D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Tony Vargas]

On that note, I am brought back to a piece of negativity that I have toward 5E. I understand the idea of a modular game. (At least I think so; I've admitted elsewhere that maybe my understanding of the word is different than how they mean it.) The core actually does seem like a fun game, but certain elements give me an idea that the core will turn out to lean toward a certain style.

Nod. A truely modular game will have a fairly generic core (a la GURPS, for the most extreme example).

So, in short:

I think the core of the game should give a coherent relationship to fluff and crunch.

That strikes me as at odds with being 'modular.' At least, the best-done modular games I've seen get built around generic/flexible core mechanics, rather than a 'flavorful' core.

I think WoTC needs to learn how to communicate with their fanbase better.

Heh.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I once built (or, rather, tried to build) a scenario around Bob Dylan's "Isis" - I was particularly taken by the image of the pyramids embedded in an ice, and of a body that they're trying to find.

I once ran a very successful for d20 Modern 1-shot based on Garth Brook's The Beaches of Cheyenne

 

[jrowland]

So, in short:

I think the core of the game should give a coherent relationship to fluff and crunch.

I think WoTC needs to learn how to communicate with their fanbase better.

This is the endless thread that keeps changing focus...I love it, lol!

I once argued back in the days when 3e was released that fluff-cunch are not mutually exclusive, but rather they "inform" each other. Crazy Jerome mentioned a door: If the fluff says its is a strong door, the mechanics should reflect that. It works the other way too. If the mechanics make opening the door tough, it should be described as such. The Hit Point arguments often vacillate between fluff-crunch for this very reason. Neither point to each other in a satisfactory way.

I've always leaned towards Fluff being "dominant" in this tango. That is, start with the fluff, it should lead to the design of the mechanics. I like 4E, but I think it is a case of mechanics leading fluff, that is, the mechanics came first and the fluff is added later (I would add it relatively easier to re-fluff than re-crunch, and so 4E is ok if you do a lot of fluff "re-skinning", as most fans of 4E will tell you).

1E era stuff was fluff first. Gygax and gamers alike wanted a game to re-live the adventures of the likes of Frodo, the Grey Mouser, Conan, etc. The mechanics were attempts to make that happen...

I want to digress a bit here about simulationalism vs gamism here. It might be tempting to associate mechanics-first with gamism and fluff-first with simulationalism, but I think that would be wrong. 1E wasn't try to be "realistic" in the simulationist sense so much as it was trying to re-create those "unrealistic" fantasy stories. You can't simulate a fireball being cast by awizard, since the whole concept of fireball casting wizards is made-up. Gygax in AD&D did try some simulationism with melee combat, but his approach is more like the assumptions of wargames (statistics) rather than personal combat (discrete datum).

So I agree there needs to be a balance between fluff n crunch, but I think the "style" you are referring to is more aligned with the notion of fluff-first or mechanics-first.

 

[Argyle King]

Nod. A truely modular game will have a fairly generic core (a la GURPS, for the most extreme example).

That strikes me as at odds with being 'modular.' At least, the best-done modular games I've seen get built around generic/flexible core mechanics, rather than a 'flavorful' core.

Heh.

True, but 5E isn't attempting to be modular in the same sense that Hero System, GURPS, and similar games are. It is attempting to be modular within the genres and styles which comprise the D&D experience. I'll once again say that is why I pointed to the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line. The idea behind that line is to boil down a modular system into the components needed to run a game containing many of the familiar dungeon crawling tropes -many of those tropes being ones which D&D had a hand in inventing. Yet, that product still manages to be modular; even the way it is sold is modular.

5E has the task of being modular while still being D&D. My understanding of that design goal is that it would mean -as I said- giving me the ability to have a game which can stretch to acomodate the handful of styles which D&D has embodied over the lifestyle of the game while. Part of doing that is having a solid kernel inside around which to build the core D&D identity. As such, my belief is that the core should have a solid foundation which is build toward a certain identity, but is still loose enough to allow some stretching.

The interesting thing about D&D is that it has different settings. As such, it is possible to have a few distinct cores which are slightly different, but still modular and still able to be mixed & matched. That may even be the best way to introduce some modular elements. Forgotten Realms could be the 'generic' default world in which the base settings of the system are placed. The index and/or sidebars might list some of the most common switches and dials and explain how they might change certain elements of the game and how the setting works.

Other settings could be used as the vehicles for the other options. For a quick and arbitrary example, Dark Sun might be used to introduce grim and gritty options and Birthright could be used to introduce mass combat with sidebars that discus how those options can be fit into other settings. The sidebars would be similar to how 3rd Edition's MM3 had sidebars to give some of the new creatures a place in settings which did not yet have one for them. I feel those sidebars and discussions were well done.

 

[Balesir]

I sincerely hope that rules that clearly apply to many/most settings - like mass combat and domain rulership, for example - are not tied into specific settings. Having to get the new Birthright to get mass combat would just be a sour taste (even though I love the setting and would love to have mass combat rules).

The rules tied to the setting should, I think, be more things that define the setting as distinct from other settings. Bloodlines in BR. Factions and the power of belief in Planescape. And those things should absolutely have mechanical effects - otherwise they are simply not "real" in the setting!

"Grim and gritty" should likewise not be tied to a setting, IMO. Preferably, for me, it would be in a separate book, because to do G&G well I think you would need to change the basic D&D systems (hit points, levels, classes) so much that you might as well cut the crap and call it a different system.

Sidebars (or whatever) explaining how the mechanical elements - either new, existing or core - 'fit' into each setting is a good idea. More explanation of how such things work in general would be helpful, too, I think. In the past there seems to be an imperative of "if the explanation isn't simple, don't explain it at all", which is just about the worst of all worlds!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I once argued back in the days when 3e was released that fluff-cunch are not mutually exclusive, but rather they "inform" each other. Crazy Jerome mentioned a door: If the fluff says its is a strong door, the mechanics should reflect that. It works the other way too. If the mechanics make opening the door tough, it should be described as such. The Hit Point arguments often vacillate between fluff-crunch for this very reason. Neither point to each other in a satisfactory way.

I've always leaned towards Fluff being "dominant" in this tango. That is, start with the fluff, it should lead to the design of the mechanics. I like 4E, but I think it is a case of mechanics leading fluff, that is, the mechanics came first and the fluff is added later (I would add it relatively easier to re-fluff than re-crunch, and so 4E is ok if you do a lot of fluff "re-skinning", as most fans of 4E will tell you).

This is not my impression except of a tiny subset of 4e. Most 4e appears to be crunch written to match fluff as closely as possible - and then they hand you the crunch. Reskins are something to be done with care but there is more than oen way to do things.

 

[Aenghus]

There are a number of reasons I prefer mechanics to have primacy over fluff text. I prefer the flavour of mechanics to be mutable, IMO it makes a game far more flexible. Mechanics are or should be better defined than descriptive text and produce less disagreements as to intention and implementation at creation or in a game session. Flavour text often disagrees with mechanics, being a little off or even completely out of whack, (and this bugs me intensely, I prefer games to be coherent). The more weight is assigned to flavour text over mechanics the weirder the game gets, as mechanics are houseruled or ignored to jury rig mechanics to fit the flavour text.

Fundamentally I think flavour text tends to be so subjective, so easy to read in multiple different ways, that basing adjudication on it is going to constantly wrong-foot players who see things differently to the DM, which can lead to a sucky game experience (this certainly has happened to me).

I think the rules, mechanics and descriptive text, should be an aid to clear communication within a group, not an obstacle to be overcome or avoided.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E has the task of being modular while still being D&D.

And the task of bringing together all past fans in one big happy revenue stream. And the task of catering two traditional and modern concepts of the classes while keeping them all balanced. And the task of catering to a broad range of play-styles, even though that term has barely been defined. And...

In short, if they pull it off, Hasbro should really spring for dinner at Milliways for the whole design staff.

 

[timASW]

As of now I'm feeling pretty positive about 5e from what I've seen.... But that being said it wont be the one true edition for me unless they dont add a shred more complexity then exists right now.

When they said "modular" I had hope. What I want is a game to replace my other multiple games. By that I mean

I play WoD when i want gritty, story driven games with simple mechanics,
I play spycraft when I want modern action games
I play dark heresy when i want sci-fi.
I play true 20 when i want, well pretty much any kind of fantasy.

And I play pathfinder when I cant convince new players who want fantasy to give true 20 a shot.

This is a problem. My current, core group is really open to changing genres and story types which is cool. But most arent hard core gamers who know lots of different systems. So whenever I want to change I either need to teach people a brand new system or find a new game with people who know that system.

What I would love from "modular" D&D is the ability to play any of these styles with the same basic, core rules. Similar to 3e and D20 modern before, but obviously better done.

That way I'm not teaching a new game, I'm saying "we're playing D&D with the gritty horror module, or D&D with the space adventure module".

And at the moment it doesnt look like thats the plan at all. So even though I feel pretty positive about what I've seen as a game I simply dont need it. I already have 2 fantasy games that fill that niche. One simple and one complex.

So why would i need to drop a couple hundred bucks on new books?

And thats why it wont be able to unite ME as part of their base. I suspect i'm not the only one who was hoping for that sort of modularity.

 

[Hussar]

I play WoD when i want gritty, story driven games with simple mechanics,

See, I think this is where it becomes so problematic to create a "unifying" game. People seem to have really, REALLY different definitions of what they want. "Gritty" and "simple mechanics" are not a couple of phrases I'd associate with WoD. WoD is a pretty rules heavy system and IME, isn't gritty at all. It's far closer to super heroes in black trenchcoats. Blade and Underworld type RPG.

So, how is a game designer supposed to please you? It's like people who claim to want process simulation games and love 3e.