D&D 5E Dear 5e design team: Please research earlier editions

[Dungeonosophy]

I have no doubt that Monte, Mike and the rest of the 5e team are D&D whizzes. And I've heard that in preparation for 5e, the team played earlier editions.

Yet I suggest that for each feature of 5e, some WotC go-fer actually sit down and read the relevant sourcebooks from earlier editions, and glean lost crunch, so that their distillation into 5e will be grounded in concrete details which may've been forgotten.

For example, the Classic D&D demihuman races have distinct high-level abilities (e.g. dodging dragonfire) which didn't appear in AD&D, but which might be distilled into D&D Next.

When designing the 5e dwarf, elf, and halfling, why not have an intern tease out any forgotten crunch and lore from?:

• GAZ5 The Elves of Alfheim
• GAZ6 The Dwarves of Rockhome
• GAZ8 The Five Shires by Ed Greenwood
• Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves
• FR11 Dwarves Deep
• FOR5 Elves of Evermeet
• FOR12 Demihumans of the Realms
• DLS2: Tree Lords
• DLS3: Oak Lords
• DLS4: Wild Elves
• PHBR6: Complete Book of Dwarves (yeah I know these books are dismissed nowadays, but they were an integral part of that era of D&D)
• PHBR8: Complete Book of Elves
• PHBR9: Complete Book of Gnomes & Halflings

Each 5e design feature, race, class, spells, ought to be grounded in historical xD&D research.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Likewise, for Backgrounds and Themes, why not have an intern gather a list of all 2e kits--including the revised, simplified kit system from 2e Player's Option? Same for the various BECMI, 1e, 3e, and 4e "sub-class" options or builds, including those from Dragon Magazine. I imagine this research document would include a bare-bones list of their crunch too.

For example, if there's going to be a 5e Jester and 5e Beastmaster background or theme, why invent them out of thin air? Why not at least refresh the design team's memory as to what the 1e Jester and Beastmaster NPC class and 2e Bard Jester kit and Ranger Beastmaster kit were like?

Something can't be distilled if it's been forgotten.

 

[the Jester]

I'm with you in the principle of "let's read the old stuff", except that a lot of the old stuff is utterly broken crap (Complete Book of Elves, I'm looking at you). I think the best approach is to reread those sourcebooks more for inspiration rather than as a way to find old mechanics to shoehorn into the system.

But the thing is, the design team has already done this. Before they started doing the design work, they played every edition of D&D. I don't know why you appear to be assuming that they haven't researched this stuff already- it seems apparent to me that they have.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Probably best to crowdsource this kind of thing, ie use guys like yourself, DnDPhilmont. As I understand it, D&DNext will rely heavily on external playtesting and feedback anyway.

 

[Jawsh]

I'm with you in the principle of "let's read the old stuff"

Me too.

except that a lot of the old stuff is utterly broken crap (Complete Book of Elves, I'm looking at you).

True, but I think the culprit behind the utterly broken crap is that it was rushed at the time. The designers were under the gun, tried really hard to think of a cool mechanic, or something great that should happen in the game. Then they did it. They accomplished what they were under the gun for, except they didn't develop it all the way, or consider all the consequences. They got as far as "this cool thing should happen" but didn't consider all the side effects. Let us thank Pelor that they managed to create something, necessity being the mother of invention, and deadlines being the mother of great prose. But let's not throw away their mechanical solutions immediately.

I think the best approach is to reread those sourcebooks more for inspiration rather than as a way to find old mechanics to shoehorn into the system.

I agree with you in a way. If all you do is just look at those old books for a cursory "inspiration", then you'll probably encounter similar problems in implementation. You'll just end up taking the ruleset down a slightly different rabbit hole. The idea ought to be to stand on the shoulders of giants. Look at exactly what they did mechanically, and try to stick as close to that as possible, while fixing the accidental problems that crop up.

You can't be like "sheesh, there are just so many problems with ability scores, it's pretty clear ability scores just don't fit our design goals. Out they go." Rather, I'd say start with the mechanics as given, and only change them if you absolutely have to.

But the thing is, the design team has already done this. Before they started doing the design work, they played every edition of D&D. I don't know why you appear to be assuming that they haven't researched this stuff already- it seems apparent to me that they have.

True, they have mentioned playing older editions of D&D many times. I have no doubt that they really did play a lot of old D&D and do a lot of research. But we don't exactly know how much that entails. D&D is a very deep hobby. "I played old D&D" can mean widely different things to different players. As far as I'm concerned, playing old versions of D&D as they appear in the Core Rulebooks alone is not sufficient. Neither is a selected canon. What I want to hear from WotC is a story about how they went through every roleplaying book ever published by TSR, and a large number published by Judges Guild, and many others.

But what I want from 5E is pretty huge. I'm not ashamed of asking for the moon, but I won't be surprised if I get another magazine-style treatment of the D&D game. The best I'm hoping for is "it sorta feels like D&D. I mean, there are people called elves and dwarves and rangers and wizards in it. That must make it D&D, right? Also Driz'zt."

 

[Kynn]

I want them to learn from the past, not repeat it.

There are a lot of terrible things in those old books that should be left back in the 20th century.

 

[SteveC]

I don't think there's much danger of old edition not being listened to.

I think the primary danger at this point is not seeing why changes were made as the editions progressed.

 

[Mark CMG]

Dear 5e design team: Please research earlier editions.

They missed a huge opportunity by not coming to Gary Con IV in Lake Geneva, WI, a few weeks ago. They could have gamed with hundreds of folks who still play the early editions regularly, played in games run by the folks who wrote the rules and played in the original campaigns, sat and had discussions with al of the old guard and picked their brains about what to do going forward if they want to draw back in traditional players. They could have even run playtest games and get direct feedback from those players. I suppose they were too busy getting ready for Pax East. I hope that served them as well as Gary Con might have done.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think there's much danger of old edition not being listened to.

I think the primary danger at this point is not seeing why changes were made as the editions progressed.

That seems unfounded since they still have some of the main guys on board who transitioned the game from 2E to 3.XE to 4.XE. Deciding to divorce themselves from some of those changes isn't the same thing as not being aware of them.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm with you in the principle of "let's read the old stuff", except that a lot of the old stuff is utterly broken crap (Complete Book of Elves, I'm looking at you). I think the best approach is to reread those sourcebooks more for inspiration rather than as a way to find old mechanics to shoehorn into the system.

But the thing is, the design team has already done this. Before they started doing the design work, they played every edition of D&D. I don't know why you appear to be assuming that they haven't researched this stuff already- it seems apparent to me that they have.

That's in the bubble rather than out in the wild. For instance, if some folks who only ever played Rolemaster picked up some original Gamma World game materials and tried to run it, they'd likely approach it based off their RM experience rather than as it was originally intended to be viewed. I think missing the chance to be at Gary Con was either a huge mistake or a conscious decision, and either way it doesn't bode well, IMO, for how 5E will sit with traditional players of the older editions.