-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
A new Tier System for 5E
- Thread starter DEFCON 1
- Start date
Quickleaf
Legend
I like the idea overall, but I think you're missing two important issues:
1) What if a group of experienced hardcore gamers want to run a game from 1st to 20th/30th level? Part of what they like is beginning as adventurers in a lethal gritty world, but as hardcore gamers they also want complexity right out of the gate.
2) What about groups with varying levels of player "skill" with the rules? Players who enjoy the simplicity of your proposed Adventurer Tier, who want to keep gaming with the same group after 5th level but are turned off by the increasingly complex systems.
If the next edition of D&D embraces modular design you'd think these two issues would be foremost in the designers' minds.
1) What if a group of experienced hardcore gamers want to run a game from 1st to 20th/30th level? Part of what they like is beginning as adventurers in a lethal gritty world, but as hardcore gamers they also want complexity right out of the gate.
2) What about groups with varying levels of player "skill" with the rules? Players who enjoy the simplicity of your proposed Adventurer Tier, who want to keep gaming with the same group after 5th level but are turned off by the increasingly complex systems.
If the next edition of D&D embraces modular design you'd think these two issues would be foremost in the designers' minds.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Good points. For the first one, would it be sufficient to make the increased complexity/power part of gaining options? That is, I mean one of the reasons that Basic 1st level characters are relatively gritty is that the wizard has one spell, and the cleric doesn't even have any yet.
For the second, I think modular design can be an answer, but only so far. You can make some classes/roles/etc. simplier mechanically, while still having similar power to the more complex ones. But the rules themselves need to be anchored for one campaign, even if the system supports "E6" style and a 4E style with options.
Quickleaf
Legend
One of the things I think you keyed into is how BD&D tried to ease players into the rules. I don't think it was wholly successful, but compare to 3e / 4e where there is a huge learning curve to become competent with the rules. D&D needs a basic set, but I think tying rules complexity strictly to experience level is unnecessarily limiting. It's definitely a good idea, but the idea behind modularity is, in part, that you can choose how "deep" rules-wise your game is independent of the fictional narrative.
For example, Mutants & Masterminds has prepackged characters, a power point system with predefined powers, and a build your own powers system. If all of these were united by great improvisational rules - that would be an example of depth of rules independent of character experience level.
Totally, the underlying rules should be constant, but there's the question of how much is transparent and required for players to know. Ideally what players need to know would be contained within their class and a basic rules chapter.
I think one of the design & development articles alluded to what was essentially a talent tree system. That would be a good way to have varying levels of complexity within the same class (and IMO should clearly be called out as such). For example, wizard gets "blow stuff up" talent tree, "enchantment/charm" tree, and "Swiss army knife" tree - in order of increasing complexity. There would be a proviso that "Swiss army knife" tree is recommended for experienced players.
LightPhoenix
First Post
I think this hits the nail on the head. From Heroic to Paragon there's a definite shift in the style of play that was very much built in the system from the ground up. This is less the case for the Paragon to Epic tier, which really does feel like more numbers and higher math. Although I agree with keterys that Epic tier shouldn't be immortal/god-themed; not everyone likes those themes. However, if 5E were to design books based on tiers of play (which I highly doubt) this would be easy enough to implement as a fourth tier if you really wanted.
That said, I don't think the problem lies in the numbers or rules at all. I think a lot of the problem exists on the DMG/Adventure side of things. I don't think either DMG or DMG2 really does a good job of emphasizing the effect of tier on the landscape of adventure design. I know WotC decided with 4E to decouple the rules from the story. However, they could have emphasized more the shift in scope and feel from tier to tier in adventures. It doesn't help that their adventures are, by and large, relatively straight dungeon delves.
I think that some of the example campaign arcs in DMG2, Demonomicon, Underdark etc do a better job of this. And also The Plane Above, with its (admittedly brief) discussion of "journeying into deep myth" (= heroquesting).
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
What about making tiers about what options you put into play, instead of what levels you play?
You could play at the Adventurer Tier from 1st to 100th level, but if you move to the Heroic Tier, you're adding something new - additional spell levels, powers and/or options.
Adventurer Tier: magic is rare and can be easily subsumed by natural ability or skill, hit point and ability score inflation is low, monsters tend to have few supernatural powers. Designed for simple, fast play.
Heroic Tier: magic has a wide variety of applications and can be on par with natural talent or skill, characters are harder to kill with the additions of surges, ability scores tend towards the higher end and are often near "human max", magic items are more common, monsters have more tricks up their sleeves and combat tends to be more tactical. Designed for broad, deep options but relatively fast play.
Paragon Tier: magic has the most complex effects and counter-effects; it can be more powerful than natural ability or skill but at a cost, ability scores tend to reach superhuman levels, magic items are common and monsters are tactically complex wars that take an entire session to defeat. Designed for immersive all-hands-on type play.
Epic Tier: magic has no limits, abilities are beyond the ken of mortals, monsters are deadly. Designed for fast-moving, high-powered games.
You could play at the Adventurer Tier from 1st to 100th level, but if you move to the Heroic Tier, you're adding something new - additional spell levels, powers and/or options.
Adventurer Tier: magic is rare and can be easily subsumed by natural ability or skill, hit point and ability score inflation is low, monsters tend to have few supernatural powers. Designed for simple, fast play.
Heroic Tier: magic has a wide variety of applications and can be on par with natural talent or skill, characters are harder to kill with the additions of surges, ability scores tend towards the higher end and are often near "human max", magic items are more common, monsters have more tricks up their sleeves and combat tends to be more tactical. Designed for broad, deep options but relatively fast play.
Paragon Tier: magic has the most complex effects and counter-effects; it can be more powerful than natural ability or skill but at a cost, ability scores tend to reach superhuman levels, magic items are common and monsters are tactically complex wars that take an entire session to defeat. Designed for immersive all-hands-on type play.
Epic Tier: magic has no limits, abilities are beyond the ken of mortals, monsters are deadly. Designed for fast-moving, high-powered games.
Thunderfoot
Hero
Your tier systems (all of them) are innovative and probably worth at least a serious playtest/marketing write up. I sincerly hope that a few "sacred cows" come BACK into the game...
Classes not roles - it's a little thing, a naming convention, but this is probably the easiest point to something that makes 4e seems like an MMO to me. The idea of a "role" based solely on class makes my skin itch. I like to be able to play a class way outside the box, just because I can, it's very hard to do this when all of your "powers" are focused on a few set-paths. In trying to cast off the cookie cutter design, I think they painted themselves into a corner of epic cookie cutter proportions.
Magic for magic users - Powers need to leave. A mage should have a mystique when they use magic, it's different. When the fighter uses a power that is near magical, well, it doesn't seem right to me. I'm probably in the minority but the "wire-fu" explanations that are 'built-in' to the current system are a turn off to me. I think 3e went too far in making magic the be all and end all of the game (mages rule and everyone else can suck it attitude) but 4e's "everyone is a winner" attitude just reminds my why the US is near last in academic achievement.
Magic items need to be magical...and therefore rare. This is something that none of the editions have gotten completely right, but the original and Moldvay Basic/Expert weren't too far off on. The idea of fixed treasure tables (3e) and suggested magic by level (4e) is just wrong. (IMO) If D&D were a fantasy novel the bartender in the opening book wouldn't have to wait for the adventurers to save him, he would just reach under his counter and pull out his self-propelled howitzer of orc slaying and keep the peace. Okay, hyperbole aside, it is a problem, magic/treasure shouldn't equal level (or even XP - 1eAD&D I'm looking at you).
Simplicity - I remember the first time I played, I went to my cousin's house, he explained the game in about 4 minutes and we sat down and played. We didn't even have polyhedral dice, so we just went with what we had. Can you imagine trying to play 3e/4e with just a set of 6-siders? Is it even possible? The 'rules' should be there to guide not pigeon-hole. Yes I understand that with rules light comes DM adjudication and the ole' judgement call, but it's gotten so bad that you can barely play the game without a degree from a Community College in lower mathematics or statistics and probability (again hyperbole). How many kids can play D&D during recess? Is there such a push to make money that "accessories" and "product" are driving the game instead of fun?
No electronics - Okay, hear me out. I realize that computer hookups, video table tops, play by iPhone/iPad/iDon'tKnow is cool. But I want dice, not an interface, paper, not a screen and maps/minis not a top down display with 3D scrolling and real-life terrain simulations. I'm not advocating not supporting these things, I'm just saying, they should be just that, support - not the product, or otherwise, I can't afford to play anymore. If the game has gotten to the point that you have to have mounds of available cash/the latest equipment to play - then D&D has died. (And for the record, no my computer is 8 years old, I do not own an iAnything and my phone dials other phones...that's all, yes it's old fashioned, but I like it that way. Maybe I've been passed over by technology, if so, then 5e won't be for me - 4e is already too close to being too far gone.)
Customer support - okay this may seem like a weird request, but does anyone remember that when you contacted TSR, they would respond? And usually throw in free stuff to boot. Sure as the company got larger it went further and further away from the out of the basement customer service, but does it have to be release and dump? Oh you mean I need a subscription to an electronic service to get customer support? No thanks. Luckily I have ENworld to help, but shouldn't the company have something available that doesn't cost in order to get help with a problem?
No default setting - 3e blew it with this, 4e destroyed it. If you wanted a pre-made setting you used to buy a campaign guide. Otherwise the DM made a world and the rest of the players ran around in it. I don't want to know about the gods/goddesses, towns, countries, continents, racial alignments/affiliations and such that you think I should play in.... I want to design my own, that's why I DM. Before 3.X there was NEVER a default setting mentioned in the rules. Oh sure, they suggested things, but every world was handled by a separate publication dating all the way back to the old 4x8 white pocket booklets in the brown wooden box art set.
Greyhawk is awesome, Faerun is cool, the points of light was interesting but not for me, Athas, no, Planescape and the outer worlds - no thank you - Dragonlance - let's not go there... Give people a little credit for their creativity and profit off of it if they aren't - I would figure another book would be good for the profit margins....
Okay, I've gone on long enough - really, I want to regress a little in design, not a retro-clone or a ret-con of 1e - I want something new, but something that isn't ... so alien as to be unrecognizable. Soapbox gone, let the flames commence..
Classes not roles - it's a little thing, a naming convention, but this is probably the easiest point to something that makes 4e seems like an MMO to me. The idea of a "role" based solely on class makes my skin itch. I like to be able to play a class way outside the box, just because I can, it's very hard to do this when all of your "powers" are focused on a few set-paths. In trying to cast off the cookie cutter design, I think they painted themselves into a corner of epic cookie cutter proportions.
Magic for magic users - Powers need to leave. A mage should have a mystique when they use magic, it's different. When the fighter uses a power that is near magical, well, it doesn't seem right to me. I'm probably in the minority but the "wire-fu" explanations that are 'built-in' to the current system are a turn off to me. I think 3e went too far in making magic the be all and end all of the game (mages rule and everyone else can suck it attitude) but 4e's "everyone is a winner" attitude just reminds my why the US is near last in academic achievement.
Magic items need to be magical...and therefore rare. This is something that none of the editions have gotten completely right, but the original and Moldvay Basic/Expert weren't too far off on. The idea of fixed treasure tables (3e) and suggested magic by level (4e) is just wrong. (IMO) If D&D were a fantasy novel the bartender in the opening book wouldn't have to wait for the adventurers to save him, he would just reach under his counter and pull out his self-propelled howitzer of orc slaying and keep the peace. Okay, hyperbole aside, it is a problem, magic/treasure shouldn't equal level (or even XP - 1eAD&D I'm looking at you).
Simplicity - I remember the first time I played, I went to my cousin's house, he explained the game in about 4 minutes and we sat down and played. We didn't even have polyhedral dice, so we just went with what we had. Can you imagine trying to play 3e/4e with just a set of 6-siders? Is it even possible? The 'rules' should be there to guide not pigeon-hole. Yes I understand that with rules light comes DM adjudication and the ole' judgement call, but it's gotten so bad that you can barely play the game without a degree from a Community College in lower mathematics or statistics and probability (again hyperbole). How many kids can play D&D during recess? Is there such a push to make money that "accessories" and "product" are driving the game instead of fun?
No electronics - Okay, hear me out. I realize that computer hookups, video table tops, play by iPhone/iPad/iDon'tKnow is cool. But I want dice, not an interface, paper, not a screen and maps/minis not a top down display with 3D scrolling and real-life terrain simulations. I'm not advocating not supporting these things, I'm just saying, they should be just that, support - not the product, or otherwise, I can't afford to play anymore. If the game has gotten to the point that you have to have mounds of available cash/the latest equipment to play - then D&D has died. (And for the record, no my computer is 8 years old, I do not own an iAnything and my phone dials other phones...that's all, yes it's old fashioned, but I like it that way. Maybe I've been passed over by technology, if so, then 5e won't be for me - 4e is already too close to being too far gone.)
Customer support - okay this may seem like a weird request, but does anyone remember that when you contacted TSR, they would respond? And usually throw in free stuff to boot. Sure as the company got larger it went further and further away from the out of the basement customer service, but does it have to be release and dump? Oh you mean I need a subscription to an electronic service to get customer support? No thanks. Luckily I have ENworld to help, but shouldn't the company have something available that doesn't cost in order to get help with a problem?
No default setting - 3e blew it with this, 4e destroyed it. If you wanted a pre-made setting you used to buy a campaign guide. Otherwise the DM made a world and the rest of the players ran around in it. I don't want to know about the gods/goddesses, towns, countries, continents, racial alignments/affiliations and such that you think I should play in.... I want to design my own, that's why I DM. Before 3.X there was NEVER a default setting mentioned in the rules. Oh sure, they suggested things, but every world was handled by a separate publication dating all the way back to the old 4x8 white pocket booklets in the brown wooden box art set.
Greyhawk is awesome, Faerun is cool, the points of light was interesting but not for me, Athas, no, Planescape and the outer worlds - no thank you - Dragonlance - let's not go there... Give people a little credit for their creativity and profit off of it if they aren't - I would figure another book would be good for the profit margins....
Okay, I've gone on long enough - really, I want to regress a little in design, not a retro-clone or a ret-con of 1e - I want something new, but something that isn't ... so alien as to be unrecognizable. Soapbox gone, let the flames commence..
Hm, I think there's a moderate market for Immortals/deity play, but I think Epic can be both PC-Asgardians and mortal Epic PCs. It doesn't have to be Planar focus either, you can have Epic adventures in the mortal world, such as the adventures of Gilgamesh and Hercules; Elric's world-shattering exploits, etc. The main thing is that it clearly needs to be supra-Paragon, and that is not clear from the Epic material available. For instance, King Arthur and Conan both fit nicely into Paragon as described by 4e, so do a lot of 4e 'Epic' destinies and monsters.
