Idea for 5E

[rounser]

Multiple, themed PHBs. You could have a "classic" PHB, a "steampunk" PHB, a "low magic" PHB, a "high fantasy" PHB etc.

That way, you could keep the peanut butter of warlord goliaths and warforged artificers OUT of the chocolate of elven wizards and dwarven fighters, if it's not your thing. Or add on a "wuxia" PHB when you want to run that sort of game.

It would be better than what we have currently, IMO.

Yeah, I know that you can say dragonborn don't exist, but even references to them and artwork of them is annoying. It'd be better if they were in some other book marked the "wahoo" PHB, and easily ignored if you don't think they're such a clever idea.

 

[FireLance]

So D&D should be like GURPS?

 

[rounser]

Perhaps. It certainly has a much larger audience than GURPS, and therefore is likely to be much less "one size fits all", as perhaps we're currently finding out.

 

[Lanefan]

Multiple, themed PHBs. You could have a "classic" PHB, a "steampunk" PHB, a "low magic" PHB, a "high fantasy" PHB etc.

That way, you could keep the peanut butter of warlord goliaths and warforged artificers OUT of the chocolate of elven wizards and dwarven fighters, if it's not your thing. Or add on a "wuxia" PHB when you want to run that sort of game.

It would be better than what we have currently, IMO.

And it would sell more books too. rounser, I think you're on to something here.

A corollary idea would be to have a Basic and Advanced DMG; the Basic being something like the 4e DMG (lots of advice to new DMs, simpler system) and the Advanced being closer to the 1e or 3e DMG (assumes the DM already knows what she's doing, adds more complexity, presents options from earlier editions, etc.)

A second corollary idea would be to have one setting somewhat designed for each PHB type. They won't be far from that soon in 4e - classic = Greyhawk, steampunk = Eberron, low magic = Points of Light, high fantasy = FR - should be easy for 'em.

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

Okay, jokes aside, depending on how cost-effective and popular electronic publishing gets compared to paper publishing, I could see 5e being the first truly modular version of D&D.

$8 for the basic rules document (includes the human race and the fighter class).

$1 for each additional race (includes race-specific feats and other options): dwarf, elf, halfing, etc.

$2 for each additional class (includes class-specific feats and other options): cleric, rogue, wizard, etc.

$15 for a one-time, all-in-one download: basic rules and all the additional races and classes.

$5 per month for a subscription that gets you access to all rules information.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And it would sell more books too. rounser, I think you're on to something here.

Not to be the party-pooper, but no, it wouldn't. At all.

People don't realize what printing costs are like. Even if 90% of the text in each different PHB is the same, each has to be printed as a fully separate book. WotC would be paying for the PHB multiple times over, but there's no way they'd sell multiple times as many books. The result is a net loss--and a big one--for WotC.

Then, what happens to the adventures? Which PHB do the adventures follow? A separate line for each one? Again, simply not cost effective; no given line would sell enough, and indeed, some would cannibalize others. Nor could they write adventures generic enough to work for all of them without losing an enormous number of options and amount of flavor.

Added to that, multiple PHBs actually increases the barrier to entry for many gamers. Want to get into the new edition? I dunno, what version is the group going to want to play? And what if you're a brand new gamer? Some are going to be put off by the sheer amount of stuff to go through.

This isn't random idea-bashing on my part. On a purely theoretical level, I like the notion of the game catering to a wider style of fantasy. But it's just not practical from any standpoint. There's a reason TSR couldn't maintain its plethora of lines, and a reason WotC wasn't interested in continuing both BECMI and Advanced/3E as two separate entities. The notion of splitting the game into multiple branches is fiscal suicide.

Now, if you want to argue for one-off "style" books, sort of like Oriental Adventures combined with Unearthed Arcana, but each aimed at a distinct style of game-play rather than a specific culture, I could readily get behind that. But true PHBs? Just not feasible.

 

[rounser]

Not to be the party-pooper, but no, it wouldn't. At all.

Most of your points did cross my mind, actually, and I agree - how can you write an adventure when your audience isn't using class X from PHB Y. Even classes and races on cards like Warhammer Quest occurred, but that runs into the same problem.

No, it may not be commercially feasible in the form I suggested, but something should be done to address the problem, IMO. We don't all share the same vision of D&D, and a PHB which assumes that we do is no longer feasible when you've got designer insistence on things like eladrin and warlords.

Shoehorning everyone into the same thing isn't going to work once you depart so far from mythological fantasy, and into experimental territory, and make it core and have the text and artwork assume that everyone's using it. Well, that's my opinion anyway - I think the nature of the implied setting's more critical to the game than perhaps WOTC thinks it is.

 

[rounser]

I think I agree with Darrin Drader that D&D needs to be re-imagined from a worldbuilding perspective. That's a huge hook, and the game within the game.

How to sell books, when everyone's campaign is different? Perhaps slicing the rules for NPCs and PCs down the middle is where a solution lies. Who cares what rules the PCs are using when all NPCs follow just the rules in the DMG.

The obvious downside is that you can't have an NPC with a PC class of a particular sort, so this is not a complete solution, but might get someone thinking along the right lines. We've already established that what's good for generating PC stats (lots of options) is poison for generating NPC stats, for instance.

But the 4E way, of forcing every campaign into an arbitrary mould of an implied setting, with elements lacking mythological resonance and seemingly there just because someone thought it was cool...well, there's room for improvement there, surely.

 

[Mouseferatu]

a PHB which assumes that we do is no longer feasible when you've got designer insistence on things like eladrin and warlords.

Shoehorning everyone into the same thing isn't going to work once you depart so far from mythological fantasy, and into experimental territory, and make it core and have the text and artwork assume that everyone's using it.

*blink*

If you were complaining about, say, dragonborn, that'd be one thing. I personally don't mind dragonborn, but I can see why some people aren't thrilled with them.

But eladrin and warlords? Really?

Willowy fey who disappear in the blink of an eye, and charismatic leaders who can exhort their companions to great efforts, make them get up and keep going when they want to fall over and die, through nothing more than the power of their speech? You don't get any more "mythological fantasy" than that.

 

[AlexS]

But your campaign isn't forced into allowing wuxia dragonborn katana-wielding warlocks if you (the DM) don't want them to be there. Yes, they're in the PHB. So what? If you want sword and sorcery, drop all the non-martial classes and races other than human, and have adventures against snake cults and so on. If you want ultra-spiffy magic fantasy, but can't stand dragonborn, then it's your perogative as a DM. If you want more subtle tieflings, then reskin them however you like.

Why would you need separate books for this? I reckon it'd be a pain in the ass- you'd have to buy dear knows how many books to run whatever campaigns you wanted, players wouldn't necessarily have the PHB you were using, and the arguments about what is 'core' would increase exponentially.

I don't believe that the 4e books force you into an implied setting at all- if you're an experienced DM, you'll be used to ignoring what you don't like and playing up what you reckon is important. If you're a complete n00b, then it does some of the work for you as regards worldbuilding. What's wrong with that?

Perhaps if you had a much more generic system like True20, which allows you to add your own flavour to them, you could keep the core rules the same and release a bunch of setting books telling you how to use them differently. Would that be more acceptable?