Heroes, Zeroes, and Kings

[Ratskinner]

I agree with the design team. Its easier to start with a simple base and add complexity. Especially given the history of the game and the groups that they intend to corral with it, 5e seems to be heading that way.

There is something else that comes up occasionally, especially in the context of higher level play, that is called "Super Heroics" or as [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] puts it:

No, it has to be hyper capable, nothing less. At least, it has to become hypercapable by high levels. If you're going to have a game where the casters can fly around, teleport, create planes of existence, raise undead armies, bring back the dead, etc...

...The guy whose class feature is to swing his sword around better be able to create category 5 hurricanes from doing so and be able to parry spells with the ease of which a normal person bats away a fly.

Sorry, but anything less is simply unacceptable.

Of course, there are also those who prefer high-level play to focus in other directions, "Castles and Kings" one might call it. Where the PCs aren't necessarily cleaving off mountaintops, but instead moving armies and borders around. Generally, except for casters, maybe living a more mundane existence.

I certainly encourage WOTC to provide modules for both styles of play. In fact, I feel that high level play should be totally modular in basis, because there seems to be such a divergence in expectations from mythological supers to renaissance politics. However, that still leaves low and mid level play to consider, and that varies between editions as well (though not as much, I think.)

I don't think its just a fluff issue, because it sounds like StreamOfTheSky and those like him are asking for a 20th level fighters to get an ability called Generate Hurricane and there are genre-appropropriate sources for them doing so (especially if you extend D&D to include mythology). There are also genre-appropriate sources for the other direction as well. The question I have is: Is it easier to start with the "hyper" assumption and pare it down for the "mundane" campaigns, or is it easier to start with "mundane" and add on modules for the "super"? What should the Basic/Core game presume about Fighters and Thieves at low-mid level?

 

[Hassassin]

I think superheroes belong to the epic tier. I'd rather take abilities from spellcasters than give martial characters superpowers, if that's what it takes.

Switching from a mundane (whether gritty or heroic) fighter to a superhero should be a genre choice, not something that gradually happens in the course of normal level progression.

(Choosing to start at or go to epic levels counts as making the choice.)

 

[KesselZero]

I can buy the argument that epic = superpowered, but in that case epic-level play should itself be an add-on, not core. Before 4e people talked about playing a character from levels 1-20; anything past that was a special case. With 4e there's a built-in expectation that a long-term campaign will go into the epic levels, since the core PHB covers levels 1-30. (The fact that 4e tends towards superheroics from the very beginning adds to this as well.) I'd like to be able to play a campaign that never gets superpowered and still have my players be able to say they played that character for his or her full life, rather than their DM chopped the game off before their characters reached full power.

In a Panglossian best of all worlds, I'd like epic play not to *have* to be superpowered, but to have that as an option for individual players. I think it would be cool to have balance between a king-of-the-realm PC and a bound-for-godhood PC and a working-on-lichdom PC and a boss-of-the-thief's-guild PC. Not sure how that would work, though, and it may be more of a campaign style issue...

 

[kitsune9]

I think some players will like the superheroic aspect of epic play, but others idea of fantasy will be tough with sword and spell, but orcs are still a threat.

I think the game should cater to both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with the design team. Its easier to start with a simple base and add complexity.

I think rising complexity with level increase in the game ultimately isn't about telling the "right" kind of story, but about selling game products. If all of that complicated rule structure is up front in the original books, then they are going to be a pain to read and harder to simply sit down with and get a game going.

By not making this kind of thing mandatory for everyone we get far more flexibility in the new D&DN. That's good too. Some won't ever want the added rules, some will run out and buy every one of them the first day they're out.

Is it easier to start with the "hyper" assumption and pare it down for the "mundane" campaigns, or is it easier to start with "mundane" and add on modules for the "super"? What should the Basic/Core game presume about Fighters and Thieves at low-mid level?

I'd say it will start simple with extra purchases needed to take the game into superheroes realm. What's easier to design for? Ask the designer. This question makes a good case for the BECMI-style publishing format where multiple levels are sold separately. Higher levels could allow for more variation later, while others will simply start there. If by hyper you mean highly complex and challenging to play rules, then we could get hyper later too. ...just don't expect it early on.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I'd rather take abilities from spellcasters than give martial characters superpowers, if that's what it takes.

I am in wholehearted agreement.

I hate to be that guy--and I don't mean to be rude by suggesting it--but there are other game systems that cater to anime/wuxia-style fantasy superpowers play. Exalted leaps immediately to mind. Maybe the people who want that sort of thing in D&D could go play that game instead...

 

[delericho]

I agree with the design team. Its easier to start with a simple base and add complexity.

Certainly. But where they go wrong is when the tie complexity to character level.

The thing is, a person learns the game only once, but they will (hopefully) play it many times. Chances are that once they've played a while, they won't want their next 1st level character to revert back to "Dwarf Fighter" - they'll want something a little more nuanced than that.

Likewise, most people will have a level of complexity that they're happy with, and will want to stay at that level. The last thing that we want is for a person to be quite happily playing a character in a campaign, only to find that he gains a level, the complexity goes up, and now he no longer enjoys that character!

A better solution is to have a simple baseline game, starting at a minimal level of complexity, and then rising to a plateau (as low as possible - but it's likely that there will have to be some increase when moving beyond low levels). Then, add modules (for all levels of play) that allow for greater customisation and greater complexity, for those who want them.

(Bear in mind that it is really easy to introduce a supplement/module that increases complexity; it is nigh-impossible to introduce one that reduces it. That advocates a very simple core, with modules for those who want them, rather than trying to do the opposite.)

 

[trancejeremy]

I hate to be that guy--and I don't mean to be rude by suggesting it--but there are other game systems that cater to anime/wuxia-style fantasy superpowers play. Exalted leaps immediately to mind. Maybe the people who want that sort of thing in D&D could go play that game instead...

Of course, that's basically what old school rules fans say about 3e and later.

Who decides where the line is? Ideally 5e should be as inclusive as possible...

 

[Ratskinner]

Certainly. But where they go wrong is when the tie complexity to character level.

I'm not sure we know for certain that that will be the case....but I wouldn't be too surprised. When the basic premise of D&D is the level treadmill....well, you just want to get more stuff. More stuff usually induces more complexity. Now, I'd be happy if they came up with a way for 15th level characters to be the same "difficulty/complexity" to play as first level characters, but I think that would be hard to fit into the D&D paradigm.

A better solution is to have a simple baseline game, starting at a minimal level of complexity, and then rising to a plateau (as low as possible - but it's likely that there will have to be some increase when moving beyond low levels). Then, add modules (for all levels of play) that allow for greater customisation and greater complexity, for those who want them.

(Bear in mind that it is really easy to introduce a supplement/module that increases complexity; it is nigh-impossible to introduce one that reduces it. That advocates a very simple core, with modules for those who want them, rather than trying to do the opposite.)

I tend to agree, and I actually think that's their basic plan. However, the question I am posing for this thread is whether there is a similar directional bent for the "superheroic" or "hypercapable" abilities vs. mundane ones.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think rising complexity with level increase in the game ultimately isn't about telling the "right" kind of story, but about selling game products. If all of that complicated rule structure is up front in the original books, then they are going to be a pain to read and harder to simply sit down with and get a game going.

I was actually referring to the idea that the "base" game will be very simple and modules will add complexity. From the Info page:

"I can say that starting with the simplest base possible is likely a given, as it’s far easier to add complexity to a game rather than take it away." - Mike Mearls. It sounds like the core game will be very basic, with optional add-ons.
​

I'd say it will start simple with extra purchases needed to take the game into superheroes realm. What's easier to design for? Ask the designer. This question makes a good case for the BECMI-style publishing format where multiple levels are sold separately. Higher levels could allow for more variation later, while others will simply start there. If by hyper you mean highly complex and challenging to play rules, then we could get hyper later too. ...just don't expect it early on.

Hyper wasn't my word. It was referring to higher-level fighter generating hurricanes by swinging swords really fast, not rules complexity. I tend to feel like it would be easier to design the base game as more mundane (even toning down casters, if need be) and add modules later to create supers-style hypercapable PCs. Especially if the modules are designed for a particular flavor of high-level play.

I'd love to see dual product lines. The first, a BECMI-style boxed sets to mix an match if you are a player or DM and know what you want. The second would be the "grand tomes" that have all the most common or popular options for "recreating" the playstyles of the various editions.