D&D 5E 28/1/13 L&L D&DNext goals part Four

[LightPhoenix]

The more I think about and read about the "dial" analogy, the more well-chosen I find it to be. To re-label Mike's three categories based on the analogy: you can turn the dials on the machine up and down, you can add on new dials (which may also be turned up/down), and you can replace the default dials (ie Core Rules).

I was hoping that the Basic/Standard/Advanced divide was going to be based on the Core rules (with modules interacting on all three levels). Furthermore, I had hoped that what was in testing now was more on the Advanced side. I'm guessing based on this article that Basic and Standard won't really be interchangeable, which was something I was hoping for. I'm still hoping for a Standard simple/complex option for characters.

EDIT: The one dial I'm hoping will be relatively core is the XP slider. Over time, I've become a big fan of not tracking XP and simply leveling up at thematically appropriate moments.

 

[Blackwarder]

The more I think about and read about the "dial" analogy, the more well-chosen I find it to be. To re-label Mike's three categories based on the analogy: you can turn the dials on the machine up and down, you can add on new dials (which may also be turned up/down), and you can replace the default dials (ie Core Rules).

I was hoping that the Basic/Standard/Advanced divide was going to be based on the Core rules (with modules interacting on all three levels). Furthermore, I had hoped that what was in testing now was more on the Advanced side. I'm guessing based on this article that Basic and Standard won't really be interchangeable, which was something I was hoping for. I'm still hoping for a Standard simple/complex option for characters.

EDIT: The one dial I'm hoping will be relatively core is the XP slider. Over time, I've become a big fan of not tracking XP and simply leveling up at thematically appropriate moments.

What? How did you come to this conclusion? I came to the opposite one.

Warder

 

[LightPhoenix]

What? How did you come to this conclusion?

Let me start with what was perhaps a misconception by myself. I had thought that the Basic/Standard/Advanced scheme was intended to be a narrow measure of complexity. That is to say, they were tuned to the individual player. Want to play a 1E Fighter? Basic Fighter. Want to play a 3E Fighter? Standard Fighter. Want to play a 4E Fighter? Advanced Fighter, using the "AEDU" (example only) module. All three would be roughly in the same ballpark of viability and balance, even if the complexity was different. That is to say, the player would be able to choose their complexity. However, I had the scope wrong. As shown by these articles, they're a broad measure of complexity. That is to say, they are tuned to the group versus the player.

Now, we know that as far as classes go, the Basic classes are based on a subset of the Standard classes. So mechanically, there's no reason why the two aren't interchangeable. However, that doesn't actually address the simplicity of play that has been suggested in previous articles. That's only simplicity of character creation. The DM can make a character for someone, it doesn't need it's own designation. For there to be a real difference between Basic and Standard, there has to be a simplification of the set of rules as a whole. However, since complexity is seemingly measured at a broad level (the group versus the player), the game has to operate at the highest complexity of the group. So how does that get reconciled? In my opinion, that has not been adequately addressed by Mike/WotC. That's not to say it can't be, and I hope it will be.

I'll freely admit at this point that since we don't know what the Basic or Standard rules are, any judgement is premature. However, the impression I'm getting is that the design team is thinking of Basic, Standard, and Advanced as separate entities loosely related but intended to be run as a set of rules for the whole group versus for the player. Or, to put it another way, Basic is actually a permutation of Advanced, albeit with the dials all turned down.

 

[Dragoslav]

Nah. You're just dead to me.

Ye gods! I'm dead, but still aware, cursed to roam the ENWorld boards forever. Does that make me a wraith? And, if it does, does that mean my touch drains levels?

Actually, when I think about it some more, I have to admit that I think they're on the right track with martial maneuvers. A wider variety of those, perhaps cranked up a bit in a module, combined with a tactical module, would probably work well for my purposes. I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that a tactical module would include more complex maneuvers (that, for example, allow movement [measured in squares]); if not, there wouldn't be much more inherently "tactical" about such a module.

 

[GSHamster]

Gah. That's a wish list, not a project plan. My software engineering sensibility alarms are flashing high alert.

Well, Mearls specifically states--and you even quoted him--that "It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list." So I don't really see the problem.

 

[KidSnide]

Let me start with what was perhaps a misconception by myself. I had thought that the Basic/Standard/Advanced scheme was intended to be a narrow measure of complexity. That is to say, they were tuned to the individual player. Want to play a 1E Fighter? Basic Fighter. Want to play a 3E Fighter? Standard Fighter. Want to play a 4E Fighter? Advanced Fighter, using the "AEDU" (example only) module. All three would be roughly in the same ballpark of viability and balance, even if the complexity was different. That is to say, the player would be able to choose their complexity. However, I had the scope wrong. As shown by these articles, they're a broad measure of complexity. That is to say, they are tuned to the group versus the player.

Well, I think there was always an aspect of the complexity dial that is targeted at the group and an aspect that is targeted at the player. For ability checks, the group is either using basic "rulings, not rules" or standard "rules, not rulings." A DM can mix and match, but even that is a group system. It would be extremely odd to provide detailed rules for one character at the table and ad hoc rulings for another character at the same table. Similarly, the group can mix and match between theater of the mind and tactical combat, but they pretty much have to choose one for any given battle.

At the same time, there is no reason a basic character can't play at the same table as a standard character. Maybe the standard character will be a little more effective (with a specialty and background)? But even those rules elements are designed to let one player pick a standard package while the other player customizes.

For advanced options, my guess is that they will aim to keep them balanced, but some optional rules (e.g. variant spellcasting) will just be more or less powerful than default. That said, a group that's willing to tolerate a little unbalance should be able to have a mixture of AEDU and standard characters at the same table. Presumably, the relatively effectiveness of those characters will be highly dependent on how many encounters are included in a day.

-KS

 

[tomBitonti]

Well, Mearls specifically states--and you even quoted him--that "It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list." So I don't really see the problem.

Well, there is no problem with having a wish list. There is a problem of how the wish list is specified in the context of specific goals for a game in active and somewhat mature development: Each is terribly vague, and no more then what dedicated ENWorlder's could scribble down in a few minutes. There is no real game insight to be had from the list, just some warm fuzzies.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Raith5]

Well, Mearls specifically states--and you even quoted him--that "It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list." So I don't really see the problem.

Sure Mearls indicates that, but I think there is a problem lurking in the sense that advanced DDN becomes a disjointed grab bag of leftovers rather than a coherent way of doing D&D. I like the ideas of basic and standard - largely because they offer coherent experiences that I am familiar with within the history of D&D. I hope DDN next can also offer a rules heavy third way which pushes D&D in directions familiar with later 3rd ed and 4th ed.

I think advanced has to be more than laundry list, it needs some impulse or vision underpinning it. I agree with Dragoslav that advanced DDN next needs to be more than fiddly mechanical bits if it hopes to attract 4th ed players. To go further, I think WOTC needs think more about why some folk like 4th ed.

I like the basic/standard/advanced way of organizing things but I dont see a compelling vision underpinning the advanced component.

 

[Cyberen]

Actually, 4e, for all its good and bad things, can be stripped downto a few pages of "rules" : with bounded accuracy, p42 defines properly "appropriate damage per level". Combined with some guidelines about monster math, it should do the job. Encounter based design needs some rules, but not that much. Splat (powers, monsters) will be missing, but I don't see how they could viably incorporated in the core game. Hopefully, the metagame will be heavily discussed in "Advanced".

 

[Bluenose]

Well, there is no problem with having a wish list. There is a problem of how the wish list is specified in the context of specific goals for a game in active and somewhat mature development: Each is terribly vague, and no more then what dedicated ENWorlder's could scribble down in a few minutes. There is no real game insight to be had from the list, just some warm fuzzies.

Thx!

TomB

I think I'd suggest the biggest problem with having a "wish list" of advanced features that won't be in the core game is that the subsequent assumption almost has to be that people won't all have them. If domain management and mass battle rules come out in a supplement and get a couple of articles in Dragon magazine, what then? Do future adventures, rules modules, and other material assume everyone has them? If in a couple of years time someone writes an FR adventure where a war breaks out (as in, the Bloodstone series), do you write it assuming everyone wanting to play it has the rules for domains and mass battles, do you repeat them, do you create an entirely new system, or do you disregard their existence and narrate the larger events? Whichever you do, some of that work is wasted.

Now, that's not to say it can't be done. It was, by BECM D&D. Anyone buying Companion-level modules could be assumed to have the BEC sets. So they could include domain rules, mass battle statistics, 5th level spells, etc, without having to worry about the people who didn't have those bits of the rules. If you don't, you shouldn't be buying that material. I rather suspect that if D&D Next comes out with comprehensive rules for character levels 1-5, people are going to be displeased even if they're promised levels 6-10 will come in the next few months. It seems an unlikely route to follow. So the choice becomes whether you publish material assuming people only have the rules in the core, or whether you include things that only appeared in supplements. If it's the latter, people are going to complain about being expected to buy material they don't want. If the former, people who do have those additional modules are going to see places where they'd be sensible to use and wonder why they're being ignored, and realise that there wasn't much point buying it.