D&D 5E The three 5th editions - D&D Core, D&D Legends, D&D Tactics

[mkill]

Reading the forums in the last week, I came to the conclusion that it won't be possible to please everyone with one single game. But maybe this is not necessary. Why not publish 5th edition as three separate, complete and self-contained games? D&D Core, D&D Legends, and D&D Tactics.

Each is targeted at a different audience, but all games are compatible enough that you could "guest star" with a PC from one game in another, or completely convert him if you switch groups.

If each of these is modular, groups can mix and match the elements. You could play a rules-light game as per D&D Core, but add some tactical battle rules like opportunity attacks from D&D Tactics, and character backgrounds from D&D Legends.

This also makes it easy to describe your campaign to others, compared to a game where there is one core and unsorted options.

D&D Core

Target:
* New players who don't want to be overwhelmed by rules
* Players who like OD&D, or retro-clones
* Players who like rules-light games
* Players who like classic dungeon crawls
* Convention games
* Players who like it straightforward, but hardcore

This represents the "core" of D&D, and the game the other two are based on. In the PHB, it contains Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric, Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling. The rules are simple and straightforward, and can be explained in less than an hour. There are some modernizations, such as 3E-style ability score modifiers and ascending AC, and a very basic skill system, but the essence and the playstyle are very much like the Red Box.

There are Core-only splatbooks, but these don't add to the rules framework, but rather contain equally rules-light player options, such as additional races, classes and spells.

Since this game targets newcomers, it will come with plenty of player and DM advice. It also includes some optional rules that lead to either D&D Legends or D&D Tactics, to give groups a preview who wish to move towards a more complex rules system and help them find the playstyle that fits them best.

Optional rule: Tournament Mode. This is where the gloves come off, old school. Includes a standard module for competitive play, with detailed point scoring depending on how well the group did.

Note: Easy introduction for newcomers and compatibility to the other games is more important than faithful replication of old editions. This game should not adopt retro rules like level caps for non-humans for retro sake.


D&D Legends

Target:
* Players who like AD&D
* Players who liked 3rd edition, but never bothered with miniatures
* Players who like storytelling-focused systems like 7th Sea
* Players who write long backstories for their characters
* Players who read fantasy novels
* Players who have played a child of one of their PCs

Based on Core D&D, but enriched with elements that support storytelling, intrigue, and in-character play. Rules expansions concentrate on character backgrounds, perks & flaws, NPC relations, reputation, social status, and similar story-driven and story-driving rules.
Combat rules are focused on narrative. Players are expected to describe their actions, and the DM interprets it with a flexible framework. No miniatures or battlemat. Action points allow players to take control of the narrative.
Big focus on social interaction, and social conflict rules.

Optional rules for spontaneous magic (making up spells and effects on the fly).

Includes background material on organizations, and how players can act within these.

Optional rules for joint DMing.


D&D Tactics

Target:
* Players who like 3rd edition, but thought the Fighter needed fixing
* Players who like 4th edition, and especially the Warlord
* Players who like Final Fantasy Tactics and Risk

Based on Core D&D, expanded by no-holds-barred miniature skirmish battle rules. Attacks of opportunity, tactical movement, interrupt powers... Each class has a clear combat role attached, and is tightly balanced to other classes. There is a big focus on making each class interesting and useful. Action points do cool stuff.

Includes skill challenge rules to deal with non-combat situations.

Rules expansions include mass combat, naval warfare and siege rules. Rules for strongholds and followers.

This book has very little "fluff", and focuses on "crunch".

"Super-D&D"

Use both D&D Legends and Tactics at the same time, with all options enabled (Core is included in both anyway).

Combats will be run from Tactics, while the storytelling will be taken from Legends. This works because each book expands a different element of the game, and they are based on the same Core rules.

This will work best with groups that either like both aspects of the game, or with large groups where players have different interests, but the DM leaves them space to focus on their interests.

The books need a chapter with guidance on how to combine both directions.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Changing the three books model from PHB, DMG and MM into Core, Legends and Tactics, eh? Not a bad idea.

 

[LurkAway]

That's funny, I had the opposite naming scheme, a month or so ago, I called "D&D Legends" the 4.75E (because 4E is about very high legendary fantasy) and "D&D Lore" as the evolution of "classic"/3E low/traditional simulationist fantasy.

 

[mkill]

That's funny, I had the opposite naming scheme, a month or so ago, I called "D&D Legends" the 4.75E (because 4E is about very high legendary fantasy) and "D&D Lore" as the evolution of "classic"/3E low/traditional simulationist fantasy.

(Note: My arguments are based on the Threefold Model. It represents a better split of player tastes than 3E/4E).

The thing is, if you look closer, both D&D Legends and D&D Tactics are an evolution of 3E. The reason is that 3E is not really traditional/low fantasy, and it's not that simulationist either, but it does nod in both directions.

To play "low fantasy" with 3E (and AD&D for that matter), you have to end the campaign at a fairly low level, maybe 5 or 6. After that, PC power level and everything else is at least "heroic fantasy". And after level 15 or so, magic goes through the roof.

However, there are groups who like this level 1-5 low fantasy play, and they were pretty miffed when 4E changed it.

As for simulationist, yes, there are some simulationist elements, for example in the way that 3E tried to express the whole game world in PC rules, including giving the average joe a class (the Commoner). The problem is that D&D is an inherently gamist system, and always was. It's just not a good system to make something like a Commoner class. How does a farmer gain XP? Why would a 20-year old 1st-level Commoner be easily killed, while an experienced 40-year old (pretty much a grandpa in such a world) need two or three strikes with a sword (because he has a higher level and thus more hp)?

However, there were groups who liked these simulationist elements, and they were pretty miffed when 4E changed it.

What 3E also did was make the game more gamist. The combat rules introduced elements that demand miniatures and a battlemat to work properly, namely opportunity attacks. Challenge Rating for monsters is also a purely gamist concept.

Now, there were groups who ignored these gamist elements, and they were pretty miffed when 4E replaced the hood with a sheet of glass and exposed the gamist engine to everyone. This is where the "it's a board game" complaints come from.

3E managed to serve a very broad category of gamers with very different preferred playing styles, while 4E catered to a smaller audience. With the Tactics / Legends split, I hope 5E can catch a broader range of players at either end.

 

[hanez]

A highly doubt they will follow this idea because it will make two uncompatible systems.

Still, its creative and interesting.

All signs are that they will make classes that have all the choices made for them in the simple mod, and in the advanced version you will be able to undo those choices and take other options. (e.g. the simple fighter takes simple feats like toughness over and over, boosting HP, attacks etc. The advanced version lets you choose other things instead that give you other choices)

I predict a system where one player can pick simple, and the other pick advanced and they can sit at the SAME table and be relatively equal in strength (ok maybe not 4e equal, but still relatively equal)

 

[mkill]

A highly doubt they will follow this idea because it will make two uncompatible systems.

That's the thing - each of the three books has to be written in a way that the rules are compatible. That is, if a Core Fighter level 7 has a base +3 to hit, then this figure has to be the same in Legends and Tactics.

Since Tactics mainly expands Core combat, and Legends mainly expands the Core storytelling parts, it's possible to combine the two and play "Super D&D" if the group wants both.

 

[LurkAway]

(Note: My arguments are based on the Threefold Model. It represents a better split of player tastes than 3E/4E).

If D&D can be split along the threefold model to be modular for playstyles, then I'm all for it. OTOH, apparently, there's some contention over whether games are actually split along GNS lines or rather according to this:
Breakdown of RPG Players

The reason is that 3E is not really traditional/low fantasy, and it's not that simulationist either, but it does nod in both directions.

Yes, one guy gave me a hard time with the simulationist description and insisted on distinguishing between "pretend simulationist" vs true/hard-core simulationism. I said many/most people aren't interested in (or even aware of) using these strict GNS definitions colloquially. I remember a nod to realism thread where people seemed already gearing to argue what is the definition of "realism" and I felt obligated to head that off before it snowballed into another semantic argument. Anyway, sorry, never mind me, that's just my pet peeve.

 

[Walking Dad]

I very dislike the original post.

It implies between Legend and Tactics that

- 4e players are not interested in character backgrounds and don't read novels
- 3.5 was playable without miniatures and keeping all the rules
- older editions players are more interested in the story behind the game

Liking detailed rules is not the same as disliking story. Or otherwise. Less detailed rules make not more story rich sessions.

 

[mkill]

I very dislike the original post.

It implies between Legend and Tactics that

- 4e players are not interested in character backgrounds and don't read novels
- 3.5 was playable without miniatures and keeping all the rules
- older editions players are more interested in the story behind the game

Liking detailed rules is not the same as disliking story. Or otherwise. Less detailed rules make not more story rich sessions.

Oh c'mon. Unless you are dead set on finding something to be offended here, I cannot understand how you could ever come to this conclusion.

I AM a 4e player who is interested in character backgrounds and I read novels. So you are accusing me that I am implying something about 4E players which doesn't even fit myself. *facepalm*

As for 3.5, I know very well that it was a bit of a crutch to play it without miniatures, but I myself did so in the past, and so did a lot of other game tables. The point here is that there is demand for miniatures-free D&D, which 3E didn't serve well.

As for the older editions, AD&D had some of the most complex game world supplements, while 3E and especially 4E are decidedly more rules heavy. If this is something you miss about newer editions, then D&D Legends is targeted at you.

 

[Walking Dad]

I still think you post implied my points, even if you not intended it.

I agree that there is a demand for miniatures free D&D. But this will need a more elegant targeting for spells like fireball and less AoO and flanking rules. If this D&D hasn't them, has no miniature free rules, but requires the DM to determine things on the fly, which I personally dislike doing as a DM. The effects of spells should be consistent in a system.

 

[pemerton]

Oh c'mon. Unless you are dead set on finding something to be offended here, I cannot understand how you could ever come to this conclusion.

I did have the same response.

You mentioned the threefold model upthread. Personally I'm more of a GNS person, and I thought that your D&D Legends caters more to high concept simulation, than to genuine narrativism.

 

[Hassassin]

I did have the same response.

You mentioned the threefold model upthread. Personally I'm more of a GNS person, and I thought that your D&D Legends caters more to high concept simulation, than to genuine narrativism.

I don't really know how to apply GNS to the OP.

Core = some N, a bit of S, but not all that G
Legends = a lot of N, healthy doze of S, not very much G
Tactics = mostly S and especially G

The five-way thing from post #7 sort of works.

Core = the middle
Legends = bottom half
Tactics = top half

 

[WheresMyD20]

That's the thing - each of the three books has to be written in a way that the rules are compatible. That is, if a Core Fighter level 7 has a base +3 to hit, then this figure has to be the same in Legends and Tactics.

Since Tactics mainly expands Core combat, and Legends mainly expands the Core storytelling parts, it's possible to combine the two and play "Super D&D" if the group wants both.

Why make the material redundant? Why not have a small rulebook that holds the common rules, then make each of these three books a supplement that references the common rules? In fact, you could even break down those three supplements into even smaller chunks so that groups can freely mix & match the rules they want.

 

[Gort]

I very dislike the original post.

It implies between Legend and Tactics that

- 4e players are not interested in character backgrounds and don't read novels
- 3.5 was playable without miniatures and keeping all the rules
- older editions players are more interested in the story behind the game

Liking detailed rules is not the same as disliking story. Or otherwise. Less detailed rules make not more story rich sessions.

Agreed - I had this reaction also.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Why make the material redundant? Why not have a small rulebook that holds the common rules, then make each of these three books a supplement that references the common rules? In fact, you could even break down those three supplements into even smaller chunks so that groups can freely mix & match the rules they want.

That's what they need to do honestly. We need a handy well organized rules reference that has everything in it for playing.

Then put all the races and classes and such in the phb. Expect us to buy both, I don't mind. Package them together, whatever. As long as the rules reference is inexpensive (like the rules compendium) it will sell.

This also frees up a ton of room for fluff and all these modules and things they're talking about. put the basic rules in one book and put all the module parts in another.

 

[SKyOdin]

I don't think breaking the game into different self-contained product lines with their own supplements is a good idea. It will draw battle-lines and foster disunity and conflict within the fanbase. When a product for D&D Legends is announced, D&D Core and Tactics fans will go: "Hey! Where's our book!? Why are you catering only to D&D Legends fans!?" People will use the names and branding as rational for excluding the other brands from their games. Since the mechanical differences would be too big to easily reconcile, it would end up splitting the D&D fanbase three-ways, and sales of individual books would be significantly slashed as a result, damaging the profitability of all of the lines, much akin to how campaign settings get fewer sales than rulebooks.

While support for a broad range of playstyles is definitely a good thing, I think such support needs to exist within a unified productline, and within single books. There is no fundamental reason why these different playstyles can't all co-exist side-by-side.

 

[timbannock]

Why make the material redundant? Why not have a small rulebook that holds the common rules, then make each of these three books a supplement that references the common rules? In fact, you could even break down those three supplements into even smaller chunks so that groups can freely mix & match the rules they want.

Yeah, I think the OP has some points, but the second two versions could be organized into a single book/box/whatever and applied to the game (let's call it "Advanced" D&D). Future books may split off as being part of one section of "Advanced" more than others -- perhaps a book that really amps up the tactical aspects even further (siege rules, perhaps?) -- but the less buy-in you have to make to get the "full game," the more likely people will be happy to get the full game.

I think the core 3 model is one of the biggest plagues of D&D for a lot of reasons. If they can get a complete game in 1 or 2 releases, they've done a big service to the game as a whole. And it's clearly been done before, while still leaving TONS of room for expansions and all that fun stuff.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really know how to apply GNS to the OP.

Core = some N, a bit of S, but not all that G
Legends = a lot of N, healthy doze of S, not very much G
Tactics = mostly S and especially G

Well, as I said, Legends strikes me as mostly simulationist - it just goes for high-concept, "story exploration" simulation rather than a more purist-for-system simulation. But, at least as presented, to me it harked back to 2nd ed AD&D or White Wolf-style gaming, which is not narrativist in the Forge sense. Indeed, the Forge is in part a reaction against this style of gaming. Forge narrativism is about "story now" ie producing story via play, whereas AD&D 2nd ed (and Legends, as I read it) is to a significant extent about playing through a story already given (by the GM, and perhaps the player's pre-play contributions, like PC backgrounds).

And to identify Tactics as gamist seems to me to equate a particular technique - clearly defined resolution rules, battlemaps and tokens/minis, etc - with a goal of play. Games like Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel show that there is no inherent tendency for crunchy combat to be at odds with "story now". And in my view it's a strength of 4e that it supports a light narrativism or a light gamism with close to equal ease. Whereas D&D Tactics struck me as pushing for Lair Assault as the default mode of play, rather than just one way of using a fairly versatile system.

 

[mkill]

Well, as I said, Legends strikes me as mostly simulationist - it just goes for high-concept, "story exploration" simulation rather than a more purist-for-system simulation. But, at least as presented, to me it harked back to 2nd ed AD&D or White Wolf-style gaming, which is not narrativist in the Forge sense. Indeed, the Forge is in part a reaction against this style of gaming. Forge narrativism is about "story now" ie producing story via play, whereas AD&D 2nd ed (and Legends, as I read it) is to a significant extent about playing through a story already given (by the GM, and perhaps the player's pre-play contributions, like PC backgrounds).

And to identify Tactics as gamist seems to me to equate a particular technique - clearly defined resolution rules, battlemaps and tokens/minis, etc - with a goal of play. Games like Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel show that there is no inherent tendency for crunchy combat to be at odds with "story now". And in my view it's a strength of 4e that it supports a light narrativism or a light gamism with close to equal ease. Whereas D&D Tactics struck me as pushing for Lair Assault as the default mode of play, rather than just one way of using a fairly versatile system.

I am quite impressed how much you can read into a few lines of notes. Well, obviously nobody has written these games yet, so it's hard to say what kind of playstyles they will end up supporting. Obviously D&D players are a diverse bunch, so the game has to be written with some flexibility.
My suggestion is a fairly gamist Tactics and a narrativist/simulationist mix in Legends. However, neither should be so extreme that they completely exclude other play styles.

 

[pemerton]

I am quite impressed how much you can read into a few lines of notes.

Sorry, I wasn't really intending to prejudge so strongly. Initially I really was just intending to indicate that I'd had the same response as Walking Dad. And then was just replying to Hassassin to try to explain a bit more where that response came from.

To the extent that it's "reading in", that would be in part because a similar 3-fold split was proposed late last year by LurkAway, in the context of a longer thread, where some of the underlying assumptions about what sort of each play each package would support was spelled out.

And I've also been engaged in the Civility thread, where the idea that 4e should have been marketed as a replacement for the D&D minis game, rather than as an RPG game, has once again become a topic of conversation.