D&D 5E From Loose to Tight - the Oscillation of Editions and D&D Next

[Mercurius]

As I sit here enjoying a white Christmas in New England and watching my two daughters playing with their new toys (and eating the too much candy "Santa" gave them)--and also waiting for the crepe batter to set--I have a few thoughts about D&D and such.

I've been thinking about D&D Next and its relationship to other editions, as well as the possible future(s) for the current 4E Crowd. It struck me that there is a kind of oscillation between editions having to do with how "tightly constructed" the game is, how much the game is tightly woven vs. more loose and open.

For instance, AD&D 1E was very loose - it had a rambling rules system with all sorts of add ons. 2E tried to tighten and streamline, jettisoning certain "fiddly parts" and making the system more cohesive (actually, one could say that it goes back further, with OD&D being more open and B/X being more tightly woven).

3E initially seemed tightly woven in that it had a core mechanic, yet it was because of its core mechanic that it became very loose and open-ended, easily customized and, of course, the basis for tons of alternate rules and hundreds of OGL d20 games.

4E returned to a more tightly focused rules system. While it still followed the d20 mechanic, its secondary systems were all tightly woven around it; it is more difficult to pick and choose, to add or subtract - it was very streamlined and cohesive in its structure.

There is a dynamic that can be seen in systems - whether in nature, in human cultural or societal systems, basically systems of any kind. It is an oscillation back and forth between extremes, a yin-yang dynamic. In the school I work at this has shown up as an oscillation over many years of more conservative to more liberal policies and ideologies (and employees, really), and back again, over and over again - year after year. This is quite natural and even healthy, yet I keep wondering if it is possible to exist on a "higher order"--a Hegelian synthesis--that incorporates the best of both extremes but doesn't fall into one or the other.

Now I think to some extent, each new iteration of a system does do this - it takes at least some of the old as its basis (thesis) and brings new elements into it (antithesis) and from that we have a new game (synthesis). Occasionally this becomes a regression; something vital was lost and a step backward has occured (many feel that this was the case with 4E, although I tend to feel that there was both a loss and gain with 4E).

Which brings me to D&D Next. For me the big question is whether they can really pull off what they've essentially said they're trying to pull off: integrate the best of all editions, especially 3.x and 4E, and thus both "streams" of the dynamic I mentioned above: the more tightly focused and the more open-ended and freeform.

Now it seems that 5E, at least relative to 4E, will continue the trend of going from tight-to-loose, so it will continue the oscillation. But can it do so while integrating the best of 4E, in particular its streamlined quality and playability? Some have said that 3.x is more "simulationist" and 4E more "gamist", which is why many of the 3.x fans were turned off. "My fighter has daily powers? What's up with that?" Yet for those who enjoy 4E, a major part of it is what the "AEDU Paradigm" allows for - a more tactical combat experience.

And that, I think, is one of the areas where we'll be able to tell if 5E is a higher order or just another variant: Can it include the key component of powers - which give all classes, even non-spellcasting ones, interesting and different things to do in each round, yet without the "gamist" abstraction?

Just some grist for the mill on this Christmas Day...

 

[pemerton]

AD&D 1E was very loose

<snip>

4E returned to a more tightly focused rules system. While it still followed the d20 mechanic, its secondary systems were all tightly woven around it; it is more difficult to pick and choose, to add or subtract - it was very streamlined and cohesive in its structure.

I'm not sure that AD&D is as loose as you posit.

Yes, it's action resolution mechanics are somewhat rambling - d20s for listening at doors (unless you're a thief!), d6s for initiative, surprise and most searches (unless you're a thief!), d% for morale and evasion (and nearly everything else if you're a thief!), etc.

But look at what its action resolution mechanics cover - combat, searching at and opening doors, searching for and disarming traps, morale, evasion and not much else. Then look at the XP system. And the equipment list. And the Monster Manual. And then look at Gygax's advice at the end of the PHB, on what makes for "skilled" play. And you'll see the game is actually fairly tightly focused on dungeon exploration with the operational dimension of play as the central focus.

Yes, the DMG has rules for other scenarios: seafaring, aerial combat, plane-hopping etc. But those rules are pretty obviously incomplete, and I think it's telling that Gygax suggests swapping to different resolution systems, with different focuses (eg Boot Hill, Gamma World) for really satisfactory extra-dimensionsal play.

If you want to play a game of political intrigue based around the economic and religious expansion of a seafaring nation (eg a fantasy version of early modern Spain or Portugal) AD&D has very little to offer you other than the CHA stat and PC archetypes. The economic rules won't really work (as the PHB explains, they're intended to capture the situation of purchasing gear at the town nearby to the megadungeon). The XP rules won't work. Your action resolution rules for sea travel, ship-to-ship combat and hand-to-hand combat are not really very good for the sorts of scenarios that will arise in this game. And you've got next-to-no social resolution rules at all. (The morale and loyalty rules don't cover the resolution of negotiations, or conversions, for example.)

As for 4e, it is also pretty tight, though with a different focus of play from AD&D. But I'm curious as to what "secondary systems" you think can't be prised off. There are certainly plenty of people who use different rules for rests, for surge replenishment, and for non-combat resolution, for instance.

Some have said that 3.x is more "simulationist" and 4E more "gamist", which is why many of the 3.x fans were turned off. "My fighter has daily powers? What's up with that?" Yet for those who enjoy 4E, a major part of it is what the "AEDU Paradigm" allows for - a more tactical combat experience.

I think it's more than just a tactical experience. It's an experience in which choices made during play matter in significant ways to action resolution - where the mattering goes both to success in the straightforward sense (eg winning the fight) but also to being able to impose your image of your PC onto the ingame situation.

D&D magic-users, and to a lesser extent (though maybe in 3E the extent wasn't lesser) clerics, have always lent themselves to this. 4e generalises that element of the RPG experience to all the classes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Mercurius Some have said that 3.x is more "simulationist" and 4E more "gamist", which is why many of the 3.x fans were turned off. "My fighter has daily powers? What's up with that?" Yet for those who enjoy 4E, a major part of it is what the "AEDU Paradigm" allows for - a more tactical combat experience.

As for 4e, it is also pretty tight, though with a different focus of play from AD&D. But I'm curious as to what "secondary systems" you think can't be prised off. There are certainly plenty of people who use different rules for rests, for surge replenishment, and for non-combat resolution, for instance.

I think it's more than just a tactical experience. It's an experience in which choices made during play matter in significant ways to action resolution - where the mattering goes both to success in the straightforward sense (eg winning the fight) but also to being able to impose your image of your PC onto the ingame situation.

D&D magic-users, and to a lesser extent (though maybe in 3E the extent wasn't lesser) clerics, have always lent themselves to this. 4e generalises that element of the RPG experience to all the classes.

I agree on every word of the 1e portion but I specifically wanted to address the bolded (mine)

That portion cannot be stressed enough. Empowering players (especially the experience for martial players unique to this edition) to actualize their archetype, to dictate their thematic amplitude and frequency, is as much (or more) the strength of the edition when compared to the rewards of its tactical depth.

 

[Obryn]

Now it seems that 5E, at least relative to 4E, will continue the trend of going from tight-to-loose, so it will continue the oscillation. But can it do so while integrating the best of 4E, in particular its streamlined quality and playability? Some have said that 3.x is more "simulationist" and 4E more "gamist", which is why many of the 3.x fans were turned off. "My fighter has daily powers? What's up with that?" Yet for those who enjoy 4E, a major part of it is what the "AEDU Paradigm" allows for - a more tactical combat experience.

It's about fiat, not tactics, IMO.

A Wizard in every edition gets to declare, "a fireball explodes in the middle of the room" by player fiat. It happens.

A 4e Fighter gets to declare, "I hit him in the head so hard he's stunned" by player fiat. It happens.

-O

 

[Mercurius]

I'm not sure that AD&D is as loose as you posit.

I hear ya, but I think you went a bit too literal or concrete with my loose/tight analogy. First of all, it is in relation to the editions on either side; 1E was looser than 2E, which was tighter than 3E, which was looser than 4E. Or at least that's how I see it based upon the general quality I'm looking at.

Let me put it another way. First of all, let me put it out there that I haven't played 2E in 16 or 17 years, and 1E in 25 years or more - so my memory is a bit fuzzy. But a lot of the stuff you mention about 1E is stuff that a lot of folks didn't use. Everyone that I played with in the early to mid-80s saw almost everything as optional. Encumbrance? Yeah, right. We played the core game, pick and choose a bunch of other stuff and then just made everything else up.

With 2E, a lot of the messiness and Gygaxian inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies were cleaned up (which is why 2E wasn't as charming), and it made playing the secondary rules a lot easier.

3E was comparatively loose because its core mechanic made it easier to pick and choose again, to add and subtract. But 4E came in and had a denser secondary system woven around the core mechanic, namely the AEDU powers, which made it very difficult to modify the rules without impacting something you didn't know you were impacting. Sort of like a game of pick-up sticks.

I think it's more than just a tactical experience. It's an experience in which choices made during play matter in significant ways to action resolution - where the mattering goes both to success in the straightforward sense (eg winning the fight) but also to being able to impose your image of your PC onto the ingame situation.

D&D magic-users, and to a lesser extent (though maybe in 3E the extent wasn't lesser) clerics, have always lent themselves to this. 4e generalises that element of the RPG experience to all the classes.

Yes and no. What you describe is true, but the problem - and I think turn-off for many "traditionalists" - is that all of this occured in a more abstract context. Players could "impose their image" of their character in a more meaningful way than before, but the separation between player and character became wider because 4E game play, as a general rule, lends itself to a less immersive experience than previous editions. You may not agree with me, and I'm sure someone will say "I couldn't disagree with you more" because this is ENWorld, but that's been my experience and the experience of almost everyone I've played or talked with. But this goes back to 3E and has a lot to do with miniatures and battlemats, but the abstract "gamist" nature of AEDU powers accentuated this even more.

 

[S'mon]

That portion cannot be stressed enough. Empowering players (especially the experience for martial players unique to this edition) to actualize their archetype, to dictate their thematic amplitude and frequency, is as much (or more) the strength of the edition when compared to the rewards of its tactical depth.

Yes, this was exactly what got me hooked on 4e, despite the very off-putting presentation of the PHB. Playing Rothgar the Fighter and being able to match the vision in my head with the way he played at-table, for the first time ever.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, this was exactly what got me hooked on 4e, despite the very off-putting presentation of the PHB. Playing Rothgar the Fighter and being able to match the vision in my head with the way he played at-table, for the first time ever.

Its almost poll-worthy. I know the two are inextricably linked in 4e, but I wonder what percentage of martial character players (if they had to choose one of the two) would choose thematic depth over tactical depth as the greatest draw.

Its wonderful that they are both present, but if you could make mechanical resolution be relatively shallow (a few options, but meaningful ones that diversify martial archetypes/approaches), but impactful, whiling maintaining the thematic depth, my guess is that a great number of martial players would make that sacrifice (if they had to sacrifice one of the two).

 

[S'mon]

Its almost poll-worthy. I know the two are inextricably linked in 4e, but I wonder what percentage of martial character players (if they had to choose one of the two) would choose thematic depth over tactical depth as the greatest draw.

For me it was definitely the thematic depth. The tactics per se don't interest me that much, eg I bought & played "Wrath of Ashardalon" but the tactics without the thematics just felt very flat to me. For tactical play I generally prefer more unit-based wargamey stuff; I get more tactical enjoyment commanding a squad of troops in a simple D&D game like Moldvay B/X than I do over 4e tactics as such. What I love in 4e is the GM gloating as his Goblin Hexer blasts & Dazes me and runs away, but then I do the 'wolf grin', pull out a trick combo of Action Point & Daily, charge after him, soak up the opportunity attacks from his bodyguards (taking me to about 20% of max hp), catch the little bugger and smear him all over the dungeon room. It was tactically a terrible choice but after 9 years of seeing 3e Fighters crippled by Will save fails, it was oh-so-satisfying and sold me on 4e.

 

[S'mon]

DPost

 

[Manbearcat]

catch the little bugger and smear him all over the dungeon room. It was tactically a terrible choice but after 9 years of seeing 3e Fighters crippled by Will save fails, it was oh-so-satisfying and sold me on 4e.

Can't xp but this could have been written (word for word) by my two players who love martial archetypes and have stated pretty much the exact same thing. Your post would have worked well as a prelude to the crunchy bits of the 4e PHB.

The ability to say: "Oh, I'm stunned, dazed, dominated by this goblin caster, am I? I blink once, grind my teeth, spit out my own blood and use <True Grit> (whatever, some power to throw off that condition as a minor action). I howl in defiance, and weave a tapestry of death as I cut a bloody path (my own and theirs) to the goblin leader (some daily that gives attacks against each adjacent opponent as you move by them and gives you a damage bonus for each Opportunity Attack against you). I cut him down like a dog (AP)...Whoever is left will quickly loses heart."

Its that sort of martial protaganism that my two players love.