Game system

[tilt]

Let have a quick poll on what system we should make this for.

[Korash]

I went the generic root. I am thinking that this way anyone should be able to use it and we could always stat out the characters in the various systems in an appendix. I think the monsters are easy enough to just say what they are (5 Orc Fighters, 1 Orc Shaman and 3 Orc Archers) and the system would be able to handle the stats. I saw this type of handling of stats in an old Thieves World supplement and I loved it.

Besides that, I think the map detail should set to the system that demands the most, which I believe would be 4E. I have always thought that there is no such thing as TOO much detail as long as it is not too cluttered.

[industrygothica]

I went the generic root. I am thinking that this way anyone should be able to use it and we could always stat out the characters in the various systems in an appendix. I think the monsters are easy enough to just say what they are (5 Orc Fighters, 1 Orc Shaman and 3 Orc Archers) and the system would be able to handle the stats. I saw this type of handling of stats in an old Thieves World supplement and I loved it.

Besides that, I think the map detail should set to the system that demands the most, which I believe would be 4E. I have always thought that there is no such thing as TOO much detail as long as it is not too cluttered.

The thing is, it's not a generic system if you're statting monsters in an appendix. Regardless if the stats appear in the general text or in an appendix, they will still be for one system or another. My vote is for 4e/Pathfinder.

That being said, I am in love with the idea of having a generic description of an encounter in the general text, and then "Appendix A: 4e Statistics" and "Appendix B: Pathfinder Statistics." Stating in the general text how many of what creature would be a mistake, imo, just because 5 orcs in Pathfinder is a vastly different encounter than 5 orcs in 4e. But, "a band of axe-wielding orcs with at least one archer" would be perfectly acceptable. Again, my opinion.,

[Korash]

That being said, I am in love with the idea of having a generic description of an encounter in the general text, and then "Appendix A: 4e Statistics" and "Appendix B: Pathfinder Statistics." Stating in the general text how many of what creature would be a mistake, imo, just because 5 orcs in Pathfinder is a vastly different encounter than 5 orcs in 4e. But, "a band of axe-wielding orcs with at least one archer" would be perfectly acceptable. Again, my opinion.,

IG, that is EXACTLY what I was talking about, but I realize that I might not have escribed it properly. I also agree with your way of describing the encounter. I was trying to infer that only the NPCs, and not the monsters (which could be looked up in what ever manuals are required for each system) and any NEW monsters that we add to the mix. The Supplement that I refered to has stats in GURPS (I think),AD&D, Runequest, Chivalry and Sorcery and quite a few others I believe.

[NeonKnight]

I voted Pathfinder/4e, and here are my thoughts.

These two are the APPLE & MICROSOFT of the fantasy games rules set. Almost every player has heard of it/played it and is almost worldwide. (Think you can buy a PC game in Wondows/Mac format, but not in other formats; LINUX, UNIX, AMIGA OS4, etc.).

Now even with Pathfinder/D&D 4e, there are certain monsters who are more powerful in 4e than in Pathfinder and likely vice versa, but publishing in two formats allows for least amount of work arounds/editing. a Generic system would also require we avoid as much as possible any mention of WotC held properties (Same for pathfinder) and requires we provide more framework for our own adventure (i.e. Gods/Pantheons, Races, etc)

[Aegeri]

I am quite happy to help design and make encounters/monsters and such as needed for 4E as a system. I voted for 4E/Pathfinder though, because even though I can't really help much with Pathfinder in terms of design it's not a bad idea to produce this for both systems.

[Jaxilon]

I'm wondering what you really need to stat out a monster for anyway?

Anyone who is using this can look up the monster in their rules system, right? So like IG said, if we state:

a band of axe-wielding orcs with at least one archer.

Can't any GM worth his salt look up what those would mean for whatever system he's using? And furthermore adjust it for his party strength? I do this on the fly all the time with my group. Is this unusual?

[jtougas]

Actually it's not. Although I am FAR from the voice of experience here (not having gamed for quite a few years) I can remember playing (and writing) adventures that were worded just like that. (I actually like that wording it makes it sound just scary enough to maybe think about another solution other than the orc bash method..) I think the problem comes with the target market we are trying to reach. Some GMs are perfectly happy with "generic" or not explicit encounters as they will happily adjust and tweak them to their liking (and party strength) There are others that would much rather have it all laid out so that the adventure "flows" naturally and doesn't come to a halt while they look up Monster Stats. (this is for the GM's who either don't have the time or the inclination to read through said adventure before game night). Neither is right or wrong just different. I think we could go with a more generic write-up and save ourselves a headache with OGL and the like although we would be losing some market. Ah well like the old saying goes "Ya can't please everyone all the time.."
*EDIT* I should probably mention that I DID vote for 4e as it is the biggest market right now although to be perfectly honest I don't have a preference really (since 2e isn't an option..)

[Jaxilon]

Wow, people run adventures without reading them ahead of time? I'm stunned. I can't even begin to tell you all the hours I have wasted getting things all ready for my party and then they never even went there. LOL. Running adventures without reading them ahead of time, I'm laughing inside because it sounds to me like someone trying to give a book report on a book they never read. LOL

[Aegeri]

Personally I think using a generic assumption isn't really a great one because you lose a lot of your own "flavor" this way. Additionally for something like 4E especially, part of the best thing about it is that you can easily make your own monsters and antagonists. This makes a 4E adventure appealing not just because of the adventure itself, but also new monsters that could be used in other settings if required. Additionally 4E is the sort of system where making your own unique antagonists works very well and isn't massively labor intensive. So we can - in the context of a 4E adventure - make our own monsters/NPCs/Antagonists which helps sell the adventure as well (as these are things useful for anyone playing the game). Making it generic doesn't have this advantage and causes major issues: For example how do we represent specific antagonists? Do we just assume a DM has to basically build their own monsters and similar when there may not be an equivalent? Do our BBEGs get thrown into generic "Town guards" or whatever just because there isn't anything suitable? Additionally, encounter design in 4E is a bit of an art that goes a bit deeper than "Throw 5 orcs at your party". That's a valid way of doing things, but is rather boring and doesn't take into account certain idiosyncrasies behind how 4E works. Similarly, in Pathfinder 5 orcs is actually quite a bit more dangerous than the same 5 orcs in 4E in many ways (due to differences in healing, HP and damage etc).

I don't really think that's a great idea and personally, I'm against it because it also means I can't really contribute that much. I'm not a good mapper, but I am a great mechanics man. I'm here to contribute lots of great encounters and monsters/NPCs after all! If we make everything generic then it's going to be a bit hard for me to do that.