D&D 5E L&L D&D Next Goals, Part Two

[KidSnide]

That's why they need to clarify some things. Are there going to be separate books for the different complexity levels of play, or will they all be included in the same PHB as options? I really don't want to have to buy several books just to get a game with skills, more than 4 classes, multiclassing, etc., nor do I want to have to search through several books during play to find a particular rule.

To be fair, I love the idea of a basic set that includes a 16-page version of the core rules, and I don't want to search through several books either. If I'm going to lug a 300-page PHB around, I want it to include the full set of combat and character creation rules. I don't want to have to also carry around a 32-page basic PHB.

I strongly suspect that the majority of folks are willing to have the "standard" version books cost $1-5 more so that we don't have to also buy / lug around the basic version of the game also.

But, as you say, WotC needs to clarify their plans. Fortunately...

Part Three: Transitioning

Next week, I'll talk about the standard game and the challenge of ensuring a smooth transition from a game that's similar to basic D&D to one that supports a lot more character options.

-KS

 

[howandwhy99]

Two more things:

1. The Temple of Elemental Evil is a great mega-adventure. Perhaps the first of all time. Its weakness is it gets grindy in the lower levels once you really dig into the temple. But even the Return To version had this issue though the designers tried to avoid it by creating a variety of monster types to deal with. I think one thing we can skip from Gygax era D&D is his predilection for publishing extraordinarily difficult, high level adventures as the starting adventures for a game line. Both S1 Tomb of Horrors and Necropolis are inspiring works, but 3rd edition really did do it right with The Standing Stone. Even better in my opinion is B1 In Search of the Unknown, which gives half of a finished adventure, but then advises enables the DM to create the second half in their own way. That included example rooms, monsters, and treasures. Now I don't want to discourage Wizards from publishing mega-adventures or a shared adventure line to start this next version of D&D, but I think that a Starter Core game set should include a Starter adventure module that not only gives DMs an adventure to run out of the box, but also the tools for how to create those adventures.

2. Game complexity increasing through the advancement of class levels is iconic to D&D. But it had to do with increasing Difficulty for the players over that time, not necessarily the idea of more predetermined options under the players noses on their PC sheets. The idea in D&D is: you can attempt to do anything you can imagine, so if complexity is the number of options they have then we're already at every players maximum.

I understand the designers believe a group of people can each play their own game at the same table and that can allow for higher and lower complexity / difficulty for each. I don't necessarily disagree, but it's because of the faulty notion of "equality through equal effectiveness" that not only do we get a game where the players expect equal effectiveness for any game action taken, but also leads players into the illusion that game balance means player-to-player balance when that's a relatively recent (90's) idea. This illusion often leads to the belief by players that the effectiveness measure, in this case damage output, is the single most important element of the game. Higher damage output then becomes the focus and goal for players who seek to play well. The conventional wisdom is this baked in balance allows the character optimization mini-game (the primary game for some) to be included, but only in such a way as to allow the simplest starting characters to be on par in numerical effectiveness with even the most optimized char-op constructions. Not only does that disenfranchise those who play the char-op game to, you know, actually optimize their characters, but also entrenches the overriding beliefs that equal effectiveness is a "balanced" game, and damage output is the primary point of it. D&D doesn't have to be that way nor has it always been that way.

 

[Falling Icicle]

But, as you say, WotC needs to clarify their plans. Fortunately...

Part Three: Transitioning

Next week, I'll talk about the standard game and the challenge of ensuring a smooth transition from a game that's similar to basic D&D to one that supports a lot more character options.

I'd rather not have to make that transition at all. I'd rather skip the basic version altogether. Hopefully I will be able to do so.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'd rather not have to make that transition at all. I'd rather skip the basic version altogether. Hopefully I will be able to do so.

I'm pretty fair sure that he was talking about the transition as a matter of mechanics between groups and possibly characters, rather than as an event within a given campaign. Although, to be sure, a very smooth transition would allow a campaign to start simple and slide up the complexity ladder, or vice-versa. For that matter, a very smooth transition would allow you to run your complicated characters simply for less-important encounters and then pull out the complexity for when its central to the story (or for any other motive).

My worry is that complex characters and simple characters will work mechanically/mathematically at the same table, but that the complicated characters will slow everything down on their turn. I'd hate to bar the complicated options, but on the other hand, I'd hate to have the game come to a crashing halt whenever its player X's turn.

 

[Iosue]

I'd rather not have to make that transition at all. I'd rather skip the basic version altogether. Hopefully I will be able to do so.

I'm virtually certain you will. I think the idea here is there will be two separate but compatible products: the "standard" game which will be geared to the general RPG market. This will give you all sorts of new options, independent rules modules and the works. For most of the folks here on EN World, this will be the game for them.

But in addition to that, they will have the "basic" rules, which will be going after a completely different market -- people who don't regularly role-play, who have never role-played before, and the old schoolers who want simple and/or exploratory dungeoncrawling rules. And the key is, the two sets will be compatible. Someone who bought and plays the basic set can take their character to a game that is using the standard set and fit right in, except for maybe learning some of the other modules that game likes to play with.

What I take from Mearls' earlier L&L is that the Red Box Starter Set achieved it's goal of presenting the game with an easy buy-in, and it's sales numbers waxed. But the problem was the Starter Set was only an introduction -- players could only go up to 2nd level, and the game only provided minimal support for further adventures. So they were hooking people in, but not keeping them because keeping them quickly required further buy in. So their goal here is different. They need the easy buy in, but include further support to invest people in the hobby. What they are looking for is that same dynamic of D&D in its high-sales heyday, when many, many people got into the game via the Basic Set (be it Moldvay, Mentzer, or the Black Box), and would then naturally move on to AD&D so they could get more support and options.

It also takes advantage of the popularity of B/X in the OSR market. They've talked about plans to release past content, and appear to be about to re-release PDFs of the B module series. They've repeatedly expressed a design intent that classic adventures from any edition could be easily used with Next. So maybe some of the people playing retro-clones now give the basic game a chance. Even if they don't, they may very well be happy to buy other materials, old and new, that support that basic set. Mearls talks about including a super-adventure in the basic set. It would not be at all surprising to see that adventure released independently as well.

 

[pemerton]

They can only screw this up if they publish different books which partly overlap, i.e. if these books both have reprinted rules but also rules exclusively available to each book, so that we'd have to buy them all but we'd be re-buying some of the same rules again.

WotC did this with Essentials. Hopefully not again.

 

[KidSnide]

But in addition to that, they will have the "basic" rules, which will be going after a completely different market -- people who don't regularly role-play, who have never role-played before, and the old schoolers who want simple and/or exploratory dungeoncrawling rules. And the key is, the two sets will be compatible. Someone who bought and plays the basic set can take their character to a game that is using the standard set and fit right in, except for maybe learning some of the other modules that game likes to play with.

I think the compatibility is an important point that can easily be lost in the discussion of modularity. We've talked about how different "levels" of the game will be compatible in the sense that different players can sit at the same table and play characters of different complexity.

But another important aspect of compatibility is that -- with the same base rules -- a single adventure can be played with different versions of the rules. One of the problems TSR had with having AD&D and BECMI lines going at the same time was the segmented market for adventures (with some allowance for conversions). With D&DN, WotC hopes to use the basic/standard/advanced levels of the game to address the different needs of the D&D community while continuing to serve these multiple play styles with a single line of supplements and adventures.

-KS

 

[gyor]

They were talking about design goals back in January. Goals are constantly evolving though, so I appreciate that they update us on them periodically. The playtest version is more than the basic version. I don't think that means it's not core though. The impression I'm getting is that the advanced version will be available from day one, and they assume that most current players will play that version, while the basic version is for new players.

Actually I think there's three version, Basic, Standard, and advanced. I think the current packet is closest to Standard, the well Standard Setting. I don't know what Advanced will look like honestly, aside from it probably having Legacies. If a skill bonus to Dex checks, becomes options like Stealth, Bluff, and Use Rope, I'm curious how that evolves into in Advanced, prehaps invent your own skills? I'm also curious about how Classes will be like in Advanced, if a Cleric in basic will be more like a traditional 1e Cleric, and a Standard Cleric seems more like 3e Cleric, with a touch,of 4e, what will an Advanced Cleric be like? Maybe a mix of 2e Speciality Priests and 4e?

 

[Zustiur]

I love this L&L. I fully support the intended premise and direction.
Can't comment on martial dice and skill dice etc however as I haven't ever played with them yet

 

[Li Shenron]

It could be just that:

- Basic game = introductory book (a subset of the core books)
- Standard game = 3 core books, minus their few modules
- Advanced game = core + whatever you choose from modules and supplements

Not that different from the past...