D&D 5E (2014) Is 5E "big enough" for a Basic/Advanced split?

[DEFCON 1]

If anyone actually wanted a basic Basic rules set, someone would have made it and put it up on DMs Guild and it would become popular enough that some of us would know about it. That's how any of these 5E things work-- someone finds something is missing, that person creates it, and it works out well enough that many of us hear about it and can advocate for it. That's why Level Up is a thing... that's why KibblesTasty's works for things like Artificers, Psions, and Warlords get boosted.

But the fact that no one has actually made a really good version of the game stripped down in that way (at least not to the point where any of us knows about it) tells me that either that type of basic basic 5E isn't really able to be made well at all... or no one in truth actually cares about having it and thus not a single version that has been made has ever received any hype about it because no one cares enough to advocate for it.

It's bad enough that there are hundreds of things that people keep claiming the game needs to have... and yet even when they get made by 3rd parties or are posted to DMs Guild they get poo-poo'd as "not official" and thus don't count. But now we have things that people want WotC to make, but which have quite evidently been shown to not actually be wanted by almost any of the gaming populace because not a single 3rd party / DMs Guild version of said thing has shown any traction. In this particular case... if no one actually plays the Basic Rules, and no one has bothered to strip down the Basic Rules even further to make a Basic Basic Rules... it seems to me that it's just not something people actually really want, despite claims otherwise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here's a related question:

I don't play with strangers often, other than when I run convention games (which are usually not D&D, because a con is the one time you can collect 6 people to sit down for something else).

What are the general expectations as far as option availability and/or optional rules inclusion for the average group of random players who found one another on a Discord server or whatever? Do most people come to the table expecting to be allowed to use anything in an official source? Do most DMs of random groups allow everything?

In my experience, the group usually starts around the nucleus of a DM offering a game, or a DM offering to pick up a premise someone else has proposed. Some places have a defined starting point (e.g. GitP has a "Big 16" which is meant to cover all the basic questions, including permitted sources), while others it's mostly ad-hoc.

In general, though, there's a loose hierarchy I've observed.
0. Anything the DM expressly forbids is out (though some may try to discuss whether there are options or alternatives.) Though it's much rarer, you also occasionally get the DM explicitly greenlighting certain content too.
1. Initial starting core stuff. I specify "initial starting" rather than just "core" because in 4e, for example, everything first-party was core. In 3e and 5e this would be the PHB for most things, occasionally DMG for other things.
2. First-party supplements. Unless a supplement is particularly notorious, most players will expect to be able to select from any supplement.
3. Well-known or reasonably-respectable third-party products. This is the dividing line of what's expected--some things in this set will be, others won't. Pathfinder has a lot of content in this zone.
4. The "dubious" first-party stuff. In 3e, this was Dragon Mag content. For 5e, it's Unearthed Arcana stuff.
5. Homebrew. Most folks expect DMs to use some amount of homebrew, but don't necessarily expect any specific piece to be approved.
6. The "dubious" third-party stuff. Think D&D Wiki content--something "published" in some sense, but of unknown or disreputable nature.

 

[Lyxen]

It's bad enough that there are hundreds of things that people keep claiming the game needs to have... and yet even when they get made by 3rd parties or are posted to DMs Guild they get poo-poo'd as "not official" and thus don't count.

There are a few reasons for wanting things to be official, whether for players and DMs, but this is the internet and the level of complaining will always be way higher than the level of praise, unfortunately.

 

[darjr]

Someone already said it. I think a lot of people confuse “basic” with low level D&D.

As in “I like the simplicity of basic” when really that simplicity may just be a reflection of low level play.

 

[Umbran]

This is my thought. WotC probably could split it into two and both would find an audience, but I think the current approach is probably better for them, so they'll stick with it.

Indeed, it may also be better for us. There's a "rising tide lifts all ships" phenomenon. With one very profitable product, the market has grown very large, so things like Level Up can be made and do stunningly well on their own. Would that work if WotC split it into two less-profitable product lines? Probably not.

We likely see more overall diversity in products if WotC keeps their own game as one line.

 

[Reynard]

If anyone actually wanted a basic Basic rules set, someone would have made it and put it up on DMs Guild and it would become popular enough that some of us would know about it. That's how any of these 5E things work-- someone finds something is missing, that person creates it, and it works out well enough that many of us hear about it and can advocate for it. That's why Level Up is a thing... that's why KibblesTasty's works for things like Artificers, Psions, and Warlords get boosted.

But the fact that no one has actually made a really good version of the game stripped down in that way (at least not to the point where any of us knows about it) tells me that either that type of basic basic 5E isn't really able to be made well at all... or no one in truth actually cares about having it and thus not a single version that has been made has never received any hype about it because no one cares enough to advocate for it.

It's bad enough that there are hundreds of things that people keep claiming the game needs to have... and yet even when they get made by 3rd parties or are posted to DMs Guild they get poo-poo'd as "not official" and thus don't count. But now we have things that people want WotC to make, but which have quite evidently been shown to not actually be wanted by almost any of the gaming populace because not a single 3rd party / DMs Guild version of said thing has shown any traction. In this particular case... if no one actually plays the Basic Rules, and no one has bothered to strip down the Basic Rules even further to make a Basic Basic Rules... it seems to me that it's just not something people actually really want, despite claims otherwise.

I'm not convinced. People were asking for an "advanced 5E" almost from day one and it took the lifecycle of a standard game edition for it to happen by way of Level Up.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm not convinced. People were asking for an "advanced 5E" almost from day one and it took the lifecycle of a standard game edition for it to happen by way of Level Up.

Some people wanted it from day one because they wanted a more complex game, but despite doing stunningly well on the kickstarter, nothing guarantees the success of Level Up because it's not official and as well as not (yet?) supported by the VTTs, online support, etc.

 

[Stalker0]

So, I don't expect WotC would find splitting it advantageous to them, if that's what you mean. To WotC, I suspect it would mean supporting two product lines, while reducing overall profit margin on the products, as each takes the same mount of work to produce, but is now targeting a smaller audience. Even if the loss isn't so bad as to be unprofitable, it would likely be less profitable, so... why do it?

I think "advanced" lines are the purview of the 3PP folks at this point.

I think this sums it up well.

You could argue the biggest "shift" in 5e play was when the Adventure's League went from "core +1" to "any WOTC book goes". Home tables have always tailored what content they allow to their comfort, but that change meant many of the official games run outside the home where now exposed to the full measure of new crunch published by WOTC.

 

[Lyxen]

You could argue the biggest "shift" in 5e play was when the Adventure's League went from "core +1" to "any WOTC book goes". Home tables have always tailored what content they allow to their comfort, but that change meant many of the official games run outside the home where now exposed to the full measure of new crunch published by WOTC.

I'm not sure about the impact of AL - I mean how many AL players compared to 5e players worldwide ?

 

[Oofta]

I'm not convinced. People were asking for an "advanced 5E" almost from day one and it took the lifecycle of a standard game edition for it to happen by way of Level Up.

There's no way they can please everyone. Have some people been asking for an advanced 5E? Sure. But many are asking for different things altogether. It's not like there's ever been much consistency in details of how to make an "advanced" game.

For a lot of people (like me and my group) it's good enough that we don't desire anything more. If we did, there are options like level up out there. But just look at any of the "how to improve" threads out there. Some people want more of a storyteller game, some want detailed instructions on how to resolve skill checks, some want to add more abilities or get rid of them altogether.

Any game is always going to be full of compromises. There's an old saying that if you've done a compromise right, no one is 100% satisfied, that perfect is an unattainable goal and most of the time you have to aim for good enough. Maybe there will be more optional rules in the 2024. Beyond that? I don't think we'll ever see a split because the return on the investment isn't good enough. That's good for people like Morrus who can fulfill that niche, but I don't see a company like Hasbro justifying the resource investment.