Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 gloreindl Oct 29, 2008 17:13:23	I would like to see an alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play, and give just simplistic rules for combat. Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage. The result would be even quicker combat, leaving plenty of time to RP and exploring, rather than tactical strategies. Those that like the war gamming/MMO feel of the core books would just keepthat going, while those of us that don't could use the alternative rules to simplify combt and get back to the social aspect of D&D, since this would be a splat book. Makes money for WoTC, and makes those on both sides of the love/hate 4e debate happy, as each could have his/her choice in using tactics or not.
#2 tired_hungry_dolgrim Oct 30, 2008 14:48:58	I would not enjoy this. Combat and tactics are a lot of fun. I like setting up the enemy to push/pull him into a pit where I can drop a heavy statue on him. That's how I got the BBEG in Keep on the Shadowfell, and it was the most fun DnD kill I have ever made. RP and exploring is not fun without the occassional fight, and straightup hack'N'slash fights usually bored me in 3.5. I am a story teller, but I still like 4 encounters per session. Without the added excitement and variety that 4e brings to combat, it would hardly be any different from 3e.
#3 kursk Oct 30, 2008 14:56:02	[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]I would like to see an alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play, and give just simplistic rules for combat. Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage. Play 3.X It doesn't have that stuff. Or, 1st/2nd Ed.
#4 sigil_beguiler Oct 30, 2008 20:54:39	I don't see how tactiful combat makes RP/Social Situations less relevant/no longer doable. My current campaigns are mainly social, investigative, etc. activities with barely any combat (hell, one of the house rules because of this is to extend the length of time that Encounters and Dailies cannot be used for). Now! As for simply alternative rules in general or simply additional rules, etc. These re more then likely going to arrive in the form of the yearly DMGs.
#5 cold_hellfire Nov 01, 2008 14:55:03	I would like to see an alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play, and give just simplistic rules for combat. Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage. The result would be even quicker combat, leaving plenty of time to RP and exploring, rather than tactical strategies. Those that like the war gamming/MMO feel of the core books would just keepthat going, while those of us that don't could use the alternative rules to simplify combt and get back to the social aspect of D&D, since this would be a splat book. Makes money for WoTC, and makes those on both sides of the love/hate 4e debate happy, as each could have his/her choice in using tactics or not. If you want them that badly then make them yourself, the fighting in 4E is extremely dynamic and I like it as it is and its not remove anything from the roleplaying.
#6 Kaldric Nov 01, 2008 21:02:32	I don't like the tactical board-game aspects of 3rd and 4th edition, but I enjoy so many of the other features that I want to play them. I'd be happy to pay money for alternative rules. Or assist a group of forum users in creating them. For clarification: In 4th edition, I pick up my playing piece, count the squares and measure the threatened areas of the other pieces, set it down in an advantageous square. I pick my power, roll the dice, and sit there for a few minutes until my turn comes round again. There's little opportunity to describe the action, because everyone is focused on looking at the board. When I do try to describe something cool my character does... well, the miniature can't perform it, and they're conditioned to looking at the board during combat, so people go, "okay, what's that worth in damage from Page 42?" and go back to holding on to their mini like a chess piece, moving it around and setting it down in different places, figuring out the best way to manipulate the game board to their advantage. Honestly, it's like a more rules-intensive game of Mordheim. (A tactical minis boardgame from games workshop). It isn't a roleplaying game. To me, it feels like someone expanded Mordheim and shoehorned it into D&D. Except Mordheim, at least, isn't limited to a square grid. You just use a tape measure.
#7 duzzle Nov 02, 2008 5:01:04	In 4th edition, I pick up my playing piece, count the squares and measure the threatened areas of the other pieces, set it down in an advantageous square. I pick my power, roll the dice, and sit there for a few minutes until my turn comes round again. There's little opportunity to describe the action, because everyone is focused on looking at the board. When I do try to describe something cool my character does... well, the miniature can't perform it, and they're conditioned to looking at the board during combat, so people go, "okay, what's that worth in damage from Page 42?" and go back to holding on to their mini like a chess piece, moving it around and setting it down in different places, figuring out the best way to manipulate the game board to their advantage. Sounds like a problem with your group, not the rules. In the games I've run yes people try to do the tactically smart moves, but it has never taken away from the game in any way. They still view the events as an adventure, not as a chess game. If you want to remove the strategy from combat, then feel free to houserule to make all your players avoid any powers that involve sliding to go straight for damage if it really makes you feel better.
#8 Kaldric Nov 02, 2008 11:36:27	If you want to remove the strategy from combat, then feel free to houserule to make all your players avoid any powers that involve sliding to go straight for damage if it really makes you feel better. Point: I don't want it to "go straight for damage", and this is a rather weak straw man argument, and seems likely to be an intentional misunderstanding of my argument on your part to score some kind of snarky point. I could be misunderstanding you, of course, and if so, forgive me. Point: It's been a problem with every group I've played with since 3rd edition started. We view events as an adventure, but COMBAT has become a board game. If you have difficulty with the distinction, I can clarify it further. Question: What process is involved in "people trying to do tactically smart moves"? I'd bet that it involves counting squares, moving the piece here and there to see which is best, etc. Treating the combat as a board game, because that is what is required to do "tactically smart moves". Basically, it's what I don't like about the current combat system. Anyway, if this is just going to degenerate into sniping about what is technically a matter of taste, then it's pointless to continue the discussion. I prefer combat that isn't played on a game board, battle-grid, whatever. You prefer to play on a board. We have different tastes. What investment do you have in preventing WotC from catering to my niche?
#9 doctorhook Nov 02, 2008 13:37:52	I entirely don't understand the whole "4E is a board-game" argument. Do you feel it's a board-game because you play it on top of a table? Is it because you have a miniature (a "game piece") which represents you, and which you move on your turn? I guess I can see the similarity, but is this different from the history of D&D, which is rooted in tabletop wargames? Minis have been used since the beginning of D&D, and yet some folk still consider it a factor which demotes 4E to a "board-game". This seems way irrational to me. FWIW, I'm not opposed to a 4E version of Unearthed Arcana, however.
#10 Kaldric Nov 03, 2008 0:42:10	I entirely don't understand the whole "4E is a board-game" argument. *SNIP* This seems way irrational to me. Game, played on board = board-game. Rational expression, any other conclusion is irrational. In the interests of precision: I'm not claiming 4E is a board game. It's obviously not. I'm claiming the 4E combat resolution subsystem is a board game. It obviously is. Whereas there was the suggestion, sometimes strong, to play with miniatures as visual aids from basic D&D to 2nd edition, I played all of those systems over 20 years and we never bothered with minis. They were an OPTION for those that wanted to use them, but they weren't required. The rules weren't set up to need them. However, some people preferred to play with miniatures so much, they asked to have a combat system that had rules for miniatures. Know what? They got optional rules from TSR to use them. Pretty cool, huh? I wonder if WotC, game design wizards that they are, could come up with an alternate 4th Edition rules system for the people who prefer not to resolve combat with a boa... battle-grid? Point: I don't want to play 2nd or 3rd edition. I want to play 4th edition. I like 4th edition. I just would like to buy a book that has a set of rules for converting Standard 4E combat to Gridless 4e combat, like they put out to convert Standard 2E combat to Gridded 2E combat.
#11 Grimcleaver Nov 03, 2008 16:14:49	I would like to see an alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play, and give just simplistic rules for combat. Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage. The result would be even quicker combat, leaving plenty of time to RP and exploring, rather than tactical strategies. Those that like the war gamming/MMO feel of the core books would just keepthat going, while those of us that don't could use the alternative rules to simplify combt and get back to the social aspect of D&D, since this would be a splat book. Makes money for WoTC, and makes those on both sides of the love/hate 4e debate happy, as each could have his/her choice in using tactics or not. I really kind of dig this idea. Like Unearthed Arcana in previous editions it'd have alternative methods of resolving roleplay, new experimental mechanics. I'd definitely be interested in something like that--and it's not like it's without precedent. I'd wait for the new edition to get some more miles on it, but certainly in a year or two I could totally see something like this coming out. The current edition does seem to struggle at serving two masters--the adventure running, miniature hopping tactics crowd; and the deep immersion storytelling dramatist crowd. That said, until those years pass I'd suggest a few things to take the game in your direction. I think the elements you're hoping for are already in the game: If you ask me the two things that distract most from the roleplay friendliness of the game are the powers system and the heroic conceit. Powers tend to hem in options in a roleplaying based game by hooking a weighty game balance value to everything you do, rather than a dramatic one. In a story you can step into a hobgoblin's swing, shove your shoulder in his gut and flip him backward off the balcony behind you onto the spearpoints of the weapons rack below. Powers require there to be some kind of interrupt power followed by a forced shift action or you can't do it. It gets in the way. The solution to this? It's in the DMG, page 42. If you don't want powers, then all you need is this table and you're set. Nice dramatic action without having to worry about stepping on the Fighter's toes by having a special ability that does his encounter power every round--because everyone's working off the same table! The Heroic Conceit is the idea that "PC's are different!" and have their own set of rules that govern everything they do. If there's two systems of mechanics for everything in the world, then things are going to feel out of balance and wonky. My advice would be to put everyone on the same page. Use the PC races as listed in the Monster Manual entries rather than what's in the Player's Handbook. "Monster" humans are built to the same power scale as "monster" monsters so it about shakes out--plus they're largely free of a lot of the slew of weird abilities you seem to be trying to get away from. When you level up, use the DM Toolbox on page 184 of the DMG. Easy. I'd have magic become largely rituals and alchemy. These are the most colorful and roleplay friendly kinds of magic D&D has had for a long time, and it's easy to make new rituals on the fly to emulate the powers you're trying to replace. That way magic takes some time and knowledge and craft. Page 184-185 of the monster manual also have a chart of monster abilities per level. If you're interested in quick simple combat, what I tend to do nowadays is to just go off that chart. If players are fighting a monster that's their level I just look up what stats and damages a monster of that level would have and go. I hardly ever use the monster builds from the MM anymore except as flavor and inspiration. It makes things so much faster, more flavorful, and more dramatic that way. Granted if you're looking for a more verisimilitude and drama centered game, one of the other suggestions I'd make is to reinterpret the idea of what hitpoints mean and to go to a much lower hitpoint scale. It keeps battles from dragging on forever and makes them frighteningly quick and brutal--and to be honest, more like a book or a movie and less like a videogame. Anyhow just some quick suggestions that have helped me. I'd be glad to shoot some more ideas back and forth, I think your idea of a more dramatist alternate system is a really good one. --- In retrospect I think some of these changes might be bigger than what you're hoping for, but at least hopefully too much change is better than beating you up and making you have to justify why you'd dare change the holy system in the first place. Hope it at least turns the conversation around if nothin' else. If there's one thing about these forums, it's always been the people who answer your question by telling you to you don't actually have a problem and that you should do things by the book. What is that?
#12 elondir Nov 03, 2008 16:18:26	I would like to see an alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play, and give just simplistic rules for combat. Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage. The result would be even quicker combat, leaving plenty of time to RP and exploring, rather than tactical strategies. Those that like the war gamming/MMO feel of the core books would just keepthat going, while those of us that don't could use the alternative rules to simplify combt and get back to the social aspect of D&D, since this would be a splat book. Makes money for WoTC, and makes those on both sides of the love/hate 4e debate happy, as each could have his/her choice in using tactics or not. I like the same style you like. I play a mashup of 2e, 3e, and other systems. I like Grimcleaver's ideas, too.
#13 Grimcleaver Nov 03, 2008 16:33:22	I entirely don't understand the whole "4E is a board-game" argument. Do you feel it's a board-game because you play it on top of a table? Is it because you have a miniature (a "game piece") which represents you, and which you move on your turn? I guess I can see the similarity, but is this different from the history of D&D, which is rooted in tabletop wargames? Minis have been used since the beginning of D&D, and yet some folk still consider it a factor which demotes 4E to a "board-game". This seems way irrational to me. FWIW, I'm not opposed to a 4E version of Unearthed Arcana, however. Just to address this, there's two schools of thought generally with regard to roleplaying. Granted D&D, being the first RPG is kind of the granddaddy of them both. Back in the beginning D&D WAS a board game called Chainmail, because boardgames were all there was back then. The idea of a true storytelling game was still decades in the future. Now there's another kind of roleplaying, that's entirely in your head. To these folks, the game is all up there, and any maps or minis are ultimately going to be a disappointment because they can't emulate the action or the vistas or the look of the characters in the story well enough to be anything but a distraction that sucks people out of the game. Not sure this is clear enough. It's like when you read a book and you imagine what's going on. Now imagine a group of people who have little minis to represent all the characters in the book and feel the need to create an accurate scale model on a grid of every scene in the book, and as they read to move the little minis around so they have a better sense of the action. Would that drive you nuts to read a book that way? It would drive me nuts. That's where the folks are coming from who talk about wanting a D&D that they can play without minis. For them, the map gets in the way of imagining the cool action by quantifying everything and forcing everything into little grids. It kills the fun of the game, crushes the creativity and the grandeur out of it, turning it into what gets called a "boardgame" by the folks who get frustrated with that school of play.
#14 Kaldric Nov 05, 2008 2:02:32	The original D&D set used the CHAINMAIL rules, which were purchased separately: Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or directly from TSR Hobbies, POB 756, Lake Geneva, Wi. 53147) But, surprise surprise, on page 19 of Volume 1 of those rules: ALTERNATIVE COMBAT SYSTEM: This system is based upon the defensive and offensive capabilities of the combatants; such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed in the matrixes. There are two charts, one for men versus men or monsters and one for monsters (including kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc.) versus men. (There followed a couple of tables that were the basis of the combat system, basically armor classes vs hit numbers, until 3rd edition.) Nobody I ever knew actually bought the Chainmail rules to use them with D&D. They used the alternative combat rules which came with the game, and didn't require miniatures at all. These alternative rules were much preferred, and regularly expanded upon for 26 of the 34 years D&D's been around. So, as we can see, Alternative Combat Rules have a venerable history. Basically, most D&D players didn't want to play a tactical miniatures game to resolve D&D combat. They preferred just rolling on the combat tables per the "Alternate Rules", so in later editions of the game the tactical mini's game was dropped in favor of the more popular system.
#15 Grimcleaver Nov 05, 2008 3:44:15	So, as we can see, Alternative Combat Rules have a venerable history. Fair enough, so what do you think of some of the ideas I tossed out? I mean I think we'll get further actually talking this over rather than arguing with folks about whether we can or should talk this over.
#16 duzzle Nov 05, 2008 6:10:45	I apologize, I read (emphasis mine of course) alternative rules book come out that removes the war gaming aspects and the feats/powers associated with that style of play...Spells/powers no longer push/move/shift opponents, as they are no longer needed, but simply deal damage...leaving plenty of time to RP and exploring, rather than tactical strategies And took it to mean you didn't want strategy in combat. I think you should do whatever is most fun for you and your players, it just seems to me like you want something that isn't 4th edition. I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it seems like all you want from 4e are the skills and maybe rituals, you might be better off with 3e or maybe even a d10 system game. And I would like to apologize for my snarkiness, its true, it was there in my first post, and probably a bit in this one as well. I tend to default to it when I get frustrated and don't understand something, and sorry, but I really can't wrap my head around what you actually want out of 4e. Lastly, I still think this is at least in part an issue with players. I move around minis too, but never think of it as a board game, its a model I can extrapolate in my head into something grander.
#17 Grimcleaver Nov 05, 2008 17:59:44	Totally. I guess two things I can say if you're not sure what we're cooking yet. 1) Stay tuned. This might not have started as my crusade, and all in all I'm pretty happy with 4e--but I've never been a map and minis player in any edition. If there's a chance we can make this system do what we're talking about it will be the best 4e ever. 2) There's a heck of a lot more to a game than it's mechanics, and ultimately to me that's the most mutable part. You describe something to me, some effect you want the game to reflect and my kneejerk reaction is to start tweaking the mechanics to make them fit that description as neatly and cleanly as possible with the least amount of clunk. Same thing here. I love the feel of the setting, the points of light, the slew of might character powers, the more immediate flashy and grandeous magic, the wild and partly formed world, the fantastic locations, the ruins on top of ruins from ages past, the reconceptions of the various monsterous races that share the world with the allied races of old Nerath. For me that's 4e D&D. It's not the circumstances under which you get an Opportunity Attack, or that a starting character gets two at wills, an encounter and a daily at character creation. Those mechanical things, for me, only stay around as long as they help. The idea is to create that awesome world painted above as richly and elegantly as possible, by whatever mechanical means necessary. The beauty of the d20 system has never been it's mechanical perfection, so much as it's mechanical flexibility. Want to rewrite a power? Cool. Plug it right in. Want to come up with a different class ability or swap one out? Great. D20 has always been very modular. You can pull a part out, fiddle with it, and plug it back in without much affecting any other mechanics. Want to double the HP? You don't have to reinvent anything, surges still work, weapons still work, leveling up still works. Want to halve HP. Same deal. So now if you give me a system that seems to be designed to be easy to tweak, my first inclination is going to be to tweak it. In all of this flavor is my guiding star, fun is my guiding star, balance and adherance to the rules as written are just not even things I pay the least attention to. Hope that helps. SHORT VERSION: Imagine instead of the RPG, if there was a novel set in this universe. How would the setting feel there? Whatever that is, that's what I want my 4e to feel like. I want a game that plays like a novel, that you can feel all around you when you're playing in it, that sucks you totally into it with no distractions.
#18 duzzle Nov 06, 2008 5:26:29	SHORT VERSION: Imagine instead of the RPG, if there was a novel set in this universe. How would the setting feel there? Whatever that is, that's what I want my 4e to feel like. I want a game that plays like a novel, that you can feel all around you when you're playing in it, that sucks you totally into it with no distractions. I think I'm starting to get what your saying. I hope I don't get beaten with sticks for asking this given the forum we're on, but have you ever played a storyteller system game? An all heroic mortals game of Exalted set in the points of light setting seems in line with what your getting at. I never let the system dictate the setting I've played in a Modern Exalted game, run a post-apocalyptic World of Darkness game using DnD rules, and I'm considering running a d20 modern game set in the DC universe (Gotham to be exact). edit: Just to clarify, I'm not against you tweaking the system to your liking, I'm just wondering if a storyteller system might be more conducive to what your getting at and require less work.
#19 alyss_dup Nov 06, 2008 6:18:35	I don't like the tactical board-game aspects of 3rd and 4th edition, but I enjoy so many of the other features that I want to play them. I'd be happy to pay money for alternative rules. Or assist a group of forum users in creating them. For clarification: In 4th edition, I pick up my playing piece, count the squares and measure the threatened areas of the other pieces, set it down in an advantageous square. I pick my power, roll the dice, and sit there for a few minutes until my turn comes round again. There's little opportunity to describe the action, because everyone is focused on looking at the board. When I do try to describe something cool my character does... well, the miniature can't perform it, and they're conditioned to looking at the board during combat, so people go, "okay, what's that worth in damage from Page 42?" and go back to holding on to their mini like a chess piece, moving it around and setting it down in different places, figuring out the best way to manipulate the game board to their advantage. Honestly, it's like a more rules-intensive game of Mordheim. (A tactical minis boardgame from games workshop). It isn't a roleplaying game. To me, it feels like someone expanded Mordheim and shoehorned it into D&D. Except Mordheim, at least, isn't limited to a square grid. You just use a tape measure. That's a real shame. I run a DMPC with two other players in my RL game, and I always take the time to describe what happens. When the players roll to hit, I tell them whether they were succesful or not, and to describe what happens either way. Sometimes, we pause and take a moment to just visualise the scene. Little things like that make such a big difference to the game.
#20 Kaldric Nov 06, 2008 23:46:59	Of course they do. Visualizing the scene was the point, in previous editions. It's not the point, now. Now, the point is to have a good time playing a board game, which has its own merits. The problem, for ME, is that when the battle-board, grid, whatever they try to call it to try to hide what it is, the game board, is brought out, it completely destroys any suspension of disbelief I might have had. I can enjoy the boardgame for what it is, but it just doesn't feel like roleplaying. I'd like a combat system that is more conducive to my playstyle. Thus, the request for an alternative rulesystem, as was provided in previous editions. Eh, anyway, I'm sure WotC is aware of a segment of their target audience that desires a less gamist version of RPG combat, but have chosen, for whatever reason, not to cater to that audience. I'll just deal with it.
#21 sigil_beguiler Nov 07, 2008 2:03:54	Of course they do. Visualizing the scene was the point, in previous editions. It's not the point, now. Now, the point is to have a good time playing a board game, which has its own merits. I personally think it is still the point. If it wasn't hell they would give any fluff descriptions for the powers. Personally I find having the board useful FOR describing the scene. I can leave the pieces on the board not have to worry about forgetting where a monster is or a PC, etc. and simply narrate what happens. It also means the PCs and Monsters can do more extraordinary/cinematic things cause they aren't tied to someone's memory. It may also be with our group we don't view it as someone stays within their 5-feet square. A single round without any moving on the board in narration they have been tumbling, jumping, running, etc. all over the terrain.
#22 Kaldric Nov 07, 2008 13:04:18	Well, the only reason you've given for keeping to the miniature boardgame is the trouble with remembering where everyone is. I'm not sure what you mean by it being an advantage for them not to be attached to the memory of the players. How can they be more cinematic if they're little pieces of immobile plastic? The cinematic stuff is going to happen in the minds of the players, through your verbal description, whether the miniatures and board are there or not. They're more of a distraction than a help for that. I used to use a notepad and a pencil. It had the following advantages: It's fast: Requires no setup, always ready to use. It takes 5 seconds to put a few marks on the notepad to show where the important stuff is, much less time than unrolling a battlemat, pulling out the miniatures, sorting through to find the ones you need, placing them in the squares, and moving them every time someone wants to do something. It's small: Keep it behind your DM screen until you feel like showing positioning to players. It can be held in the hand to keep track of the entire battlespace, rather than taking up 5 or 6 square feet. You can actually play someplace besides at a large table. It takes up a fraction of a percentage point of the storage space required for miniatures. It's stable: You can put it away and take it out next week and everything is still in the same place. You can't knock it over by rolling dice. The cat probably won't try to play with it. It's abstract: The mind deals with the abstract and the concrete in different ways. Seeing character position on the notepad doesn't occupy the same conceptual space that seeing a painted miniature on a gameboard with other miniatures does. The mind, in the second instance, is going to focus on the gameboard, start looking for the good moves, etc. It's an effort to avoid that. The notepad is enough to show them where they are, without constantly distracting them from the real combat grid in their heads. It encourages roleplaying: You can play an entire combat in 4E without doing more than saying power names as you use them. Maybe pointing to targets. It might be possible to do that with a notepad, but it's much, much less likely to happen. Movement must always be described, positional relationships are verbally conveyed. You HAVE to roleplay to some extent. With a gameboard, you don't. You pick up your piece, move it to the square you want, declare a power and a target. Example 1 notepad: I'm going to move around behind the ogre, and get into a flanking position. Example 2 gameboard: (moves piece) Example 1 notepad: I charge in, and bull rush him into the wall. Example 2 gameboard: ... (moves piece) Bull rush, pushing him here. (points at square) Admittedly exaggerated. But not by all that much. Another thing that wasn't particularly important to me, but that does have an advantage: It's cheap.
#23 sigil_beguiler Nov 07, 2008 15:39:26	Your right you don't have too roleplay with using a board. But it doesn't mean that a board diminishes or reduces the amount of roleplaying being done in combat. Like I said in our case by having this quick to adjucate and figure out what is going on use of the board. We can quite easily get through any mechanical parts of fighting and concentrate solely on the narrative of the combat. I would say it isn't that expensive. We don't use actual boards, just grid paper and printed out tokens.
#24 Grimcleaver Nov 07, 2008 17:42:28	I think I'm starting to get what your saying. I hope I don't get beaten with sticks for asking this given the forum we're on, but have you ever played a storyteller system game? An all heroic mortals game of Exalted set in the points of light setting seems in line with what your getting at. I never let the system dictate the setting I've played in a Modern Exalted game, run a post-apocalyptic World of Darkness game using DnD rules, and I'm considering running a d20 modern game set in the DC universe (Gotham to be exact). edit: Just to clarify, I'm not against you tweaking the system to your liking, I'm just wondering if a storyteller system might be more conducive to what your getting at and require less work. I play all sorts of systems. We've done the Exalted thing, even coming up with new "campaign settings" for it once we ran out of canon setting (holy small setting, by the way. There's something like four different kinds of badguys and maybe five different kinds of terrain. Yaaaawwwn.) Sometimes I hate how claustrophobic White Wolf is. Seriously I think the reason they talk up how theirs is the "dramatic" line of games is just advertising jargon for "without all of the interesting lands, races, classes, magic and monsterous species". I started in White Wolf before I'd ever heard of D&D really. Then I played Baldur's Gate and was amazed by the depth and breadth of the world--and it was all canon. I started looking through the Monster Manual and just about flipped at how much rich flavor was packed into it--whole pages dedicated to these weird alien monster societies and ecologies. It was the beginning of the end for White Wolf for me. Just fighting the wyrm...again, or the technocracy...again really started not doing it for me, and as much as the art looked pretty good compared to 2nd edition, once Wayne Reynolds and Sam Wood started showing their stuff with the release of 3.0 I just sort of lost interest in the WoD entirely. I still play it from time to time (though ironically more the Monte Cook version). It's just such a small and relatively uninteresting world. As for system crossovers, sure. We're currently doing a Fullmetal Alchemist game using the Mage character sheets (obviously not with their magic system). Usually we use a published system whenever we do a game of something that doesn't have a game of it's own. We've done Doom, Vor, Onimusha, Final Fantasy, the Matrix and a scad of other games. Usually the only time we convert a published game from one system to another is when the current system proves unusable. Such was the fate of Rifts, which has a lovely setting but uses the hair-rippingly stupid Palladium system. We ended up converting it to d20 Dragonstar rules.