D&D 5E Basic/Standard/Advanced?

[Li Shenron]

I think the more WotC leans towards distinct, cohesive games that can be kitbashed together using individual initiative the more successful they'll be. The discussion of three levels (basic/standard/advanced) makes me leery. But a lot will depend on exactly what the packages are for this stuff.

I think that even if 5e will lend itself to be customized by nearly every gaming group, the distinction between these 3 levels can be very useful for two things:

- publishing
- organized play

They can publish e.g. adventures specifically supporting Basic and also adventures specifically supporting Standard, and organize gaming events at conventions and FLGS with both Basic, Standard and Advanced games.

 

[Blackwarder]

I son't think that they'll publish different modules for different levels of complexity, that will just tear the player base all over again.

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

I son't think that they'll publish different modules for different levels of complexity, that will just tear the player base all over again.

Warder

If you mean "module" in the sense of supplements, then I agree, there will be probably no need for that. People who will want to add something to the game are unlikely to skip the Standard game.

If you mean "module" in the old sense of adventures, why not? There will be casual gamers or beginners who don't feel ready for a more complex version of the game, but would still want to buy additional adventures to keep playing for a while more. I don't think this means that half published adventures need to be for Basic, maybe 1-2 per year is plenty enough. But of course it could be that even a regular adventure is easily playable without skills or reference to more than the 4 classes for instance.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm talking about adventures.

if you read what Mike said you'll see that he is talking about being able to play a basic character in a standard game or having a bunch of advanced characters with a DM that run a basic game and vice versa.

If they need different adventures for different play styles than they missed the entire point of Next.

but if you can have different playstyles around the table than you don't need different adventures for the different playstyles.

Warder

 

[DocSER]

This comment is exactly what had me worried from the start. The largest challenge is the notion of having different players at the same table playing different forms of the game (basic, standard, specific modules, etc.). I think this is still possible but balance will be a major obstacle. From the playtest, one could have basic players relying largely on attribute checks while standard players use a skill system. The trick is designing the system so that the standard players neither trail behind the basic players, or vice versa. There can be some differences (one would expect skill-based characters to be more focused -- with more power in their foci but at the cost of flexibility) but any dramatic differences in power will lead to problems with mixing models at the same table.

With adventures, one could create single documents based on each model for skills. Descriptions of challenges could include basic(attribute-based) difficulties and standard (skill-based) difficulties. This does not seem too hard to me.

However, I see a HUGE difference between 4e style combat and 1E style combat. Not only is there a difference in the skill set and the AEDU sytem + grids. The scale of the encounters is entirely different. This is where the initial rhetoric of a modular rule set that would let you grab U1 or a 4E module and run it breaks down.

I am intrigued by the possibility of representing characters with different systems. I would be interested in running a system where I used the basic characters for some encounters (intended to play quickly), standard system for some encounters (notably skill based encounters), and advanced system for "boss" fights. If each player has three sheets that are consistent, this could be a fun flexible system.

 

[Blackwarder]

In Next there is no skill system, all the checks are attribute checks.
skills are not a problem solving mechanic like they were in 3e or 4e, they are just stuff that you are better at...

Warder

 

[DocSER]

Hence my concern over balance. If skills are simply advantages and standard characters get skills while basic players don't, standard characters are simply better than basic characters. A phase-based approach where everyone has basic, standard, and advanced versions may address this. However, having players of different systems at the same table will be problematic.

 

[Blackwarder]

You should reread mike L&L columns and watch the recent google hangout Q&A session.

There is no differenc between basic/standard/advanced when it comes to the basic mechanics, you won't have different skill mechanic to basic and standard, it will be the same mechanic.

What you might have in terms of skills is a different rules modules who change how you use them while using the same mechanic.

From what I'm seeing of D&DNext I'm pretty sure that they can pull it off as long as they keep the big picture in mind.

Warder

 

[jadrax]

From what I understand a Basic Fighter will have an skill dice on all Strength Attribute Checks. A Standard Fighter will have a Skill Dice on 4 specific skills *instead* of all Strength Checks - so the standard Fighter will probably get slightly less use from their Skill Dice, but get more customization to compensate.

 

[Raith5]

I also think Advanced doesn't mean "superior", but rather, "more difficult to integrate into the basic/core or will outright replace core mechanics".

I mostly agree with this. But I think another way to look at the difference between basic, standard and advanced is how foregrounded the rules are (rather than their complexity or realism, etc). In terms of task resolution basic just has attribute checks, standard will have another layer of rules in the form of skill checks and advanced will presumably have some version of skill challenges. In the latter case the rules are not only more complex but also more overt and in your face - you have to use the rules to resolve a task. The core feature of 4th ed was that its rules (especially in the form of powers) were very overt in combat and in social settings. I liked this, but I can see that some want the rules to be backgrounded.