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

[darjr]

@Reynard i have to say, at this point, D&D is big enough for a split.

In fact I’d bet it’d be OK split three ways.

That’s besides if it needs too or should be or can be.

 

[Reynard]

@Reynard i have to say, at this point, D&D is big enough for a split.

In fact I’d bet it’d be OK split three ways.

That’s besides if it needs too or should be or can be.

By three ways, I assume you mean Basic, "Standard" and Advanced?

 

[darjr]

By three ways, I assume you mean Basic, "Standard" and Advanced?

Yes, but also that there are so very many 5e players.

 

[CleverNickName]

I thought the "Basic" and "Advanced" split had little to do about D&D being complicated, or being "big enough." I remember it having more to do with Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson fighting with each other.

 

[darjr]

I thought the "Basic" and "Advanced" split had little to do about D&D being complicated, or being "big enough." I remember it having more to do with Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson fighting with each other.

Yea, that was the original purpose at TSR. However it’s become many things to its players. Much like D&D in general.

It’s one of those happy accidents that had an unintended greatness.

 

[Argyle King]

In the early days of 5E playtests, "modularity" was touted as a design goal.

While, yes, there are options in the DMG, I'm not sure that design goal was met.

There are some core parts of how the game is built which would require a deeper redesign to accommodate options which deviate from 5E's default playstyle.

It is certainly possible to add options for an "advanced" version or remove pieces for a "basic" version, but I do not believe going such a route (without changing some core components of 5E) would be wholly satisfying to the audiences wanting those things.

If you want to play 5E, play 5E and maybe look into some third party products which nudge the game toward the experience you want.

On the other hand, if you want something more different than what 5E offers right out of the box, I would recommend trying some other rpgs and discovering different ways of doing things.

 

[Lyxen]

There are some core parts of how the game is built which would require a deeper redesign to accommodate options which deviate from 5E's default playstyle.

And, pray tell, what is that "default playstyle" ? It seems to me, on the contrary, that there are already many, many playstyles based on 5e, with many if not most of the discussions on these forums being around people having different playstyles.

 

[Parmandur]

When I discovered D&D at the tender age of 10 years in 1985, I came in by way of BECMI and we played that for years before "graduating" to AD&D. Throughout the 80s and 90s there were effectively two D&D games, which while cross compatible were still very much their own games with their own complexities, themes and product styles.

With 5E being as big as it is now, but with so many people looking for different things, I wonder if 5E is "big enough" survive a Basic/Advanced style split between two compatible but distinct lines. If so, what would that look like? What settings get put in what lines?

If you don't think it would work, why not? Is it just splitting the fanbase or is there a different reason?

They actually intended to: Mearls said that the core books were going to be called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" to mat h with the free Basic Rules online and included in the Starter Set.

Turns out when they market tested it, "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" confused and intimidated customers and was determined to be a bad idea. It was probably a bad idea in the 80's, too.

 

[Oofta]

In the early days of 5E playtests, "modularity" was touted as a design goal.

I'm repeating myself, but as far as I know it was one time in an interview with Mearls. People took a one time statement during the very early stages of development while they were still playtesting from a somewhat unreliable source (Mearls tends to speak about things that are still quite speculative) and ran with it. A mountain has been made out of a molehill.

Besides, I think the game is reasonably modular. Take a look at "The Role of the Dice" in the DMG. Going from one extreme to another would make very different games. Add in the optional rules in the DMG. It's not that the game is not modular, it's that for some people it's not modular enough.

No game is perfect. No game is going to work for everyone, sometimes you just have to make some compromises and do the best you can. Since 5E is the best selling RPG ever that has far exceeded expectations, I think they did good enough.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm repeating myself, but as far as I know it was one time in an interview with Mearls. People took a one time statement during the very early stages of development while they were still playtesting from a somewhat unreliable source (Mearls tends to speak about things that are still quite speculative) and ran with it. A mountain has been made out of a molehill.

Besides, I think the game is reasonably modular. Take a look at "The Role of the Dice" in the DMG. Going from one extreme to another would make very different games. Add in the optional rules in the DMG. It's not that the game is not modular, it's that for some people it's not modular enough.

No game is perfect. No game is going to work for everyone, sometimes you just have to make some compromises and do the best you can. Since 5E is the best selling RPG ever that has far exceeded expectations, I think they did good enough.

If a guy who is a lead designer establishes a design goal, I posit that tends to have more weight upon the ears of the audience than other voices. "Natural Language" and "Bounded Accuracy" were also established around that point in time.

I agree that there are options in the DMG (and said so in my post). Those options certainly do offer changes, but I'm not sure they deviate much from the core-mentality around which 5E was built (and is reflected in things such as encounter design, monster design, and etc).

In no way am I saying 5E is a bad game. Clearly, it's a successful product.

But, so too is McDonald's. While I certainly can order a salad at McDonald's; I imagine I'm not the only person who would find doing so less satisfying than simply eating somewhere else.