Not really no, I think it is more to gather feedback on if we find things acceptable.
That's not to say they might not see the odd idea and thing, 'OMG we must use that', but it would be a happy by-product rather than the purpose of the exercise.
A plea to stop over-complicating the base system.
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
Not really no, I think it is more to gather feedback on if we find things acceptable.
That's not to say they might not see the odd idea and thing, 'OMG we must use that', but it would be a happy by-product rather than the purpose of the exercise.
Argyle King
Legend
Possibly; I readily admit that not everyone finds complexity in the same places. What somebody else finds easy, I might find difficult.
For me, I would find subtracting one number from another to not be a huge step in complexity -especially since DR is already used in D&D for many things.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's not D&D if it doesn't over-complicate its base system.
Remathilis
Legend
Agreed. (Can't XP you though).
Rhenny
Adventurer
To me, most of the suggestions to alter or add to the base system are interesting, and they all should be considered ways to modify the basic. The basic should be dead simple.
One problem we may be having is that some people assume that the launch materials will only include basic. Others assume that the basic edition will also be launched with some mods already suggested within it. I would like the latter to be true so that at the very least we can play both Theater of the Mind combat, and a more tactical grid based combat so groups can mix and match.
For more advanced DMs and Players, they want the mods at launch. For beginners, they may not. WotC needs to make both available with the launch to entice the entire D&D playing community to "buy into" D&DNext. If they don't have both basic and mods available at launch many groups will continue to play their old games.
One problem we may be having is that some people assume that the launch materials will only include basic. Others assume that the basic edition will also be launched with some mods already suggested within it. I would like the latter to be true so that at the very least we can play both Theater of the Mind combat, and a more tactical grid based combat so groups can mix and match.
For more advanced DMs and Players, they want the mods at launch. For beginners, they may not. WotC needs to make both available with the launch to entice the entire D&D playing community to "buy into" D&DNext. If they don't have both basic and mods available at launch many groups will continue to play their old games.
Blood & Bones
Explorer
I... hope you're kidding.
The "base" system is going to be a very stripped down version of D&D. You are going to have weapons, armor, hit points, armor class, spells, classes, races, ability scores, and...that's it really. No feats, skills, at-will powers, Daily powers, weird complicated math, huge tables - the base system should cut the game to the core essentials. EVERYTHING else is a module. In fact, it's so simple that I could probably throw together the base game from what little we know now.
However, with that being said, there are a few "Base Modules" that have been presented to us within the frame-work of the playtest, and are being vigorously discussed and debated. Feats, specific spells, at-will abilities, and, yes, the particulars about armor. No big deal, really... it's all going to come out in the wash.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Yes, you're quite right. 5e's core feels, to me, a lot like red/blue box D&D - Basic/Expert.
But the trend to take the essentially simple and overcomplicate it has been perennial in D&D. OD&D added lots of rules in its 'splatbooks'. I never much liked the Weapon Mastery system in BECMI, it seemed at odds with the rest of the game's simplicity. 1e AD&D has, to my mind, a bunch of unnecessary stuff like different damage versus Small-Medium and Large, weapon versus armour class modifiers, weapon speed factors and so forth. 3e takes the incredibly simple d20 core and adds buff spells, iterative attacks, numerous feats and PrCs, etc, until one is swimming in numbers. 4e isn't immune either, with a fair amount of fiddly little combat elements, such as minor actions.
That's what I was referring to. I wasn't really joking.
Blood & Bones
Explorer
Maybe, what I should have said is, I hope you are being sarcastic... In which case, the answer is yes.
You are right; as time goes on the remarkably simple is over complicated with new rules. I think that's the beauty of the module system; it makes all the complicated fiddly bits optional.
It's like a Christmas Tree - you get a simple tree and hang what ornaments and decorations that you want off of it's branches. Some people want their Christmas Tree to be traditional, with antique glass balls and popcorn strung as garland. Others want a mess of sentimental ornaments, with which they remember the people in their lives and Christmas's past. Others want a modern looking tree with an over-all color scheme, synchronized led lights, and a modern ornate star on top.
Different decorations - same tree. Different campaigns - same D&D.
Gargoyle
Adventurer
Providing feedback or suggestions in an open playtest is hardly 'design by committee'. WotC is still designing the game, not us.
I actually do agree with the OP that a simple core is important.
To put it in an even better way: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
But I completely disagree with the notion that suggestions to make the core game more complex than the current iteration of the playtest are counterproductive. If something like armor needs additional rules to make it work properly for everyone, then those rules should be added to the core making it more complex (but not more than it needs to be), and suggesting such a thing should not be discouraged.
Similar Threads
