D&D 5E D&D Next: The Toolbox Edition (What's not to like?)

[Mercurius]

Let's get back to basics for a moment, and look again at the essential design principles of D&D Next. Here's a quote from the D&D 5E Info page:

"...there's no reason why, in addition to Vancian spellcasting for wizards and other classes, we couldn't explore alternatives. If we've done our job right, we can provide rules for spell points or some other spellcasting system, or maybe several other spellcasting systems if we need to. A goal for the game is to make it as modular as possible while still maintaining a baseline of classic D&D fantasy, and part of that modularity can include alternatives to mechanics presented in the baseline. We also know that there are elements of non-Vancian magic systems that would be a good idea to incorporate into a Vancian wizard; at-will spells are a piece of game tech that doesn't fit in the classic Vancian model, but that we know is both popular with players and also helps reinforce the wizard as a representative of the master-of-magic archetype."

I've highlighted the most crucial part. While this quote is specific to magic use, I think it is quite representative of the design goals for 5E as a whole.

So the question is, what's not to like about that? Does anyone actually not approve of the goal of making the game "as modular as possible while still maintaining the baseline of classic D&D fantasy?" Does anyone actually lose if they pull this off? You can play your crunchy 3.5-esque game, even "out-3.5 3.5" with enormously detailed character creation. Or you can play a cinematic wuxia-esque 4E-style game with even more over-the-top powers. Or you can play an old school Gygaxian 1E-esque game.

What the game won't do, it seems, is give you a predetermined set of rules that caters to your exact play style and/or railroad everyone into playing the same version of the game. What it will do, as far as I can tell (and hope), is provide a simple basic game and a toolbox of options to play with, to make the game our own.

Speaking for myself, they can't be taking a better approach. You mean you're simplifying the core game so I can play quick-and-dirty without complex conditional modifiers and a million rules sub-systems to wade through? I can customize the game so that I only add those sub-systems that I'm interested in, even changing it up in different encounters? You're providing me with a bucket-load of options that are all mutually compatible and I can pick-and-choose from?

Again, what's not to like? I know it might be a big "if," but if they do pull this off it really has something for everyone. Even if you still prefer a specific edition of the game to Next, I don't see what fault can be found in this sort of approach unless one feels that everyone should play D&D a certain, uniform way. What D&D Next seems to be (finally) doing is institutionalizing the approach that most DMs and groups take, and helping us do it: making the game customizable and intentionally designing not as a codified system of rules and laws, but a toolbox.

If that is really what D&D Next is about, or at least comes close to that, then sign me up! I'm on-board.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The goal sounds the same as 3e, which was pretty explicitly the toolbox edition. Making the canvas broader and refining the tools are not easy goals, but they are worthy ones.

 

[Gilladian]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

2) I'm a player looking for a new game, or a DM recruiting. Right now, I say "I run 3.5e, E6 version". Anyone who doesn't understand can ask "What's E6?"

Under DnDN I might spend 5 minutes laying out what I do and don't allow or use in my campaign, just to explain WHAT GAME we're playing.

If they can minimize these issues, I'm definitely in favor of where 5e seems to be going.

 

[Khaalis]

So the question is, what's not to like about that?

There will always be detractors.

The problem I have seen posted so many times in the past weeks on these forums is that apparently there is a rather vocal group who only want a book that is the "baseline of classic D&D fantasy" and don't want "modularity" anywhere near their "baseline" games. Its almost as if there are those that feel that modular options contaminate the purity of their games, or that they either can't or don't want to be forced to make a decision to say Yes or No to the use of any modular options.

 

[Mercurius]

There are some problems with modularity of rules:

1) an adventure module is published. On the back cover, they spend 44 lines of text telling you they use rule a but not b and module c for combat is required and the magic system the bad guys use is module a again, ad nauseum and they have no room to tell you what the cool adventure is. Inside, the adventure writers have to spend 16 extra pages of notes on "if you don't use this feature, replace it with that feature" stuff.

Yeah, that is something that has crossed my mind. I do think there are ways to minimize this, though, and it is based in ideas for my "ideal 5E" that I've written about here, well before the official announcement. One way to go about it is to have three broad variations of the game:

1. Basic - this is the simple, core game, that is common to all variations of D&D Next.
2. Advanced - this is the default combination of modular options; what could be called "WotC's house rules" and would in essence be an attempt by WotC to hybridize the best of 3.5 and 4E into a new advanced game.
3. Toolbox - this is where all of the modular options are, and from which the Advanced game is drawn.

All official adventures could be run with Basic and most with Advanced; monster books would be in Basic/Advanced format; tournament play could be either Basic or Advanced. The other modular options are customizations for specific campaigns but are still compatible with Basic and Advanced. So, for example, if you have a party of "Toolbox" PCs there would be no problem running them through an official adventure.

So this problem (and others that you didn't mention, like tournament play) is, at least, minimized through having a default "Advanced" game.

But it should also be clear that the design goals of D&D Next would theoretically allow for some toolbox options to be in a Basic (or Advanced) game, at least with regards to character options. So it shouldn't matter how an adventure is written; all 5E characters should be mutually compatible with just about every variation of the game. How combat and other encounters are handled is a different matter, but again, even a character with detailed skills should be usable in a Basic game that uses abilities for skill checks as default.

2) I'm a player looking for a new game, or a DM recruiting. Right now, I say "I run 3.5e, E6 version". Anyone who doesn't understand can ask "What's E6?"

Under DnDN I might spend 5 minutes laying out what I do and don't allow or use in my campaign, just to explain WHAT GAME we're playing.

5 minutes? That's nothing. How long does it usually take for most DMs to set-up a new campaign with players? Most groups I've played in use most or all of the first session just on set-up: character creation, background, setting description, maybe an introductory encounter.

If WotC is really clever then they can offer customizable computer tools so that, for instance, a DM can set up the 5E Character Builder with pre-set options, or even customizable rule books that you can click on modular options and only those are displayed in the online/PDF rulebook.

There will always be detractors.

The problem I have seen posted so many times in the past weeks on these forums is that apparently there is a rather vocal group who only want a book that is the "baseline of classic D&D fantasy" and don't want "modularity" anywhere near their "baseline" games. Its almost as if there are those that feel that modular options contaminate the purity of their games, or that they either can't or don't want to be forced to make a decision to say Yes or No to the use of any modular options.

Yeah, I see this as well. On one hand I can understand why someone interested in a more classic game wouldn't want a dragonborn or shardmind in the Players Handbook; this is why I advocate the first PHB being very "classic" in feel, with maybe only a sprinkling of WotC D&D exotica. But once you get past that, say into later splat books or online tools, I see no reason not to have as many options and variations as possible.

So there are ways to get around this in terms of layout and packaging. For instance, WotC can come out with a starter set (the "Next Red Box") modeled somewhat after the Pathfinder Beginner's Box that includes the Basic rules and the basic rules only, levels 1-5. WotC could come out with further box sets that expand the Basic rules up to 20th level and beyond; e.g. "Starter Set (levels 1-5), Heroic Box (levels 1-10, more classes and races), Paragon Box (11-20), Epic Box (21-30). Then they can publish the hardcovers, which would include both the basic rules and the default Advanced game (see above), as well as other modular options.

So for those wanting a more classic/simple game, they can still to the box sets. For those wanting the modular options they can buy the hardcover books.

Now of course there are going to be some folks that are unhappy no matter what, unless of course WotC decides to dial everything back in time to 19xx and edition y, but there's just no pleasing some folks. I think what WotC is going for--and is possible (if difficult) to accomplish--is creating a game that pleases a sizable chunk of folks, attracts new players, and at least doesn't offend those that aren't interested in it. There is always going to be an (unfortunately vocal) minority that hates whatever WotC comes up with. Let's just hope that with D&D Next it is relatively small.

 

[Kaodi]

I am all for not limiting the game to the " baseline of classic D&D fantasy " , but shardminds as they are now have to go (at least from being a PHB race). Those things are so far from the baseline that they might as well be equivalent of the gate from the Far Realm to the Farther Realm.

They would be better as creatures resulting from Sardior envying or dreaming of the dragonborn...

Edit: And especially if third party publishers are able to publish adventures for 7e, then it might be that the solution to the, the solution might be to just have a ton of adventures using different combinations or modules. If the game actually works as proposed though, it might be trivially easy to write adventures that just tells you what modules can be added in each encounters write-up.

 

[delericho]

So the question is, what's not to like about that? Does anyone actually not approve of the goal of making the game "as modular as possible while still maintaining the baseline of classic D&D fantasy?" Does anyone actually lose if they pull this off?

Two issues:

A modular game is inherently more complex than the equivalent game with the modules "baked in". There will always be some rough edges where the modules meet.

The more modular the game, the more thinly the support needs to be spread. Given that WotC versions of D&D have practically required large amounts of support, that could be a real problem. Is it really better to have a game that can be customised in 500 improperly supported ways, rather than a monolithic game that actually gets the support it needs?

The modular approach is an interesting one. If they pull it off, it will be extremely impressive. But it is not without its flaws.

 

[Otakkun]

So basically 3 editions at once. That would make sense for player options, I just hope they decide to focus on monsters and encounters/maps/organizations this time around with the extra books.

 

[grimslade]

Well, the 5e War Paladin is just a mockery of everything that a paladin is and was in 1E. And orcs are monster not a race. And why did fighters gain Vancian maneuvers and a combat tome to practice katas from? Oh, sorry missed my meds today.

There is nothing to like or dislike at this point. There is marketing spin and a lot of open ended questioning. I can make a case that 5E is BECMI with a fresh coat of paint or 3.x with a few tweaks. Until we get some play test docs or reports, there is nothing to go on other than reading tea leaves of sanitized blogposts and bad surveys.

Let's talk about what we want or what we don't want in a new edition. But, passing judgement on an edition in alpha is pointless. It is either cheer leading or pessimistic naysaying.

If the next iteration is a strong base system with pluggable rules mods, I will be happy. As to the adventures and different rules, I think the majority will be able to be used seamlessly with the base rules. Tactical Combat will be an exception but that should be able to be lessened to base rules with side notes. Most adventures will be written with base in mind. Feats and skill ranks present options but shouldn't alter base mechanics. Essentials characters playing next to tricked out CharOp builds showed the way to that.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The problem I have seen posted so many times in the past weeks on these forums is that apparently there is a rather vocal group who only want a book that is the "baseline of classic D&D fantasy" and don't want "modularity" anywhere near their "baseline" games. Its almost as if there are those that feel that modular options contaminate the purity of their games, or that they either can't or don't want to be forced to make a decision to say Yes or No to the use of any modular options.

"Contaminate the purity" = Great way to marginalize a legitimate viewpoint.

How about, we grognards don't want to physically schlep around hardcover books full of stuff we won't bother using?

A baseline game that fits into one book (especially if that book can be digest-sized and paperback -- those are really portable!) is all I could ever ask for. Is that so criminal?