D&D 5E D&D Next: The Toolbox Edition (What's not to like?)

[Minigiant]

Ahem.

"We're playing basic. No modules except for mass combat"
"Aw. I wanted to be a elf ranger."
"There are elves and rangers in basic."
"But basic rangers are boring as heck. All basic martial characters are. I had my heart set on..."


Of course, compromise between DMs and players would have to happen. But "Mo' options. Mo' problems." Modules is potentially before the game starts sad face creator like forgetting the snacks.

 

[Frostmarrow]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

If writers force themselves not to do this (explaining the build) and instead write around such issues something pretty interesting might come out. If the writers instead of explaining that the hexcrawl rules of product X will be enforced and instead write the adventures so that the hexcrawl rules of product X can apply to the general description, if one choses to do so, but otherwise the general description stands as is.

Thinking of which; if the rules are designed in such a way that the rules burden becomes a player burden and the DM burden is words only, adventures can be written without any rule support at all. This is just an idea that I haven't thought through yet. But bear with me, example follows:

DM: You enter a room and see an orc standing in the middle of it.
Player1: Do I detect anything edible? I succeed in detecting.
Player2: Do I move first? I succeed in initiative.
Player3: I stumble and fall. (I failed my spider climb).
DM: You see a pie in the room. P2 you are free to act first.

As you can see the DM just adjudicates what happens based on what the players put in. The DM is above DCs and such and is only interested in hearing if the players think they succeed or not. By dumping the rules bit on the players each player can add any amount of rules to their own plate since anything you do will amount to a either a success or a failure, which the DM is free to make of what he wishes.

This must be the most interesting D&D thought I've had for weeks. I'll mull it over. Please feel free to add your own.

 

[Stoat]

IMO, the most important line in the OP is "if they do pull this off." I hope they do, but I don't think they can.

I think the goal of (1) producing multiple rules modules which work well enough together to be used at the same table while (2) simultaneously making each of the three big factions in the editions wars happy is somewhere between unattainable and impossible.

I'm also interested in the sales model that WotC winds up using. If I want to play a game with AEDU fighters, Vancian wizards, Warforged as a PC option and domain management rules, how many modules will I have to buy and how much will each one cost?

What modules will be available when the new edition launches?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Again, what's not to like? I know it might be a big "if," but if they do pull this off it really has something for everyone.

If they can pull it off, I thoroughly agree. My concern is that eventually, they may have to make choices about what the 'baseline' is or what to include as the initial modules, and from the designers' statements and records, I fear that (with the exception of gridless combat) they're likely to opt for elements I don't like over those I do. Or to put it another way, if the ship starts to sink, the stuff I prefer seems like it'll be some of the first stuff tossed overboard to lighten the load.

But, that could just be undue negativity and skepticism. I do wish they'd produce something solid instead of all these vague hints and contextless polls, though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The most important part is the "D&D Fantasy"--and thus not reaching to far from that. That doesn't mean that you automatically couldn't do a bang up Gamma World or some such with such a game, but those would be gravy. If the design starts trying too hard to cover other genres, it runs a real risk of hitting GURPS or Hero System complexity. At that point, I'm out--If want that level of detail, GURPS and Hero already do that better.

As just one example, I don't think modular should include an option to not use classes and levels. After that, where to draw the lines gets trickier. That's why picking those lines is so important. The hollaring about "doesn't need to do X" is not so much worry about too much complexity--directly, as it is insufficient appreciation for the full range of the D&D genre.

 

[dkyle]

The big "if" is exactly what I don't like. My concern is that they'll think that it's enough to create a bunch of rules modules, to cater to everyone, but fail at the tremendous task they're creating for themselves of balancing the rules. Those modules mean that they could effectively be releasing dozens of rulesets. They have enough trouble with 4E balance, and that's a single, fairly coherent system, designed from the start with balance as a primary goal.

Ultimately, I don't buy RPGs for mere game mechanics. Game mechanics are easy to invent, borrow and piece together. The hard part is balance, and producing combinations of rules that work well. That's what I want from professional game designers, and I fear that they'll think they can get away with pawning the hard part of the job off on the DM.

 

[Khaalis]

"Contaminate the purity" = Great way to marginalize a legitimate viewpoint.

It doesn't marginalize anything. It is simply my "opinion" on he way certain people have expressed their opinions. How you read that viewpoint.... I can't control.

How about, we grognards don't want to physically schlep around hardcover books full of stuff we won't bother using?

A baseline game that fits into one book (especially if that book can be digest-sized and paperback -- those are really portable!) is all I could ever ask for. Is that so criminal?

That is your personal preference and more power to you, but what the majority of people know as D&D has always been multiple books, and mostly hardbound. So if you want 1 all-inclusive paperback digest book for a game... good luck ever seeing it in D&D.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]

I appreciate their goal and hope they succeed.

But I remain uncertain of how they will achieve it. While the blogs sound like the vision is strong and folks have enjoyed playtesting, the L&L articles have been very poor IMO (with even worse polls). That L&L by Monte Cook about high-level play was embarrassing.

One of my players recently asked me what I though of 5e. I'm optimistic, but I'm taking a "wait and see" approach. If they do a truly open playtest then I'll try it out. If not then I'll wait till 5e is released and listen to how it's being received.

 

[Andor]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

I think we already have the perfect model for how to do this and it is (Gasp!) 4e.

The basic encounter writeup simply lists the monsters stats and abilities in terms of power effects. Knowledge of modules is not needed unless they were dumb enough to make a module with a unique resolution mechanic.

The adventure's appendix then has a toolbox section that tells you what modules were used to construct the monster and how so the GM can deconstruct and rebuild them if they want to.

But when the dice are hitting the table it doesn't matter that the orc is using the 'hand is quicker than the eye' feat to allow him to use his dex mode to disarm with the fencing module and he's getting a +1 from a bell guard on his rapier. All that matters is "Alternate attack +7 to hit 1d4 damage and DC 16 str or dex save or be disarmed."

 

[Harlekin]

Two issues:

A modular game is inherently more complex than the equivalent game with the modules "baked in". There will always be some rough edges where the modules meet.

The more modular the game, the more thinly the support needs to be spread. Given that WotC versions of D&D have practically required large amounts of support, that could be a real problem. Is it really better to have a game that can be customised in 500 improperly supported ways, rather than a monolithic game that actually gets the support it needs?

The modular approach is an interesting one. If they pull it off, it will be extremely impressive. But it is not without its flaws.

I think this is the key argument. What most here apparently would like to see is their favorite edition with some incremental improvements. The fear is that the inherent weakness of the modular approach will outweigh any improvement they may manage.

It seems quite likely that I will look at the finished product with all modules and say "Not bad, it almost does what I want as well as 4ed". And then go back to playing 4ed. And I expect most fans of every other edition to do the same.