Uniting the Editions, Part 2 Up!

[Ratskinner]

This is precisely what I disagree with.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder campaign using only slightly houseruled Pathfinder rules set in Golaron using Pathfinder adventures as my base.

We long since dropped XP although the characters DO have levels.

No alignment for PCs.

Golaron isn't medieval fantasy, especially where we're playing (Varisia)

None of the characters are an iconic class.

The attributes range from 8 to 20.

One character rolls a D100 instead of a D20 since the player wants to. I'm good enough at math that I can convert instantly in my head so thats not an issue. This one, I admit, is bizarre.

We do have hit points, levels, saving throws.

So, either we're not playing D&D (which is rather surprising to me), or D&D does NOT mean that list above.

I still think you're playing D&D. However, you are playing perhaps an extreme or unusual form of it, and good on you for it. I think the point of "the core of D&D" is just to ask, "What (at a minimum) do we need to make it instantly recognizable and playable as D&D? (as opposed to some other game.)" Playing around with and violating those assumptions is also part of the game.

For game design purposes, though, they need a starting place. That place has to be playable as well. So they need to make some decisions, they are just making those decisions on what most recognizable or common. So (f'rinstance) attributes in the base game will run from 3-18. I'd be very surprised if a module or even magic items in the basic game wouldn't stretch that range.

 

[JohnSnow]

By that definition my campaign is medieval fantasy. But that is a VERY broad definition. A LOT broader than I'd interpreted it.

The other way to approach the whole "D&D core" topic is from the other direction.

What other games would be "D&D core" by these guidelines? How many D20 variants? "Blue Rose" would be. Mutants and Masterminds with the Fantasy RPG module would arguably be (classes is a little problematic).

But I'd consider neither of them to be D&D. They "feel" different to me in hard to articulate ways.

Is a game of pirates using Pathfinder rules D&D? I think that Monte is saying no. I think that I'd say yes.

I'd agree with you on Blue Rose or Mutants and Masterminds not being D&D. Similarly, a d20 Past campaign that uses the d20 Modern rules may be d20, but it's not D&D.

However, I think it's pretty clear that Pathfinder, like Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry, or even Hackmaster, is a D&D clone. So Pathfinder and all the rest count as D&D - "the core" is largely intact.

The very fact that we can agree that certain games which aren't actually labelled as D&D (Pathfinder, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry) should count, and that certain games which similarly share the mechanics (Spycraft, Star Wars Saga Edition, and d20 Modern, for example) clearly means that there IS a "core D&D" that exists. Part of it is the setting, but part of it is tied to the rules as well (even if they used the Greyhawk or FR setting, nobody would claim GURPS Fantasy or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay are D&D).

However, the heart and soul of D&D includes its ability to be houseruled. As an example, what if I go back to 3.5, but chuck the PHB classes, in favor of the Spellcaster/Warrior/Expert variant classes from Unearthed Arcana? I think most of us would agree that my game is still D&D (albeit a little bit...tweaked). I could add in a couple classes (even all?) from the Arcana Evolved variant PHB, and most would still say they were playing D&D.

Similarly, if I'm playing a 3.5 game set in Sanctuary (using Green Ronin's Thieves' World Player's Manual), or Fantasy Flight's Midnight setting, the game is still (by almost everyone's definition) D&D, even though it uses (in both cases) a modified magic system and/or modifies several classes. Similarly, a game set in Dark Sun or Dragonlance doesn't cease to be D&D because it cuts out a couple classes. So clearly, the game can tolerate a substantial amount of deviation from "the core," although everyone may have a different tolerance for how much deviation they permit.

Back to the point, I'd definitely say your hypothetical pirate game using Pathfinder IS D&D. Because, if you were using the D&D ruleset (a 3e game set in Freeport, for example), there wouldn't be a question. And I think Monte would say likewise, since I'm pretty sure Monte would agree that Pathfinder counts as a D&D clone. Hell, the introduction he wrote for it says as much!

How far can a game deviate from "the core" before it no longer counts? That's a very good question, and it may be in large part subjective, but there's no doubt in my mind that a "core D&D" does exist. And I think Monte has a pretty good handle on what most people want to see in it.

Yes, you can eliminate some aspects of the core and/or replace them with variant rules, and people would still call it D&D, but you wouldn't really expect to see a game labeled Dungeons & Dragons that didn't have them. An example of this is 4e's replace system for alignment and its wholesale replacement of the classic spell system. As much as some gamers like those things, it was just "too much" for many people.

 

[pemerton]

It strikes me that if wizards who go nova are causing a problem, then you don't like the pacing of the game, per se, because that's what's causing the problem. Now, you can try and change rules to deal with a pacing issue, but changing X to solve Y tends to be problematic - it's certainly doable, but it's a more difficult way of solving the underlying issue, and it's likely to have unforeseen consequences.

My experience has been different.

In one RM game, everyone played a caster - nova-ing problem solved (because it didn't cause imbalances), no need to change pacing.

In another RM game, we changed the relative power of casters and non-casters so that non-casters at will and encounter abilities made them as strong as nova-ing casters - nova-ing problem solved (because it didn't cause imbalances), no need to change pacing.

In 4e, we follow the rules and so everyone can nova to more-or-less the same extent - nova-ing problem solved (because it didn't cause imbalances), no need to change pacing.

So I have found that changing the rules - mostly around character building - can deal with nova-ing problems without needing to change pacingl.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe "Dungeon crawls will exist". But there are lots of counter examples to that.

I hope that dungeon crawls aren't too big a part of their assumed core!

 

[Tortoise]

I wish I could get some sense of what the designers think about non-combat. They seem to be defining earlier editions and their work moving forward in relation to combat and styles of combat-oriented play. I get the sense that they are primarily concerned with modes of combat during play and are looking to define 5E in terms of how players approach combat situations. If it turns out that "themes" are no more than a thin veneer to deal with combat-oriented play approaches, that's going to undercut the one aspect of design I have so far seen that seems to speak to 5E as an actual roleplaying game.

I have nothing solid to go on so this is just speculation, but the sense I have of things is that Class is What the character is, Theme is Who the character is, and the rest (skills, feats) are things the character can do.

If that is the case, themes might have an impact on role-playing beyond any bonus it might confer on either of the other two categories.

This could all be so off target, but until we see at least the beta version I doubt we'll be sure of anything.

 

[catsclaw227]

However, the heart and soul of D&D includes its ability to be houseruled.

Goodness, YES!

I respectfully disagree with [MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] in that houseruling is a fundamental benefit of D&D and not a reflection of a flaw in the mechanics. I don't need mechanics for everything.

I offer up the supposition, that the heavily codified 3.x system, catering more to the player, created a trend (I won't call it "entitlement", that seems to ruffle feathers) in the player side that all rules or subsystems available to the DM should be available to the players. And that any power/spell/ability/whatever that an NPC or monster may have should be reproducible by the players with a rule. It made RAW the ultimate arbiter and I disliked it's rule of law.

Not everything a player (not PC, player) sees, reads about or experiences should be available to PCs. I want there to be mystery and DM fiat, if done fairly and with regards to the story/setting/campaign, should be clearly acceptable to players. But this requires a very healthy sense of trust between group members. Maybe it's not so good for one-offs or "Living"/tournament games, but for house games, it should be not only accepted but embraced by players. A good DM will twist the rules to make your game awesome.

Note: This is my opinion only.

 

[Alzrius]

So I have found that changing the rules - mostly around character building - can deal with nova-ing problems without needing to change pacingl.

I'm not saying that you cannot do such a thing, I just think that it's going the long way around to try and take a shortcut.

I want to also take a moment to clarify that I'm not against house rules per se; I just find that they tend to come up only when the rules have failed to deliver on something that somebody wants the game to do - it's that failure that I frown upon. (That and the fact that I have seen some ill-conceived house rules that ended up doing more harm than good.)

I recognize that it's somewhat inevitable that such instances will occur, since no game can possibly include rules for everything - I just think that if the people playing the game don't have unreasonable* expectations for what the game can offer them, and if some areas of differentation are so small that a fluff-text change can fix them, then you ideally wouldn't need a house rule at all.

Also, I make one distinction that I suspect most others don't - I don't consider removing existing material from the game rules to be a house rule (e.g. if you say that there are no sorcerers in your game, and disallow the class). Why do I not see that as a house rule? Because to me, a house rule has to constitute a deliberate addition of some sort of new rules (e.g. a mechanical effect); there has to be something new that's interacting with the rest of the game.

I don't expect that most people will agree with me on that, but as I said, it's a fine (and somewhat artificial) distinction.

*a loaded term if ever there was one, I know.

 

[BryonD]

I think house ruling to fix a bad system and house ruling to fine tune a good system both exist.
You can't comment on house ruling and cover both of those realities in one simple sound bite

 

[WheresMyD20]

"Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player."

I'd prefer if that read "...an attack bonus—can be left up to the player if the DM wishes."

I don't like the idea of WotC setting player expectations that they can bring any kind of character they want to a game. Throwing in the weak parenthetical remark "(with DM input)" is even worse, since it leaves the choice squarely in the hands of the player, with the DM providing only "input".

Of course, a DM can always say "no", but with the rules clearly favoring player choice, this is going to lead to arguments.

I hope that this is just poorly worded in the article and the actual rules are clear that the DM has total authority to overrule any player decision if he wishes, not just give "input".

 

[pauljathome]

How far can a game deviate from "the core" before it no longer counts? That's a very good question, and it may be in large part subjective, but there's no doubt in my mind that a "core D&D" does exist. And I think Monte has a pretty good handle on what most people want to see in it.

Yes, you can eliminate some aspects of the core and/or replace them with variant rules, and people would still call it D&D, but you wouldn't really expect to see a game labeled Dungeons & Dragons that didn't have them. An example of this is 4e's replace system for alignment and its wholesale replacement of the classic spell system. As much as some gamers like those things, it was just "too much" for many people.

I largely agree with everything that you're saying.

I'm finding it hard to articulate my misgivings (even to myself).

I think that my basic problem is that while I agree that AD&D, Basic D&D, 4th edition, etc are all D&D I do NOT feel that they all have things worth preserving in a modern edition aimed at the mass market.

I should emphasize that I have no problem at all that others like and play AD&D, old school clones, etc. But they are all quite small niche products right now.

I think that both 3rd and 4th editions are where the mass market has decided that the game should be. They both have mass appeal.

I think that a successful edition should start from where we are today and NOT from where we were 30 years ago.

Let me use the analogy of a car.

One could probably come up with a definition of a car that would mostly fit all cars from Model T's on up and exclude most trucks, buses, etc.

But if I were to design a car today I would NOT start from a definition of car that had a standard transmission as the default. Or one with a running board. Or one lacking an automatic ignition system.