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

[Felon]

Here's the major hurdle to appeasing even 80% of gamers:

There are all kinds of RPG players, but there are two major camps that are almost inimcal in nature. The can be broadly categorized as "right-brained" gamers and "left-brained" gamers. In RPG design, it is vital to acknowledge that these two have vastly different approaches and standards, up to the point of being in direct conflict.

Righ-brained gamers value imagination and sense of immersion. Thus, they want a rules-light game that is as uncomplicated and intuitive as possible. Memorizing a book full of rules is a necessary evil at best. They like rolling dice as long as it doesn't entail number-crunching; high rolls = good and low rolls = bad. They want an RPG that is not so much a game, but more of a framework for improvisational theater. Examples of non-D&D games that cater to right-brained gamers are Castles & Crusades and FATE RPG.

Left-brained gamers value structure and forethought. They are objective-oriented and throw themselves into making preparations to accomplish those objectives. They want a game that provides lots of options and covers many different contingencies. Many have competitive tendencies and find vindication in catching the unprepared off-guard. Examples of non-D&D games that cater to left-brained gamers are Hero System and GURPS.

Because D&D is the elephant in the room, it attracts and struggles to appeal to both camps. When players from these two camps wind up at the same table, conflicts are common because they are looking for fundamentally different experiences. When in these forums you see talk of power-gamers, munchkins, role-playing versus roll-playing, and so forth, you are seeing the disconnect between a left-brainer and a right-brainer style of play.

 

[LurkAway]

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.)

Oh, I wouldn't ever condone blindly throwing it out, and I hoped I had articulated as much in the last several posts of mine. I'm only suggesting that they do it right. Once something goes into the core, it's there for the next 8 to 10 years or whatever the lifespan of this edition (if it is an edition). I would turn around your statement and say WoTC should not blindly include anything in the core and pay for it later.

 

[I'm A Banana]

At minimum:

5 levels. I'm guessing there's going to be up to 10.

Four alignments (Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Good...possibly Unaligned). I wouldn't be surprised to see the Nine return, either.

Ability Scores: It'll be the usual 6, probably with modifiers.

Classes: One at minimum. There probably will be 4 -- Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard.

Races: One at minimum. There probably will be 3 or 4 -- human, dwarf, elf, and perhaps a halfling.

 

[Herschel]

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.

I liked your whole post but this is where emphasis needs to be made IMO. Either/or polling, even if widsespread enough to reach all "interested parties" simply won't give you meaningful information because most questions aren't so black/white.

If you want Vancian-style magic is it exclusive, or do you want an "at-will" attack (like Magic Missile) to go along with it? The AEDU power set-up actually works great for Vancian-style casting without useless times except instead of picking encounter powers at level 1, 3, 7, etc. you can pick another Daily instead (kind of like the Utility powers). Your "most powerful" dailies will still come at the same levels because those will all be from the same pool of powers while the swapped-for Daily/Encounter powers where the dailies are more powerful than the encounters but not the real "big knockers" like the others. In older editions, for example, being able to get fireball and lightning bolt were usually the big levels to reach for spellcasters (5th for third-level spells)

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

While it's a noble goal, I think it's literally impossible. Example:

Should NPCs be made with their own rules (that don't mimic PC rules)?
Yes: 58%
No: 42%

Great, that answers that (not 80%). Unless we asked:

Should creating NPCs have to follow the same rules PC do?
Yes: 42%
No: 58%

Now we can't do either. Unless we word the poll differently!

Which do you prefer?
A) NPC should be made with their own rules (that don't mimic PC rules).
B) When creating NPCs, they should follow the same rules PCs do.
C) A, but with some nods to using B if you really want to.
D) A, but with support for B.
E) B, but with shortcuts for quick and dirty NPC generation if necessary.
F) B, but with support for A.

Which of these is going to grab 80% of the vote?

Now, take into account polls that are worded better, but I just don't see polls helping out here. The only real time that you'll get a "definitive" response is when the polls are super obvious ("should there be combat rules?"), or when they're leading ("should NPCs be forced to follow the same rules that PCs are forced to follow?"). Just my take on it, though. As always, play what you like

 

[LurkAway]

Which do you prefer?
A) NPC should be made with their own rules (that don't mimic PC rules).
B) When creating NPCs, they should follow the same rules PCs do.
C) A, but with some nods to using B if you really want to.
D) A, but with support for B.
E) B, but with shortcuts for quick and dirty NPC generation if necessary.
F) B, but with support for A.

G) Here is how you can build monsters, you decide if NPCs are "monsters" or PC builds
H) No monster and/or NPC rules mentioned in an ultra-light core

I think one of the above, after proper honest explanation and playtesting, will make the 80%

Now, take into account polls that are worded better, but I just don't see polls helping out here.

As per upthread, the 80% is pulled from however WoTC is running the open playtest, not just pure theoretically polling IMO.

 

[JamesonCourage]

G) Here is how you can build monsters, you decide if NPCs are "monsters" or PC builds

I'd argue that this isn't "core" rule, personally. You're already opting to give options and complexity dials on them, not giving them a base line.

Either that, or monsters have different rules, with some nods towards using (B) if you really want to. That was my (C). It could potentially mean rules for monsters with support for (B), but that was my (D). Since I listed those, I'll assume that's not the case.

H) No monster and/or NPC rules mentioned in an ultra-light core

I really doubt this will get 80% of the vote. People will want guidance.

I think one of the above, after proper honest explanation and playtesting, will make the 80%

As per upthread, the 80% is pulled from however WoTC is running the open playtest, not just pure theoretically polling IMO.

Well, it's better than polling, but as presented, I don't think any of the options you or I presented would break 80% (and I don't think your (G) was a core "rule", but we might just disagree there). As always, play what you like

 

[LurkAway]

I'd argue that this isn't "core" rule, personally. You're already opting to give options and complexity dials on them, not giving them a base line.

If NPC rules are not in the core, then it's essentially stating "D&D is not defined by how you build NPCs". The reason being that no baseline could be found. The reason no baseline was determined is because WoTC did their very best to find a solution but 80% (or according to KM, 90% to 95%) could still not agree on how to build NPCs. Therefore, NPC building is part of optional rules. Is that logic really so wrong?

Either that, or monsters have different rules, with some nods towards using (B) if you really want to. That was my (C). It could potentially mean rules for monsters with support for (B), but that was my (D). Since I listed those, I'll assume that's not the case.

I'm confused, but without specifics, that's OK, the example serves its purpose either way I think.

I really doubt this will get 80% of the vote. People will want guidance.

Theoretically, "guidance" can go into expansion rules beyond the ultra-light core IMO.

Well, it's better than polling, but as presented, I don't think any of the options you or I presented would break 80% (and I don't think your (G) was a core "rule", but we might just disagree there).

The stated goal of 5E is to unify all D&D edition players, ALL of them (paraphrasing their intentions as I understand it). They claim to want to do extensive playtesting. They claim that they're done with telling D&D players how to play the game. If they don't at least attempt to determine the popularity of various rules, I think they are missing out on a tremendous opportunity to live up to their stated goal and not just pay lip service. If anything, the discipline of this approach may serve them well, even if it doesn't attain all it ideally sets out to do.

Edit: I don't think they will literally unify 100% of D&D players, but it gets exponentially difficult to get consensus the higher you raise your limit (50%, 70%, 80%, 90%). WoTC can draw the line in the sand that gives the best return on their investment and makes that core.

 

[Dragonblade]

No, I don't want D&D by committee. I'm not even sure I'm completely on board with the wide open playtest idea.

You'll get a hodgepodge or rules and ideas that I think no one will be satisfied with.

I think Paizo's open playtest really held it back from transcending 3e and becoming a better game, instead of catering to a vocal group that forced it to keep a lot of the problem areas of 3e.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If NPC rules are not in the core, then it's essentially stating "D&D is not[i/] defined by how you build NPCs". The reason being that no baseline could be found. The reason no baseline was determined is because WoTC did their very best to find a solution but 80% (or according to KM, 90% to 95%) could still not agree on how to build NPCs. Therefore, NPC building is part of optional rules. Is that logic really so wrong?

I'm saying that you won't get 80% of people to say that there should be no baseline for NPCs. They'll want something. I'm trying to go by your OP's "80%" rule on placing things in the core rules. You're saying to make them optional. Fine, I guess. That's not what 80% of people will agree on, in my opinion.

Theoretically, "guidance" can go into expansion rules beyond the ultra-light core IMO.

Sure it can, and that's fine. I think you'll just need to break away from the "80%" rule to do so. That is, I have strong doubts that 80% of people will want to handle it the way you're talking about (no base NPC or monster rules, and all NPC/monster rules placed as optional dials that you'll need to go over individually).

The stated goal of 5E is to unify all D&D edition players, ALL of them (paraphrasing their intentions as I understand it). They claim to want to do extensive playtesting. They claim that they're done with telling D&D players how to play the game. If they don't at least attempt to determine the popularity of various rules, I think they are missing out on a tremendous opportunity to live up to their stated goal and not just pay lip service. If anything, the discipline of this approach may serve them well, even if it doesn't attain all it ideally sets out to do.

Sure, that's true. But I think your "80%" rule is fundamentally flawed. You won't get 80% of people to agree on any options that I've presented (or you countered with), nor will you get 80% of people to agree that all rules for NPCs/monsters should be optional dials. You just won't, in my opinion. which means that you'll be ignoring your "80%" rule (since no 80% chunk wants the same baseline in rules, nor does any 80% chunk want no baseline rules for NPCs/monsters in the core rules).

That's just my take on it, obviously. Taking preferences into account and making all rules optional to some degree is obviously important, and they should capitalize on feedback. However, trying to aim for an "80%" goal is, I think, purely unobtainable. As always, play what you like