jhkimrpg: Breaking Down D&D

jhkimrpg (

jhkimrpg) wrote,
@ 2005-10-12 00:22:00

Entry tags:

dawn of fire, dnd

Breaking Down D&D
So recently I played in two sessions of a D&D3.5 campaign with friends of my friend Russell who just moved to the area. I have generally been lukewarm about the game. The first session was reasonably fun, particularly as we were introducing the 9-year-old daughter of our friends to the game. The second session, though, bogged down for me as we moved into more of the hard-core dungeon crawl. I don't want to talk about that for the moment, however.

So I have this idea mulling around in my mind about how I would use D&D / D20 if I were so inclined. Actually, I took a previous stab at using D20 in my convention event for the Conan RPG, Brawny Thews. But here I'm wondering about D&D itself. As I see it -- if I'm going to use D&D at all it should make use of the monsters, modules, miniatures, and combat rules. Otherwise why would I use it as a system?

My thought was to have a post-apocalyptic fantasy game -- taking a typical world and suddenly have all of civilization destroyed by giant abominations which come out of nowhere and ravage cities and fields across the globe. The survivors must hide out and fight for survival while avoiding the hordes. This might sound a bit arbitrary, but bear me out as I point out what this does to the genre.

Food, shelter, and other basic needs are what is bartered for in trade -- no one gives the slightest thought to gold.
The PCs will be part of a small band or clan of survivors who depend on each other, adding a social dimension.
Ruins and dungeons now become havens to hide in from the sweeps of abominations. i.e. The PCs may explore out a dungeon with an eye for a place to live. The GM may also hand some city or other modules to the players as places known to them -- where the module shows the pre-apocalypse state of the place, and the PCs may survey the destruction.
The abominations are near-mindless instruments of destructions who destroy anything not like them -- orcs and goblins just as much as humans and elves. Thus, the different races are thrown together with a common enemy.

The idea is to get real use out of the existing material for D&D -- like dungeon modules -- but to put them in a new light. So the PCs come to a dungeon, but they ignore the gold and instead look for the food sources. They map it out looking not for how it can be cracked open, but for how it can be made secure and defensible.

Now, there might be some additional twists that I may want to throw into this:

One is class. In the post-apocalyptic breakdown of society, specialized roles break down -- this makes some sense and is part of the post-apocalyptic genre. Everyone has to help gather food, and everyone must fight to defend the band. So to push the breakdown idea further, I might tear down the class system to a point system of abilities. This might make it easier to have monsters as PCs.
Perhaps I should also modify magic in some way? On reflection, I lean against this. It would be more interesting for the players to struggle with how to use the existing spell list, say, to help their band survive. Now "Create Food and Water" becomes a vital spell choice, for example.

As I consider this, I think tearing down the class system is important to convey the breakdown, upheaval, and shift of everyone's roles. But I'm not sure exactly how I should do it. How much, if any, should I keep mechanics for niche protection? i.e. Should there be a cost benefit for taking related abilities? I'm not sure.

Should I add in more social mechanics for the relations with the other members of the band? There should certainly be a focus, I feel, on there being families and children in the band to protect. But I'm not sure if that calls for particular mechanical changes.

Customize

(Post a new comment)

gbsteve
2005-10-12 10:39 am UTC (link)

Is this not Gamma World? Not that I'm familiar with the d20 version.

You make a point about "Create Food and Water". It seems to me that Magic can very quickly rebuild society. In modern post-apocalyptic games, the difficulty comes because technology disappears, or becomes an arcane art in which only a few can use it, but not very well, and things inevitably break with little hope of repair or replacement because the whole technological infrastructure has disappeared.

Unless you have something similar affecting magic, then I don't think that your world is going to be post-apocalyptic, it's more like post-invasion - the magic will get them out of the hole eventually.

Perhaps the spellcasters still know the technical side of magic but the process of casting spells has become more involved - perhaps requiring more ritual or participants. Perhaps the reason why magic doesn't work properly is not even fully understood.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

chris_goodwin
2005-10-12 03:40 pm UTC (link)

Suppose that part of what breaks down is the organized system of teaching magic; magical universities are gone, for instance, and to learn you need to find someone willing to take you on as an apprentice. There'd better be a huge return on spending four years essentially doing nothing in order to become a wizard, otherwise your time is better spent learning farming, fighting abominations, or something that is otherwise immediately useful for short and long term survival.

In D&D/d20, it can take quite a long time of adventuring, training, etc. to get to the point where you can cast Create Food and Water, and how many times can you cast it? Once a day? Useful to be sure, but not so much for provisioning a band or small village over the winter. How long will it take before you can cast it three or more times a day? (Note: I don't know the exact parameters of CF&W; this is just a general statement.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jhkimrpg
2005-10-12 05:30 pm UTC (link)

A clarification here -- the apocalypse is still going on. That is -- there wasn't just a sweep of abominations who appeared and then left the next day. The ones who destroyed everything are still in control of the world, and humanoids are forced to live underground and otherwise hiding. In addition, D&D magic is good at looting and killing and generally poor at civilization-building. For example, Create Food and Water is a third level spell requiring at least a 5th level cleric. Such a cleric can be found in every third small town (100+ people) by the DMG population guidelines, and could cast Create Food and Water once a day, which feeds 15 people for that day. I'm not seeing populations bounce back based on this.

I'm not familiar with the D20 version of Gamma World -- but this is vastly different from the original Gamma World. The original Gamma World was very much in the wandering-adventurer mode. The apocalypse was long over, and civilization (such as it existed) had been established by nameless other people. The PCs were rootless wanderers who went around exploring and looting. The world was pretty much safe for them to wander in outside of the designated looting spots which constituted the adventures.

Here, the challenge is saving and establishing civilization. The PCs are responsible for preserving and fighting for what remains of their world. Within D&D and Gamma World, it seems to be a rarity for the PCs to be responsible for anything.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	xorphus 2005-10-12 02:27 pm UTC (link)
	To tear down the class system, just remove all class prerequisites on the skill, feat and weapon lists. Turn nonfeat class abilities into feats. Create new feats that allow the character to cast incremental levels of arcane or divine spells. Have every character gain the same number of feat slots per level. Ding! (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2005-10-12 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	If you're going to break down the specialized classes, you might as well let Wizards do the work for you. Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) uses 3 broad classes (instead of all the specifics), with lots of feats to customize. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	An ID (Anonymous) 2005-10-12 04:29 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry, that was me. Scott (http://scottrpg.com/llamafodder/) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: An ID

jhkimrpg
2005-10-12 05:57 pm UTC (link)

Well, I'm not saying that it is rocket science to tear down the class system. However, looking over generic classes, they seem pretty much like the approach in Blue Rose which I've already tried -- and I have to say I find it pretty half-assed as far as tearing things down.

There are five things which vary in classes as they go up in level: Base Attack Bonus, Hit Points, Saving Throws, Skill Points, and Class Abilities (including spellcasting). There are also two things which are the same for all classes: standard feats and ability increases. To tear down the classes, you need to be able to truly trade off between all of these -- to cover things like the Monk who has higher saves than everyone, and so forth.

Rather than turning everything into the extremely granular feats, I think a more nuanced point system makes sense. I would tend to say something like: +1 Base Attack Bonus = 10 points, +1 Hit Point = 2 points, +1 Save = 3 points, +1 Skill = 1 point, Feat = 6 points. Most class abilities should be straightforward, but spellcasting would a little harder to reverse engineer. A complete character level would be equivalent to 25 points. You would get bonus skill points and bonus hit points (based on Int and Con) when your total points reaches multiples of 25, I suppose.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Using D&D classes in a savage world
(Anonymous)
2005-10-12 08:43 pm UTC (link)

Hi,

Sounds like a cool game. I think you could run a D&D game in such a ruined world without deconstructing classes. Here's what I would do: give all PCs
a few levels in the NPC classes warrior or expert(or even commoner, if you want an
extremely low-powered game) to reflect their mandatory combat/survival training they've gotten after the fall of civilization. Then make a rule that there needs to be an in-game justification for advancing in the standard PC classes. For example, if they recover a lost temple, they could become clerics of the associated god(dess)(es) if they meet the wisdom requirements.
To continue advancing as cleric, they would need to rebuild the temple by recovering more holy artifacts, or make contact with the surviving priests of the temple, or some such thing. To advance in fighter, they would need to get advanced training or recover appropriate weapons they could train with. You wouldn't need to spell out the exact circumstances to allow advancement, just when something happens in the game, annouce it as an
advancement opportunity.

This means most of the PC's will be multi-classing, unless they can continue to justify advancing as a single class. I think that niches won't leak too
badly if you start them with a relatively small number of points for abilities. For example, if they start with 22 points, they can have only
three abilities at 14 or higher, or two at 16 or higher. Starting them with NPC levels, combined with low abilities and very limited equipment, will slow advancement tremendously, so you are unlikely to get high powered magic
or the special combat feats coming into the game until several years have
passed. By giving them NPC levels, they should be facing challenges one or two notches below their level, giving them less experience per encounter.
On the other hand, with 2 warrior levels, they could have 15 or so hit points each at start, so they won't be fragile.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

jhkimrpg
2005-10-12 09:57 pm UTC (link)

Well, I could do that. But a party of all multi-classes is an enormous mess of bookkeeping under the current system. Removing the classes and just having a single pool of points for buying abilities is much simpler.

More importantly, your suggestion produces exactly the wrong effect from what I am looking for. Under what you suggest, players will desperately be trying to conform to the old, pre-apocalypse adventurer roles in order to get those PC levels, which are vastly superior to the near-worthless NPC class levels. So, for example, no one will want to collect food -- since that's a Commoner-like task. Instead, they'll be trying to act Rogue-ish to justify Rogue levels, and so forth.

I want things to be different. I want to the game in play to demonstrate the breakdown. I want to show the PCs changing and adapting. Under my system, players would take exactly what abilities they want. So rather than jumping through hoops to justify things to the GM, the PCs will be adapting to the needs of the group.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world
(Anonymous)
2005-10-13 12:24 am UTC (link)

Well, you seem to know what you want, but let me argue the point a little
anyway.

If PC's are allowed to buy abilities ``ala carte'', then it turns the breakdown of civilization into a convenience for PC's. They can get sets of abilities that weren't available before.

If you use the same classes, with the same rules, as in standard D&D, then the costs of society's breakdown become clear. Yes, you can be a wizard, but there's no wizard college to go to to buy new spells, there's no ``magic ink'' to scribe them into your spellbook, you need to scrounge for even the simplest spell components, etc.

The alternative is to advance in a less powerful (in principle) NPC class that does not require this large support system. An expert gets to define a
set of skills and gets skill points to spend in those skills. Besides a few
standard combat modifiers (hit points, saves, to hit bonus every other level), that's it. A pure expert just advances in a self-defined skill set.

I'm not sure why a character that purchases the ability to cast a few low-level spells and purchases some skills would be more ``community oriented'' than a similar character defined as a third level expert, first level wizard.

(Your bookkeeping comment also confuses me. Multi-classing in 3.5, especially with NPC classes, requires no more bookkeeping than a single
classed character. Having to keep track of independent ability purchases seems to require a lot more bookkeeping to me, as well as the overhead of
making up and teaching the rules.)

As far as trying to conform to old roles, that will depend more on what
happens in the game than on the mechanics. As you described it earlier, it
seemed you wanted to keep but reinterpret the ``standard D&D dungeon-crawl''.
If that's the case, PC's will purchase dungeon-crawling abilities no matter how they're packaged. If not, then PC's might well avoid the standard PC
classes that emphasize dugeon-crawling.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

jhkimrpg
2005-10-13 04:21 am UTC (link)

Aha! This sounds like it is a thematic clash. You want to portray the existing classes as fundamentally correct in some way -- i.e. you want to portray the breakdown of the pseudo-medieval social roles as mainly as causing problems for people, and the implied solution is to rebuild things exactly as they were before. So you mechanics emphasize the penalties suffered by PCs if they can't recreate the old structures. My vision was that the crisis if anything strengthens people, making them try things and learn things that they wouldn't have otherwise. The ultimate result will be people who are adapted differently, and we see them go through that change. Mine is a more revolutionary ethos, and I think we're clashing over that.

I think a crucial point here is that I don't want to recreate the standard D&D dungeon crawl. Not at all. I want to still be able to use some elements like maps and monsters, but I expect the results should be quite different. That is, going into a dungeon with a bunch of families and children looking for a place to live and defend yourselves is very different than going into a dungeon to loot it and head back to town.

---------

I guess I should clarify my comment abouts bookkeeping. Independent abilities are extremely straightforward -- you write down the abilities you have on your character sheet. So if you write in your BAB, hit points, saves, feats, and class abilities, then that is all that is required. Any existing character sheet should work as long as the class abilities are written in. Just scratch out the class and it's fine. For later checking, you can mark in the costs beside the abilities you have, but that's not required.

Technically, I suppose multiclassing only requires that you also write in your different class levels. However, the issue I have with multiclassing is that it is very laborious to see if a character is legal. i.e. I hand you a character sheet. For example, I have Expert-2 / Fighter-1 / Cleric-3 written down. How many skill points should I have? What are legal distributions of skills? I'm looked at some of the fits that PCGen programmers have to deal with to validating characters. If everyone is going to multiclass a lot, it seems a lot simpler to switch to buying abilities.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Not Gamma World

ewilen
2005-10-12 07:29 pm UTC (link)

I guess I'm not the first to think you were talking about a Gamma World-like setting, only to realize you aren't.

What we have here is the ruins of a D&D-ish fantasy world--not the ruins of modern civilization turning to magic. (Personally I favor the latter à la the early 80's cartoons Blackstar or especially Thundarr the Barbarian.)

I find it interesting that you would represent the breakdown of society by eliminating the class system. I have always thought of the D&D class/level system as at least partially a meta-world construct. First of all, "Heroes" (levelled characters) don't really go around thinking of themselves as such, and "Thieves" don't think of themselves as "Thieves". Or do they? Does a Fighter look at a Barbarian and perceive their difference as one of culture or one of class? In other cases, such as Wizards and Monks, the identification of game-construct and in-game class/profession is more clearcut.

What I think you ought to consider is where you stand on this. Using classes but treating them as abstractions or archetypes is a sort of Design for Effect. Eliminating them in favor of point system is a kind of Design for Cause, particularly if your system contains synergies encouraging specialization, which would just result in the reconstruction of classes. (Having classes as concrete phenomena in the game world is sort of a melding of DfE and DfC.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

jhkimrpg
2005-10-12 09:39 pm UTC (link)

Well, first of all, I don't think that classes are purely Design-for-Effect. I think like many good mechanics, they reflect the genre and game-world they are intended to portray. For example, a Pendragon character would never say "Oh, I just failed a Lust check and thus my Chastity goes down by 1". But the traits and passions still convey something about the genre and world. In a D&D world, there are sharp lines of division. For example, you have in-game phenomena like Thieves Guilds which are a priori pretty strange, but they make clear the feeling of class divisions. You can see another good use of this in Cyberpunk, which has distinct classes that conveys the feel of a stratified society where the tribes of Riggers are strongly separated from the Corporates, the underworld Fixers, the Cops, and so forth.

So I want to convey viscerally that social lines and roles have broken down. There are no guilds any more, nor soldiers in the army, nor farmers protected by the soldiers. I want to tailor my rules to reflect that? I predict it will not simply reconstruct the class system -- that what we'll see mechanically is that characters may still differentiate from each other, but it will be along different lines than the standard system. Characters will adapt to get what is useful -- i.e. to fit the needs of their situation and community. And that's exactly what I'm looking for.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

ewilen
2005-10-12 11:40 pm UTC (link)

Right, what I'm saying (and we may already be saying the same thing) is that character construction in your post-apocalyptic D&D world can be approached from any point along a continuum. At one end is the totally class-based approach, like in the original whitebox D&D. You define certain archetypes that match that setting and then let the players choose. At the other end is something a bit like Runequest 2nd ed., where everyone is born a JOAT.

However is JOATism, in itself, really going to yield a "classless" society? Or will the "different lines" which you're talking about simply cluster around a new set of archetypes? If the latter, then you could simply skip that step and redefine the classes(*). But if not, then IMO you either (a) need to construct an environment which discourages specialization or (b) construct the character creation/development rules to discourage or prevent specialization. For example, having distribution requirements on abilities, something like that.

(* But I recognize that the whole point could be an experiment to see whether clustering happens or not.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

jhkimrpg
2005-10-13 04:59 am UTC (link)

Er, you seem to be suggesting that a "classless" society means that everyone are identical generalists. I see a classless society rather as meaning a society where communities are flexible and individuals have mobility.

In terms of mechanics, you seem to get my point here, so I'm not sure I see the point of your question. i.e. I don't want to have archetypes mandated by the system or the GM for players to conform to -- I want them to have the flexibility of dividing up into archetypes of their own choosing. That doesn't mean forcing everyone to be generalists -- that means letting them divide up as they choose. Here's a simple analogy. Suppose have four characters and a set of 16 abilities which are called for -- represented as letters, AAAA BBBB CCCC DDDD. So we could have four specialized character AAAA / BBBB / CCCC / DDDD. Or we could have four perfect generalists ABCD / ABCD / ABCD / ABCD. Or we could have AABB / BBCC / CCDD / DDAA. And so forth.

Does that make sense?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world

ewilen
2005-10-13 10:51 pm UTC (link)

Let me think about it.

We have abilities, and someone who specializes in those abilities at the expense of improvement in other abilities is a specialist. Problem is: usually, an "ability" of this type is really a set of skills which possess synergy of some kind (getting better at one helps you apply the others--either by literally raising them or complementing them).

Okay, here's what I'm getting at. In D&D you're got a distinction between Fighters and Wizards. Those are two archetypes. Suppose in your new society, a truly effective warrior has to be able to wield both steel and spells. So, because of the setting, some players end up creating/developing characters who are effective with weapons and with combat-type spells, but who really don't bother with any other kind of magic. Then suppose there's also a niche for Wise Men who combine a certain set of Arcane and Divine knowledge spells. In other words, the new society might turn out to have classes, only rotated 45 degrees from the D&D class-space, as it were.

But what if you ditch the class system but retain the systemic elements which provide synergy? Suppose character creation/development is handled as in D&D, with XP as the "currency". If you've already "invested" 100k XP in ability X, will you get more "oomph" out of adding the next 100k XP to that ability (or a related one) than you will by putting it into a completely separate ability? If so, then there will be a systemic incentive to create specialists and use party diversity as the way to get all the needed abilities into play.

So I'm saying that both the setting and the synergies of character creation/development will determine if there are incentives for specialization, and if there are such incentives, they'll also influence the resulting niches and how "deep" they are. If they turn out to be quite deep, you could accomplish much the same effect by writing up a new set of classes tailored to the system.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Using D&D classes in a savage world ewilen 2005-10-14 12:10 am UTC (link)
	I forgot to add, "But you don't have to, and maybe that's the point of the exercise." (Reply to this)(Parent)

losrpg
2005-10-14 01:04 am UTC (link)

I really like the basic concept. Here's my comments:

-----------------------

As I consider this, I think tearing down the class system is important to convey the breakdown, upheaval, and shift of everyone's roles.

That depends on just how total the social breakdown is. Many time, if there's any semblance of society left, they will cling all the harder to social roles, at least superficially.

---------------

The idea is to get real use out of the existing material for D&D -- like dungeon modules -- but to put them in a new light. So the PCs come to a dungeon, but they ignore the gold and instead look for the food sources. They map it out looking not for how it can be cracked open, but for how it can be made secure and defensible.

The latter bit doesn't mesh well with the repeated nature of the dungeon crawling. It does, however, set the stage for the 'baddies' attacking the PCs in their dungeon fortress. A very interesting reversal of roles, and one I've used to very good effect before.

As for food, I'm not seeing any immediate reason why having another dungeon really adds to your food supply in the long term...unless the gold/other loot in the dungeon can be traded for food. Maybe the abominations can't function well at night and there's a thriving nighttime black market?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

jhkimrpg
2005-10-15 12:38 am UTC (link)

Regarding your first comment, that seems like a distinct possibility. The players will have the option of following pretty much exactly along the lines of the old classes -- i.e. the point system will allow class buying -- so I think this should work pretty well.

Regarding your second comment, I expect that many fewer dungeon modules will be used than in a standard D&D game. So, they may head to one dungeon. That may be their home for a while, but chances are good that it's not actually that great a place to stay. So they might scout for other potential locations to move to, or find needed resources such as by picking through the ruins of a town or city. Back at their home, they may have to defend against attacks on it, and they may either be forced to move on by attacks or want to move to a better place.

Again, I'm not trying to reproduce traditional dungeon crawling with some cosmetic differences. The point of having dungeons is to be able to make use of things like maps, illustrations, miniatures, and monster stats -- but potentially in ways which are very different than traditional dungeon crawls.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

John Kim D20

adamdray
2005-10-17 03:57 pm UTC (link)

John,

After reading your recent posts about D&D and your comments in my recent posts, I'm pretty strongly convinced that D&D isn't for you, no matter how far you drift it.

You talk about a "thicker layer of characterization as opposed to raw hard-core beat-the-monsters." You're not going to get that out of D&D without considerable rules changes, and then you're not playing D&D. You're playing John Kim D20 and it will have to be wildly different than the core rules before it makes you happy.

D&D's support for characterization is limited to racial stereotype, class-based stereotype, and alignment. You want more support than that. You can graft it in, sure, but all the discussion here talks about changing the class system. That's the wrong place to focus if you want better system support for characterization. Getting rid of classes won't get you deeper characterization. Just less game structure.

Now, the level treadmill seems to be in the way, too. How much do you care about characters leveling up? It's going to be very hard to make 3E into a game that doesn't push players to Step On Up. They'll spend a lot of energy min-maxing classes and skills and feats. They'll spend a lot of energy earning XP so they can level up. They'll spend a lot of energy during play figuring out the most clever tactic during combat. If they have combat abilities and feats, they'll angle their adventures so they can use them often.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: John Kim D20 jhkimrpg 2005-10-17 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	I started to respond to this, but the response soon ballooned into a post of its own: Characterization and System. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Breakdown of society
(Anonymous)
2005-11-07 10:58 pm UTC (link)

Brian here.

Just like every asshole, I've got an opinion too...

1) I groove groove groove on post-apocalyptic scenarios. Endlessly fascinating to my dark heart.
2) Nevertheless, in keeping with the 'breakdown of society' model, I tend to favor an environment more analogous to the real world, i.e. not Gamma World but something more "28 Days Later".
3) Classless systems: also in keeping with my favoring more so-called realistic environments, I'd do away with magic altogether and replace it with an emphasis on technology, or lack thereof -- i.e. "I used to repair TVs." "I was a stockbroker." "I was a nurse." Scavenging for what works and what doesn't work in the immediate time frame is key.
4) Such a system would require a lot of heavy "back-end engineering"... for example, I could see a requirement that every party have a couple of people with primary skillsets that have zero day-to-day practical application in the new world (e.g. software engineer, insurance salesman) that the rest of the group is absolutely responsible for taking care of... where skillsets such as gunsmith or nurse would be critical for day-to-day tasks, other supposedly less useful skillsets would be used for specific but crucial tasks to move the story forward.
5) Social/group dynamics would also play a critical role in this new world -- if you're fighting for simple survival, you have to be able to depend on the person next to you for absolutely everything. I think some sort of simple system would have to be engineered for that. Has that former stockbroker been reading too much Ayn Rand and started hoarding way too much food? Former security guard is getting way too antsy spying on everyone? Former third-grade teacher gets along great with everyone and becomes a decent shot with a bow and arrow? Elect her leader.
6) I also tend to favor post-apocalyptic imaginings that have some possible basis in present-day happenings. For example, something involving environmental devastation (where large areas are rendered uninhabitable/un-farmable, if that is a word) would be cool, if really depressing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Breakdown of society

jhkimrpg
2005-11-08 12:46 am UTC (link)

Much of this sounds like you're responding to the general idea of a post-apocalyptic game rather than the specific idea I was outlining. The game I'm outlining is really a deconstructive take on medieval fantasy in general and D&D in particular. You're describing software engineers trying to make their way in a magic-less, environmentally-devastated world -- which could be cool but isn't the game I'm describing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Breakdown of society
(Anonymous)
2005-11-08 06:02 am UTC (link)

Apologies for the non-sequitur. (I see "post-apocalypse" and immediately my "game jones" and "cool appreciation factor" needles redline. Mouth before brain.)

In that case, I'd agree and disagree in part, I think.
I'd agree in that a deconstructed system that turns the familiar RPG on its ear is a fundamentally good thing; playing it, those people who are intimately familiar with "generic" RPG rulesets would be more or less forced to think creatively within the confines of the scenarios you're describing -- in other words, contributing to the narrative more than trying to game the system. It would also be a system that you could tailor toward the crowd as a GM.

I'd disagree in part because what this describes isn't so much destruction of social bonds, or a post-apocalypse per se, so much as it is forming a different social order. Was this what you were originally trying to achieve?

But then again, I haven't played D&D since high school so I'll shut up now. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Breakdown of society jhkimrpg 2005-11-08 06:41 am UTC (link)
	Well, yeah. It's not about the permanent destruction of society -- but rather about the breakdown and subsequent re-formation of society. I think it still qualifies as post-apocalyptic, though. :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Breakdown of society
(Anonymous)
2005-11-08 09:18 am UTC (link)

Perhaps... I think my #5 is of particular interest in the pressure-cooker world of post-apocalyptic plotting, even if it isn't in the near-future world as much as it is in the world of the established monsters-and-magic universe.

Perhaps also the familiar alignment breakdown of D&D could be used in such a way as to magnify the subtle differences and conflicts that would arise with characters of slightly different alignments in the same party. Maybe then, in a post-apocalyptic world as a lawful good character, you'd be able to trust the lawful evil monster you've just encountered *for the moment, for convenience's sake*, rather than trust the chaotic- or neutral- good character in your own party. It's been a very long time so I don't know if D&D already accomodates such things. If I remember correctly, the differences on the good-vs.-evil scale were mostly papered over and never mattered that much.

I'm interested in how you might balance the question of how a post-apocalyptic world would work (i.e. something like genocide happening every day on a grand scale) vs. some sort of within-the-world realism (i.e. can't have characters succeeding too much or else it just becomes an inverse D&D).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Breakdown of society

jamused
2005-11-16 01:32 am UTC (link)

I think you should be careful about just how apocalyptic the apocalypse was, if the intent is for the characters actually have a shot at re-forming society rather than just to hang on as long as possible before they are inevitably wiped out. For instance, if everybody who doesn't have a dungeon or cavern complex for shelter gets munched, it may not be possible for the explorable world to have the necessary minimum number of individuals for a genetically stable population. A typical D&D setting probably won't have sufficient stocks of well-preserved food to make exploring or raiding for food caches viable for more than about a season, so you'll have to allow for some way for a community to produce food despite the abominations (maybe they ignore crops and only come out at night, so it would still be possible to farm if you had a secure location to spend the night?)

You'll also probably have to get rid of most of the extra-planar travel magic that D&D is rife with, or at least limit it to places that wouldn't make better permanent homes than the post-apocalyptic world...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Breakdown of society

jhkimrpg
2005-11-16 08:18 pm UTC (link)

Well, yeah. I don't think the realism restrictions are that big of a deal in a D&D world. Genetic stability won't be a character concern, certainly, and we've seen from endangered species having a species bounce back from having just a few dozen to thousands.

So yes, the PCs plus immediate NPCs shouldn't be the only people left alive in the world. There should be new survivors they run across from time to time. And yes, they should have the possibility of some sustainable way of acquiring food. I don't think those are too difficult. If the PCs have the option of mass extra-planar travel (i.e. opening a gate for everyone) then that should be restricted, but I don't think that was terribly common anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

Advertisement

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs