Legends and Lore: Customized Complexity

[Zaphling]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Customized Complexity)

I tried to find this new Legends and Lore thread here, but wasn't able to. So might as well start the thread. Discuss.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It is more of the same stuff that they have been dancing around since Mike Mearls brought up the idea of complexity dials some time ago.

The polls are starting to look more like marketing polls though.

To my mind it is doable within the 4e framework. They could do a cleaner job with a 5e and could even do a 5e that is compatible with 4e.
But really I am not sure where all this is going.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Their multiple subsystem proposal sounds like it will make the game overly complex. Figuring out how boons from kits, proficiencies, skills, feats, powers, prestige classes interact with each other seems like a monumental task to me. And apart from the challenge in creating such a game, I imagine it will be a larger challenge to playtest all of the various option (kits, skills, feats vs. powers, proficiencies vs. kits, proficiencies, feats, powers vs. etc.).

I can't wait for some of the Gamers Seeking Gamers ads: Looking for local, casual gamers interested in playing 5th Edition with kits, races, skills, powers, and a homebrewed non-weapon proficiencies system but not feats or weapon proficiencies.

I realize I may sound curmudgeonly but these are my initial thoughts based on a simple thought experiment. I look forward to seeing what they come up with and if they can pull it off, fantastic!

 

[KidSnide]

Their multiple subsystem proposal sounds like it will make the game overly complex. Figuring out how boons from kits, proficiencies, skills, feats, powers, prestige classes interact with each other seems like a monumental task to me. And apart from the challenge in creating such a game, I imagine it will be a larger challenge to playtest all of the various option (kits, skills, feats vs. powers, proficiencies vs. kits, proficiencies, feats, powers vs. etc.).

I'm not sure how much worse it would be than a GM deciding what 3.5 books they want to use.

Stepping back a moment, 3.x and 4e each made a significant advance towards providing a single consistent way to play the game. The problem is that many of us play the game in different ways. Maybe we didn't notice in earlier editions because so few people played RAW AD&D (or maybe just because we didn't have ENWorld), but the current focus on RAW emphasizes the way that RAW 4e (and RAW 3.x) doesn't meet the needs of many people.

Given that WotC is in the business of (a) trying to write a better version of D&D and (b) trying to write a version of D&D that appeals to a broad audience, it seems entirely reasonable to me that they are trying to make 5e into a game that is more flexible in how you play it.

-KS

 

[Balesir]

It seems to me that there are two logical end points to this:

1) Provide just a sketchy idea; everybody writes their own rules to suit themselves.

2) Provide a range of different games, each of which supports one specific aim of play particularly well.

Of course, both of these have already been done and continue to be done. Providing more of option (2) might be welcome, if done well, but there does seem to be a rump of punters that want to achieve "social dominance" by wrangling a specific, well recognised system to be closer to what they think they like.

If WotC could persuade these people that they can make something that is, simultaneously, what all of them think they want (again), they might have a good money spinner.

Chances are that, as a game, it will suck - but that probably misses the point.

 

[OnlineDM]

My question about this particular article: Why is it under Mike Mearls's byline? Is that just a mistake and it was actually written by Monte Cook? Or did Mearls actually write this one? Maybe Monte had the week off or something.

 

[filthgrinder]

I wonder if when mentioning all the sub systems, if always use them all, but if you didn't care about it, you get a default option.

Let's say for example the "core" or "base" package is race, class, ability score. Every player has to make those choices. Now, let's say we have an option feat system. We say every character starts with two feats, a racial feat and a class feat. Every race and class has a "default" setting for these feats. So if you play a dwarf, you have iron stomach. Now, if you use the optional feat system, instead of this racial feature, it's a feat and you get to pick something else instead of iron stomach, let beard growing, or something.

That way you can have characters that are super customized with lots of choices for those people who like those systems, and then simple ones who quickier easier character creation. However, since even the ones that have these options "turned off", still have these features, there isn't a power gap.

Now expand that out to the other systems as well, and you get the ability to provide a system that can allow for customization, as well as quick and easy character creation.

I think this follows along with the idea of the Essentials Classes. They are simplier than the PHB1-3 classes, but you can play them along side the older classes without issue.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Every race and class has a "default" setting for these feats. So if you play a dwarf, you have iron stomach. Now, if you use the optional feat system, instead of this racial feature, it's a feat and you get to pick something else instead of iron stomach, let beard growing, or something.

This makes so much sense that they probably haven't even thought about it (and who knows if they'd actually do it). Defining the current race and class abilities that come with a particular race or class as feats themselves is exactly what they should do. Good call.

Current races and classes come with stock abilities... but currently depending on the new builds or sub-races that have appeared over time, some of these race or class abilities have gotten replaced. It would make way too much sense if ALL race and class abilities were defined as 'feats', each of them balanced against each other as well as all feats available in the game. You could then have an easy exchange system where perhaps three racial feats could be grouped together as the default package for a particular race... but one or more of them they could also easily be swapped out for a different racial feat via the more complex feat system (if a particular DM wanted to use it).

If you don't use the 'feat system' in your game... the three default feats an elf might get for being an elf would basically become the base racial abilities he would get in a 1E/2E ish style game. They'd be 'feats' only in name. But if you do use the 'feat system', or do use the 'sub-race system' (for example)... those three elf racial feats could be swapped out to whatever you want your elves to be. This is ESPECIALLY good if you (as an experienced DM) wanted to create NEW VERSIONS of familiar races, because you could know that swapping out a default racial feat for another feat would be pretty balanced. So if the dwarves in your homebrew world did not have a resistance to poison but were much more martially inclined, you could swap the Cast-Iron Stomach feat for the Power Attack feat for all the dwarves in your world, knowing that you were still maintaining a particular balance for your races.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wonder if when mentioning all the sub systems, if always use them all, but if you didn't care about it, you get a default option.

Options that are built into the original design as options, tested that way, and well chosen to be at places where options make sense--always work better than things that are merely tacked on. Those of us that have played D&D for a long time have been conditioned to have somewhat of a bias against options, because many have been merely tacked on. (See the original psionics, for exhibit A in the prosecution, your honor.)

Whether such options can be done well enough to answer Wednesday Boy's objection remains to be seen. It requires good design, good execution, and good testing. But mainly, it requires critical insight into where the differences in playstyles hit fault lines in the main design, and judgment as to when something can or can't be done about it.

 

[aurance]

Ugh. I'd rather have 3 subsystems that are integral to the game, than 6 that are all totally optional. There is a cost of space and rules design to making subsystems optional; it's not free and easy.