By three ways, I assume you mean Basic, "Standard" and Advanced?@Reynard i have to say, at this point, D&D is big enough for a split.
In fact I’d bet it’d be OK split three ways.
That’s besides if it needs too or should be or can be.
Yes, but also that there are so very many 5e players.By three ways, I assume you mean Basic, "Standard" and Advanced?
Yea, that was the original purpose at TSR. However it’s become many things to its players. Much like D&D in general.I thought the "Basic" and "Advanced" split had little to do about D&D being complicated, or being "big enough." I remember it having more to do with Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson fighting with each other.
There are some core parts of how the game is built which would require a deeper redesign to accommodate options which deviate from 5E's default playstyle.
They actually intended to: Mearls said that the core books were going to be called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" to mat h with the free Basic Rules online and included in the Starter Set.When I discovered D&D at the tender age of 10 years in 1985, I came in by way of BECMI and we played that for years before "graduating" to AD&D. Throughout the 80s and 90s there were effectively two D&D games, which while cross compatible were still very much their own games with their own complexities, themes and product styles.
With 5E being as big as it is now, but with so many people looking for different things, I wonder if 5E is "big enough" survive a Basic/Advanced style split between two compatible but distinct lines. If so, what would that look like? What settings get put in what lines?
If you don't think it would work, why not? Is it just splitting the fanbase or is there a different reason?
I'm repeating myself, but as far as I know it was one time in an interview with Mearls. People took a one time statement during the very early stages of development while they were still playtesting from a somewhat unreliable source (Mearls tends to speak about things that are still quite speculative) and ran with it. A mountain has been made out of a molehill.In the early days of 5E playtests, "modularity" was touted as a design goal.
I'm repeating myself, but as far as I know it was one time in an interview with Mearls. People took a one time statement during the very early stages of development while they were still playtesting from a somewhat unreliable source (Mearls tends to speak about things that are still quite speculative) and ran with it. A mountain has been made out of a molehill.
Besides, I think the game is reasonably modular. Take a look at "The Role of the Dice" in the DMG. Going from one extreme to another would make very different games. Add in the optional rules in the DMG. It's not that the game is not modular, it's that for some people it's not modular enough.
No game is perfect. No game is going to work for everyone, sometimes you just have to make some compromises and do the best you can. Since 5E is the best selling RPG ever that has far exceeded expectations, I think they did good enough.
And, pray tell, what is that "default playstyle" ? It seems to me, on the contrary, that there are already many, many playstyles based on 5e, with many if not most of the discussions on these forums being around people having different playstyles.
It was a possible design goal. I do software development, sometimes there are things on the wish list that just don't make the final cut either because of budget, time constraints, a better understanding of requirements or feasibility. The discussions of modular was very early in development and a one time statement in an interview. Some of the ideas ended up making the cut, others did not.If a guy who is a lead designer establishes a design goal, I posit that tends to have more weight upon the ears of the audience than other voices. "Natural Language" and "Bounded Accuracy" were also established around that point in time.
I agree that there are options in the DMG (and said so in my post). Those options certainly do offer changes, but I'm not sure they deviate much from the core-mentality around which 5E was built (and is reflected in things such as encounter design, monster design, and etc).
In no way am I saying 5E is a bad game. Clearly, it's a successful product.
But, so too is McDonald's. While I certainly can order a salad at McDonald's; I imagine I'm not the only person who would find doing so less satisfying than simply eating somewhere else.
Interestingly when I ran D&D for 10-13 year old kids at summer camp I simplified it to mostly being a game about skill checks. Decide something you want to try, roll a 20-sided die, add your bonus, and have the DM decide what happens is a lot more intuitive than the combat system, which suddenly requires understanding movement, spacial relationships, 5 more types of dice, AC, the action economy, and a whole panoply of special abilities.Considering the amount of digital ink spilled over skills, DCs, and when to roll (ex: see the Stealth thread that just crawled out of the grave) it seems like a game without skills might be very desirable. Between your race, background and class, everyone is going to have a decent idea of what you are "proficient" in.
Turns out when they market tested it, "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" confused and intimidated customers and was determined to be a bad idea. It was probably a bad idea in the 80's, too.
I think we already have this with 5E. The starter boxed set is "Basic" and the hardcover books are the "Advanced".When I discovered D&D at the tender age of 10 years in 1985, I came in by way of BECMI and we played that for years before "graduating" to AD&D. Throughout the 80s and 90s there were effectively two D&D games, which while cross compatible were still very much their own games with their own complexities, themes and product styles.
With 5E being as big as it is now, but with so many people looking for different things, I wonder if 5E is "big enough" survive a Basic/Advanced style split between two compatible but distinct lines. If so, what would that look like? What settings get put in what lines?
If you don't think it would work, why not? Is it just splitting the fanbase or is there a different reason?
Yes, that's part of why it was a poor marketing strategy.I don't know about that. I was in my teens when I started playing in the 80's and I, and all the other teens I knew who played, chose AD&D over Basic, because, well, we felt like we were advanced ourselves and did not need to play a simplified version of the game.
Except there's no continuation of that Starter Set as a separate line. D&D (as opposed to AD&D) became something very much its own thing, and not limited to being "for newbs" and "simplistic."I think we already have this with 5E. The starter boxed set is "Basic" and the hardcover books are the "Advanced".
This very much parallels what we had in 1E, the only real difference is they are fully compatible with each other.
Except there's no continuation of that Starter Set as a separate line. D&D (as opposed to AD&D) became something very much its own thing, and not limited to being "for newbs" and "simplistic."
Many folks in this thread seem to be mistaking the difference as one of difficult and that's probably my fault for trying to use shorthand by way of "Basic." The BECMI line was a fully realized, deep rpg with hundreds of supplements and adventures ranging from 1st to 36th level and beyond. I DO NOT mean "5E for Dummies."
Well, taken that way: no, I don't think any company would want to repeat that strategy, ever.Except there's no continuation of that Starter Set as a separate line. D&D (as opposed to AD&D) became something very much its own thing, and not limited to being "for newbs" and "simplistic."
Many folks in this thread seem to be mistaking the difference as one of difficult and that's probably my fault for trying to use shorthand by way of "Basic." The BECMI line was a fully realized, deep rpg with hundreds of supplements and adventures ranging from 1st to 36th level and beyond. I DO NOT mean "5E for Dummies."
There are very few people on this forum that played AD&D, much less basic. I played basic probably once and my impression was that it was a simplified version of the game. Then again, that was long, long, ago.Except there's no continuation of that Starter Set as a separate line. D&D (as opposed to AD&D) became something very much its own thing, and not limited to being "for newbs" and "simplistic."
Many folks in this thread seem to be mistaking the difference as one of difficult and that's probably my fault for trying to use shorthand by way of "Basic." The BECMI line was a fully realized, deep rpg with hundreds of supplements and adventures ranging from 1st to 36th level and beyond. I DO NOT mean "5E for Dummies."