D&D 5E Structuring 5E: Bring back Basic & Advanced?

[dkyle]

I think there's a problem with treating the "Core" of 5E as simply being the "basic" version of the game. I would expect that the basic version of the game would have just Race and Class, and would look a lot like early DnD. Then, Themes and Backgrounds would be modules. But the problem is that a lot of the features of traditional DnD classes are the kinds of things I think should end up in Themes and Backgrounds. For example, I think the Undead-related stuff that Clerics get should be in a Theme, while the scholarly nature of the Wizard should be part of a Background. But to do that, it basically means the Core Cleric wouldn't have Turn Undead, which is a problem for those treating Core alone as the basic game, because it's missing a big part of traditional DnD.

Instead, I think it might make sense to have the basic game be an actual line of "Basic Dungeons & Dragons", sold as cheap paperback books alongside the full "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" hardcovers. The key thing is that unlike old-school Basic vs. Advanced, they'd be the same game, and 100% compatible. But whereas Advanced would have a core, with a bunch of modules, Basic would be populated by pre-chosen options from the Advanced game.

For example, the Basic edition Cleric would look a lot like traditional DnD clerics. Heavy armor, mace, turn undead, healing- and religious-knowledge-related skills, lots of spells, etc. But those features would actually come from the Advanced editions's Cleric class (providing just some baseline spell-casting), plus a specific Theme (providing heavy armor proficiency, turn undead, and a little additional spell-casting), and a specific Background (that would provide the skills). In the Advanced Edition, they'd come from a number of sources, but in the Basic edition, they'd be invisible, in the background; all those features would just be distilled into a traditional class-level breakdown.

So, for the Basic edition, you'd roll stats, choose a Race and Class, and a few other things (languages, proficiencies, spells, maybe a few skills), and you'd be good to go. In the Advanced edition, core game, you'd also choose Theme and Background, which would add on to a stripped-down Advanced edition Class. An Advanced edition Cleric might choose a Theme more devoted to spell-casting (thus losing heavy armor, and possibly even turn undead), for example. Or a highly martial oriented Theme that gives up the spell-casting benefits and turn undead of the default Theme, but gains martial prowess approaching a Fighter.

Then, as modules in the Advanced editions, we'd have custom Themes (feats) and Backgrounds (skills), grid-based tactics, healing-surge-style stuff, etc.

So, the Basic edition would provide a cheap, easy, quick-to-start-playing version of the game, that can easily transition to an Advanced game, as characters from Basic would be 100% compatible with the Advanced core game.

 

[Ellington]

I find it kind of funny how 'advanced rules' usually entail more complicated rules, when from my experience it's the other way around. To me, more experienced players actually prefer to have fewer rules, since they've gotten accustomed to how things should be handled and can make stuff up on the fly a lot more easily. Newer players on the other hand, don't have that knowledge, and might need rules to help them along when they encounter new situations.

 

[GX.Sigma]

They will probably have a "starter set" in addition to the core rulebooks. I really hope they call them that instead of Basic and Advanced, because 5e is meant to be a successor to BD&D as much as AD&D.

 

[dkyle]

I find it kind of funny how 'advanced rules' usually entail more complicated rules, when from my experience it's the other way around. To me, more experienced players actually prefer to have fewer rules, since they've gotten accustomed to how things should be handled and can make stuff up on the fly a lot more easily. Newer players on the other hand, don't have that knowledge, and might need rules to help them along when they encounter new situations.

There's really two kinds of "difficulty" here: system mastery, and game design. Your "experienced" players are good enough at on-the-fly game design that a heavy system isn't required. Your "newer" players aren't good enough at on-the-fly game design, so require a heavy system, which means that the difficulty shifts to system mastery of that heavy system.

I don't really agree with your characterizations.

I think a lot of new players have a tough time with system mastery, as well, and that's what my "Basic" is aimed at. Very few "build" choices, but still producing characters compatible with the full game.

And as for experienced players? I think I'm very experienced, but I am not comfortable with a high degree of on-the-fly game design. Not because I can't, but because I think it tends to undermine the game. If there aren't well defined rules, then it's hard to make meaningful decisions. I do not want to play the game of "convince the DM to let this work". I want to play the game of "these are the mechanics, get creative with them".

They will probably have a "starter set" in addition to the core rulebooks. I really hope they call them that instead of Basic and Advanced, because 5e is meant to be a successor to BD&D as much as AD&D.

I could see calling what I'm referring to as "Basic" the "Starter Set" instead, and just calling the full game "D&D". Partly, I thought there'd be some nostalgia value in the labeling, while making it clear what the two versions are aimed at. I'm not clear why my labeling scheme would make 5E not a successor to BD&D; seems to me it actively calls out that successorship.

But whatever the marketing is, the biggest thing is that I think there are different design priorities for a "core" game amenable to supporting modules, and for a "basic" game.

For a "basic" game, I'd expect a Cleric class with Divine spell casting, Turn Undead, Heavy Armor, and healing/religion skills.

For the "core", I'd expect a core Cleric class with a hit die, a divine spell casting progression, and that's it. Leave the rest to Themes and Backgrounds.

The alternative would be to put all that traditional stuff into the core Cleric, and then write Themes and Backgrounds to replace class features, instead of just adding to them, but I think that would be really cumbersome.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like "basic", I think in modern times it's come to be something of a dirty word within gaming circles. Advanced has the same problem because of it's airs of elitism. If we're going to have two "versions" of D&D, I would suggest "Starter", which includes the INITIAL rules, not simplified or less complicated ones, only a small piece of the rules.

Thing is, I don't feel even new players need to begin with a "Beignner", "Basic" or "Starter" edition. I've jumped right into the middle of any edition I've played and mastered it fairly quickly. People are still going to need time to move up from "Basic" to "Advanced" anyway, why bother with a split?

I don't really think making a "Basic" edition is really going to harken back to the olden days as much as you're proposing. The split is unnecessary, it's unneeded, and probably won't even be purchased by most of the people who like the "Basic"/"Advanced" dichotomy since they're going to be experienced and jump right into the "Advanced".

 

[MoonSong]

I find it kind of funny how 'advanced rules' usually entail more complicated rules, when from my experience it's the other way around. To me, more experienced players actually prefer to have fewer rules, since they've gotten accustomed to how things should be handled and can make stuff up on the fly a lot more easily. Newer players on the other hand, don't have that knowledge, and might need rules to help them along when they encounter new situations.

I can tell from experience that it is more or less true. The first rule set I ever touched was rules Cyclopedia, however I never ever got to grasp the rules, let alone feel confident enough to play it. However 3.x was easier to understand and had a lot of elements that helped inmersion and I got the grasp of it pretty fast.

Perhaps there should be two versions: Regular edition (the full game with all core modules available and the three book estructure) and Grognard edition (a single papperback with just classice 4 classes and 4 races going straight into epic, immortal and beyond with no modules, no feats, no skills, no nada)?

 

[Stormonu]

Perhaps we should go with "Standard" and "Pimped". [MENTION=9470]weem[/MENTION], we need a box cover, please.

 

[GX.Sigma]

There should be a good intro product.

Much more importantly, the core rulebook itself must be a good intro product.

 

[CroBob]

I think a basic version of the game is totally unnecessary. The people learning the game are almost always being taught by people who do. They don't want to step down, and learner won't learn the advanced version until they play it anyhow. If you're teaching a kid to play (7ish), then you may want a simplified version, but it's too easy to simply shave off excessive rules. My son's Fighter, for example, is a strong guy with a big sword who can move and attack, and he has a few cards he can use instead of attack. That's all he needs to know right now.

 

[Ratskinner]

I find it kind of funny how 'advanced rules' usually entail more complicated rules, when from my experience it's the other way around. To me, more experienced players actually prefer to have fewer rules, since they've gotten accustomed to how things should be handled and can make stuff up on the fly a lot more easily. Newer players on the other hand, don't have that knowledge, and might need rules to help them along when they encounter new situations.

I think its just one of those things you have to go through. You start simple, come to think that you need to "codify" all this cool stuff that wasn't in the simple. After a while, that begins to drag on you, and you learn all the things you did wrong, or didn't really need to do. Eventually, you come to realize how little you actually need to get the job done.

They've got articles about it relating to Magic. They continue to reprint some "bad" cards. It so that newer players can go through that same kind of grind. Now, I'd prefer if D&D didn't have a lot of "bad" traps for people to go through. However, I think there's a lot of D&D stuff that I found to be great fun say 10 or 15 years ago, that I would find just too tedious nowadays.