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

[Szatany]

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.

I would go the other way. Have one system made for all arcane classes, and another one for divine classes. For example, wizards and bards would use simplified vancian system, while clerics and paladins would have powers from 4e.
Martial classes can have their abilities structured in yet another way.
That way, there is a sense of unity between classes that share a power source. Also, it might be a very different experience for a player to try a class from a power source he or she didn't play yet.

 

[LurkAway]

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).

I think the fanbase is in a sad state if they couldn't even agree on any of the possible choices being offered in playtests, and can't even agree what should or should not be optional in an ultra-light core. As I see it, it means that 5E's goal for unity is already dead in the water. All that assumes complete speculation on what people can or cannot agree upon, without even really trying, which maybe realistic but maybe defeatist a bit too IMO.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the fanbase is in a sad state if they couldn't even agree on any of the possible choices being offered in playtests, and can't even agree what should or should not be optional in an ultra-light core. As I see it, it means that 5E's goal for unity is already dead in the water. All that assumes complete speculation on what people can or cannot agree upon, without even really trying, which maybe realistic but maybe defeatist a bit too IMO.

That's if we're aiming for a hard 80% line.

Also, I think that what people what and what they'd accept are two different things. For example, 80% of playtesters might accept rules for NPC/monsters being presented as a "here's several ways to do this" and having no "core" approach. They may not want that, though (if they got their way in a vote in a poll, for example).

Satisfying 80% of the market will be hard, but it might be attainable. Saying "80% must agree this is how they want something in order for it to be in the core rules" is probably asking too much, however. As always, play what you like

 

[LurkAway]

That's if we're aiming for a hard 80% line.

Not as hard as KamikazeMidget's 90-95%

For example, 80% of playtesters might accept rules for NPC/monsters being presented as a "here's several ways to do this" and having no "core" approach. They may not want that, though (if they got their way in a vote in a poll, for example).

The rule is if 80% of players can agree on a rule... I think "agree" is the same as your "accept". It's an important distinction, I think. The difference between "want" and "accept" was the difference between playing 4E or not. It will be the difference between playing 5E or not. If not enough majority can accept the core rules of 5E, it will fail to achieve WoTC's goal of unity, as I understand their implied definition of majority and unity.

 

[mlund]

When one of your goals is to accommodate diversity then the 80/20 rule can be a useful measuring tool if you ask questions about what should be excluded or eliminated from a rules set. Most players are focused on what they want to play and don't care one way or the other what other players want to do with their own characters. The majority vote is usually bemused disinterest or apathy - which means the mechanics can stick around. The exception to this is when one player's choices effectively pick the pocket of his neighboring player's characters - like Quadratic Wizards vs. Linear Fighters or MageGuyver vs. Rogues.

To a lesser extent you can also hit this problem with settings and themes. Throwing in Dragonborn and Tieflings, for example, might up-end a setting that traditionally didn't have them. Dropping Kender into the Realms would get people very riled up, even though they never have to play a Kender ever. It's like you had a Klingon Bird of Prey show up and strafed Waterdeep with Photon Torpedoes and Disruptors (only it's far less spectacular and player's aren't the slightest bit interested in high-jacking those Kender as a means to travel among the stars).

- Marty Lund

 

[jbear]

To be honest I think the core is going to look VERY old school. Fighter, Wizard, Thief type of thing. From there I can imagine you can build in options to modify those core tropes to build any character type you can think of. Warlord included.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

I think it was really beneficial to Paizo. It pretty much told them how far they could go with changes in the system and still have buy-in from consumers.

And I think WotC's doing it for the same reason.

 

[enrious]

I think it was really beneficial to Paizo. It pretty much told them how far they could go with changes in the system and still have buy-in from consumers.

And I think WotC's doing it for the same reason.

I think in Paizo's case, the open playtest was an double-edge blade - yes, it allowed the community to buy-in make suggestions, some of which were incorporated.

On the other hand, it also left a lot of "what ifs" dangling out there for everyone to still point to, years later.

It also hounds them today when people look at the atrocious lack of playtesting (compared to the CRB) on items like the UC (really, can't playtest firearms, one round for the ninja, etc.) or the UR (one round for point-build playtesting, are you serious?).

Of course, the difference is that WotC's stated goal is to be inclusive of things, rather than Pathfinder, which had to remain fairly compatible with 3.5 and was thus exclusionary.