Mearls New Campaign

[GM Dave]

One of the quotes from the L&L article this week intrigued me. It is different enough from the currently 11 page discussion on Save or Die mechanics that I thought it deserved a separate thread here.

I'm about to start a new D&D campaign at the office, and I'm using the 1981 basic D&D rules as a starting point. As I plan the campaign and (eventually) run adventures, I plan on making house rules, adopting rules from other editions, and shifting the rules to match how the game moves along. In some ways, it's a reality check against the ideas I see proposed for the next iteration. Would I want them in my campaign? Do they work for my group?

I find it interesting to see what Mike Mearls has chosen as his base set of rules and that he plans to add house rules to give the 'feel' of 5e.

If you were using a stripped down framework to play the 5e rules would it resemble Basic DnD?

Do you think he kept the races as classes or house ruled them out for other classes?

This is the office campaign of the Senior R&D person. How much influence will this have on his staff and their own ideas?

General thoughts?

 

[Ratskinner]

If you were using a stripped down framework to play the 5e rules would it resemble Basic DnD?

Yes, I think that's pretty close to the bare minimum to play "D&D".

Do you think he kept the races as classes or house ruled them out for other classes?

My guess is he modified it somehow to work them back in.

This is the office campaign of the Senior R&D person. How much influence will this have on his staff and their own ideas?

General thoughts?

I dunno about the influence, but certainly there's a lot worse places to start.

 

[Stormonu]

It's also interesting to note that it's the '81 B/X ruleset, not the BECMI rules nor the Rules Cyclopedia or even the Holmes edition.

My "stripped-down" set would probably be based on 2E in all likelyhood. However, I wouldn't mind using the B/X set, though one house rule would be to separate race & class.

As far as influence though, it reeks more to me as "publicity stunt" than a real mandate to get to the Core of D&D. Throwing out a good idea because it won't work in the context of a 20+ year old out-of-print rulebook wouldn't be the wisest decision ever made. I expect the impact will be minimal, if at all.

 

[Raith5]

I agree with Stormonu, this sounds like PR. I mean the basic framework has already been playtested and sounds like early editions of D&D as one would expect. Aren't they moving on to other elements?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I assume that the intent is sincere. I have no doubt that Mearls loves D&D and cares about making it a great game.

We know that the development team has been playing all the old editions of D&D, and we also know that they've been steeped in fourth edition for the past few years. I think this is merely an attempt to keep a wide perspective during the design process.

 

[trancejeremy]

Labyrinth Lord, which I guess is perhaps the most popular retro clone, is based on the B/X rules.

So I would actually say while it might technically be out of print, it's also very vibrant in terms of new material. I mean, James Maliszewski's megadungeon for LL on Kickstarter has raised $12,000 in like 4 days.

 

[Sunseeker]

On the one hand, this may be Mearls attempting to expose the design team to playing an edition that some or many of them may not be very familiar with, and in doing so, attempt to influence their design ideas.

On the other hand, it also stinks of seeming like "5e isn't working out how I want it, so we're going to play this other game."

I'm really at two minds on this, because we're really only seeing what Mike is doing, not his intent in doing it.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you were using a stripped down framework to play the 5e rules would it resemble Basic DnD?

Actually, yes! Probably I would start from something like the Basic red box from BECMI.

I wouldn't use the race classes tho, I would just keep focused on the 4 "coremost" classes Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, and even them I wouldn't necessarily start from the Basic D&D version. I would certainly start from level 1, try to make all them balanced at this level, then move to level 2 and rinse-repeat, eventually ending up with the same XP progression for all, which is clearly not the BECMI case.

But what I would use from BECMI as a starting point, is combat. It is the simplest and best starting point because it doesn't use a battle grid or ranges and focuses on the barest possible actions in combat. My feeling is that it's better to start from that and then add complexity rather than the other way around.

 

[pauljathome]

General thoughts?

He is now a MANAGER and not a developer. Hopefully what he does in his home game will have almost NO effect on 5th edition.

I may be bringing too much of my own baggage to the table (I was recently micromanaged to death by a manager far less technically competent than I am) but this whole article made me nervous. Managers should NOT get deeply involved in the design or implementation process. A little oversight and intelligent questioning is fine but development is NOT their job.

 

[Scribble]

Do you think he kept the races as classes or house ruled them out for other classes?

I think that if you really wanted to make it simple there isn't a need for race AND Class. (Check out the new Gamma World.)

I think also it would work well for what they're saying the idea behind 5e is- the ability to layer on complexity. Start with a very simple, and then if you want layer on the separation of race/class. (That sounds political doesn't it???)