Baby Steps

[occam]

To some extent, Wizards is doing this... with Gamma World. Each boxed set introduces new types of characters, new options for all characters, etc.

I think it might've made more sense to release the Gamma World boxed sets about 6 months apart, to give the market time to absorb each release before moving on to the next, give Wizards time to judge the response, and hopefully give the game a more enduring presence instead of its current "3 boxes and out" feel.

Good food for thought, Ari, and I like Claudio's breakdown.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This plays into about 90% of what I've been kind of advocating since 4e even came out, so I'm happy to see someone like Ari spitting the same stuff.

I can imagine a 5e where you would just buy boxed sets that included a range of, say, 3 levels, complete with everything (class abilities, monsters, adventures, settings, NPC's, whatever), and when you're done, you just get another boxed set.

Perhaps collecting all of the rules in an online compendium...

 

[Monkey Boy]

I could get behind this idea if they also looked at dropping the complexity to BECMI level or there about. Thin rule books thanks. Pack that box with game aids and doodads that would make FFG blush.

In my experience BEC was well used and played but MI all but ignored because... well we never got to to a high enough level. I think the same holds true with 4e in that Epic tier is largely unplayed and generally given the shaft by WOTC as far as content and support. I say drop epic. I wont miss it.

My suggestion would be a 2 Box set aiming to recreate B/X which IMHO is a more genuine attempt at a complete self contained rules set than BECMI.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't think two parallel lines would be necessary (or advisable, given the economic factors). If done right, some members of the party could be playing "basic" classes, while others could start with "expert" classes, and they'd still be more or less balanced. Yes, it means the person who wants more complexity needs to have access to more material, but "more options = more stuff to buy" has always been the case, and is a reasonable requirement.

So in the model you're suggesting, would there be a beginner's spellcaster and an hardcore gamer's spellcaster as two distinct classes? What exactly did you mean by "pushing essentials further"? How would this fit into the business model of tiered releases? Sorry I guess I am not quite grokking your proposal's fine points.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So in the model you're suggesting, would there be a beginner's spellcaster and an hardcore gamer's spellcaster as two distinct classes?

Effectively, yes, though that wouldn't be the only division.

For instance, with martial classes, your standard fighter might be a very simple, hack-n-slash class presented in the Basic set, while a more complex warrior type--call it knight, call it whatever--with a wider degree of options (perhaps like martial maneuver "powers") would be presented in the equivalent of the Expert or Companion set.

You could do the same with spellcasters. The wizard might be complex enough to hold off until set 2 or 3, but a simplified spellcaster--perhaps a revamped warlock or sorcerer, or maybe something brand new--could be designed to be simple enough to appear in the Basic set.

Tricky? Absolutely. Perfectly balanced? Probably not; I don't believe it's possible to perfectly balance a class that has more options with a class that has fewer; there's simply no way to account for all possible synergies. But "perfect balance" is a mythical creature anyway. I believe that, with the proper effort, the classes could be balanced enough that they could played side by side without any blatant inequalities.

 

[pawsplay]

I hope Paizo gives this concept a good trial in their introductory product. Certainly, the same themes were suggested: restricted to low levels but playable on its own, reduce the number of feats included, include only simpler and more familiar classes, focus on a limited set of rules for dealing with encounters and environments rather than the whole enchilada, be completely compatible with the full version of the game.

 

[Keldryn]

I agree with all of this completely.

In fact, after 3.x, I was really hoping that 4th Edition would be done this way.

The longest campaign I've ever participated in ran about a year before taking a long enough break that we started over again, so the equivalent of the BECMI Basic and Expert sets are all that I really need. With the way that the gameplay focus changed in each set, there were natural ending points for a campaign.

My current group consists of four players, and three of them (including the two who are new to D&D entirely) don't like 4th Edition because of the number of tactical decisions they need to make from round to round. I broke out the old 1983 red box set for a couple of sessions, and they took to that with a lot more enthusiasm.

The modern design of 3.x and 4th Edition, with the presentation of the Basic and Expert sets, would be perfect for me and my group. Like I said, that was what I was hoping that 4th Edition would be like.

 

[wrecan]

Ari, I think you perfectlydescribed aconcept I've been groping towards. I completely agree. But I do think there is room even for a "simple" arcane or divine class as well. I mean, the initial set could simply have "fighter", "rogue", "magic-user" and "cleric", four classes that fit the classic class roles andthree major power sources, which you could pick up and begin playing within a half-hour after opening the box. I think this is somethin Wizards should carefully consider for 5th edition.

If anybody saw the recentepisode of "Community" in which the group plays AD&D, they each had a 1st edition-style character that was jotted down on a single page that they could all play and begin having fun within twenty minutes of very basic explanation. I remember being able to do that, but I haven't been able to play that way in over a decade. I'd like to be able to get that back.

 

[Quickleaf]

The modern design of 3.x and 4th Edition, with the presentation of the Basic and Expert sets, would be perfect for me and my group. Like I said, that was what I was hoping that 4th Edition would be like.

Well said. Now that I see where this is going I like Ari's proposal.

My original comment was basically alluding to an organizational issue (not a problem per se) with the business model... If box #1 covers 1st thru 5th level with basic classes, and box #2 covers 6th thru 10th levels with intermediar classes, does that mean box #2 is that much larger because not only does it include the next 5 levels for the basic classes but it also includes all ten levels for the new intermediate classes... See where I'm going with this?

Obviously you dont want to negate info like the lack if compatability between 4e red box and 4e core/essentials.

Actually it would make sense if the basic set classes were the chassis on which the more advances "classes" (builds?) were built. So the base 4 would pretty much all strikers (the easiest role to get) flavored with a little bit of the other roles. The advanced fighter would become more and more defender-y as it leveled.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My original comment was basically alluding to an organizational issue (not a problem per se) with the business model... If box #1 covers 1st thru 5th level with basic classes, and box #2 covers 6th thru 10th levels with intermediar classes, does that mean box #2 is that much larger because not only does it include the next 5 levels for the basic classes but it also includes all ten levels for the new intermediate classes... See where I'm going with this?

Indeed, that could very well be a problem with the model, and would have to be addressed during design. My initial hope/goal with such a concept would be to make the basic classes so simple that including rules and mechanics for higher levels of those classes in future sets would take up a bare minimum of space. (For instance, the most basic fighter type might not even need much more than the equivalent of attack/defense progression.)

Plus, as you say, some of the more advanced options--the equivalents of paragon paths or prestige classes--could be built entirely as add-ons.

It's tricky; I make no claim otherwise. But I think it'd be worth doing.