The new D&D Core: The "80/100" rule

[LurkAway]

Over and over, I see evidence of polite but irreconcilable differences within the fanbase. From art to warlords, the divisions never heal.

Some posts are simply statements of personal preference. Other posts do the courtesy of explaining a preference. And some posts speculate how a modular D&D will actually unify all these fragments -- which I personally thing is the BIG PICTURE theme that we might take into consideration.

In this thread, I suggest a core ruleset that defines the inviolate fundamentals of 5E. If you don't play by those rules, you're not playing 5E. (It's a bit like reverse psychology, creating unity by drawing a line in the sand just where most people are standing anyway.)

So when we're arguing about something and there seems to be a 50:50 split on a contentious issue, how about a simple rule of thumb:

If 80% of the D&D community can agree on a rule, it goes into the core. Otherwise it doesn't.

That means, for example, that if half of the fanbase loves warlords and the other half hates warlords, then warlords don't go into the core rules. You can try modifying warlords to create a new process or end result that's more palatable, and if that doesn't work, then warlords go into an optional game setting or supplement.

I'm confident that 80% of the community can agree on some things, but I'm curious what elements would pass an 80% rule and where/how the supplementary rules would be presented?

 

[Jawsh]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think the solution to all these problems is Open Gaming. Open up the core rules to tinkering, and you will create a marketplace of ideas. The rules can be terrible, and it will still work. In fact, it's probably better if there are deliberate mistakes in the rules, which will give the community incentive to make their own improvements.

Mearls alluded to the rules being "too balanced" and I think that might be true.

 

[Tallifer]

I am curious how this would work out. I fully support this experiment. Please create a blog site with many separate polls on the various questions of what belongs in the core. Link the site to here and let the good times roll!

 

[Teataine]

deliberate mistakes in the rules

As far as I'm concerned, that would mean they would totally lose me as a customer...

Space for tinkering and change is not the same as shoddy, broken design.


Also: in regards to "warlords being in the core or not"...the whole argument strikes me as incredibly inane. So if a class is in the first book they publish then it's a terrible game and people will hate it and if you release it as an option in a second (or third, or fourth) book, it's suddenly fine. Newsflash: classes in the core are optional, too. How does the fact that a class is released in the first or third book in the line impact the quality or likeability of a game in any way.

This is why edition wars are so darn absurd most of the time. People latch on the silliest details. Like gnome hair. I don't like the 4E art direction either (and am not a 4E player in the first place), but who cares what kind of hair gnomes have in the books. They can have any kind of hair you like, it's not like it impacts gameplay.

/rant

 

[Szatany]

I'm confident that 80% of the community can agree on some things, but I'm curious what elements would pass an 80% rule and where/how the supplementary rules would be presented?

I'm pretty sure that if you want to find out here, on the forums, the only way is to create polls. Polls for everthing. A lot of polls.

 

[LurkAway]

I'm pretty sure that if you want to find out here, on the forums, the only way is to create polls. Polls for everthing. A lot of polls.

Sure, carefully worded polls which yield statistically significant conclusions for the general fanbase (not just Enworlders, for example) is one way to go. I thought it would primarily come out in the open playtesting somehow. Because it's one thing to vote in a poll over a theoretical issue, and another thing to play it out in a playtest and then submit your input based on real experience with the beta rules.

 

[LurkAway]

Also: in regards to "warlords being in the core or not"...the whole argument strikes me as incredibly inane.

I don't think it's inane. To take an extreme example, if there were Pink Elephants in a fundamental This-Is-D&D Core, I would hate it if I was playing a game and the new player could rightfully add a Pink Elephant into our story. To put this in context though, in the OP I defined the core in a specific sense. It doesn't have to be that way, but if core is modular, then the 80/100 rule doesn't apply much.

 

[Mercurius]

Also: in regards to "warlords being in the core or not"...the whole argument strikes me as incredibly inane. So if a class is in the first book they publish then it's a terrible game and people will hate it and if you release it as an option in a second (or third, or fourth) book, it's suddenly fine. Newsflash: classes in the core are optional, too. How does the fact that a class is released in the first or third book in the line impact the quality or likeability of a game in any way.

This is why edition wars are so darn absurd most of the time. People latch on the silliest details. Like gnome hair. I don't like the 4E art direction either (and am not a 4E player in the first place), but who cares what kind of hair gnomes have in the books. They can have any kind of hair you like, it's not like it impacts gameplay.

/rant

I agree with you, although it is largely a first impressions thing. When you pick up your first 5E book, likely the Player's Handbook (although possibly a box set) it defines the tone and feel of the game. This is one of the reasons so many folks were turned off by 4E: both what it included in the core (eladrin, dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, etc) and what it excluded (gnomes, druids, bards, etc).

If I were at the helm my personal approach would be this:

1) Start with a box set somewhat similar to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, although perhaps even simpler. Stick to the "true classic" races and classes: humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings; fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, maybe rangers. Focus on classic D&D tropes; offer just the core rules without modular expansions like feats, detailed skills, etc. Include levels 1-5.

2) A month later, the PHB comes out and not only include levels 1-20 (leave epic for later), but expand the four core races and classes to 8-10, adding some kind of "elfier elf", gnomes, half-elves, and one exotic race; for classes, expand to ten, adding rangers (if they weren't in the box), paladins, druids, bards, maybe warlords.

3) Six months later, expand with PHB2 or its equivalent, adding more exotic classes and races. Don't waste paper resources on books like Martial Power--keep those in DDI. Instead, come out with a new PHB/Player's Option ever 4-6 months.

The main point is that the core is very classic D&D and the further you go from that core, the more exotic the game becomes. A DM can say "everything is usable up to PHB3, but not PHB4 and beyond--I just hate those purpleshadowkin flowermagic-casters." 5E's Character Builder would allow you to check boxes as to what options are included.

 

[delericho]

Unfortunately, I think there are some key things that you won't get 80% buy in on. Eventually, someone is going to have to make a decision on some controversial area that a significant bunch of people just won't like.

In my experience, when dealing with diverse agendas like this, I've found that the best thing to do is make is clear to people that you're listening to all the sides, make it clear that it's a difficult issue, but explain the decision you've made and why you've made it. In general, I've almost always found that even people who don't like the decision can get behind it under those circumstances.

Plus, WotC are in the somewhat fortunate position that none of these decisions have to be absolute. Sure, maybe Warlords don't make it into the core, and that's disappointing for fans of the class... but they'll no doubt be back in a supplement. Maybe alignment didn't make it in... but that's prime fodder for a later 'module'. And the 4e AED powers structure is already flexible for both 4e-style Wizards and Vancian-style Mages, so it's a decision of which comes first, not which gets dropped.

I think there is hope that they can come up with a game that most people would be willing to play. Unfortunately, that's not their challenge - they want a game that most people will play in preference to 4e, PF, or their old edition of choice, and that's a much taller order.

 

[LurkAway]

In my experience, when dealing with diverse agendas like this, I've found that the best thing to do is make is clear to people that you're listening to all the sides, make it clear that it's a difficult issue, but explain the decision you've made and why you've made it. In general, I've almost always found that even people who don't like the decision can get behind it under those circumstances.

This sounds what 4E was doing. I this is what Rich Baker's column tried to do in Rule of Three, regarding class roles and other bits, but I don't think it changed anyone's mind regarding playing 4E, did it? Just because I understand the reason for a gamist mechanism, it only means that I'll respect it as a legitimate conceit of 4E, but it will never be part of my preferred playstyle.

Whereas I think it's harder to argue with democracy. If 80% of people hated the idea of gnomes or tieflings (take your pick) in the core, I'll accept that, and assume it will be moved into an expansion pack - no problem.