D&D 5E Is 5E "big enough" for a Basic/Advanced split?
Perhaps I was not clear -- I meant an actual publishing split, not just people playing the game differently.
For example, if Darksun does get made, if feels like a line that could use a crunchier, more complex "advanced" treatment of 5E than, say, a return to the Known World (which was sort of teased recently).
For example, if Darksun does get made, if feels like a line that could use a crunchier, more complex "advanced" treatment of 5E than, say, a return to the Known World (which was sort of teased recently).
I have never seen anyone running the game on the Basic rules alone. Is that a thing people actually do?
balthanon
Explorer
I suspect this depends drastically on the current average player and their expectations. It's been a (long) while since I played D&D at this point, but I checked in on 5E every once in awhile to see if it was worth taking up and it seemed like pretty much all they were putting out was monster supplements, campaign setting books, and adventures. It honestly felt like a barren wasteland compared to 3E when it came to options for players.
Has that changed in the last year or two? I see a couple of supplements that look like they might be player focused, but that's about it. Dungeon Master materials don't really feel like they would merit a split in designation between "Advanced" and "Basic".
Has that changed in the last year or two? I see a couple of supplements that look like they might be player focused, but that's about it. Dungeon Master materials don't really feel like they would merit a split in designation between "Advanced" and "Basic".
Whether 5e is big enough for it, I don't know. Whether WotC will do it, I strongly doubt.
But what I want for 5e more than anything is a WotC book entitled Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide.
It would be nice to have some expanded combat options in such a book—the new "weapon actions" added to Baldur's Gate III are a promising start, and may indeed be intended for eventual addition to the tabletop game—but that's not the main thing I would want.
What I want has two components:
1) additional, optional rules for a whole bunch of specific cases that come up relatively infrequently yet often enough to make an official rule desirable for tables that want that—along the lines of what we have already been given in a highly piecemeal and incomplete form when, for example, the "rules expansion" books give us rules for falling onto water, sleeping in armor, and so on. There are a whole lot of things my players do pretty often that really ought to have some rules, in my opinion. Obvious example: one PC wants to use their action to toss an item to another PC, but that PC is some distance away. Can they successfully do so? 5e offers no guidance.
2) a substantial section on how to set DCs, with many more examples than the DMG provides. Setting DCs for things that players want to do is one of the most frequent tasks that 5e demands of Dungeon Masters, and one of my least favorite things to do when running a game. No matter how much DMing experience I have, it always feels like I'm pulling numbers out of thin air—and that's because the official guidance in the 5e DMG on how to set DCs is essentially to do just that.
Every time I express a desire for a more robust ruleset, folks pop up proclaiming that what I want is contrary to the design philosophy of 5e: "rulings, not rules." And that's probably true. But I'm not looking for a crunchy system like 3.5e, just a more robust version of what 5e already provides. Many DMs feel exactly the opposite, of course, but many others also agree with me that it's more difficult and less enjoyable to constantly come up with new rulings out of nowhere than it is to master a set of preexisting rules for the same situations. And given how 5e presents all additional rules as optional rules, I really don't see the difference between "more rules, fewer rulings" and "more guidance on how you might make different types of rulings."
There are enough of us out there who do want this, that we've made (for example) Level Up a successful commodity. Still, Level Up won't work for me because it changes the rules of 5e, and that won't fly with my group; switching to an entirely different system is even more inconceivable. But that's not what I want anyway; what I want is a product similar to Level Up that limits itself to adding to the 5e ruleset in order to shift at least some of the responsibility off the 5e DM, who, as it stands, must constantly make freewheeling rulings with little to no official guidance to back them up. Official would be preferable; third-party would be fine—but I've never even seen a decent third-party version of what I'm seeking.
But what I want for 5e more than anything is a WotC book entitled Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide.
It would be nice to have some expanded combat options in such a book—the new "weapon actions" added to Baldur's Gate III are a promising start, and may indeed be intended for eventual addition to the tabletop game—but that's not the main thing I would want.
What I want has two components:
1) additional, optional rules for a whole bunch of specific cases that come up relatively infrequently yet often enough to make an official rule desirable for tables that want that—along the lines of what we have already been given in a highly piecemeal and incomplete form when, for example, the "rules expansion" books give us rules for falling onto water, sleeping in armor, and so on. There are a whole lot of things my players do pretty often that really ought to have some rules, in my opinion. Obvious example: one PC wants to use their action to toss an item to another PC, but that PC is some distance away. Can they successfully do so? 5e offers no guidance.
2) a substantial section on how to set DCs, with many more examples than the DMG provides. Setting DCs for things that players want to do is one of the most frequent tasks that 5e demands of Dungeon Masters, and one of my least favorite things to do when running a game. No matter how much DMing experience I have, it always feels like I'm pulling numbers out of thin air—and that's because the official guidance in the 5e DMG on how to set DCs is essentially to do just that.
Every time I express a desire for a more robust ruleset, folks pop up proclaiming that what I want is contrary to the design philosophy of 5e: "rulings, not rules." And that's probably true. But I'm not looking for a crunchy system like 3.5e, just a more robust version of what 5e already provides. Many DMs feel exactly the opposite, of course, but many others also agree with me that it's more difficult and less enjoyable to constantly come up with new rulings out of nowhere than it is to master a set of preexisting rules for the same situations. And given how 5e presents all additional rules as optional rules, I really don't see the difference between "more rules, fewer rulings" and "more guidance on how you might make different types of rulings."
There are enough of us out there who do want this, that we've made (for example) Level Up a successful commodity. Still, Level Up won't work for me because it changes the rules of 5e, and that won't fly with my group; switching to an entirely different system is even more inconceivable. But that's not what I want anyway; what I want is a product similar to Level Up that limits itself to adding to the 5e ruleset in order to shift at least some of the responsibility off the 5e DM, who, as it stands, must constantly make freewheeling rulings with little to no official guidance to back them up. Official would be preferable; third-party would be fine—but I've never even seen a decent third-party version of what I'm seeking.
Last edited:
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
@Reynard
Given your other thread about playing BECMI again, it got me digging out my old Basic D&D book, and wondering what a Basic 5E would look like. I am not thinking 5E as written is Basic and something like LevelUp is making it advanced, I am thinking 5E as written IS the advanced version... so pulling back on RAW is what would make a Basic version.
My group has been working on our 5E mod for months now, making it more akin to AD&D in some ways, but nothing on the scope of what Level Up is doing (we don't really want that much LOL!).
At any rate, I think WotC will only keep piling on more and more, and won't think there is enough of an audience to develop a full Basic "concept" for the game. I am thinking about it more and more for myself, however.
Given your other thread about playing BECMI again, it got me digging out my old Basic D&D book, and wondering what a Basic 5E would look like. I am not thinking 5E as written is Basic and something like LevelUp is making it advanced, I am thinking 5E as written IS the advanced version... so pulling back on RAW is what would make a Basic version.
My group has been working on our 5E mod for months now, making it more akin to AD&D in some ways, but nothing on the scope of what Level Up is doing (we don't really want that much LOL!).
At any rate, I think WotC will only keep piling on more and more, and won't think there is enough of an audience to develop a full Basic "concept" for the game. I am thinking about it more and more for myself, however.
So, I don't expect WotC would find splitting it advantageous to them, if that's what you mean. To WotC, I suspect it would mean supporting two product lines, while reducing overall profit margin on the products, as each takes the same mount of work to produce, but is now targeting a smaller audience. Even if the loss isn't so bad as to be unprofitable, it would likely be less profitable, so... why do it?
I think "advanced" lines are the purview of the 3PP folks at this point.
Composer99
Hero
I think for WotC it would make sense to ensure tables have the ability to play games that are more basic or more advanced all under the same 5e umbrella, so they don't have to produce separate product lines. Between periodic release of new player options in books such as Xanathar's or Tasha's and something like an "Advanced DMG" such as what @jeremypowell has advocated for, I think WotC could easily have "advanced" stream stuff, with the "core triad" PHB/DMG/MM covering more basic games (especially when not using feats or multiclassing), without having to take any risks with different product lines.
Suffice to say I think that leaves 3rd party or homebrew content for genuine "advanced" versions of the game (à la Level Up) or "basic" ones (such as OSR-style hacks of 5e - Into the Unknown for instance).
Suffice to say I think that leaves 3rd party or homebrew content for genuine "advanced" versions of the game (à la Level Up) or "basic" ones (such as OSR-style hacks of 5e - Into the Unknown for instance).
This is my thought. WotC probably could split it into two and both would find an audience, but I think the current approach is probably better for them, so they'll stick with it.
I've run basic only games to introduce new gamers, some of whom went on to get more involved books, which seems like evidence that the current approach is working.
Here's a related question:
I don't play with strangers often, other than when I run convention games (which are usually not D&D, because a con is the one time you can collect 6 people to sit down for something else).
What are the general expectations as far as option availability and/or optional rules inclusion for the average group of random players who found one another on a Discord server or whatever? Do most people come to the table expecting to be allowed to use anything in an official source? Do most DMs of random groups allow everything?
