Interesting question.
One thing for sure, if it was released with a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license, I'd be tearing into it and throwing out all the stupid miniature rules (DELETE, DELETE, DELETE!) I'd create some modules around the Yaun-ti, since they are the most interesting monsters in D&D that WotC claims that it has copyright over (the second being Mind Flayers, which are based on HP Lovecraft's Call of Cthulhu mythos). I'd also be addressing a few rules that I've seen of late.
Take Sampson of the Bible. Sampson was a judge of Israel who also happened to be Dan's local hero. He was strong enough to kill a lion, to carry away city gates, and to cause the Temple of Dagon to fall and destroy the entire Philistine Aristocracy. I'd say he had a STR of 30 (of course he sinned and had his hair cut off, so he lost his strength "it went back down to a measly 9.") For some dumb reason, the ability scores are linked to one's level.
Actually, one of my 4e players made an issue of it when I didn't think there was one. He thought I was insane. Actually I was so incredibly tired I didn't want to discuss the issue. I wanted to show he had super strength (in RM, Sampson would have a bonus to his strength not a modification to his strength score. The "supernatural" bonus would be about +10 or +15 for RMFRP).
Secondly, I'd do something about the pidgeon-holing. I just don't know where to begin. I'd probably throw out the extended roles and try something different (I'm beginning to think that the pidgeon-holing is a core aspect of the system, but if we just got rid of that).
So, what would you do if WotC released 4e with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license?
1 comment:
I would ignore it, although maybe some of the off-shoots would be more interesting.
As it stands, I just don't have time for 4e. I've played it a few times (and enjoyed it immensely), but its not "my game".
Post a Comment