D&D 5E Basic/Standard/Advanced?

[Mercurius]

In the most recent Legends & Lore Mike Mearls discussed the "Standard" goals for D&D Next and said the "Advanced" goals will be discussed in his next column. Now I've been sort of in-and-out on D&D Next news for the last year, but this three-part configuration of Basic-Standard-Advanced is news to me - and I like it. Originally I thought they were going for a two-part Basic/Advanced with modular options added on, but it seems that they're going for three levels on the complexity dial with infinite customization possible by combining elements across levels. Is that correct?

 

[fjw70]

That is what it sounds like to me. The basic/standard/advanced thing is relatively new and I like it.

I really like the way DDN is being packaged (or at least how they are talking about the packaging). Here is how it looks like it will work.

Want to play a Classic D&D-type game? Use the basic set.

Want to play a 1e-type game? Add in the races and classes you want from the standard game.

Want to play a 2e-style game? Add in Backgrounds (i.e. kits), wizard schools, cleric domains, etc.

Want to play a 3e-style game? Allow players to choose individual feats and skills.

Want to play a 4e-style game? Well, I expect the advanced rules to address this.

The great thing will be that these aren’t discrete choices. Each one can be modified by adding and subtracting various bits.

Want to play the Basic game with the Advanced Tactical module? Go for it. You get the idea.

I am very excited about DDN, but I am probably at the dead center of the target audience. I like all editions of D&D but none of them are my “perfect edition.”

 

[Li Shenron]

Originally I thought they were going for a two-part Basic/Advanced with modular options added on, but it seems that they're going for three levels on the complexity dial with infinite customization possible by combining elements across levels. Is that correct?

I think so too. But we can't rule out yet that from publishing point of view they might still go with Basic/Standard only, and intend Advanced as just using supplement books. I think Mearls mentions that the publication plan is not set yet, only that there will be a "Basic" product, but we don't even know yet if "Standard" means 3 core books, a single book (and if it contains "Basic" also or if you need to have that book too), or something else.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I really like the way DDN is being packaged (or at least how they are talking about the packaging). Here is how it looks like it will work.

Want to play a Classic D&D-type game? Use the basic set.

Want to play a 1e-type game? Add in the races and classes you want from the standard game.

Want to play a 2e-style game? Add in Backgrounds (i.e. kits), wizard schools, cleric domains, etc.

Want to play a 3e-style game? Allow players to choose individual feats and skills.

Want to play a 4e-style game? Well, I expect the advanced rules to address this.

The great thing will be that these aren’t discrete choices. Each one can be modified by adding and subtracting various bits.

Want to play the Basic game with the Advanced Tactical module? Go for it. You get the idea.

This would be great, if they can pull it off. I'm still hopeful.

 

[VinylTap]

Few things

The idea is to be able to add as much complexity as you want. So its not that there will be 2 versions, there will be countless, it just depends on what modules you're playing. But there will be the same base that all versions build off of, and that will be "Standard".

Another interesting side effect of this is it should be really easy to transfer character from one game to another-- too many modules in the one you're coming from? Well just ignore that extra info on your Character sheet? We use a few other modules than you're used to? No worries, its just these 3-4 things you need to add to your sheet. That's the brilliance of boiling down most of the mechanics to 6 attributes and hit points.

They'll also be able to tailor campaign settings, so a mechanic that works well in 'Dragon Lance' can easily be ignored in another setting if it doesn't make sense there.

 

[fjw70]

This would be great, if they can pull it off. I'm still hopeful.

I keep seeing this a lot. Why is what I posted so hard for a team of professional game designers working on it for years to pull off? All they are doing is just packaging some options together and having default options that can be swapped out if you want more complexity.

What I described above could be done with any edition. Basic/Advanced D&D sort of did this with race and class. Basic packaged the two together and Advanced gave you options. In this case it wasn’t exactly the same game but it was very close. My friend and I started with Basic at 12 years old and went to AD&D when we were ready (which wasn’t long). If someone had brought a Basic character to our AD&D table it probably would have worked just fine.

There are challenging aspects to DDN, but the different character complexity thing isn’t one of them IMO.

 

[VinylTap]

I keep seeing this a lot. Why is what I posted so hard for a team of professional game designers working on it for years to pull off? All they are doing is just packaging some options together and having default options that can be swapped out if you want more complexity.

Depends what you're design goals are. I have a feeling most of things people complain about were never design goals to begin with. There are also limits to internal play-testing, we rarely live in a perfect world. You also have you keep in mind what "you" see as a problem for DND is not what "everyone" sees as a problem. They get tons of complaints for things the "core" community doesn't see as problems, because they're "dogmatic" to the culture, a culture they fear is going away!

The core base of online (discussion, not the game) PnP RPG's are very enthusiastic, but they're not a large enough group, WOTC know this and realize they have a diverse group to make happy. There are literally 1000's on people still playing 4th ed, without any idea of the internet convo going on >> when you dont point them out, they're not always problems... those groups have different problems than the rest of us see.

They also have a lot to prove to people (especially the hardcore community you need for any game like this to work), and there's been a hive-mind circle jerk going on in the community ever since 4th was released.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I really like the way DDN is being packaged (or at least how they are talking about the packaging). Here is how it looks like it will work.
<snip>
I am very excited about DDN, but I am probably at the dead center of the target audience. I like all editions of D&D but none of them are my “perfect edition.”

I find the 'evolutionary' assumptions in this counter to my experience playing AD&D, 3.5 or 4.0.

You've mapped the history of the game exactly onto a development from basic-standard-advanced:

classic = "basic"
1e = "basic + some of standard"
2e = "basic+ more of standard"
3e = "standard"
4e = "advanced"

If that historical development had any basis in fact, then there would not have been the catastrophic turning away from 4e that there has been (nor the gains from other sectors of the gaming market that have also come with 4e). There's a snobbery in such a presentation, too, as if the game has always improved (and only improved) by adding more and more possibilities -- This also flies in the face of my experience of actually playing the game.

I'm not saying that this isn't what they are planning -- on that you may be right -- but if it is right, it seems designed as an insult to anyone who doesn't already like the game right now. Which many don't, for reasons other than their not being "advanced" enough.

I would hope for a more nuanced sense of development (and one less obviously tied to previous editions) as one moves from basic to standard to advanced in DDN.

 

[fjw70]

I find the 'evolutionary' assumptions in this counter to my experience playing AD&D, 3.5 or 4.0.


You've mapped the history of the game exactly onto a development from basic-standard-advanced:


classic = "basic"
1e = "basic + some of standard"
2e = "basic+ more of standard"
3e = "standard"
4e = "advanced"


If that historical development had any basis in fact, then there would not have been the catastrophic turning away from 4e that there has been (nor the gains from other sectors of the gaming market that have also come with 4e). There's a snobbery in such a presentation, too, as if the game has always improved (and only improved) by adding more and more possibilities -- This also flies in the face of my experience of actually playing the game.


I'm not saying that this isn't what they are planning -- on that you may be right -- but if it is right, it seems designed as an insult to anyone who doesn't already like the game right now. Which many don't, for reasons other than their not being "advanced" enough.


I would hope for a more nuanced sense of development (and one less obviously tied to previous editions) as one moves from basic to standard to advanced in DDN.

I admit my model was a little simplistic, but no snobbery was implied on my part. Going from basic to 1e to 2e to 3e there was a definite trend of adding more to the game. However, more options <> a better game (at least not for everyone).


There were a few abnormalities like BECMI having the War Machine rules that AD&D didn't have. Also 1e was different from Basic in more ways than adding more character options (but my friends and I played it like Basic with more options for the most part).


So the Basic edition I described above might be a good BX approximation, but to get an even better approximation of BECMI then maybe adding in a couple things from the advanced game or a stand alone module (such as mass combat), or adding the monk and druid classes from the Standard game would help.


When I mentioned the advanced stuff for 4e I was thinking mostly about the Advanced Tactical module. To get a better approximation of 4e maybe the Standard or Advanced modules would have an alternate multi-classing system or a way to make the game more encounter-based or healing surges. If these things are in the Advanced game it wouldn't mean they were necessarily better.


Of course adding some tactical rules would help to make a better 3e approximation.


So I would say my model was a good simple one. A more complex model could be more accurate. Also, when we get more info about what is in each module then we can refine the model more.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would add, that I also believe, you need advanced rules to adress 4e. Not because it is better, but because it needs to change some "core" things. I hope all those editions should be mire or less reproducable, and somewhere in between will lie yur own perfect 5e... One should be allowed to dream. I am quite hopeful though!