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

[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.