D&D 5E 5B & 5A, and 5s? The excluded third everybody is forgetting about!.

[pming]

Hiya.

GX --

I think they're thinking that the "Basic, Standard, Advanced" terminology is likely more approachable for new players who may be intimidated by the term "Advanced", and that "Standard" is also useful for establishing the baseline for organized play.

Their adventure modules will all likely be built expecting a Standard set of rules, and players will be able to easily use them for Basic by not using some options in Standard, and to easily hack them for Advanced by adding optional rules like a grid with its associated more tactical play.

Also, it lets them sell the "Standard" game instead of having the first purchase coming for "Advanced" rules.

May not work out that way, but I think its likely.

Melfast

[good-natured sarcasm]
Yeah, sounds good. I wonder why nobody ever did that? Y'know, like start with a "Basic" set, then an "Expert" set next that adds on to the basic stuff. I guess another set after that as a sort of add-on companion to give more 'world-spanning' type rules...call it Companion I guess. After players have mastered all those rules, they could branch out to really world-shaking powers, ones that flirt with the crazy powerful things in a fantasy campaign...like demons, devils and immortals. I guess that'd be two more sets, say, Master and Immortal maybe?

That would be *awesome*! Start basic, dungeon, simple home base. Move into stuff about wilderness and the world at large. Then onto rules for taming and ruling that wilderness. Then onto otherworldly threats and travel, ending in having some kind of framework for dealing with (and maybe even becoming?) an immortal yourself! Adventure modules could be put out with the appropriate 'set' listed, so everyone knows what rules and expectations would be for that particular adventure. Pure genius! Hmmmm.... this all kind of sound a bit familiar now that I think about it.


[/good-natured sarcasm]

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[I'm A Banana]

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130107

This doesn't contradict the idea that Basic is Core. This speaks to broader goals of 5e as a whole.

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114

This also does not contradict the idea that Basic is Core. In fact, "The basic rules cover the absolute core of the game."

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130122

This still does not contradict the idea that Basic is Core. It just describes the first layer of complexity that sits on top of the core, additional to it: additional customization, additional complexity, additional rules.

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130122

Again, this does not contradict the idea that Basic is Core. In fact, "Dials are rules that change the core but in a predictable way. ... Other advanced rules are modular, in that they sit atop the core system. ... Some advanced rules go back and change a key element of the core system in a fundamental way." all could be referring to Basic as Core.

I feel that stating "Basic is core", "Basic is core, everything else optional" as a mantra is demeaning of certain playstyles and can alienate certain kind of players....This is a big tent edition no need to make others feel like second-rate players.

Then I have good news: you don't need to feel demeaned. There is nothing insulting or diminishing or pandering in the idea that anything beyond Basic D&D is opt-in. There is nothing second-rate about opting to use more complex rules or unique modules or extra customization options. There is no purity test.

I believe things won't be as simplistic, and that this will be closer to: Basic is core, for basic players, standard will be core for standard players, Advanced won't have a core, but defaults to Basic since to an Advanced player standard is yet another set of options, still deprecating standard is mean to some point, because there are players that want and/or need it.

I believe that this division is artificial. A rigid Basic/Standard/Advanced hierarchy where one is either in Camp A or Camp B or Camp C is unnecessary. It's all D&D.

 

[MoonSong]

I believe that this division is artificial. A rigid Basic/Standard/Advanced hierarchy where one is either in Camp A or Camp B or Camp C is unnecessary. It's all D&D.

It isn't about hierarchy, but about definition and clarity. Like in the second wind discussion, many in one camp felt free to offer ad hoc solutions when the other camp was looking for "an official" alternative to it. Or when in another thread someone said something along the lines "treating feats as more optional than they are wished". There is a strong desire for tinkering and making everything just perfect for a particular group, but an equally strong urge for some kind of official support that gives certainty. As it stands Basic doesn't give that kind of certainty, and doesn't stand enough on its own.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It isn't about hierarchy, but about definition and clarity. Like in the second wind discussion, many in one camp felt free to offer ad hoc solutions when the other camp was looking for "an official" alternative to it. Or when in another thread someone said something along the lines "treating feats as more optional than they are wished". There is a strong desire for tinkering and making everything just perfect for a particular group, but an equally strong urge for some kind of official support that gives certainty. As it stands Basic doesn't give that kind of certainty, and doesn't stand enough on its own.

I don't imagine that 5e will by and large be the kind of game that concerns itself with "officialness" beyond "what your DM says is true." Folks looking for "official" alternatives to individual powers or "official" recommendation to use feats are probably barking up the wrong tree, because there is no authority in "official." The devs don't seem interested in telling people how to play "real" D&D.

Which means that if you want to use feats or if you don't give fighters Second Wind that the D&D that you are playing is as "official" as the D&D that someone is playing where gnome warlocks happen.

(though I imagine they will erratta/clarify rules that have unintended effects in actual play, as they may with Second Wind, or the "you don't recover HD at 1st level" thing, if those prove to be problems)

 

[am181d]

I don't know whether it's productive to describe Basic as "Core" or not, but there will certainly be DMs who disregard rules and character options that appear in Basic. Call it what you like, but there will never be a core set of rules that ALL Dungeon Masters follow.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know whether it's productive to describe Basic as "Core" or not, but there will certainly be DMs who disregard rules and character options that appear in Basic. Call it what you like, but there will never be a core set of rules that ALL Dungeon Masters follow.

Yeah, that's right. I was using "core" to indicate that Basic would likely be the bit of rules that other D&D products presume all players have and are familiar with. Adventures won't assume you're using feats or wild sorcerers, splatbooks won't presuppose the existence of druids, etc.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't imagine that 5e will by and large be the kind of game that concerns itself with "officialness" beyond "what your DM says is true." Folks looking for "official" alternatives to individual powers or "official" recommendation to use feats are probably barking up the wrong tree, because there is no authority in "official." The devs don't seem interested in telling people how to play "real" D&D.

Which means that if you want to use feats or if you don't give fighters Second Wind that the D&D that you are playing is as "official" as the D&D that someone is playing where gnome warlocks happen.

(though I imagine they will erratta/clarify rules that have unintended effects in actual play, as they may with Second Wind, or the "you don't recover HD at 1st level" thing, if those prove to be problems)

Again this isn't a contest for which is "more official" or "the real deal", it is about certainty. And most of the time is certainty as a player. That is something to love in a game with "a standard", certainty. The same reason you want to write in a forum with moderators and a code of conduct, certainty you will be safe from the ugly outliers you'd be exposed without them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again this isn't a contest for which is "more official" or "the real deal", it is about certainty. And most of the time is certainty as a player. That is something to love in a game with "a standard", certainty. The same reason you want to write in a forum with moderators and a code of conduct, certainty you will be safe from the ugly outliers you'd be exposed without them.

That's a pretty false certainty, though. Even on moderated boards, some folks fly under the radar or get snippy. Even in tightly standardized games, there's no promise of a good DM or a lack of a confrontational player. The devs can't control for these things. No game can truly offer that certainty -- trying for it is setting yourself up to fail. You can spell out the rules in crystal clarity that even a toddler could parse and people will still do whatever they want. It's not even bad actors. People just do their own thing. It's always part of how this kind of game has worked.

You will not be able to go to some random pick-up group and be certain that you'll be able to play a druid or a gnome or a mountain dwarf or a fighter. That's never really been the case -- groups all do what they want anyway (and organized play is just one pretty big group).

The best you can say is that there is some common ground of understanding to talk about when you're referencing D&D. Basic is that common ground of understanding as far as I can tell. Changes will be in relation to the Basic game. So the DM can say, "No fighters, but add this book's other options" in relation to Basic.

The only thing that will protect you from the ugly outliers is yourself. You can't rely on Mearls to do that for you, since Mearls can't control for the quality of all of the millions of D&D players out there.

 

[GX.Sigma]

GX --

I think they're thinking that the "Basic, Standard, Advanced" terminology is likely more approachable for new players who may be intimidated by the term "Advanced", and that "Standard" is also useful for establishing the baseline for organized play.

If anyone is "intimidated" by the Advanced rules, they should stick to Basic. That is literally the point of the Basic rules. What I'm saying is, if you call the more advanced ones "Standard," then these hypothetical newbies (who should stick to Basic) will try the more advanced rules first (with the assumption that "basic" is not worth playing when "standard" is right there) and get frustrated by how complicated it is.

Their adventure modules will all likely be built expecting a Standard set of rules, and players will be able to easily use them for Basic by not using some options in Standard, and to easily hack them for Advanced by adding optional rules like a grid with its associated more tactical play.

I don't see why adventures need Standard as a baseline. "Standard," as I understand it, just refers to a larger set of character options. Why is that needed for a baseline? Would Keep on the Borderlands have been designed differently if you could play a Paladin? Would Sunless Citadel have been designed differently if you couldn't play a Druid?

(there's also the part where they actually said Basic will be their baseline for adventures)

 

[rastus_burne]

But I am not sure it is wholly contained replacement for an OSR game. I would be interested to know how many OSR gamers would be happy with playing a whole campaign based on 5e basic.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself on this. I'm a big fan of a lot of old school editions - OD&D Basic/Expert, 1e, 2e. For me personally I wouldn't say 5e will replace any of these games, but I am certainly planning on running a 5e campaign when I get the chance.

My current group is playing Pathfinder, but I think we'll make the switch sooner than later. As far as my group would be concerned, 5e very well might be a replacement for Pathfinder, but old school games will always be relevant to me, because that's the style I'm into. I'll probably play more 5e than anything else in the next couple of years. I can imagine house ruling a lot of stuff, and for me what I get most excited about in this edition, is that house ruling is a very feasible and even encouraged option! This is definitely a huge step up from previous editions, and I believe it encourages creativity.