D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[I'm A Banana]

I tried to be thorough and concrete (using established gaming terminology...I thought). I could have said:


- DURRRR STUFF FOR THE PLAYING TOGEHTER LIKE NICE BOYS AND GURLS.

- OK GUYS WHAT DO U LIKE? STARWARS? AFTERMATH (LOL 2 + 2 = 4...MATH)? OK BOB YOU CAN BE JEDI NERFHERDING FARMER GUY. YOUR UNCLE AND AUNTIE ARE TOASTLOL. WUT BOUT MAGIC THOUGH?

- THESE HERE ARE RULES FOR TO BE PLAYING. SEE HOW MUCH SENSE THEY MAKE? OK. GUD. THIS WORKS LIKE THIS. WHEN I DO THIS, YOU GUYS DO THAT. SOUND GUD? GUD. HEY. BTW. YOU GUYS CAN MAKE COOL STUFF UP 2. NOT JUST ME.

- THESE GUYS ARE MY GUYS TO PLAY. OH, LOOK! FALLING ROCKS ON YOUR HEAD. WHAT NOW? ALSO, HEY JEDI NERFHERDING FARMER, UR DROID HAS A FUNNY MESSAGE LIKE A LITTLE GUY POPPING OUT OF HIS HEAD...ONLY C-THROUGH.


I could have done that. But that wouldn't have been very explanatory. And it would have insulted your intelligence and been overall disrespectful.

No one suggested you should do that. There's a pretty big middle ground between jargon-speak and condescension I feel you're omitting here.

Actually CJ, that's an excellent idea. I like that a lot. Here's a list of options with a sort of "DM's cookbook" in the back. That's a very cool idea.

In my kind of crystal-ball speculation of what might happen for the first books for D&D NEXT, I'm imagining it set up like BECMI.

The first book (or first part of the first book, or whatever) gives you a very basic, very simple, straightforward, D&D experience. And it is loud and proud about this very basic experience. It prefers simplicity and raw player experience over minutiae. This is so newbies and casual players can play the basic version and still get a D&D experience (because if anyone is going to not bother to house rule stuff, it's people who haven't played it before, and people who don't want to blow a lot of time playing it, and you still want those folks playing your game).

Then, the game shows you how to tweak that in various ways to get the kind of game you want, as a DM.

An assumed part of the DMs job in all but the most basic of games will be to change the rules and to tell the players what changes she's made. House rules are the only rules, and there's no universal default aside from "do what the DM says."

 

[Balesir]

Sadly, 4e did a pretty rough job with this, as evidence by the sheer amount of builds that needed the nerf-bat repeatedly applied to it. (Though to be fair, 3e had its fair share of offenders, I'ma looking at you polymorph).

For 4E at least they published the nerfs. One of my problems with 3.x was that there were a myriad of cases that really needed the nerfbat, but never got it - especially with "optional" systems (because, I guess, if you took the option you were supposed to know it was broken). I can cut the 4E designers some slack, since they were trying to produce a balance never before even attempted (as far as I can tell), if they made some mistakes and had to correct them. Maybe they took up all that slack and kept pulling, but at least they tried to get everything straight in the end. Now that we are at the end, I don't think they did a bad job. Several areas could have done with more expansion, but it doesn't even look like Next will be getting those expansions, so presumably they either don't see the need for them or have tried doing them and just can't get them right.

Still, I can see why it was liberating. In AD&D, psionics, bards, monks, non-weapon proficiencies and kits were all optional (hell, all classes but the core 4 were labeled optional). In 3e, prestige classes were similarly "optional". Was there any "optional" rules in 4e? It seems paragon paths, epic destinies, themes, psionics, warforged, and epic levels were all expected and assumed, even if the DM didn't want them in his game.

This is perhaps where I read the "everything is core" message differently. I read it as saying that, in 4E, almost everything is optional.

It's a bit like the saying "if you make everyone special, in the end no-one is special", but a lot more beneficial. If you make nothing optional, in the end everything is optional.

P.S. It seems I'm tapped out on xp to give to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION], but his last post was a doozy, I think.

 

[Remathilis]

In my kind of crystal-ball speculation of what might happen for the first books for D&D NEXT, I'm imagining it set up like BECMI.

The first book (or first part of the first book, or whatever) gives you a very basic, very simple, straightforward, D&D experience. And it is loud and proud about this very basic experience. It prefers simplicity and raw player experience over minutiae. This is so newbies and casual players can play the basic version and still get a D&D experience (because if anyone is going to not bother to house rule stuff, it's people who haven't played it before, and people who don't want to blow a lot of time playing it, and you still want those folks playing your game).

Then, the game shows you how to tweak that in various ways to get the kind of game you want, as a DM.

An assumed part of the DMs job in all but the most basic of games will be to change the rules and to tell the players what changes she's made. House rules are the only rules, and there's no universal default aside from "do what the DM says."

So your saying the game will have a solid DEFAULT followed by a LIST OF OPTIONAL elements that can be implemented at DM's choice?

Thank you. That's what I've been SAYING!

 

[DEFCON 1]

The first book (or first part of the first book, or whatever) gives you a very basic, very simple, straightforward, D&D experience. And it is loud and proud about this very basic experience. It prefers simplicity and raw player experience over minutiae. This is so newbies and casual players can play the basic version and still get a D&D experience (because if anyone is going to not bother to house rule stuff, it's people who haven't played it before, and people who don't want to blow a lot of time playing it, and you still want those folks playing your game).

My crystal ball says you're probably a little bit off.

The "Beginner's Boxed Set"? Exactly what you suggest here. Whether it's actually a boxed set, or a softcover book, or whatever... yup, I wouldn't be surprised to see one that includes just the basic core.

But the primary, hardcover Player's Handbook? Nope.

Just from an ease-of-use point of view... I cannot see how they would possibly split the character creation chapters up like that.

The "basic core" is four classes, four races, no Backgrounds, no Specialties, no Fighting Styles, no Schemes, no Traditions etc. etc. etc. Do you really think they're going to do JUST that basic core in the first couple chapters of the book, and then in the next couple chapters repeat those chapter headings over again but this time adding in all the additional classes, races, and special abilities and such?

That would be HORRENDOUS! And so much more difficult to actually use for the 95% of players who won't actually ONLY play the "basic core".

My crystal ball says that any part of character creation that is intended to be included in the first Player's Handbook (core and module both) will all show up in their representative chapters. And we'll probably get sidebars that state how and why certain parts of the rules can or should be used to recreate the various editions of D&D. But I think it's exceedingly unlikely to see all that stuff split up. That would lead to even more confusion and serve no real worthwhile purpose.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So your saying the game will have a solid DEFAULT followed by a LIST OF OPTIONAL elements that can be implemented at DM's choice?

Thank you. That's what I've been SAYING!

Yup, you have. Some of us just think you're wrong.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ye gads - whatever happened to "Hey guys, I've got a setting and some great adventures; who wants to play?"

We left the 1980's.

Times change. Game playing styles have changed. And while 5E will allow to hopefully recreate Second Edition... it's also going to try and let you recreate 3rd and 4th Edition too. So there isn't "one true way" for either the rules or the DM's authority anymore.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The "Beginner's Boxed Set"? Exactly what you suggest here. Whether it's actually a boxed set, or a softcover book, or whatever... yup, I wouldn't be surprised to see one that includes just the basic core.

But the primary, hardcover Player's Handbook? Nope.

So the reason I think that the "core rules" might be like that is mostly because people don't generally learn D&D from the books. They learn from playing, in an ongoing game. "Beginner's D&D" to me is actually just making a simple character and playing make-believe with dice. The rules need to get out of the way, to keep a low bar to entry, so that we don't make newbies wade through the esoterica of dice math and square grids and such. I also think that any "Beginner's" product for D&D might be aiming at too small a niche to be viable -- people rarely self-describe as Beginners, and D&D's basic gameplay isn't so complex that it needs an entire product to ramp up to it. Furthermore, the implication that there is "Beginner's D&D" and "Regular D&D" hurts the casual players who are fine with easy characters, but who may have been playing for years and years and years.

I mean, I might be totally off-base, but that's why I think that a "Beginner's Box" is less than likely. Simple character types and easy-to-wing-it rules aren't just for newbies, they're also for people who aren't necessarily into tweaking every little knob and dial.

The "basic core" is four classes, four races, no Backgrounds, no Specialties, no Fighting Styles, no Schemes, no Traditions etc. etc. etc. Do you really think they're going to do JUST that basic core in the first couple chapters of the book, and then in the next couple chapters repeat those chapter headings over again but this time adding in all the additional classes, races, and special abilities and such?

That would be HORRENDOUS! And so much more difficult to actually use for the 95% of players who won't actually ONLY play the "basic core".

I can't say for sure what the layout of the PHB will be, but I'm willing to guess that there's going to be some distinction between elves and dwarves on the one hand, and half-orcs and dragonborn on the other (and I imagine the book will include all of those). Similarly, I bet there's some line that will be drawn between fighters and wizards on the one hand, and monks and barbarians on the other (and I imagine the book will include all of those). What that distinction will look like -- whether it's different chapters, or examples of alternate rules, or icons next to the things in the book itself -- I'm not so sure. But there's going to be a clear signal that these things are opt-in, behind the DM's wall, and not for you unless your DM allows it. And even the normal four-by-four will have words about how the DM might change what options are available.

The players who aren't newbies or casual gamers can jump an extra hurdle -- by definition, they're players who can bother jumping extra hurdles. Those who ARE newbies or casual gamers are going to be turned off by the implication that they're not playing "real" D&D, and by having to deal with all the complexities that the game can have up-front if they want to play the "actual" game.

Again, could totally be wrong. Just rampant speculation.

 

[pemerton]

I have no use whatsoever for those who see the DM as nothing but a living breathing server running a MMORPG

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] are saying. They are not saying that the GM is a mere action resolution processor. (Nor are they denying the role of GM judgement in action resolution, though Balesir likes that role to be highly limited or constrained in certain ways.)

They are saying that, at a table at which the GM's main job is to provide adversity for the PCs (and hence gripping situations for the players to engage via their PCs), it would be out of place for the GM to decide what the players' PCs will be. The limiting absurdity would be the GM providing adversity for him/herself - at that point, what are the players doing other than providing some dice rolls for action resolution?

 

[Manbearcat]

They are saying that, at a table at which the GM's main job is to provide adversity for the PCs (and hence gripping situations for the players to engage via their PCs), it would be out of place for the GM to decide what the players' PCs will be.

That precisely. Further, if a big part of your table is predicated upon your players exploring their theme and/or actualizing their favored archetype, wresting control of PC-creation from them rather short-circuits the genesis of that process. Further, its pretty much antagonistic to a coherent, organic game (and thus more difficult for you as a GM) to try to shoehorn those PCs to your setting/genre versus first collectively working out setting/genre details and then moving on to PC-creation from there.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, I'm saying that KM's Crystal Ball may very well be correct about what we end up with, but if it is, then it will be a huge mistake on the part of WotC.

That kind of stuff was ok in 1979 for a hodge-podge of updates to barely-out-of-the-mimeograph-stage rules that were being built as needed, on demand, parsed out in three books so that the earlier books could sell and pay for the later ones.

We've learned a tremendous amount about "usability", presentation, managing complexity, etc. since that launch. One of the most basic principles is that you don't botch your design up on purpose just to satisfy the user interface, but make the the user interface conform to the functions being performed.

You can find a good way to do so. I can think of 20 or more plausible ways to handle presentation of a subset of options, and most of them would probably work. For example, here's another different one than my previous idea: Have a 16-32 page booklet that sets up something very much like BECMI by telling you what and where in the main books to use--complete with page numbers.