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

[delericho]

This sounds what 4E was doing.

I never got that impression during the roll-out of 4e. I always got the sense that "this is what we're doing." And, often, "The old way was wrong and/or stupid."

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?

"Rule of Three" was a good thing. But it was too little, far too late as far as 4e was concerned.

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.

If 80% like or dislike a given notion, then it's a no-brainer. There's no arguing with that.

But what if 50% of the fanbase that Wizards must use Vancian casting, and the other 50% are just as adamant that they must not? You can't include both in the core (no space), and you can't simply omit Wizards (too iconic). Under that circumstance, you can't get a broad consensus, and have to make a decision. So, what do you do then?

 

[Nebulous]

But what if 50% of the fanbase that Wizards must use Vancian casting, and the other 50% are just as adamant that they must not? You can't include both in the core (no space), and you can't simply omit Wizards (too iconic). Under that circumstance, you can't get a broad consensus, and have to make a decision. So, what do you do then?

On the contrary, as far as magic goes, i think they SHOULD introduce two widely diverse systems of magic, one tied to the magic-user, the other tied to the sorcerer. Both core rules.

 

[LurkAway]

I never got that impression during the roll-out of 4e. I always got the sense that "this is what we're doing." And, often, "The old way was wrong and/or stupid."

At that time, though, I never thought 4e was stupid or that there wasn't a good reason. I assumed there was a reason, it just didn't make much difference.

Oh, I just thought of some exceptions, like minions -- hated them at first, then grew to accept them, but I got that by reading posts from Enworld users, not from WoTC -- which was pretty bad. (In 5E, though, I would prefer hit points to be decoupled from hit dice or challenge level, instead of a straight divide between minions and non-minions, but that's another story).

So given that, I agree with you that some things can be explained to satisfaction. The 80/100 rule would stlll apply, and just requires an honest effort to explain it before measuring for 80% popularity, because x% may like the rule but just don't know it at the time!

But what if 50% of the fanbase that Wizards must use Vancian casting, and the other 50% are just as adamant that they must not? You can't include both in the core (no space), and you can't simply omit Wizards (too iconic). Under that circumstance, you can't get a broad consensus, and have to make a decision. So, what do you do then?

Good question. I don't have a specific answer myself (maybe one reason why I started the thread?). I think the designers would need to think outside of the box. They attempt to find out *why* people like or dislike Vancian. Then deliver something (something tweaked, something brand new) that 80% of the fanbase ends up liking.

Alternatively, I speculated that the fundamental core rules might be very short, like several pages. In that case, it's like the DNA of D&D. And just like DNA, it defines the fundamentals of the D&D brand family without being fleshed out on its own. So the core rules might have an outline of the wizard class and make the magic systems specific to certain campaign settings for example. So you play 5E Greyhawk, you get Vancian. You play 5E Dark Sun, you get something else.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Using an 80% rule is often a good idea, but you have to be more flexible in its application than using it on a single axis--80% of the fans want X.

For example, if there is a piece that fails to meet that threshold, maybe doesn't hit 50%--but it is critical for allowing people to swap some other option where there is wide-spread and divergent disagreement--then it probably has to go in. The piece isn't something that most people want, but its the best way to give almost everyone what they want for some other piece.

Then there is scope of the question, where initially you may get something close to 50/50 diametrically opposed preferences. Vancian magic in or out? That's phrasing the question wrong--it is self-defeating. For something that critical, you'd need a whole series of more detailed questions to successfully apply the 80% rule to fan input--starting with who would be ok with some Vancian magic, as long as they can ignore it, and vice versa.

Or put another way, using the 80% rule successfully means that if 80%+ are ok with something, you can probably include it more or less as is. But if a sizable number (even around 25%), but less than 80% want something, then you'll need to follow up to determine why, and find out if there is way to reframe/partition/rework/etc. that will bring at least some of it up to higher acceptance--especially if you need this thing to make something else work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

Dangerous. An 80/20 rule sounds good on paper, but Mearls has gone on record saying something like even if 5-10% of your player base takes issue with something, it's a problem.

The idea of reducing the game down to its "core elements," and then adding everything else via rules modules sounds much better, in a world where you need to get something 90-95% of the player base is going to want.

 

[LurkAway]

Dangerous. An 80/20 rule sounds good on paper, but Mearls has gone on record saying something like even if 5-10% of your player base takes issue with something, it's a problem.

The idea of reducing the game down to its "core elements," and then adding everything else via rules modules sounds much better, in a world where you need to get something 90-95% of the player base is going to want.

I don't know in what context Mearls was talking about, but 90 to 95% is asking for a lot. At that point, I think the core rules would be 'You are an adventurer in a fantasy world' and that's it I'm being cheeky, but 80% sounded better than 51% majority but not as improbably as 95% majority.

 

[LurkAway]

For example, if there is a piece that fails to meet that threshold, maybe doesn't hit 50%--but it is critical for allowing people to swap some other option where there is wide-spread and divergent disagreement--then it probably has to go in. The piece isn't something that most people want, but its the best way to give almost everyone what they want for some other piece.

Then IMO, it's not in the DNA. The core DNA of D&D may say fundamentally "blue eyes" or "green eyes" or "we won't decide if you have blue or green eyes, that's up to you" or "if you want blue eyes only, buy the Blue Eyes campaign setting, or the Green Eyes campaign setting for green eyes only" or "pick blue or green eyes, but then everyone gets to choose blue or green eyes -- and you can't stop someone else from picking green eyes even if you don't like it".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know in what context Mearls was talking about, but 90 to 95% is asking for a lot. At that point, I think the core rules would be 'You are an adventurer in a fantasy world' and that's it I'm being cheeky, but 80% sounded better than 51% majority but not as improbably as 95% majority.

I actually think you're on to what their plan is.

"You are an adventurer in a fantasy world" is something of the core experience of D&D, and if you can make the game like that -- and add in everything else as options -- then you're getting to a place where you can meet 95% of people's desires, because they get to pick what they put into their games themselves.

 

[LurkAway]

I actually think you're on to what their plan is.

"You are an adventurer in a fantasy world" is something of the core experience of D&D, and if you can make the game like that -- and add in everything else as options -- then you're getting to a place where you can meet 95% of people's desires, because they get to pick what they put into their games themselves.

OK, so let's say its the 90/100 or 95/100 rule. Can we get consensus on levelling, alignment, ability scores, classes, races, etc. and all the interactions between them?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Look at it this way: As with a lot of rules of thumb, the 80/20 rule requires judgment. So think of it not as a test that determines whether something is in or out, but as a preliminary check to determine what needs more attention.

Really, the most useful application of the rule is probably going to be when your answer comes back 50/50. They aren't dummies or neophytes; they can guess a lot of the stuff that will come back plus 80%. Sure, the rule could provide a few surprises of that nature that will help, but I doubt very much critical. But when you get something that sits at 50/50 (or looking closer, 20/25/25/30), then you know this is an area that requires serious attention. If you blindly throw those things out of the core at that point, you've abandoned good information right when it was most useful. (Keeping in mind that not every such thing can be looked at, of course, given a limited time and budget.)