D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D

[I'm A Banana]

It's possible to code the bonus into the background, and then the background into the class, at the Basic level, but this just becomes redundant: if all fighters are Soldiers and all Soldiers get a bonus to STR-skills, it's the same thing as saying all fighters get a bonus to STR skills.

And if you'd like to play a different kind of fighter, you're not looking at a Basic-level gameplay style anymore.

 

[MoonSong]

It's possible to code the bonus into the background, and then the background into the class, at the Basic level, but this just becomes redundant: if all fighters are Soldiers and all Soldiers get a bonus to STR-skills, it's the same thing as saying all fighters get a bonus to STR skills.

And if you'd like to play a different kind of fighter, you're not looking at a Basic-level gameplay style anymore.

I politely disagree, Basic has to provide enough means of differentiation to run entire campaigns, the one Basic I know and rememeber (the one in RC) had skills, and I never found them as too complex or fiddly (in fact they always felt more straightforward than THAC0 or to-hit tables), if the basic game doesn't provide the option to choose which kind of checks you want to be good at, it will have fundamentally failed to provide incentives to stay with it, charming swordsman, cunning swashbuckler, though soldier, al of those are as valid character concepts, specially for people who is new to D&D and hasn't been expossed to the "dumb fighter" truism-D&Dism-onewayism, but if designers are hardcodding (and stereotyping) that much, it would made little difference if they just included pregens and call it a day. In order for a basic game to be a full game (and not D&D gimped or D&D preview, or D&D for noobs) it has to provide incentives not only to run a ful campaign, but to replay as well. If all fighters are going to be fundamentally the same, that is just not possible.

And I know "you just make them different through propper rolepalying" and stuff, but it is a fallacy, just because you can roleplay with almost anything or with no system, it doesn't change the fact that not all people roleplay equally -I don't think I'm the only one whose ability to roleplay is hampered by gameplay dissonance or futility- and that new people just getting into the game don't necessarilly know how to roleplay yet, and basic has to lend itself to work for different playstyles.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basic has to provide enough means of differentiation to run entire campaigns...if the basic game doesn't provide the option to choose which kind of checks you want to be good at, it will have fundamentally failed to provide incentives to stay with it, charming swordsman, cunning swashbuckler, though soldier, al of those are as valid character concepts, specially for people who is new to D&D and hasn't been expossed to the "dumb fighter" truism-D&Dism-onewayism

You appear to overestimate the necessary level of differentiation to run a campaign.

People have been playing a basic kind of D&D where fighters are all the same since the 70's. Millions of options are not a necessity. They can be nice, which is why they're a Standard-level kind of thing, but they ain't required.

 

[TwoSix]

It's possible to code the bonus into the background, and then the background into the class, at the Basic level, but this just becomes redundant: if all fighters are Soldiers and all Soldiers get a bonus to STR-skills, it's the same thing as saying all fighters get a bonus to STR skills.

And if you'd like to play a different kind of fighter, you're not looking at a Basic-level gameplay style anymore.

And it isn't like even the Basic game can't list a sidebar of easy-to-add house rules as sort of a "training wheels towards Standard". Moving your skill bonus to a different attribute seems like a no-brainer to include in that sort of situation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

if the basic game doesn't provide the option to choose which kind of checks you want to be good at, it will have fundamentally failed to provide incentives to stay with it...

Why do they need to provide incentives to stay with it? People will play the Basic game specifically because they want to play the Basic game. If they wanted options, they wouldn't play the Basic game as is. They'd play the Basic game with a couple of Standard rules incorporated into it.

That's the entire point of designing the system in this way. To have a baseline game without options... and then a whole heap of them you can slowly sprinkle in over time if you find you need them.

 

[MoonSong]

You appear to overestimate the necessary level of differentiation to run a campaign.

People have been playing a basic kind of D&D where fighters are all the same since the 70's. Millions of options are not a necessity. They can be nice, which is why they're a Standard-level kind of thing, but they ain't required.

And you seem to be underestimating it. Yes people have played fighters "all the same" for a ling time, but these fighters were entirely blank when it came to do anything that didn't involved breaking doors, bending bars, etc. They were basically a blank sheet, however what it appears to be going on in Next is they'll be all hard-codded into doing well the things they are bound to do well anyway just because they are fighters without the choice to be good at anything else. "Just pretend you are good with it anyway" isn't entirely satisfactory either, "you must buy the full game to be that way" isn't a good answer either. Besides I'm not asking for countless options, just six (or five, constitution makes little sense as anything but a saving throw, but that might be just me), regardless of class pick an ability score, you gain your skill/proficiency dice when you make ability checks for that ability, instead of a hardcodded "you are a fighter, you are dumb muscle, no exceptions". That is hardly too much complication. And specially for fighters as they are the most generic class out of the big 4, after all it is supossed to represent Achilles, Heracles, Odisseo, Beowulf, King Arthur, The Zorro, etc.

If I wanted a supersimple game where all fighters are fundamentally the same and had ease and speed of combat, that game already exists, it is called microlite 20, spans a total of 3 pages (one of them being the OGL license, and even taking into account add-ons it barelly goes beyond 10 or so pages), is a full game and entirely free, runs amazingly fast, with extremely fast pc creation, yet it isn't what is needed to grow the playerbase, it is directed at existing players. New and fresh players (the ones WOTC and the hobby need the most and one of the primary targets for the basic game) need a little more support than that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They were basically a blank sheet, however what it appears to be going on in Next is they'll be all hard-codded into doing well the things they are bound to do well anyway just because they are fighters without the choice to be good at anything else.

For the Basic game, you want a strong archetype that is served well without a lot of thought. It is for people who don't know what a "fighter" is, and people who only ever wanted your basic "put the pointy thing into the squishy guy" kind of fighter anyway.

If you know enough about D&D that this kind of fighter is boring for you, then you're above Basic.

And lo, Standard gives you skill customizability.

 

[Ratskinner]

For the Basic game, you want a strong archetype that is served well without a lot of thought. It is for people who don't know what a "fighter" is, and people who only ever wanted your basic "put the pointy thing into the squishy guy" kind of fighter anyway.

If you know enough about D&D that this kind of fighter is boring for you, then you're above Basic.

And lo, Standard gives you skill customizability.

I'm kinda feeling this is the way of it. Honestly, given some of the more recent dev comments, I wouldn't be surprised if the Basic game didn''t have a Player's Handbook at all. Instead, the box could include 20 to 30 full-page descriptions of a character statted up to level 10, all decisions made, just pick one. DMs would have to read the included adventure/MonsterGuide and the (targeted 16 pages) rules guide. Put in a big foldout map (or tiles), punch-out tokens for the included PCs and monsters and take my money. That's a box you can pick up at Wal-Mart and be playing in 30 min., once you get home. Player's make one choice at startup, "Which one of these characters do I want to play?" all the fiddly-bits filed right off.

I think folks are getting hung up on their memories associated with the word "Basic." We're not talking about a strict redux of the old BECMI edition or anything of the sort. Instead, we're talking about a product designed to get people into the game fast and easy. Later, after they've played it a few times and some of them are chafing for more, they can pick up the Standard books and start modifying or making up characters that will be compatible with the simple characters at the table.

Of course, that's just my interpretation of the recent articles...could be wrong.

 

[Iosue]

I politely disagree, Basic has to provide enough means of differentiation to run entire campaigns, the one Basic I know and rememeber (the one in RC) had skills, and I never found them as too complex or fiddly (in fact they always felt more straightforward than THAC0 or to-hit tables),

I apologize for the pedantry, but it is germane to the point. You never played a Basic D&D game with skills. There never was one. The RC is not Basic D&D. It is an entirely complete and complex game. The RC is Classic D&D, but during its publication life there was actually a separate product called Basic D&D, that served as an introduction to the complete game in the RC, and which did not have skills.

Their whole point in this Basic/Standard/Advanced breakdown is if you want the Basic game and skills, you use the Standard game and pare away the rules you don't want to use. (I suspect how it'll actually go is if you buy the Basic product and a DDI account, you can access the Skills Module off of a 5e Rules Compendium.) The Basic game is targeted at people who don't need or want skill mechanics.

 

[MoonSong]

I apologize for the pedantry, but it is germane to the point. You never played a Basic D&D game with skills. There never was one. The RC is not Basic D&D. It is an entirely complete and complex game. The RC is Classic D&D, but during its publication life there was actually a separate product called Basic D&D, that served as an introduction to the complete game in the RC, and which did not have skills.

Their whole point in this Basic/Standard/Advanced breakdown is if you want the Basic game and skills, you use the Standard game and pare away the rules you don't want to use. (I suspect how it'll actually go is if you buy the Basic product and a DDI account, you can access the Skills Module off of a 5e Rules Compendium.) The Basic game is targeted at people who don't need or want skill mechanics.

none taken, that is orthogonal to the point anyway. My point is, the Basic game cannot allow itself to be extremely rigid, it has to be simple to learn and start, no doubt, and devoid of additional complexity, but it has to be a complete game, that allows to play complete campaigns, be self-contained and result extremely flexible, without having to relly on extra products, in other words the basic game has to be THE D&D, a sefl contained box like that should be capable of being sold along other boardgames like Risk and Monopoly, finding its way back into the mainstream. but if it keeps being a hampered game, a pay-to-preview, it will face the issues the current red box has.

Of course there's still be a place for the standard and the advanced game, but those supplements are more targeted to existing players and those who eventually grow bored of the basic game, but if the basic game si solid, the rest of the stuff built arond it will have the chance to grow on it's own and eventually be revised and reedited for itself, just never in a way that invalidates the basic game.

I'm not askign for much, such a small change would mean zero extra complexity, but would add a lot of flexibility to the basic game, namely let each player to pick the favored ability for their characters regardless of class, they still can say the archetypal Fighters is good in STR stuff, the archetypal rogue with DEX stuff, the archetypal Wizard with INT and the Cleric with WIS, but your character can be different if you wish. Such a small concession could greatly expand the scope of the basic game, which in utrn would allow it to become a shared frame or refference for what D&D means.

Yes, the basic game means none extra stuff bolt on, but having zero choice risks turning it into a boardgame. Just allow players to choose their area of expertise, don't hard code it, it is a single extra line on the booklet, and a very minor compared witht the cleics and wizards that will still have to pick which spells to preppare each day.