D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D

[Remathilis]

I apologize for the pedantry, but it is germane to the point. You never played a Basic D&D game with skills. There never was one. The RC is not Basic D&D. It is an entirely complete and complex game. The RC is Classic D&D, but during its publication life there was actually a separate product called Basic D&D, that served as an introduction to the complete game in the RC, and which did not have skills.

Their whole point in this Basic/Standard/Advanced breakdown is if you want the Basic game and skills, you use the Standard game and pare away the rules you don't want to use. (I suspect how it'll actually go is if you buy the Basic product and a DDI account, you can access the Skills Module off of a 5e Rules Compendium.) The Basic game is targeted at people who don't need or want skill mechanics.

This is boarding on pedantry, but he's right.

There were two games TSR put out; Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Since the latter had the "Advanced" moniker, most used the "Basic" name to distinguish it.

The Basic game, as TSR defined it in the RC era was the All New Easy to Master Dungeons & Dragons game, which only dealt with the first five levels of the D&D game. It also lacked proficiencies, weapon mastery, and even ability checks.

 

[Iosue]

none taken, that is orthogonal to the point anyway. My point is, the Basic game cannot allow itself to be extremely rigid, it has to be simple to learn and start, no doubt, and devoid of additional complexity, but it has to be a complete game, that allows to play complete campaigns, be self-contained and result extremely flexible, without having to relly on extra products, in other words the basic game has to be THE D&D, a sefl contained box like that should be capable of being sold along other boardgames like Risk and Monopoly, finding its way back into the mainstream. but if it keeps being a hampered game, a pay-to-preview, it will face the issues the current red box has.

I disagree on a number of points. For one, I'm not sure that a skill system makes a game "complete". Certainly it is nice for those who want it. But there have been plenty of games that operate just fine without them. OD&D, AD&D 1e, B/X and pre-RC BECMI being among them, and particularly relevant.

To that point, the current Red Box's issues are not that it lacks certain elements that people like; it lacks certain elements people need. Like rules for advancement beyond 2nd level. Simple clear rules for making characters.

Playing complete campaigns, yes, the Basic rules need to provide that. Be self-contained, yes. Flexible, yes, alongside other boardgames, yes, I agree with all of that. But I don't even a simplified skills system is necessary for all that. If you're going simple skills system, you might as well just go with the simplest of all: the ability scores.

 

[pemerton]

the Basic game cannot allow itself to be extremely rigid, it has to be simple to learn and start, no doubt, and devoid of additional complexity, but it has to be a complete game, that allows to play complete campaigns, be self-contained and result extremely flexible, without having to relly on extra products

I don't know if you think this rules B/X and AD&D 1st ed in or out as complete games permitting complete campaigns - but neither had a skill system, and both had fighters who were expert at feats of STR and thieves who were expert at feats of DEX (plus Hearing Noise and Finding Traps - moving these from DEX to mental stats is a bit of a hosing of thieves).

 

[Stormonu]

With modern RPGs, I just could not see myself playing without skills, even if it is "roll your ability score or less to do X". I'm not sure how many people might agree with me, but I would look very poorly on a game that didn't have some sort of skill system boiled into it. I think I could even say I wouldn't buy it nowadays.

 

[Li Shenron]

If Basic has to mean "no options", then why not just saying that all Basic PCs must be pregens?

 

[Iosue]

If Basic has to mean "no options", then why not just saying that all Basic PCs must be pregens?

Because no one is saying that Basic has to mean "no options", only that it means a minimum of options. And as Mearls notes in the column, "minimum" is tricky. Now, one reason why you might not go with pregens is because creating one's own character is an essential part of the D&D experience. But there's a lot of ground between pregens and skill-less chargen.

 

[Li Shenron]

Because no one is saying that Basic has to mean "no options"

Apparently someone is saying that, and to those I was responding.

 

[MoonSong]

I disagree on a number of points. For one, I'm not sure that a skill system makes a game "complete". Certainly it is nice for those who want it. But there have been plenty of games that operate just fine without them. OD&D, AD&D 1e, B/X and pre-RC BECMI being among them, and particularly relevant.

To that point, the current Red Box's issues are not that it lacks certain elements that people like; it lacks certain elements people need. Like rules for advancement beyond 2nd level. Simple clear rules for making characters.

Playing complete campaigns, yes, the Basic rules need to provide that. Be self-contained, yes. Flexible, yes, alongside other boardgames, yes, I agree with all of that. But I don't even a simplified skills system is necessary for all that. If you're going simple skills system, you might as well just go with the simplest of all: the ability scores.

I don't know if you think this rules B/X and AD&D 1st ed in or out as complete games permitting complete campaigns - but neither had a skill system, and both had fighters who were expert at feats of STR and thieves who were expert at feats of DEX (plus Hearing Noise and Finding Traps - moving these from DEX to mental stats is a bit of a hosing of thieves).

Yes, I know the skill system isn't a requeriment for completeness, however we know the basic game is going to feature a limited skill system (you get a skill dice to ability checks of a given ability score) but in said limited skill system you are entirely devoid of choice, you are stuck with what is most stereotypical for your class. And that lack of choice artificially reduces the system longevity. Roleplaying can easilly account for what isn't there, but clashes when it is rigidly defined. Either we get no skill system at all, or we get choice.

With modern RPGs, I just could not see myself playing without skills, even if it is "roll your ability score or less to do X". I'm not sure how many people might agree with me, but I would look very poorly on a game that didn't have some sort of skill system boiled into it. I think I could even say I wouldn't buy it nowadays.

I feel som,ething similar, but I could be convinced otherwise if it is over all good and provide other means of pc differrentiation.

 

[Ratskinner]

If Basic has to mean "no options", then why not just saying that all Basic PCs must be pregens?

Because no one is saying that Basic has to mean "no options", only that it means a minimum of options. And as Mearls notes in the column, "minimum" is tricky. Now, one reason why you might not go with pregens is because creating one's own character is an essential part of the D&D experience. But there's a lot of ground between pregens and skill-less chargen.

I was sorta saying that, I think. Although, I don't see "choose between 20-30 pregens" as "no options" especially since the critical part of varying play experiences will be what happens during the adventures.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, I know the skill system isn't a requeriment for completeness, however we know the basic game is going to feature a limited skill system (you get a skill dice to ability checks of a given ability score) but in said limited skill system you are entirely devoid of choice, you are stuck with what is most stereotypical for your class. And that lack of choice artificially reduces the system longevity. Roleplaying can easilly account for what isn't there, but clashes when it is rigidly defined. Either we get no skill system at all, or we get choice.



I feel som,ething similar, but I could be convinced otherwise if it is over all good and provide other means of pc differrentiation.

I think what they are doing though is just having it that way for what will amount to basic D&D with the assumption that a more complex version of the game with thorough skills will be the more widely used version (that is at least my impression from what I am gathering). They need the core to be simple both to have a solid foundation to build on but also to have something that can appeal to new players and and fans of the basic game.