D&D 5E L&L - D&D Next Goals, Part One

[FireLance]

Edit: Apparently the ability to award XP has now vanished completely. I swear it was still there last time I looked, and I know I've received XP since the site was rebuilt...

It's still there. Click on the star to the right of "Blog this Post". (At least, that's how it shows up on my screen).

 

[DM Howard]

I wonder if they'll seriously consider a 1-book solution for their Core product like many other RPGs do.

I agree, but I don't want the 1-book solution to equal Pathfinder's core rulebook. That monster is ridiculous and I never wanted to take it to game nights because it's so huge. I'd much prefer something along the lines of Castles and Crusades Player's Handbook, it's about 142 pages. I don't think a core book should be any bigger than about 200.

 

[Sunseeker]

Hey, it worked for B/X and BECM for about ten years.

And it IS a guess at this time. For all we know, with the base game we *might* have have AD&D's line-up (wasn't one of their previous goals having 'all PHB races/classes available from the beginning?)

So then, it's not "D&D the game" it's "D&D the beginner set"...which is a partial game. Which would make their statement of it being a "complete game" total hooey.

 

[Stormonu]

So then, it's not "D&D the game" it's "D&D the beginner set"...which is a partial game. Which would make their statement of it being a "complete game" total hooey.

Excuse me? BECM went to 36th, plus covered "Immortal" play.

 

[Sunseeker]

Excuse me? BECM went to 36th, plus covered "Immortal" play.

Then, BECMI is not an accurate comparison to the proposed product.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Then, BECMI is not an accurate comparison to the proposed product.

I think that might depend on how you define "a complete game." I know I'd want a lot of mechanical detail and nuance, but I really doubt the proposed product ("Dungeons and Dragons") will give a lot of that. It wouldn't feel "complete" to me, but it could still be a complete game. As always, play what you like

 

[GX.Sigma]

So then, it's not "D&D the game" it's "D&D the beginner set"...which is a partial game. Which would make their statement of it being a "complete game" total hooey.

The 1e core books were a partial game (for one, the wandering monster tables in the DMG reference a monster that isn't in the MM, and Gary comments that you should probably buy the module it appears in).

The 2e core books were a partial game (the "Monstrous Compendium, Volume One" was the first clue).

The 4e core books were a partial game (this one requires no explanation).

My point is, you can make a complete game that is only a small part of the entirety of the brand.

 

[Sunseeker]

The 1e core books were a partial game (for one, the wandering monster tables in the DMG reference a monster that isn't in the MM, and Gary comments that you should probably buy the module it appears in).

The 2e core books were a partial game (the "Monstrous Compendium, Volume One" was the first clue).

The 4e core books were a partial game (this one requires no explanation).

My point is, you can make a complete game that is only a small part of the entirety of the brand.

The "core books" of any edition are considered "core" for a reason, because they contain enough information to play a complete game, everything after them is supplemental.

Which is my point, the "Red Box" has traditionally not been a complete product. I mean if we're going to set a new standard for the "Red Box" to include well, at least everything you can traditionally find in the PHB, DMG and MM, then yeah, that's gonna get you a complete product.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The "core books" of any edition are considered "core" for a reason, because they contain enough information to play a complete game, everything after them is supplemental.

So doesn't "core" necessarily mean "incomplete?"

 

[the Jester]

So doesn't "core" necessarily mean "incomplete?"

It sure shouldn't.