D&D 5E Is 5E "big enough" for a Basic/Advanced split?

[billd91]

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?

It's a mix. I usually listen to what the GM has to say about what's appropriate and follow that more strictly than I would with friends or a face-to-face game where some negotiation and sharing of resources might be possible.
But there are some players out there who really don't take no for an answer and will constantly hector you with what they want. They are best booted.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No.

The game as it exists is, from every indication I've ever seen, far too complex for people who want a "basic" edition, with all sorts of hyper-reduction efforts being quite frequently discussed. But it's also far too simple for people who want an "advanced" edition, hence why we see things like Level Up and the lion's share of homebrew classes.

The problem is that both sides that want a split of this nature don't see what they want in the current game and want the existing thing to be offered as the alternative to the thing they currently want.

5e's greatest strength is its ability to accommodate multiple playstyles at the same table

I really wish this were more true in practice. I find it extremely difficult to find a game run for anything other than the style 5e was intended for, or one significantly grittier, lower-power, etc. There's obviously sufficient interest to spur the development of something like Level Up, but it seems like the only games offered online are ones run by people baffled by the very existence of Level Up.

 

[pogre]

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?

My somewhat limited experience is that there are three basic paths DMs take when bringing together a "strangers" group
1. Using Adventure League rules;
2. Anything goes; or
3. A document with the campaign rules for creating a character.

 

[Lidgar]

Personally, I'd like to see a Basic version of 5e that is more basic than "just remove feats, multiclassing, etc."

For example, with core mechanics, removing skills and bonus actions. For core classes, removing some options that can be difficult for beginners to grasp immediately (rogue cunning action as an example). Same with monsters.

Not everyone's cup of tea obviously, but I'd love to see something along these lines.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, I'd like to see a Basic version of 5e that is more basic than "just remove feats, multiclassing, etc."

For example, with core mechanics, removing skills and bonus actions. For core classes, removing some options that can be difficult for beginners to grasp immediately (rogue cunning action as an example). Same with monsters.

Not everyone's cup of tea obviously, but I'd love to see something along these lines.

Having played a druid all the way to near immortality in BECMI, I don't think it is fair to equate "Basic" with "for beginners." or even "simple." I think it is more nuanced than that, and if I had to pick a work I would likely use "leaner" -- that is not nearly as much bloat on top of the core game chassis. But as Domain Management, War Machine and quests for immortality shore, BECMI was anything but a "simple" game just "for beginners."

 

[Oofta]

Personally, I'd like to see a Basic version of 5e that is more basic than "just remove feats, multiclassing, etc."

For example, with core mechanics, removing skills and bonus actions. For core classes, removing some options that can be difficult for beginners to grasp immediately (rogue cunning action as an example). Same with monsters.

Not everyone's cup of tea obviously, but I'd love to see something along these lines.

It would be easy enough to remove skill proficiencies, tools, feats, multi classing, backgrounds, two weapon fighting. Limit classes to wizard, cleric, fighter, cleric. Probably have a small subset of races as well. Use slow advancement so you aren't zipping up levels until people get the hang of the game.

About the only confusing thing left would be bonus actions and I would just ignore the interaction of bonus action and regular spells.

Not sure how much more you could simplify.

 

[Dire Bare]

As two separate product lines? As two different rulesets? No, I don't think that would work out well for WotC.

But I wouldn't mind seeing a more complete and simple "Basic" rules, a little more complete and robust than the current free booklet.

I would love to see a "basic" version of each class for folks who don't care for the extra complication of subclasses. Same with races/ancestries.

 

[Dire Bare]

Having played a druid all the way to near immortality in BECMI, I don't think it is fair to equate "Basic" with "for beginners." or even "simple." I think it is more nuanced than that, and if I had to pick a work I would likely use "leaner" -- that is not nearly as much bloat on top of the core game chassis. But as Domain Management, War Machine and quests for immortality shore, BECMI was anything but a "simple" game just "for beginners."

BECMI started out as Basic with the Red Box . . . . but it wasn't "basic" by the time we got to the "C" (Companions boxed set). It was just differently complicated than AD&D the "advanced" game.

 

[RobJN]

I have never seen anyone running the game on the Basic rules alone. Is that a thing people actually do?

I'm running a play by post that is 98% Basic Rules. I allowed the Variant Human, which every player playing a human has taken, rather than the standard (and, frankly, boring and lazy) +1 to ALL OF THE STATS! I may eventually tailor the human variant to the various nationalities of the Known World.

 

[Lyxen]

Having played a druid all the way to near immortality in BECMI, I don't think it is fair to equate "Basic" with "for beginners." or even "simple." I think it is more nuanced than that, and if I had to pick a work I would likely use "leaner" -- that is not nearly as much bloat on top of the core game chassis. But as Domain Management, War Machine and quests for immortality shore, BECMI was anything but a "simple" game just "for beginners."

I agree, and actually AD&D, at its core, was not really more complicated than BECMI, it was just less progressive, with everything coming up at once including tons of options that people never used, or never even understood.

5e has been designed as incredibly open right at the start. Honestly, why some parts could be simpler and could actually be removed, it's a very simple game at heart. The main complaint I hear is that it lacks "crunch", which is something that Level Up is providing, so we'll see where this is going, because although I would not be bold enough to claim that it can accomodate any mix of play style at one table, it's true that it can accomodate a very large palette of styles of play at different tables, although my take is that a bit of harmony is still required at a given table.