D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Tony Vargas]

Supposedly, the optoins in 5e will be more at the forefront than they've ever been, so hopefully this is not true; i.e. hopefully no one will be forced into anything. But as to this point, if you have to choose between what's core and what's an addon, core should probably be about D&D's heritage and about what's popular, which is where WotC is at right now.

I find the discussion of core vs module a bit more constructive than arguments over what has any right to exist, at all. But, even here, there are issues. One is 'who is core for?' Obviously, we long-time fans feel proprietary about a game that we've supported for decades. I don't think those feeling are wrong, in some very real sense this is 'our' game, and we're not out of line in wanting it to cater to us to some extent (even though we can't agree on what we want).

However, it's not /only/ our game. Obviously, Hasbro owns it and WotC is developing it, making it their IP and their baby, respectively. Business factors and the challenges of design come into it, as well. And, there's the theoretically limitless ranks of gamers who will come after us, and will, on their way to becoming jaded long-time gamers, be newbies for a while. Whether new players embrace the hobby like we did, or try it out briefly and don't, depends on their first experiences and perceptions of the game. I'd imagine that first experiences that are confusing, frustrating, and leave you feeling like the whole thing is some big in-joke that you'll never know the punch-line to, would tend to push new players into the latter group.

One way to try to manage that, of course, is a 'starter set.' Lots of us started with the basic set and moved on to AD&D, for instance. It was good enough for us, so it must be good for coming generations of potential gamers, too, right? Maybe not. When we started, there weren't decades of D&D history to get acquainted with, and the 'old guard' of established D&Ders weren't that old, it just wasn't that intimidating a hobby to jump into. Today, it is. Each existing edition is /huge/, and a new edition promises to become huge, too. The presence of a simplified starter set as much as says "the 'real' game is too much for you." Complexity (like a wealth of modular options), implicit assumptions about play style and archetypes, and built-in 'rewards for system mastery,' all make the game hostile to newcomers and paint the established community as elitist, and a 'simplified starter set' just punctuates that.

Another way to try to make the game easier on new players is to avoid all the above and make the 'core' of the game the 'face' that new players see. They start playing the same game with the same core books as everyone else is using, so there's less of a sense of trying to break into some sort of weird nerd-elite. But, they also have to start on something closer to equal footing - meaning fewer implicit assumptions about how the game must be played (just like it's always been), minimizing rewards for system mastery, and minimizing the complexity of the core system, at least.

That's a tall order, and the current design direction of 5e isn't even trying. Rather, it's making core for us old D&Ders, and throwing in 'crystal clear advice' to basically tell new players that they need to play like we have in the past. I can't imagine that going really well.


IMX, 4e, with it's common structure for all classes, relative encounter balance, and ease of DMing made for some pretty decent first experiences. I've introduced a lot of players to 4e, and new-to-gaming players pick it up very easily. Everyone, regardless of which class or role they ended up with is engaged and has a fair shot at having some fun with it. Long-time and returning D&Ders, of course, were a different story, they had definite expectations...


Ideally, then, 5e core needs to be approachable - simple (not simply bare-bones), consistent, easy to learn, and not limit archetype by style (or talent) of the player - but also familiar. Since experienced gamers inevitably want to look deeper into the rules than new ones, that familiarity could be just a bit deeper than the core rules. IMHO, the 'perfect' system to accomplish that would be one that does have a common structure for all PCs, but allows a great deal to be traded-out and customized. In that way, the game is easy to learn, but has a great deal of depth as you play more and more characters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find the discussion of core vs module a bit more constructive than arguments over what has any right to exist, at all. But, even here, there are issues. One is 'who is core for?' Obviously, we long-time fans feel proprietary about a game that we've supported for decades. I don't think those feeling are wrong, in some very real sense this is 'our' game, and we're not out of line in wanting it to cater to us to some extent (even though we can't agree on what we want).

This is not an easy business to work in.

That's a tall order, and the current design direction of 5e isn't even trying. Rather, it's making core for us old D&Ders, and throwing in 'crystal clear advice' to basically tell new players that they need to play like we have in the past. I can't imagine that going really well.

The early promises of 5e sounded like they were headed this way. The early playtest mechanics were not up to it.

Ideally, then, 5e core needs to be approachable - simple (not simply bare-bones), consistent, easy to learn, and not limit archetype by style (or talent) of the player - but also familiar. Since experienced gamers inevitably want to look deeper into the rules than new ones, that familiarity could be just a bit deeper than the core rules. IMHO, the 'perfect' system to accomplish that would be one that does have a common structure for all PCs, but allows a great deal to be traded-out and customized. In that way, the game is easy to learn, but has a great deal of depth as you play more and more characters

That sounds reasonable (and sounds very little like 3e and nothing like 4e and not much like what we've seen from 5e either). The simple way of handling 5e skills seemed like the right start; but some of the junk that's already been added even at this early stage is not approachable or flexible enough, as I see it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The early promises of 5e sounded like they were headed this way. The early playtest mechanics were not up to it.

Nod. Promises being much easier to make than mechanics.

IMHO, the 'perfect' system to accomplish that would be one that does have a common structure for all PCs, but allows a great deal to be traded-out and customized. In that way, the game is easy to learn, but has a great deal of depth as you play more and more characters

That sounds reasonable (and sounds very little like 3e and nothing like 4e and not much like what we've seen from 5e either).

4e only really failed on the (critical) point of feeling familiar, while 3e, with it's 'back to the dungeon' philosophy succeeded admirably on that point. That's the easiest point to see from our perspective, though. Some developments in 4e, like Themes, Skill powers, and racial powers, were heading in the right direction, I think. But, Themes are the only thing 5e has kept so far, and, at that, it's only kept the name.

The simple way of handling 5e skills seemed like the right start; but some of the junk that's already been added even at this early stage is not approachable or flexible enough, as I see it.

A problem with the 5e rule-light approach to skills is that, while it's simple to design (doesn't take much design work) and easy enough for experienced players and a skilled DM to use (2nd nature, really, after compensating for broken skill systems for decades), it's not so simple to use or make sense of if you're new to the hobby. It's not really simple, just bare-bones. If simply taking away rules and providing only guidelines made a game simple and newbie-friendly, new players should all start with freestyle diceless roleplaying, like Amber or something. Gak. While rules are a source of complexity, they're also a safety net.

 

[Jester David]

I disagree. The differences are smaller on paper than they are in actual play where they are very noticeable. All of those little riders and the inbuilt class features really make a difference. I have played at tables where 3 melee rogues were all playing & all felt different - one applied negative conditions one moved people about & one did massive damage.

But... are they as different as different classes in earlier editions where there could be the same diversity it tactics and table play, but also very different power mechanics, different power recharging, etc? The diversity doesn't go away if there's more diversity than AEDU.

Were 4e classes even as different they could have been?
As shown with Essentials, 4e classes could be balanced yet very different. And Essentials classes were designed to be simple.

Imagine if they had started with Essentials how different classes coud be.
Classes that unlocked Dailies after so many encounters. Classes that had Dailies triggered by events in game. Classes without At-Wills but more numerous Encounter powers. Classes with powers in-between Encounters and Dailies. Classes that could burn healing surges to recharge Encounter powers.
Imagine a barbarian who can only rage after taking damage.
Imagine a fighter whose Encounter powers were actually exploits triggered by enemies actions (bring flanked, being pushed, etc). They might have more Encounter powers but only so any per fight.
Imagine a bard who could build songs, crafting At-Will auras by choosing a rhythm, chorus, and such.
A warlock who only has At-Will powers.

 

[Pickles JG]

Is anyone ever using 100% of a class's abilities?

If you use all of a 3.5 barbaria,n fighter or rogues abilities you will not be able to match the damage output, survivability & "strategic" utility of a druid of 10th level or so who uses his own class abilities, wild shape, animal companion & spells.

So, I read that in the last two campaigns you played in, certain characters were imbalanced. I can't tell from this information whether this was a function of certain players playing differently than others, the DM failing to create diverse enough challenges or rein in rules abuses, or because the system itself was so imbalanced that no reasonable DM and players could ever have a balanced druid. Then again, given my own experience, I'm inclined towards the former.

The players/dm could probably have balanced the druid but then we would not be playing the game we had spent all that money on.

In the second game the Druid player never shows self restraint & there was a suspicion he gained power in this game for letting the DM have a powerful character in a game he runs. In lovely balanced 4e he can't get away with this.

I have deja vu from the same arguement over the new edition of Warhammer 40k. I still do not want to play it because it has too many vehicles I say. But it's not like that any more say my buddies but it is at the club I go to I rejoinder. A well they are all power gamers. I want the rules to police the game not the players. I play a fair bit of organised play & table variation, fuzzy ruling & just blatant loophole finding abuse is something I want to avoid. (& was much better in 4e LFR than Living Greyhawk or Pathfinder.)

I play more rpgs than boardgames, and I'm not looking for those things. No offense; not to say that your opinion is invalid, but I can't say I agree with it.

As the focus of my ire, if you are going to change every damn' rule in a game why do you care what it is like in the first place?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A warlock who only has At-Will powers.

And another with a different pact who has only Encounters...or Dailies from yet another pact.

Come to think of it, an all-Daily structure could have been intriguing for a Hexblade type class. In any given combat, spam your basic attacks then *BOOM*!!!

(Very Vancian, in a way.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

But... are they as different as different classes in earlier editions where there could be the same diversity it tactics and table play, but also very different power mechanics, different power recharging, etc? The diversity doesn't go away if there's more diversity than AEDU.

Oddly enough, it does. Adding 'diversity' by adding more choices (more classes, each with unique mechanical sub-systems) is only successful if those choices are viable. If you add a class that's vastly more powerful than other classes, the number of classes has increased, but the number of classes being play will decrease as more people gravitate to the super-potent class, and the number of classes that make meaningful contributions (that /matter/) relative to the super-potent class plummets.

4e actually had quite a few classes, and maybe two of them were real duds. Not counting PrCs, 3.5 had, I think, slightly fewer classes, but only 3 of them were tier-1.

As shown with Essentials, 4e classes could be balanced yet very different. And Essentials classes were designed to be simple.

Essentials showed they could be different. Balanced, no so much. Essentials classes are not as badly imbalanced as earlier eds, but not so robustly balanced as prior 4e classes were.

 

[Pickles JG]

But... are they as different as different classes in earlier editions where there could be the same diversity it tactics and table play, but also very different power mechanics, different power recharging, etc? The diversity doesn't go away if there's more diversity than AEDU.

Were 4e classes even as different they could have been?
As shown with Essentials, 4e classes could be balanced yet very different. And Essentials classes were designed to be simple.

Well you are now arguing a different point. Certainly there could be more variety.

I do not believe that the 4e designers went out of their way to make classes samey so that noone could tell what they were playing any more. Rather they prioritised balance & the safest way to ensure this was by fitting all of the classes to a clear template while trying to differentiate them though riders & their role framework. As they grew in confidence with how the system worked they added more varied mechanical systems, though really only 2 variations - psionic,s which might not work, & the essentialised no daily classes.

I am sure if they had carried on with 4e they would have come up with more variations. I am sure they could have done so already but they were very nervous about unbalancing things. Clearly if one does not care about balance then this loss of variety will be all bad but if, like me, you appreciate parity then as implemented it is mostly good.

WOTC design team seems to get an idea & run with it & run & run. "Balance" "everything core" &" noone is ever useless" were all themes in 4e design that could have been pursued less relentlessly to the benefit of the feel of the game. I also think they missed the boat in terms of making their "power sources" mean something & giving those some strong character.

They seem to be carrying on with their obsessions in 5e with "everything can be in a module to please everyone" & "flat maths "& something I can't remember just now. Actually it more people on the boards that like to treat all of those terms as the universal panacea.

edit: It's those bloomin' Pillars. While I can have whole sessions of Combat or Interaction (less in D&D than otehr games but still) I did not even know Exploration was feature & I am not sure I like it.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is an excellent post by Tony Vargas #131 . Since I cannot XP and have little to add, I will just echo every word of your post and thank you for the good read and temperate, well-considered analysis.

 

[Jester David]

Oddly enough, it does. Adding 'diversity' by adding more choices (more classes, each with unique mechanical sub-systems) is only successful if those choices are viable. If you add a class that's vastly more powerful than other classes, the number of classes has increased, but the number of classes being play will decrease as more people gravitate to the super-potent class, and the number of classes that make meaningful contributions (that /matter/) relative to the super-potent class plummets.

4e actually had quite a few classes, and maybe two of them were real duds. Not counting PrCs, 3.5 had, I think, slightly fewer classes, but only 3 of them were tier-1.

Balance is irrelevant to this discussion and sidesteps the issue. The discussion was on variety of play style.

Essentials showed they could be different. Balanced, no so much. Essentials classes are not as badly imbalanced as earlier eds, but not so robustly balanced as prior 4e classes were.

The balance of Essentials is the subject of many debates.
Personally, I think the only reason they seem underpowered at times is the number of options available to other classes, especially the overpowered options. The problem isn't Essentials, but the balance of everything prior.

And, again, the design of the classes isn't related to the balance or imbalance. That's a matter of specifics and playtesting.