D&D 3E/3.5 How is this going to work? BECMI & 3.5 & 4e players all at once?

[BASHMAN]

One of the things that caught my eye about this new edition is that it is meant to appeal to "all styles of play" so someone from a BECMI background can play with a 3.5 person can play with a 4e person, etc, and yet all be playing the same game.

My question is how will this work mechanically?

Here I invite people to speculate how it would work.

How could a player from each of these three playing backgrounds handle a skill check or cast a spell in their own style and yet be playing the same game? How would it be to GM a game of this kind?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think it is all meant to work at the same table. If nothing else, simply the different playstyle expectations from the players would kill you, regardless of system.

It is meant to be adaptable to the playstyle at a given table, though that tables' adapation may be not appreciated at another table and vice versa. Given a system that manages that, you'll also get some modest possibilities to support some different playstyles at the same table. After all, people pull that off now, by being reasonable and making compromises to play with their friends. A flexible system can help these people a bit, but it can't be reasonable for them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Exactly. So the way the BECMI player handles a skill check is that he doesn't. The game that player is playing probably doesn't have Skills in it. Instead the DM would just have him make ability score checks, or just say via fiat whether or not the player can do such-and-such.

You then add on the Skill system to the base game, and now the 3 & 4E players have a system they are familiar with for their game that is a bit more complex than the BECMI player.

 

[BryonD]

Here is the quote:

"Our primary goal is to produce a rules set that speaks to every incarnation of D&D. So if you are a diehard BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia enthusiast or have embraced 4th edition, loved 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or never moved on from 1st edition, we’re creating this game for you. Imagine a game where you can play the version of D&D you love best. And then imagine everyone plays at the same table, in the same adventure. We aim to make a universal game system that lets you play the game in whatever way, whatever style, with whatever focus you want, whether you want to kick down doors and kill monsters, engage in high intrigue, intense roleplaying, or simply to immerse yourself in a shared world. We’re creating a game where the mechanics can be as complex or as light as you want them. We’re creating the game you want to play." - Robert Schwalb.

He says right there: "... at the same table..."

Now it is still vague and I think that simply MUST be misleading.
I think the point he is aiming for is that everyone will be playing 5E and getting to focus on elements that tie them back to what they do like.

And that seems impossible as well.

What seems to simply be *really really* hard would be to create that universal system in which every DM is free to customize. And WotC simply doesn't mind that I have no interest in playing at a 4E fan's table and that the 4E fan has zero interest in playing at my table. WotC is just happy because we are both playing D&D "I". Still an amazing challenge and the "at the same table" doesn't fit that.

 

[BASHMAN]

Exactly. So the way the BECMI player handles a skill check is that he doesn't. The game that player is playing probably doesn't have Skills in it. Instead the DM would just have him make ability score checks, or just say via fiat whether or not the player can do such-and-such.

You then add on the Skill system to the base game, and now the 3 & 4E players have a system they are familiar with for their game that is a bit more complex than the BECMI player.

Skills were introduced later on in BECMI, and they were a part of the Cyclopedia. They called them "non-weapon proficiencies" but they were skills. You are correct that they were based on attribute rolls, however.

But I don't see this working. There is a chasm the players have to jump across. The GM says to BECMI player "Okay roll 1d20 under your Str". Player "Okay, my Str is 17, so here goes my 85% chance of success".

Then he says to player 2, Ms. D&D 3.5 "Okay make a Jump Check, DC 20". Player 2 says "Okay, I have +8 to jump, including my 17 Str, so here goes my 45% chance of success."

Then he says to player 3, D&D 4e Guy "Okay make an Athletics check to make this jump, DC 20". 4e Guy says "No problem, since I'm trained in Athletics, with 17 Str, I have +12 to this check, so that's a 65% chance".

So that's why I'm skeptical of the idea of 3 different styles of play being able to co-exist at the same table. This is what they were saying might be possible; and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just curious as to how they will do it.

One of the big challenges in a superheroes RPG is how do you balance a Captain America type and a Thor type on the same team? For years, most games answer to this question was "don't" or "make them both the same level". But there was another way to do it; nobody had thought of it yet; but it was possible. Giving the captain more Hero Points and letting him do cool stuff with those points was a solution I came up with and it worked.

That's what I'm thinking they've figured out here. A third way that nobody saw before to balance things. I'm interested in speculating on what that might be...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm fairly certain that some of the "at the same table" stuff is overly enthusiastic hype about some stuff that people want and will enjoy, but is not nearly as comprehensive as some are reading it.

I think they mean things like: Joe can play his "fighter" and swing his sword every round. And Janet can play her "fighter" and do all kinds of complicated stuff. And meanwhile Sally has her wizard that does whatever.

But things like how you handle "skill checks" will be set at a given table (at least at a given time--you could change your mind mid-campaign without too much trouble).

That doesn't mean that you want have some conflicts or nice surprises, either. It may very well be that there is some niche skill stuff that only the skillful characters need to worry about (at least with certain options used--think the 3E item crafting rules or 4E alchemy rules, for example), and it may be that Sally playing her wizard in "1st ed. operational resource management" style will not go over well with the rest of the group. All they can do is give us the tools, and some guidelines on how not to mess it up too badly.

 

[Mercurius]

I think Crazy Jerome has it right. And let's be honest: No matter what WotC does, there is going to be a segment of folks that don't like 5E and manage to get themselves in a tizzy about something. I suspect with 5E it is going to be those folks that get hung up on rules minutiae and think that the "style of play" is primarily derived from mechanics, rather than facilitated by mechanics. As I said in another thread, for those that think Old School D&D requires saving vs. Petrification and Polymorph or rolling below ability scores for skill checks, 5E is likely to disappoint. We're not going back.

That said, it may be that 5E can somewhat simulate a mechanical game similar to older iterations of the game. I just don't see some of the more anachronistic rules being part of that (e.g. the old saving throws, THAC0, etc).

 

[Nagol]

We heard the same spiel about 3.0 and 3.5 -- almost fraternal twins and it didn't work out that way at the table.

I expect that is a design principle and not a goal.

 

[BryonD]

I'm fairly certain that some of the "at the same table" stuff is overly enthusiastic hype about some stuff that people want and will enjoy, but is not nearly as comprehensive as some are reading it.

I agree with you completely. But it does remain that the unreasonable expectation just so happens to also be a literal reading....

 

[BASHMAN]

I have a feeling that Saving Throws may be dead, actually. It is just easier to say make a Con check against that poison than make a Fort or Death save.

That way you can vary things like okay this spell causes paralysis; but it does so by putting your brain to sleep, so make an INT check vs. this spell causes paralysis by seizing your muscles; so make a STR check.

Actually, I see it likely these will just become passive defenses rather than checks or saves you roll at all.