D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy

[Imaro]

4e was vastly easier for my kids group to get than pfbb, osr/tsr.d&d and 5e presents the same issue even after 5 years of play.

Duelling anecdotes and all but 5e is the first time my nephew and brother have chosen to run games...

every class works differently with the rules.

Ok two things...

1. Didn't different classes in 4e work differently within the rules? Fighters marking mechanic vs. Knight's aura vs. Paladin's challenge and so on? They also had powers that worked differently and feats that worked differently... in fact it seems that 4e only standardized number of powers (and I believe this varied some, though not by much among the different classes) and uses of powers. Were those really points of complexity that made that big of a difference?

2. Why does it matter how another class works if you aren't playing it? Or were they playing multiple classes at the same time? In other words if I'm playing a Battlemaster Fighter then why do I care that the wizard operates differently within the rules than I do?

vancian casting and spell levels that dont match with character levels
are two big ones. if you have never played d&d, those are fubar. 4e aedu and power levels = character levels make sense.

I agree this was a simplification... but yeah I don't think it really made the game that much more accessible... again as long as the book is telling me how many spells I get of what level and that I can cast them once per day or at-will (as opposed to 1xday/1xencounter/1xdaily) i'm just not seeing where the complexity of why it was done that way becomes a practical concern... unless one wants to houserule or modify the rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e presents the same issue even after 5 years of play.

every class works differently with the rules.

It's not just that it works differently, but that each class is structured and organized differently, and can even do the same things using different mechanics, just for the sake of being different at the price of complexity. A BM uses maneuvers and extra attack, a Rogue uses single attacks with SA, a Warlock Hex & EB, etc..

You do have to understand each class in detail to understand what it's supposed to represent and what it's supposed to do.

vancian casting and spell levels that dont match with character levels

are two big ones. if you have never played d&d, those are fubar.

Vancian is un-intuitive, yes, always has been. 5e neo-Vancian even perplexes returning players a little, but it remains close enough. Some classes have the same spell progressions, but not all, so spell levels are /generally/ half the level you gain it at, rounded up. Generally, for full casters. You go back to the book a lot, unless you've really mastered it.

Of course, you can break up that complexity. You only have to play one class at a time. You play an easy sub-class, like Champion, the first time through and learn the basic mechanics, then you can play one of the more complex ones and re-learn a completely different class progression, lather, rinse, repeat (if you /enjoy/ learning new classes, it's even a feature!), eventually you may even start having fun with it. ;P

Sure, it'd've been simpler if classes shared more of their progressions than just exp/level and HD. If all casters got the same number of slots/level, for instance. If ASI's lined up a little more consistently. Stuff like that. You could get to the point that a new player fairly easily learns the first class he plays, and could then be comfortable playing any class from then on.

You can also just go classless, lots of games have done it with excellent results.

There's volumes of 'needless' complexity that could have been purged from 5e.

But a lot of classic feel would have been purged with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The game presents nostalgic elements that appeal to experienced players (and, especially usefully, to experienced DMs). So, yes, the one is closely related to the other.

Lapsed players & DMs may well have had a lot of experience back in the day. That experience would stand them in fair stead with 5e.

The design is familiar to long-time and returning players, but it's neither straightforward nor simple. It's complex, even 'needlessly' (hah!) complicated - if it weren't, it would be neither nostalgic nor familiar (and, ironically, thus not straightforward/simple seeming) to those players. A genuinely simple/intuitive/straightforward design would probably be harder for us long-time fans to grasp, even if it might theoretically have been easier on new players.

The up side is that the presence of long-time & returning players gives new players help in tackling the perennial complexity of D&D.

I believe that what you're describing is likely true at times. However, nostalgia is not the sole draw for long time players. There are other aspects of the game that appeal to them. Their experience is certainly an asset to new players. I just don't agree with you that nostalgia is the sole vehicle that gets that asset to the new players.

And as for the game's simplicity...there are layers to it, sure. However, I don't think it's that difficult to get the basics down and get playing. Mastery of the game may take some time, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I believe that what you're describing is likely true at times. However, nostalgia is not the sole draw for long time players. There are other aspects of the game that appeal to them.

Well, they're RPGers, of course an RPG has things that appeal to them. Like the R, P, & G. ;P

But why 5e and not FATE or GURPS or Dog in the Vineyard or whatever? Because it's D&D. Because that's that's the game they loved (at least one past edition of). Because it's familiar. Because everyone's heard of it.

It may not be all the warm fuzzy bittersweet of nostalgia, per se - it could be familiarity, sunk system mastery, elitism (D&D is cool because almost no one plays it!) or populism (D&D is cool because everyone plays it!), or whatever. It could be rational or silly. But it is about it being D&D and resembling the classic game, whatever the flavor of emotional response that may evoke.

Better?

And as for the game's simplicity...there are layers to it, sure.

Layers of simplicity? Sure, that could be one way of describing complexity.

However, I don't think it's that difficult to get the basics down and get playing. Mastery of the game may take some time, though.

It's a lot easier if you've got someone who already knows it (or something like it). And there have certainly been much simpler, easier games, easier to just pick up & get playing. 5e's simpler than 3e, sure. It's d20 resolution is more consistent (thus simpler in a sense) than AD&Ds varied use of d20, d%, d6, &c. But 'simple' from a standing start if you don't have things like that to compare it to? Not so much.

 

[PMárk]

I never thought of Chaosium's core system as 'simple,' but then my introduction to it was RuneQuest. I guess BRP might actually deserve the 'B.' (But, I mean, the sheer number of skills...)

The notion of having more things=more complex always baffled me. 3e/PF isn't more complex because it has more skills, they are more complex, because the math is more complex and there is more moving parts.

CoC and WoD/other WW/OP games both build on the "you have x dots/percentage on skills" base and both are more easy to grasp than any edition of D&D. Everything works on the same mechanics, you just look at how well your character shoot or hide. It's a lot more intuitive, IMO and my experience that new gamers have a much easier time grasping those games.

 

[Shasarak]

4e was vastly easier for my kids group to get than pfbb, osr/tsr.d&d and 5e presents the same issue even after 5 years of play.

Duelling anecdotes and all but 5e is the first time my nephew and brother have chosen to run games...

I thought that DnD has always been marketed to the 12 years and up range so most people fit into that category.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fighter/mage in a modern context blending arcane magic and weapons.

A broad defination weapons and magic so Paladins and some clerics would count.

5E lacks an effective arcane gish the Paladin is great.

Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Eldritch Knight. 5e has three effective arcane gish options.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

4e is by far the easiest DnD to learn. It is, for my group, the sweet spot of easy to learn, challenging and rewarding to master. It took us a few months of play to get to where we barely had to open the phb to look up a rule, because the rules are consistent.

I really wish wish we would have gotten an actual 4.5 win essentials, complete with system wide math fixes. Apply 5e's bounded accuracy, take a chainsaw to the damage/HP numbers/scaling, and fix the math errors, and you've got the best RPG on the market, IMO.

Market it without insulting older players, drop the word "power" from the game, put powers in paragraph description format, and treat role and power source as less exclusive from day one, and I don't think it would have been at all decisive.

 

[Imaro]

Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Eldritch Knight. 5e has three effective arcane gish options.

There's also the Bladesinger from SCAG...also the Bard can make a pretty effective Gish as well

 

[Imaro]

4e is by far the easiest DnD to learn. It is, for my group, the sweet spot of easy to learn, challenging and rewarding to master. It took us a few months of play to get to where we barely had to open the phb to look up a rule, because the rules are consistent.

I really wish wish we would have gotten an actual 4.5 win essentials, complete with system wide math fixes. Apply 5e's bounded accuracy, take a chainsaw to the damage/HP numbers/scaling, and fix the math errors, and you've got the best RPG on the market, IMO.

Market it without insulting older players, drop the word "power" from the game, put powers in paragraph description format, and treat role and power source as less exclusive from day one, and I don't think it would have been at all decisive.

I have a hard time grasping how 4e was the easiest edition to learn to play (unless of course everyone is playing the PHB 1 ranger). Everyone has individual class abilities as well as a number of powers, that are small exception based rules, that they have to understand the general rules of the game and how they interact with them in order to play.

When I played at encounters new players had to continuously reference their power cards (which IMO is no different than having to open the book), had to have the jargon explained to them (what's the difference between a close burst and close blast?), pick from numerous fiddly feats the players had to keep track of and understand, recognize the difference between 7 types of actions in the game... and there were a ton of keywords for their powers that they needed to understand (what are the rules for stances... how about the reliable keyword... or the rules for a conjuration?).

IME on the DM side there was alot of overhead, fiddly tracking in conditions and monster abilities (that I as a DM often forgot to use or overlooked especially when running a variety of monsters in a combat).

Now I do think Essentials cuts down on the complexity of 4e and I could see an argument for it being one of the simpler editions of D&D but even then not sure I would claim it's the easiest D&D to learn or play... for me though 5e, without the optional stuff like feats... multiclassing... etc. would rank at or slightly simpler then essentials to learn. But then I think that's the point of the basic pdf, to give new players a concise and easily graspable set of rules to learn the game which they casn then decide to stick with or move onto the PHB.