D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[Obryn]

Alright, bear with me here for a sec.

Most every group has houserules. This is a big tradition going back to the earliest days. Nevertheless, there's usually some commonality - if I'm playing 3e or PF or 4e or AD&D, I know about what I can expect, with some variation between tables.

It seems more and more that Next isn't going to have this common level of expectations. That even more than most RPGs, if a group says, "Let's play Next!" it will require a lot more conditions and caveats to understand what sort of game they're playing. And discussion about it will also need all kinds of caveats - what switches are pulled, which buttons are pushed, where are the dials set, etc.

From a design standpoint, I'm especially not sure how you can release adventures, settings, and supplements without some kind of default assumptions.

I'm not positive this is actually as big a deal as it seems, but right now I'm not certain that Next is actually going to be a single game. If someone says, "I'm playing D&D" right now we'd ask, "What edition?" Is saying "Next" going to be an answer with any content?

-O

 

[delericho]

In twenty five years of playing, the only edition where we didn't preface the campaign with discussions about which supplements would be allowed was 4th Edition, and that only because the DM took the "anything goes" approach. Honestly, 5e's modular approach is really little more than official acknowledgement of what has been true forever.

As far as publishing supplements and adventures for it: I broadly agree that it may be problematic. What I think we'll see is WotC defining a fairly clear "standard game". Thereafter, more adventures and supplements will support exactly that set of options (and only that set of options). Some few may provide sidebars for adapting the material if you use "module X" for some subset of the available modules. And, of course, in some cases the supplement will introduce a new "module Y", and will therefore be designed for "standard + Y" only.

In time, it may become apparently that very few people use one of the modules assumed by the standard game, or that the majority add some popular module to the standard game. Either way, I expect to see WotC's support to gradually drift to match this preference, creating a new de facto "standard game", which they would then support going forward.

 

[Obryn]

In twenty five years of playing, the only edition where we didn't preface the campaign with discussions about which supplements would be allowed was 4th Edition, and that only because the DM took the "anything goes" approach. Honestly, 5e's modular approach is really little more than official acknowledgement of what has been true forever.

I get this, absolutely. It seems to me that it's going to be taken to another level with Next, not that house rule discussions were absent before. (And usually it was based on books rather than numerous sub-parts of books.)

The "core assumptions" discussion is similar. It's like non-weapon proficiencies in 2e. Called out as "optional" but every single supplement, setting, etc. assumed their use. I'd say prestige classes in 3e and themes in 4e are similar.

-O

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I second Del. I've never played in a D&D game since 1979 without caveats. ("Can we use stuff from Dragon? Oh, you know, just this half-ogre anti-paladin ... why do you ask?") 5E won't be any different in that regard.

I'm guessing WotC (and third party publishers, if they're smart enough to let them back in the clubhouse this time) will design for them most stripped-down version of the game, as a rule.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I get this, absolutely. It seems to me that it's going to be taken to another level with Next, not that house rule discussions were absent before. (And usually it was based on books rather than numerous sub-parts of books.)

The "core assumptions" discussion is similar. It's like non-weapon proficiencies in 2e. Called out as "optional" but every single supplement, setting, etc. assumed their use. I'd say prestige classes in 3e and themes in 4e are similar.

-O

I mentioned this on another thread, but this wasnt the case with nwps. They were lways included in the complete books for people who used them, but modules and setting material frequently ignored them entirely or talked about uing them for groups that employed that option (this did depend on the line). And it was largely not percptible. With crunch, for stat blocks, they may just have to shade in things that are optional or just expect peope who dont use them will gloss over. The point is, if you idnt use them, they were easy to ignore.

Also there was a period, after the skills and powers books came out, when things got really chaotic but we managed. I remember occassionally encountering spells fom various supplements in npc entries, and they might just offer an alternative fom the core. It really was quite manageable. I think, honestly, the bigger issue will be things like how to structure modules.

 

[Jester David]

If all the modules and options are balanced properly there should be minimal change to power. Which means adventures won't care if you're using the standard or advanced rules, the tactical modules, the firearms add-on, and the like. The adventure should be roughly the same challenge.

There might also be the "tournament rules" suite of options. The assumed standards of play. So other adventures might use those as a baseline.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If all the modules and options are balanced properly there should be minimal change to power. Which means adventures won't care if you're using the standard or advanced rules, the tactical modules, the firearms add-on, and the like. The adventure should be roughly the same challenge.

There might also be the "tournament rules" suite of options. The assumed standards of play. So other adventures might use those as a baseline.

I am thinking more in terms of adventure structures than rules. If you look at an old AD&D module, versus a 3E and then 4E modules, they have very different approaches. My guess is they will be mking an effort to represent the different playstyles in the modules as well, and i am wondering if t will be done by a compromise,by just making different kinds of modules, extenive use of sidebars.

 

[Morrus]

Alright, bear with me here for a sec.

Most every group has houserules. This is a big tradition going back to the earliest days. Nevertheless, there's usually some commonality - if I'm playing 3e or PF or 4e or AD&D, I know about what I can expect, with some variation between tables.

It seems more and more that Next isn't going to have this common level of expectations. That even more than most RPGs, if a group says, "Let's play Next!" it will require a lot more conditions and caveats to understand what sort of game they're playing. And discussion about it will also need all kinds of caveats - what switches are pulled, which buttons are pushed, where are the dials set, etc.

From a design standpoint, I'm especially not sure how you can release adventures, settings, and supplements without some kind of default assumptions.

I'm not positive this is actually as big a deal as it seems, but right now I'm not certain that Next is actually going to be a single game. If someone says, "I'm playing D&D" right now we'd ask, "What edition?" Is saying "Next" going to be an answer with any content?

-O

I've been asking the same thing for ages. It depends on how modularized it is -- at one extreme (and I recognise this as an exaggeration) a game can be so modularized and primarity consist of optional rules that it's not a game, it's an instruction manual on how to write your own game. Too many options erodes the common experience/identity of the game -- "I play D&D Next" won't have any more meaning than "I play a fantasy game".

I'm hoping it trends away from that a little. Obviously it'll never be that bad, but I do tend towards the desire for less modularization and a greater shared experience (that's not to say I want uniformity -- I'd hope that everybody's campaign is totally different to everybody else's).

 

[n00bdragon]

Because if that's the way D&D has always done it then clearly it must be a good thing.

Wait, when was it decided that bickering with the DM about what supplements are legal or what the game will be like before every game was a good thing?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I suspect that, as always, the game experience will be primarily a function of the people running it, rather than the rules system they were using.

IME, the few games that I've played in that didn't have massive houserules were run by beginner DMs who didn't know the system. What's going to be allowed, banned, or changed is always the DM's call, and there's ample reason to do all of the above.