to what the player does to affect the course of events can only be managed in a crude manner. And the method the GM picks to fit complex actions to simple rules will again be as arbitrary as having no rules at all. Possibly more so, as a GM unconstrained by any stats will probably create a model in his/her mind more complex than a Gamebook set of rules.
I remember playing Riddling Reaver, an FF attempt at multiplayer gaming based on simple rules. WFRP was far more interesting when we discovered it.....

[askhati]

Feb 25, 2015 13:05:24 GMT Rusty Radiator said:

I hear your point about rule complexity breaking up action, but that is down to a good GM who has all the source materials to hand and knows the rules like the back of their hand.

We unfortunately do not have that luxury in all instances - what about the first-time player/GM of the system, or a first-time-ever player, who has never played a tabletop/paper-based RPG before in their life? Get them hooked on a simple system (LW) and then let them migrate to a more advanced system (d20) if they so wish - rather than having them turned off by the "hard-core" complexity right from the start.

Feb 25, 2015 13:05:24 GMT Rusty Radiator said:

Surely, in a party of characters you want some that are good at stealth, some good at psionics, some at magic, some strong, some fast, some that are good talkers etc. I honestly don't see how CS and EN and WP could cover all of that in a satisfying manner.

CS, WP and EP do not cover those things in isolation, correct - but that is why we have different classes (unless I'm missing your point completely). LW, as a Kai Master, was always more combat focused than, say, a Wizard of the Crystal Star, or a Herbwarden of Bautar. You can take my word for it - there are some EXCELLENT character classes out there, both in the published "Heroes of Magnamund", and in other yet-to-be-released work (can't say much more than that, sorry). Everything that you mentioned, will be covered

Feb 25, 2015 13:05:24 GMT Rusty Radiator said:

Surely we are all smart enough to handle a system more complex than one designed for 8 yr olds to understand.

I hear your point - but ask the people who are still fans today, how many of them got hooked as kids and teenagers? That "written for a young adult" simplicity (back to my original point) was what hooked many of us as youngsters.

[Rusty Radiator]

Again, I loved the progression of the books, but even as a child I yearned for more complexity, that's why me and my friends graduated from gamebooks to WFRP. I would have loved a good roleplay system, set in Magnamund but with WFRP/AD&D complexity. Are children these days less motivated or more limited, that they can't learn a rule system that takes a little bit of reading and thought?
As for character classes making up for the limitations of having only 3 stats.... I don't see how that would give any where near the flexibility I would want. For example, how would we reflect a character that was faster as opposed to stronger, or better at persuasion than psionic combat?
Give the player 2 levels of complexity- the ones that can't be bothered to learn a demanding system can then play the dumbed-down version...