The "Functional Support" Model

Proposition: Would you have preferred it if 4e provided you more options in the core rulebooks, in exchange for covering those options for fewer levels?

So that the first wave of books: the PHB, DMG, and MM, and supplements, covered only levels 1-10.

The next wave of books, in a year: the PHB2, DMG2, and MM2, and supplements, cover levels 11-20.

The next wave of books, in two years: PHB3, DMG3, and MM3, and supplements, cover levels 21-30.

This cycle would basically repeat, so the PHB4 would go back to levels 1-10.

Each of those series would include all the races, classes, and whatnot from all three tiers. So whatever's going to be in the real 4e PHB2 would be in the PHB, but only from levels 1-10 (and then it would be in the PHB2 from levels 11-20, and so on).

The case: Covering 30 levels will take most groups about two years (a little more). By staggering these rules by level, you will get the rules at about the same time you need them (by the time your group hits level 10 or so, the rules for level 11 and up should be out). In exchange, you get MORE STUFF in the first few books. You can make more characters, try more races, use more classes, have a bigger variety of monsters at each teir, have more magic items to choose from....you also effectively build more anticipation for those higher levels, and, while you wouldn't be able to plan out one character for 30 levels right away, you would have a lot of different characters that you could try out.

You could also have appropriate rules for the tier involved so, for instance, the PHB1 might give you rules for playing "everyday" characters alongside hereos, while the PHB2 might give you rules for ruling kingdoms, and the PHB3 would give you rules for plane-hopping and the like.

That's why I'm dubbing this the "Functional Support Model." It serves the function of directly supporting what you are playing at the moment the book comes out. You are supposed to grow with the game.

This is kind of like the old Basic/Intermediate/Expert/etc. model.

Would you prefer this to 4e's current method of parsing out the core? Or would it frustrate you not to have all the levels right there in the core book, knowing that you'd be giving up variety for it?

Note that this isn't measured against some theoretically ideal method that you would prefer to both of them: it's one or the other. Which one?

I like the current model since while you do need the First Corebooks, you don't need any of the future ones if you wish to continue playing. As such the future corebooks are only if you want said thing and by having it divided by Power Source for the PHBs it means that you can decide, "okay... This book has only Power Sources I won't use" = Most Likely not Buy, or, "This book has Power Sources I will use" = More Likely will Buy.

I like the current model since while you do need the First Corebooks, you don't need any of the future ones if you wish to continue playing.

Click to expand...

This is also true of the other model, though. You just continue playing within fewer levels (and if you ever want to burst out, you can). Slower advancement or just re-starting more often might let you do that.

"okay... This book has only Power Sources I won't use" = Most Likely not Buy, or, "This book has Power Sources I will use" = More Likely will Buy.

Click to expand...

That's true, the current 4e model does let you determine that. But there are obviously things that aren't tied explicitly to a given power source that are still delayed (Frost Giants, Half-Orcs, whatever), so I don't think future MMs/DMGs/PHs will be exclusively organized by power source...

Kamikaze Midget said:

This is also true of the other model, though. You just continue playing within fewer levels (and if you ever want to burst out, you can). Slower advancement or just re-starting more often might let you do that.

That's true, the current 4e model does let you determine that. But there are obviously things that aren't tied explicitly to a given power source that are still delayed (Frost Giants, Half-Orcs, whatever), so I don't think future MMs/DMGs/PHs will be exclusively organized by power source...

Click to expand...

Yes, but what if you wanted to play from 1-30 and the first corebooks were good enough for you. By having it divided it would mean you would need to buy 2 other books (if not more if the MM is also divided).

While future MMs and DMGs won't (there is no need to). Future PHBs besides for items and races will be mainly oriented towards the Classes, soo... If your fine with the classes you have and the races simply aren't worth it then. Don't need too.

Plus if you have DDI can just pick up those few things from the PHB in the Compendium.

Personally, I would not like that support system. What happens if I get to Level 10 and the new books weren't out yet? We've been playing six weeks and are half way to level 5 already; if wasn't for a missing DM over the last two weeks, we'd be pretty close to Level 6 (if not there already). We'd get to Level 10 quicker than the hypothetical release date of the books. And Breadth isn't an issue for me; between the core rulebooks, the few supplements already released, and Dragon, I'm already overwhelmed with options and character concepts that I'll never get to play.

Also, I think this model would be economic suicide in the modern marketplace. Not only would their be a huge lag for the most dedicated subset of the players (leading to the erosion of the player base), they're also the ones who would be more likely to play the higher tiers. The point is, they're a subset, smaller than the gamer populace as a whole, which means WoTC would experience the law of diminshing economic returns as they published more expensive books that covered higher tiers, because smaller and smaller audiences would be serviced by them (and then there's the entire eroding player base thing).

It's nice to have full disclosure on what you're playing so you can make informed choices. Classes and such can change over levels, so not having much look ahead ability could be a big problem. Imagine the reactions of people if they never saw paragon or Epic feats before hitting level 11. "I need an ability score of WHAT to use the feat for my class/weapon/whatever."

Also, not having rules for high levels early on is likely to lead to problems later. A system that works pretty well at 1-10 might not work so well later on. So trying to scale up an entire rules system without a whole lot of work beforehand might be a terrible idea. It seems like you're to walk into the 'breaks at level X' problem.


I think it's going be easier to add new classes that work reasonably well than it is to basically extend the game. Prior epic level/high level campaign rules expansions have generally seemed rather incoherent since they're trying to build off a foundation not made to support it. On the other hand, establishing what a class is like is going to make it easier to add new classes - until you run out of ideas for classes anyway. Past supplements indicate that that problem isn't likely to occur for a while.

I want a complete game. It's not so hard to do... Every RPG out there except D&D has been able to do it

That's why I love the RC and Labyrinth Lord... Everything you'll ever need to play is in just one book

Fluff books and modules are great expansions, and there's always room for another monster book if it has enough ecology and society information, but I can't really feel comfortable playing or running a game which isn't "complete".

That's why I didn't buy my 3.5 core books until 4e was released. At last I could have a complete system without more rules changes, feats, classes, etc popping up.

I need tacos Sadly 4E offered a burger and fries.

Fallen Seraph said:

Yes, but what if you wanted to play from 1-30 and the first corebooks were good enough for you. By having it divided it would mean you would need to buy 2 other books (if not more if the MM is also divided).

Click to expand...

Yes, just like people who want to play with both psionics and frost giants will have to buy two other books (if not more).

People who are happy with the core and people who will buy everything anyway are kind of a wash, here.

The question isn't which is more complete, really. The question is: "In the first year of the game, would you rather play with half-orcs and frost giants and ninjas and psionics and druids, or would you rather play with epic-level fighters and warlords and halflings?"

4e's method supports a narrow range of options at high levels, the other model supports a wide range of options at low levels.

There is something to be said for the idea that most people might not WANT those options.

Shroomy said:

What happens if I get to Level 10 and the new books weren't out yet?

Click to expand...

Same thing that happens if you're bored of all the PHB races and the new books aren't out yet, I'd imagine.

Shroomy said:

The point is, they're a subset, smaller than the gamer populace as a whole, which means WoTC would experience the law of diminshing economic returns as they published more expensive books that covered higher tiers, because smaller and smaller audiences would be serviced by them (and then there's the entire eroding player base thing).

Click to expand...

You could say that by cutting out options, the more "hardcore" players are turned off, too, so that's kind of a wash.

Betote said:

I want a complete game. It's not so hard to do... Every RPG out there except D&D has been able to do it

Click to expand...

Not really. GURPS -> supplements with new rules. HERO -> supplements with new rules. White Wolf is like the king of splat books.