D&D 5E Could the next book be Advanced D&D?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

AD&D is more "advanced" in terms of trying to construct a complete world. Monsters had ecologies, favored terrains, and social organizations instead of just combat stats, for example; there were rules for spell research; there were rules for sprinting faster than a jog; there were rules for diplomacy and negotiaon (reaction rolls); and a number of other advanced scenarios and rules which aren't strictly necessary to run a simple dungeon crawl.

5E often feels like a shallow copy of AD&D. There are enough similarities to be recognizable, but there aren't as many game structures because 5E relies a lot of DM handwaving. That's not necessarily a big deal because I can always just create my own rules, but I don't buy the idea that 5E is at all "advanced" in terms of game mechanics. It might be bloated with content, but it's not mechanically deep.

It sure would be interesting to have a WotC-supported game structure for something other than dungeon crawling. For example, politicking. You can create your own game structure[1] whereby the players "win" some scenarios by undermining or embarrassing a given enemy whom they're not allowed to simply murder (for legal reasons or otherwise), but you're on your own if you do so, and your subsystem is unlikely to interact well with content created by anyone else. If on the other hand WotC had some published rules module about the effects of "reputation points" and the gaining or undermining thereof, you'd be more likely to see backgrounds/magic items/spells/adventures that interact somehow with the PCs' reputation points, and maybe the Internet metagame would start optimizing for something other than DPR.

[1] Here's a really, really quick version: reputation exists within a certain context which we'll call a peer group. Everyone in the peer group knows the reputation of everyone else in the Peer Group. A minor embarrassment (by the standards of that peer group) such as not getting invited to a party costs you 5 reputation (within that peer group), while a minor victory (getting a famous celebrity to attend) earns you 5 reputation. A major embarrassment (clothes catching on fire at a party) could cost up to half your reputation, while a major victory (saving the city) could double it. (DM's discretion here as to magnitude.) The only mechanical effects of reputation are that you can give it away to someone with less reputation, you can spend it to "attack" the reputation of someone who has less than you do (degrading both equally on a 1:1 basis), and everyone knows how much reputation everyone has. The additional roleplaying consequence is that people who want reputation within a certain peer group are likely to cooperate with those with high reputation, who therefore have the power to enhance or destroy other people's reputations. Toadies and flunkies, in-groups, out-groups, etc., all emerge naturally from this simple set of rules.

You can participate in multiple peer groups and have different reputations within each. I might have loads of street cred (Reputation: 500 among the Waterdeep Toughs) but be virtually unknown amongst the nobility (Reputation: 5 for once attending a certain party) and yet be hated and feared by chromatic dragons (Reputation: 200 for killing three dragons). Note that Reputation doesn't have to mean that people like you (the dragons hate me), but if I want to spend my credibility mocking a certain chromatic dragon he has to respond (likely by trying to kill me) or be shamed among his peers. A regular peasant wouldn't have that kind of leverage.

Did you ever see the campaign rules for superhero RPG Golden Heroes? They could be adapted. Things like public standing, etc based on your actions and have real consequences for the character. Hmm. I sense a project.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Did you ever see the campaign rules for superhero RPG Golden Heroes? They could be adapted. Things like public standing, etc based on your actions and have real consequences for the character. Hmm. I sense a project.

No, I never saw those, but I have played GURPS in the past so I'm somewhat familiar with reputation-based systems and games that revolve around something other than combat. If you have any insights to share which you gained from Golden Heroes, I've created a thread for discussing this topic: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?484570-Reputation-and-social-achievements

 

[Imaro]

AD&D is more "advanced" in terms of trying to construct a complete world. Monsters had ecologies, favored terrains, and social organizations instead of just combat stats, for example; there were rules for spell research; there were rules for sprinting faster than a jog; there were rules for diplomacy and negotiaon (reaction rolls); and a number of other advanced scenarios and rules which aren't strictly necessary to run a simple dungeon crawl.

5E often feels like a shallow copy of AD&D. There are enough similarities to be recognizable, but there aren't as many game structures because 5E relies a lot of DM handwaving. That's not necessarily a big deal because I can always just create my own rules, but I don't buy the idea that 5E is at all "advanced" in terms of game mechanics. It might be bloated with content, but it's not mechanically deep.

It sure would be interesting to have a WotC-supported game structure for something other than dungeon crawling. For example, politicking. You can create your own game structure[1] whereby the players "win" some scenarios by undermining or embarrassing a given enemy whom they're not allowed to simply murder (for legal reasons or otherwise), but you're on your own if you do so, and your subsystem is unlikely to interact well with content created by anyone else. If on the other hand WotC had some published rules module about the effects of "reputation points" and the gaining or undermining thereof, you'd be more likely to see backgrounds/magic items/spells/adventures that interact somehow with the PCs' reputation points, and maybe the Internet metagame would start optimizing for something other than DPR.

[1] Here's a really, really quick version: reputation exists within a certain context which we'll call a peer group. Everyone in the peer group knows the reputation of everyone else in the Peer Group. A minor embarrassment (by the standards of that peer group) such as not getting invited to a party costs you 5 reputation (within that peer group), while a minor victory (getting a famous celebrity to attend) earns you 5 reputation. A major embarrassment (clothes catching on fire at a party) could cost up to half your reputation, while a major victory (saving the city) could double it. (DM's discretion here as to magnitude.) The only mechanical effects of reputation are that you can give it away to someone with less reputation, you can spend it to "attack" the reputation of someone who has less than you do (degrading both equally on a 1:1 basis), and everyone knows how much reputation everyone has. The additional roleplaying consequence is that people who want reputation within a certain peer group are likely to cooperate with those with high reputation, who therefore have the power to enhance or destroy other people's reputations. Toadies and flunkies, in-groups, out-groups, etc., all emerge naturally from this simple set of rules.

You can participate in multiple peer groups and have different reputations within each. I might have loads of street cred (Reputation: 500 among the Waterdeep Toughs) but be virtually unknown amongst the nobility (Reputation: 5 for once attending a certain party) and yet be hated and feared by chromatic dragons (Reputation: 200 for killing three dragons). Note that Reputation doesn't have to mean that people like you (the dragons hate me), but if I want to spend my credibility mocking a certain chromatic dragon he has to respond (likely by trying to kill me) or be shamed among his peers. A regular peasant wouldn't have that kind of leverage.

Isn't this just Renown from the 5e DMG... renamed Reputation? Or was this some kind of sarcasm/commentary and I just didn't get it?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Isn't this just Renown from the 5e DMG... renamed Reputation? Or was this some kind of sarcasm/commentary and I just didn't get it?

I don't think so. I'm AFB but what I remember of Renown from the DMG is that it's related (I believe it is contextual) but less specific. In particular, I don't remember anything in the DMG that creates an actual game structure around reputation the way I've tried to do above by outlining the three mechanical effects of Reputation.

 

[Jabborwacky]

What I'd be excited about really depends on whether we're talking about organized play or home play. My experience in organized play tells me that players in that environment need something more substantial to protect their character's personal stories against subtle, yet brutal DM fiat. Outside of organized play, I'd pretty much want what everyone else would want out of the book--and official called-shot mechanics, because I can't be the only one who has seen players want to do shots to the groin or face.

 

[cmad1977]

Could be! Could be Warrens and Bunny Rabbits.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Imaro]

I don't think so. I'm AFB but what I remember of Renown from the DMG is that it's related (I believe it is contextual) but less specific. In particular, I don't remember anything in the DMG that creates an actual game structure around reputation the way I've tried to do above by outlining the three mechanical effects of Reputation.

Well the mechanics around renown aren't as specific or as granular as yours (understandably so since they are designed more for the DM to use as a baseline and tweak for his particular vision) but they include rank... attitudes of organization members, perks, and rules for increasing renown during downtime. I mean I understand if you're not keen on the particulars but it is pretty adaptable and, at least IMO, very similar at a more high/generic level to the rules you've posted. All that said... I don't think it's correct to claim 5e doesn't have a system like this when it fact it does, even if said system isn't granular or specific enough for your tastes. It's like claiming because 5e doesn't have a way to allocate individual skill points... it doesn't have a skill system.

 

[Sunseeker]

Magic 8 ball says: Don't count on it.

 

[ccs]

What I'd be excited about really depends on whether we're talking about organized play or home play. My experience in organized play tells me that players in that environment need something more substantial to protect their character's personal stories against subtle, yet brutal DM fiat.

Stuff designed explicitly for Organized Play is the LAST thing that should ever be published in a general book.
If there's some problem within the OP environment? Then it should be adressed there.

 

[JohnnyNitro]

In regards to an expanded Weapon/Armor list, imagine that each entry is simply the default for that type weapon/armor. For example, under Shields we might find: Buckler and Full-Shield. Under Dagger we might find Stiletto, Dirk, and Sai. Now I know they recommend reflavoring the Weapon List to mirror/mimic Asian weapons, but it's a poor substitute in my opinion...