D&D 5E Magic Items, and what it says about the editions
Charles Rampant
Explorer
He may not have a link, but you don't have manners, and I think I know which is the bigger problem here. :/
Tony Vargas
Legend
Whether you recall the specific quote on the topic that happened to stick with me or not, you can't very well have missed all the spin control, (as CapnZapp puts it, below) 'marketing speak', and general attempts at being positive that Mearls (and Cook while he was on board) regaled us with in L&L leading up to and throughout the playtest.
The link I had saved turned out to be for a different, even more controversial quote:
"The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one."
But I did manage to dig it out of the Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/2012041...zards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409
[sblock]Legends & Lore Archive | 4/9/2012
Article Header Image
D&D Next Design Considerations
Legends and Lore
Mike Mearls
'd like to share with you a draft of the earliest documents I put together to help shape the new iteration of D&D. I distributed this document to the D&D team about a year ago. It lays out the case for the basic approach we should take with the RPG. It's not long, but I felt that if I had to write a convoluted document to make my case, it wasn't a case worth making.
Over the course of a long design period, it's easy to lose track of the fundamental purpose behind the entire project. Note that this document doesn't mention any specific rules, mechanics, settings, or so forth. The idea is to lay down a short list of inviolate design principles to get things rolling. None of the points below surprised anyone on the R&D team. We had been talking about them for quite a while. If anything, this document put down in writing a set of goals that had been forming in the team for some time.
D&D Design Overview
This document outlines the design directives behind the process of revising D&D. It lays out the goals and expected results of the design process.
Goal #1: Reunification through Common Understanding
As part of the design process, the R&D team must boil down the RPG into its most basic component parts. Using those rules elements, the team must then build an easy to understand game system that incorporates the most iconic elements of D&D in prominent roles. Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.
Goal #3: Reunification through Accessibility
D&D has traditionally required large amounts of time, a large play group, and a sustained commitment. The design process must focus on play time, group size, speed of play, and length of campaigns, with an eye toward reducing the minimum required from each area. Players who want a longer play time and so forth can easily scale up the game to meet their needs and opt into the various rules modules we'll provide or that they'll build themselves. However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.
Game Design
The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands. That experience is more important than the specifics of the math. In other words, if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed. If the system is sound, but it can't replicate D&D's classic adventures or seamlessly support any of D&D's settings, it isn't the right system for D&D.
More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.
Wrapping Up
Hopefully, this document helps give you some insight into the thinking behind our goals. When you feel that you know a game very well, it's easy to get lost in the details of what makes it work. One of our aims for the next iteration is to call into question everything that R&D thought it knew about what makes D&D tick. The document above, along with a lot of the other work we've done over the past year or so, is all part of the process of hitting the reset button on our understanding of D&D.
That reset ties back into our playtesting efforts. In going back to basics, it's important for us to remember that D&D is a game played by a huge number of people. We're not trying to reinvent D&D so much as rediscover it. Doing that means we need to take into account the entire, diverse range of people who enjoy the game.[/sblock]
It would be all too easy to take that quote and scream failure and betrayal, since it was positing a flexibility in the hands of the player that was delivered only to the DM. But perhaps he just meant 'players' in the sense of whole groups, with each DM in the traditional role of final arbiter.
Seems to me the benefit if a doubt remains available. 5e hasn't provided outright everything any fan of a past edition might want, but it hasn't exactly slammed & locked the door on anything, either.
Edit: Here's another of a series of edition-peace-making L&L attempts.
https://web.archive.org/web/2012051...zards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120130
"In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. "
[sblock]
Legends & Lore Archive | 1/30/2012
Article Header Image
Uniting the Editions, Part 1
Legends and Lore
Monte Cook
In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. Judging by the reaction, this is a contentious topic, and an important one. So let's delve into it more deeply.
First off, why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost, however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community, no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than we have differences.
So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like, makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way. And that's what the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about. There is no wrong way to play D&D.
But what does it mean to play in the "style" of various editions? That's a complex issue. It has involved, for me and my fellow designers, looking at the different editions and trying to distill down the essence of each one. For example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone who enjoyed Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far more important for that player is an open-ended system with a lot of emphasis on the Dungeon Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics that enable fast combat, to name just a few things.
As a contrast, AD&D (that is to say, 1E) involved more specific mechanics to create a more unified play experience from table to table. This included a more careful eye toward "realism," or perhaps more accurately, "simulation." But by modern standards, the game was still fairly simple, and things moved quickly. There were options for miniatures and tactical play, but most 1E fans did not use them. (Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them either.) 1E fans—and I'm of course overgeneralizing here—want many of the same things that BD&D lovers want, but with a few more options and a bit more simulation.
Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters. Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes, showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that, broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create well-developed characters.
With the advent of 3E, which brought along many significant rules changes, the game's design once again embraced simulation, and balance became more important. Character development became even more of a focus, and all flavor was backed up with mechanics. Less responsibility was put upon the Dungeon Master as various actions and options were specifically mechanically defined and standardized. Combat became far more complex, and while it was also more interesting, it moved more slowly. Miniatures became an important focus. Fans of 3E want even more options for their character customization—skills, feats, and so on—and the ability to play interesting, tactical combats with a high level of detail.
When 4E debuted, the game once again underwent a radical change. This time, the most significant change was the way character classes were expressed. Balance and standardization became even more important, combat more complex, and cinematic action and heroic power levels were the focus. Character powers ensured that everyone always had something interesting and dynamic to do every round. The DM had even less responsibility, and her job was made easier with interesting innovations to NPC and monster design. Miniatures and a grid were absolutely required. 4E players like even more balance and tactical play, and they want even more interesting and straightforward options for their characters. In addition, simple and quick preparation for the DM is a must.
A lot of sweeping generalizations? Sure. I was/am a fan of all of those versions of the game, so some or all of those descriptions apply to me, and not all of them are compatible in a straightforward manner. Still, it's useful to begin to realize the various kinds of needs and desires different players and DMs have. To truly unite all the editions, the game needs to cater to all of them. In short, people need to be able to play the game that they want to play.
[/sblock]
Heh. If you're lucky enough to attract (or retain) customers with some marketing-speak, you have to expect they'll hold you to it - some extent. I'm inclined to cut WotC a lot of slack in that department, since they were dealing with some very unreasonable customers in the course of the edition war, and to be patient, because of the slow pace of release (which, for most purposes, I find quite comfortable). But they need to keep expanding their offerings to include the few things missing from 5e that were in past PH1s (and ultimately, the cooler, higher-profile innovations of each edition), just as they've been slowly doing with Psionics for a while now.
Well, hopefully with less tendency toward locked-in fluff, and more sidebars.
It's based on the "magicians" in Jack Vance's science-fiction classic, The Dying Earth, specifically on their memorizing relatively short spoken spells and forgetting them upon casting. I think it was in the 1e DMG that Gygax explained that choice as being to allow magic-users to participate in combat, in contrast to more traditional forms of magic involving long rituals with elaborate material requirements (which his D&D still used for creating magic items).
OK. Certainly magic items as presented in random treasure tables and wealth/level guidelines could seem over-abundant compared to the broader fantasy genre.
Last edited:
