D&D General Breadth vs Depth: Is D&D designed the wrong way around?

[EzekielRaiden]

To explain the possible clickbait title, D&D, even 5e, is designed depth-first, not breadth-first. Devs lay out a 1-20 framework, basic math/scaling, spell progression, HP values, etc., and then design 20-level classes to fill 20-level spaces. This creates tensions: balance across a wide range of levels, the idea of "too many" classes, the "it's okay to become godlike if you start pathetic" issue, multicass fears (whether overblown or reasonable), issues of "bloat" or "power creep," etc.

But what if that's got things backwards?

Imagine a D&D designed breadth-first, going only to level 10. Not the 13th Age way, where 20 levels have been compressed to 10. I mean it actually stops at (more or less) the power level of level 10 that 5e has today. No 6th+ spells. Nothing with prerequisites higher than 10. No Extra Attack x4. Etc. Some tweaks are likely--you'd want to create new, level 10-appropriate capstones for example--but the core idea is, it's D&D that actually stops at 10. Then, fill all the space gained with a few more classes. Say 7, to bring things up to a nice round 20. Breadth, not depth.

Then, instead of adding breadth (or, as some might say, bloat) to an already tall game, add depth to an already wide game. N more levels (probably 10), truly designed and balanced for use AS higher-level, more-powerful characters, with real adventures designed for that purpose. IOW, the way Expert expanded on Basic. And then repeat it, if it proves successful, the way Companion, Master, and Immortal built on Basic+Expert.

Instead of "nobody plays past 10-12" being a bug, it would be a feature: the game is designed to be genuinely, fully enjoyable across that range. And if folks want to progress further--or start higher--that's where the 11-20 rules (call it "Paragon" or "Expert" or whatever) come in. And you could even do the reverse, build up "novice" levels meant to give the absolute zero-to-hero experience some folks crave.

Consider the impact on multiclassing, everyone's favorite bugaboo. Giving up a level or two in 5e now is small potatoes, and often brings big rewards. With smaller but still valuable 10th level capstones and fewer bonuses, sacrificing two or three levels becomes a pretty serious investment. And then those 7 extra classes come in: rather than the power creep from multiclassing or constant subclass one-upmanship, the extra classes can fill in thematic gaps and offer a smooth progression without weird intermixing.

Further, consider the boon to homebrewers and third-party publishers. You only need to design for half as big a range; for spells, you only need to design 2/3 of the spell levels (cantrips + 1st-5th.) Smaller, more focused additions. Anyone wanting to rebuild the base game for a more specific flavor, such as low/no-magic "Sword and Sandal" or high-tech "Science Fantasy" or period fantasy (e.g. Wyld West) would have a much easier time, taking it in comparatively bite-sized chunks.

There could still be horizontal progression, e.g. perhaps the first couple years are dedicated to new subclasses and races, and then the "Paragon"/"Expert" rules come out at the start of the second year. Add a little more breadth to those for a couple years and determine the best direction to go from there. Etc.

So...am I crazy? Or have we gotten so wrapped up in a specific kind of depth-first design that we fail to see the obvious solution to a bunch of problems D&D design currently deals with?

 

[Krachek]

A lot of people already play mostly those levels. Say 3-10. And rarely experiment high level play,
So you say that we can just ignore level 11+ and concentrate efforts on lower level for balance, fun, playability.
What to do with higher level? Add an additional PHB as a supplement to core rule?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A lot of people already play mostly those levels. Say 3-10. And rarely experiment high level play,
So you say that we can just ignore level 11+ and concentrate efforts on lower level for balance, fun, playability.

...yes, that was the point. Build the game to be the best it can be for that purpose, and then do higher-level things separately, later.

What to do with higher level? Add an additional PHB as a supplement to core rule?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying...that's why I compared it to Basic and Expert. Which had separate books originally--Basic, then Expert, then Companion, then Master, then Immortal. Which all got compiled together as BECMI later on.

 

[Maxperson]

To explain the possible clickbait title, D&D, even 5e, is designed depth-first, not breadth-first. Devs lay out a 1-20 framework, basic math/scaling, spell progression, HP values, etc., and then design 20-level classes to fill 20-level spaces. This creates tensions: balance across a wide range of levels, the idea of "too many" classes, the "it's okay to become godlike if you start pathetic" issue, multicass fears (whether overblown or reasonable), issues of "bloat" or "power creep," etc.

But what if that's got things backwards?

Imagine a D&D designed breadth-first, going only to level 10. Not the 13th Age way, where 20 levels have been compressed to 10. I mean it actually stops at (more or less) the power level of level 10 that 5e has today. No 6th+ spells. Nothing with prerequisites higher than 10. No Extra Attack x4. Etc. Some tweaks are likely--you'd want to create new, level 10-appropriate capstones for example--but the core idea is, it's D&D that actually stops at 10. Then, fill all the space gained with a few more classes. Say 7, to bring things up to a nice round 20. Breadth, not depth.

I would not play that game. Phenomenal cosmic power is extremely fun.

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of people already play mostly those levels. Say 3-10. And rarely experiment high level play,
So you say that we can just ignore level 11+ and concentrate efforts on lower level for balance, fun, playability.
What to do with higher level? Add an additional PHB as a supplement to core rule?

If even 5% of players reach high level, that's still millions. They should keep it so that those of us who do play to 20 can have fun at high levels.

 

[Pedantic]

I've been saying something similar for years, though I think I've largely approached it from the opposite angle. Less, the design should begin with an intended lower level end point and then be expanded outward, more that content should be appropriately tiered from the outset. =

It's ridiculous to write a pirate themed adventure at level 13, or a book dealing with frozen tundra survival that has material relevant to level 15 characters. The tundra isn't a problem at that level, those characters can trivially ignore environmental conditions they don't like, and/or leave whenever they want. Boats don't make sense as means of conveyance for high level characters, and are instead set-pieces or smaller parts of larger moving threats. Dealing with an armada of ships at those levels is at best a single encounter, and more likely set-dressing for whatever the real encounter is.

Those points should be knowable, laid out in advance to DMs and players so that sensible adventure/worldbuilding/encounter design can take place. D&D would do a lot better as the generic fantasy system if it made a point of telling its users exactly where in its massive power scale any given fantasy fits. It's also a convenient answer to the Fighter problem, because you can actually print archetypes inside the appropriate power-range they can support.

I'm less sold that level-by-level multiclassing is still really a good idea in that setup, as, if PC capability is going to expand to fill each tier as appropriate, the costs are significantly higher, risking making it even more a trap for players. Better to just write more classes, but it might work as a variant rule for games that stick within a specific tier. I also worry that the entire design still needs to be realized (or at least planned) from the outset, or you run into some weird scaling problems with things like skills.

All told though, I think it's absolutely on the right track. Personally, I've been most fond of presenting it in the form of shorter classes, that one only takes for the duration of a given tier, before selecting another one, maybe with some sensible progression groupings.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would not play that game. Phenomenal cosmic power is extremely fun.

View attachment 288497

No one is saying you would never get that. My proposal is that we give a diverse and well-distributed starting game, and then rules for your (as stated) "phenomenal cosmic power" with the "Expert set" equivalent. Just as what happened with BECMI, as I said.

 

[Maxperson]

No one is saying you would never get that. My proposal is that we give a diverse and well-distributed starting game, and then rules for your (as stated) "phenomenal cosmic power" with the "Expert set" equivalent. Just as what happened with BECMI, as I said.

Wizards has a very poor release rate, especially when it comes to more crunch. It would be years before it came out, if it ever did. The millions of us who play to high level don't want to wait years.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wizards has a very poor release rate, especially when it comes to more crunch. It would be years before it came out, if it ever did. The millions of us who play to high level don't want to wait years.

Join the club, then, for people who want, say, tactical combat.

And, seriously, "millions"? 5% is not "millions" with D&D. 5% is at best a million. If you're lucky.

 

[Maxperson]

Join the club, then, for people who want, say, tactical combat.

And, seriously, "millions"? 5% is not "millions" with D&D. 5% is at best a million. If you're lucky.

That's still a lot, and I think the percentage of groups that play to higher levels is greater than that. Every group I've played with has gone into the teens, and I've played with a lot of different groups. I suppose I could be the uber lucky player who hits 5% more than a dozen times in a row, but I doubt it. I've always been very skeptical of D&D Beyond/WotC's claim about that.