Rule of Three: March 13

[Mattachine]

Most people will probably play the game with add-ons, but if all you want to do is roll up a fighter or a magic-user and bop some goblins on the nose for an hour or so, I think the game will have to support that, too, and not in some dark corner of forgotten rulespeak about all the stuff you have to take out, but right out the gate, because someone who wants that kind of game isn't going to go through the time to mod something more complex to their liking.

Ah! Now there is a point I agree with you on. The new player, or the casual player, might want something very simple to start with.

 

[Balesir]

FWIW I agree with [MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION] and would much prefer a "Core" that is more "complex" and fully featured, simply because I expect the "Core" game to be the one that is properly designed. All the "modules" and variants I would expect to be compromises and departures from the "Core" design philosophy to some degree.

Will "most people" use some modules? Maybe - but unless they are the used in the combination "expected" for the "Core Game" I fully expect them to be imbalanced, a compromise for "world fit" or otherwise inferior to the "Core" game in terms of design quality. So maybe not.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ah! Now there is a point I agree with you on. The new player, or the casual player, might want something very simple to start with.

Don't forget the folks that want something simple to STAY with.

 

[Andor]

I respectfully disagree with you and Mearls. My suggestion is not "taking" away. Why must everyone use the model of "base system plus add-ons"? Different is different. Again, if the base game is made at the same time as some initial options, it wouldn't be "taking away" from the base game. In other words, the starting point can still be the base mechanics, but what appears in the core rules can actually be more advanced than that.

I will be sad if the core game is too simple, and I need to get an add-on module to have something my group and I find interesting. Though I want the game a little simpler than 3e, I'm not in for a new version of BECMI.

I don't think there will be any such thing as a "all core, no options or modules" 5e.

You might have 5e with the simple combat module, the grid combat module, the 'hope you know calculus' combat module, or the deck building combat module. What you cannot have is 5e without a combat module, any more than you can buy a car without selecting which of the three engine configurations you want.

There may be a default set of modules for things like Living Blahworld con games, but even then I expect to see some wiggle room.

Mostly though the modules, as I understand the concept, are less about "are we using attack-of-opportunity rules today?" and more about "Can I make a vancian fighter or a non-vancian wizard?"

 

[Hussar]

So unless someone else or some book tells you exactly how something is resolved its not an actual tactic?

No. Of course not. And I said so. But, I would say that it is not a mechanically supported tactic. Wouldn't you?

Ambush has ALWAYS been supported via the suprise rules. If you are aware of an enemy and they are unaware of you then you might gain the suprise benefits of a free round (or more in AD&D) of attacks before the enemy can react. 3E even introduced the flat footed condition to add even more mechanical effect of ambush to the existing rules.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

This takes the G right out of RPG. It is not a presumption I desire as a player or DM.

Ballocks.

EVERY edition of the game has presumed that a given encounter, with some exceptions, will see the PC's succeed. This plays right into the game part. If you presume that PC's will fail a significant number of encounters, then the game becomes too lethal.

Or, to put it another way, just how often do you TPK the party? Killing PC's is ridiculously easy. The goal of adventure design has always been to challenge the PC's without wiping them out.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ballocks.

EVERY edition of the game has presumed that a given encounter, with some exceptions, will see the PC's succeed. This plays right into the game part. If you presume that PC's will fail a significant number of encounters, then the game becomes too lethal.

Or, to put it another way, just how often do you TPK the party? Killing PC's is ridiculously easy. The goal of adventure design has always been to challenge the PC's without wiping them out.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by success. Quite often the lethality of a given situation isn't up to the DM. A particular encounter may have a default straight up fight factor of PCs being sent to hell on a shutter. If certain actions and precautions are taken then that same encounter might not only be winnable but perhaps not all that difficult after all.

Sometimes living to fight another day with perhaps some information gained feels like a great victory.

Having been on both ends of a number of TPks, as a player I can honestly see how we brought most of them on ourselves. Sitting around laughing in the aftermath we often joke about how stupid our plan or approach was right before our demise. There have been a few WTFBBQ sauce TPKs and individual casualties over the years and we usually discuss what happened in those situations.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Also, if I can't have a sneaky character who fights with a short sword in close combat and hurls lighting at ranged opponents, I'll be sad.

Like torches and lamps?

 

[Hassassin]

Like torches and lamps?

Alchemist's fires were originally for lighting. True fact.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Hassassin just killed my joke.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hassassin just killed my joke.

Throw a lamp at him! Hassassins are powerless in light. True fact.