‘Advanced’ Dungeons & Dragons

[flametitan]

The hope is, unlike 2e, the ongoing 5e ‘Advanced D&D’ will continue to update with *all* of the options from all of the unique and separate settings. Thus there is a unifying core 5e rule set.

This unifying rule set is only possible because it is setting neutral. If needing setting flavor, purchase an official setting, or build your own. Either way, DMs will tend to want the AD&D continually updating rule set when wanting to tweak a particular setting.

If each official setting only has ‘fewer but bigger choices’, the desire to customize it by means of the AD&D rule set will be strong.

I still don't see that as any different from 2e. 2e still assumed the AD&D Player's Handbook was needed in order to run the game, and a lot of the infamous players' options came from books that weren't setting dependent. Likewise, it seems like you're putting too much weight on the idea that D&D players will "evolve" past and start needing this "AD&D 5e" for customization. It's vocal amongst these crowds, sure, but this is a forum that's built on theorycrafters and minmaxers. There's a distinct possibility that the majority of people purchasing might not want this level of depth in customization, and so stick to "Setting D&D." In the end, I feel like from this model, the only thing that's changed is that there's now five or six different PHB's on the shelf of your LGS, all trying to grab the eye of the newbie.

You could do it but each setting would not get any support after the initial book and TSR supported each world with novels. Some settings could be folded into one book and use the old material for fluff. Still you would only do a handful of settings mostly converting the mechanics required for that setting. They do not get a novel line, follow on adventures or anything like that.

If that's the case, I'm not sure why you'd need dedicated core books for settings. Again, doing such a thing would only lead to more different "Player's Handbooks" for new players to look at and try to decide which to use.

And how are we going to deal with starter boxes? I'd argue the 5e Starter set is a major contributor to its success, as it gives new players a way to jump in. Will we have to make a new starter box for each "Setting D&D," or will there only be one starter box?

 

[TwoSix]

4e was ‘Advanced D&D’ in the sense of continually updating, but it lacked ‘Setting D&D’. It made the mistake of trying to combine all of the *unique* settings into one mash-up homogeneous supersetting.

Ultimately, the sales success of the past four years makes it pretty clear that this isn't a mistake.

 

[flametitan]

Oh, and before I forget: How will we handle adventures? Will they be setting specific, thus solidifying these as competing product lines? Will they be setting neutral, and thus force DMs to use AD&D anyway, making Setting D&D redundant? Will there just not be adventure modules, thus leaving behind those who can't put in the work to make their own stories?

 

[Yaarel]

@flametitan. Adventures should be setting specific. Some are specifically for Forgotten Realms. Some are specifically for Dark Sun. And so on. DMs can use Advanced D&D core rules to modify the adventure. Many DMs develop a homebrew setting, and might modify the adventure to make it suitable for a region within their own setting.



@TwoSix. I agree, the 5e design model is financially successful, so far. The strategy of ‘bigger but fewer choices’ with baked-in setting flavor, makes a vivid ‘feel’ that is conducive to corporate branding, for brand recognition, movie licenses, and so on. Also, the fewer but salient options are helpful for beginner players, and newbies are how to ‘grow’ a brand.

The ‘D&D’ setting is Forgotten Realms, but modified to port in Greyhawk (races), Planescape (great wheel cosmology), and even some 4e Nentir Vale (fey and shadow cosmology, and tiefling and dragonborn races). This baked-in setting flavor is the ‘branding’.

On the other hand, many veteran players are growing impatient with the lack of support for other settings, and the scarcity of character customization options. So, some players are less happy with the status quo.

The proposal in this thread, allows WotC to keep ‘D&D’ as a ‘Setting’ for brand recognition. At the same time, ‘AD&D’ strives to meet the needs of other players.



@flametitan. Regarding 2e, I never used a 2e official setting. Players who are more familiar will need to add their insights here. My impression is. 2e has ‘Setting D&D’ with a choice of independent settings. But then 2e lacks ‘Advanced D&D’ in the sense of a systematized unifying rule set. The early editions of D&D were an ad-hoc patchwork of conflictive rules. Each setting had its own workable rule set, and evolved to the point of becoming less *mechanically* compatible with rules of other settings. For 5e, ‘AD&D’ would be a unifying rule set that would include and systematize all mechanical options from all official settings. So it is easier to import a mechanical feature from one setting into an other setting, by consulting the AD&D core rules.



@pukunui. As an aside. I see AIME as an ideal for what ‘Setting D&D’ can look like. (Adventures in Middle Earth, for 5e, by Cubical 7.) AIME repurposes the 5e mechanics to craft a specific setting for a specific playstyle. It has its own cosmology, unrelated to Forgotten Realms/Planescape. It has its own limited assemblage of races (cultures), classes, backgrounds, and feats (cultural virtues), that are crafted for the flavor of the AIME setting. It continues to add accessory books that carefully expand the AIME setting. It adds some new options, but only if working well for the setting, and the new books never cancel out previous options.

If AIME was a WotC setting product, then the AD&D core rules would update with any new *mechanical* options that an AIME book made available, but without its setting flavor. So options in one setting become doable for an other setting.

 

[guachi]

Unfortunately that means the only setting for 5e will probably always be FR. If they put anything out for any other settings, they will probably be some one off book that's not going to really get supported

Then the game is no longer the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game. It's the Forgotten Realms roleplaying game with pretenses of being something else.

 

[Harzel]

[MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION], what problem are you trying to solve (and/or what are the benefits of your proposal)?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

@Yaarel, what problem are you trying to solve (and/or what are the benefits of your proposal)?

I imagine they are still mad about elves, and that they have a +1 instead of a 2.

Then the game is no longer the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game. It's the Forgotten Realms roleplaying game with pretenses of being something else.

No it's not. Plus Forgotten Realms even uses most default D&D stuff.

 

[Remathilis]

@flametitan. Adventures should be setting specific. Some are specifically for Forgotten Realms. Some are specifically for Dark Sun. And so on. DMs can use Advanced D&D core rules to modify the adventure. Many DMs develop a homebrew setting, and might modify the adventure to make it suitable for a region within their own setting.

Then you're splitting the player base. A player who runs Ravenloft has no need or desire for a Dark Sun adventure, a Dark Sun player finds Planescape modules a waste. You'd create the TSR Catch-22; to support multiple settings, you'd have to increase your production schedule so most settings got some support, but by doing so your increasing the amount of product made (and the cost of development for each) and at the same time insuring people won't buy things not for "their setting" so they will sell "less" than a generic (or semi-generic FR) product would.

Every setting added increases the cost to WotC and increases the opportunity cost for the purchaser (as DMs rarely jump settings or run multiple simultaneously). Even homebrewers have a finite limit to the amount of any given setting (unless said setting has Barovia next to Xen'drik across from the Silt Sea). This just screams diminishing returns.

We will never see the return to glory that TSR producing 9 different versions of AD&D, each to their own small subsection, was. Because it was financial suicide then, and it'd be even moreso now.

 

[Yaarel]

Then you're splitting the player base. A player who runs Ravenloft has no need or desire for a Dark Sun adventure, a Dark Sun player finds Planescape modules a waste. You'd create the TSR Catch-22; to support multiple settings, you'd have to increase your production schedule so most settings got some support, but by doing so your increasing the amount of product made (and the cost of development for each) and at the same time insuring people won't buy things not for "their setting" so they will sell "less" than a generic (or semi-generic FR) product would.

Every setting added increases the cost to WotC and increases the opportunity cost for the purchaser (as DMs rarely jump settings or run multiple simultaneously). Even homebrewers have a finite limit to the amount of any given setting (unless said setting has Barovia next to Xen'drik across from the Silt Sea). This just screams diminishing returns.

We will never see the return to glory that TSR producing 9 different versions of AD&D, each to their own small subsection, was. Because it was financial suicide then, and it'd be even moreso now.

We know the 5e Dark Sun setting will happen. According to your personal preference, how should Dark Sun adventures play out?

 

[flametitan]

We know the 5e Dark Sun setting will happen. According to your personal preference, how should Dark Sun adventures play out?

I won't say this is preference, but rather what it'll sound like will happen, either by interpreting what they're currently doing, or previous precedence: There will be an adventure that covers the big selling point of Dark Sun (a la Curse of Strahd for Ravenloft), and possibly a "Athas Adventurer's Guide," That'll cover the big regions and the player options, a la the SCAG. After that, it'll be opened to the DM's Guild, and then likely not touched upon again, or at least not for another few years.