What in the world is left to be in core?

[Desdichado]

So, I'm hanging around ENWorld a lot more than I normally do because I'm curious about the whole 5e thing, obviously, and find it interesting to talk about.

One prevailing meme I'm seeing a lot of in this subforum is the, "Yeah, I like that element, but it shouldn't be in 'core'"--whatever 'core' means exactly. In fact, this has been so prevalent in this subforum, that I have to wonder what in the world is left to be in core at all?

I've seen a lot of mention of the 4x4 model--four classes and four races. Does anyone really honestly believe that a stripped down D&D that's that impoverished and hollow is going to satisfy anyone?

Help me out here, folks. Why is everyone so anxious to dump most of the elements of D&D into some nebulous "later' category? Am I the only one who sees one of D&D's greatest strengths the fact that it's big, broad, diverse, and can do lots of things? The more D&D has tried to be restrictive and proscriptive about what kind of game it is, what kind of experience it delivers, how it's to be played, what kind of setting it supports, etc. the worse it's been for the game (I'd venture to say that that's one of the prime learning experiences of the 4e experience, actually--but maybe that's just me.)

If WotC listens to the the general trend of most of the discussion I'm seeing here on this subforum, then they'll gut D&D of it's greatest strength, and leave a shallow corpse that isn't going to tempt anyone to do anything with.

 

[kmdietri]

You'll just get a d20 and a book of optional rules.

 

[Wormwood]

Why is everyone so anxious to dump most of the elements of D&D into some nebulous "later' category?

I'm referring to a stripped-down core, with multiple options *in the same book*.

For example, warforged, warlords and character themes may not be in the 'core' game, but they would be in later chapters available to use or ignore as each group chooses.

What I'm definitely against is shipping a game that *requires* supplement support to play.

 

[Mercurius]

Threads like this are exactly why I wrote this.

In short, "core" isn't (imo) about which races and classes to include in the 5E Player's Handbook, but a simple yet robust enough core game engine that can accommodate as wide a variety of D&D styles while still remaining D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the only problem with your thread there is that its way too speculative. Well, that and that I also think what WotC labels core or not probably doesn't have that much impact on most players. I know nobody I know ever cared if something was so-called "core" or not. I doubt most players would even know what WotC labelled core and what they didnt.

 

[keterys]

I'd love to see a version of D&D that was not made of tomes stuffed to the gills with every possible class and race people demand, but was instead a series of small and cheap books or pdfs with the building blocks that apply to the game you want to play - especially if you could combine and print on demand the rulesets you wanted.

Cause, let's be blunt. You're going to have to have different options for wizard and cleric for different groups to accept them, so I'm not even seeing agreement on 4x4.

I've got one player who hates Vancian and loves 4E's power model, and he wants to play a caster. How's it going to work? If done well, just fine.

I'm a DM and I hate save or suck, and frankly get agitated by massive swings in ability based on monster type. So I'm looking at Turn Undead with a grim view. Hopefully they give me options.

Guess we'll see.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I've seen a lot of mention of the 4x4 model--four classes and four races. Does anyone really honestly believe that a stripped down D&D that's that impoverished and hollow is going to satisfy anyone?

Think of the core rules as a hamburger. The 4x4 model is a meat patty and a bun. Some people just want a meat patty and a bun. Most people, however, want toppings on their burger. That's where the supplements come in.

It's easier to start with a meat patty and bun burger and add the toppings you want than it is to start with a burger with all the toppings and try to "pick off" the toppings you don't like.

The more recent editions of the game had toppings such as grid-and-minis combat and skills & feats already on the burger. This made it difficult for players who didn't like those toppings to "pick them off".

Conversely, some of the older editions have a core ruleset that's just a meat patty and bun framework. The core rules for the 1981 B/X edition are only 64 pages long! I think 5e is trying to get back to this kind of simple rules foundation.

The 4x4 model is only a starting point- most game groups will add the optional rules they like in order to give the system more flavor. I'm sure WotC will release plenty of supplemental material. There shouldn't be any lack of toppings for the 5e burger. If you want to run a 5e game with dozens of races and classes, minis combat, etc., I'm sure WotC will oblige.

 

[Desdichado]

Think of the core rules as a hamburger. The 4x4 model is a meat patty and a bun. Some people just want a meat patty and a bun. Most people, however, want toppings on their burger. That's where the supplements come in.

I did think of the 4x4 model as a hamburger. That's when I made the comment that gamers everywhere are going to ask "Where's the beef?" I don't need a long analogy; I know the theoretical framework. I'm being Captain Obvious and saying, "Yeah, well, has anyone considered how lame that's going to be to everyone, instead of just patting themselves on the back for their brilliant and elegant, yet totally impoverished and unworkable model?"

The 4x4 model is only a starting point- most game groups will add the optional rules they like in order to give the system more flavor. I'm sure WotC will release plenty of supplemental material. There shouldn't be any lack of toppings for the 5e burger. If you want to run a 5e game with dozens of races and classes, minis combat, etc., I'm sure WotC will oblige.

In other words, you're saying that yes, you do honestly believe that a 4x4 model D&D might possibly satisfy a significant portion of gamers.

I guess that's what I get for asking what I thought was a rhetorical question.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You'll just get a d20 and a book of optional rules.

What if I prefer d12s?

There's enough disagreement that if you try to please everyone the only thing that will still be core will be the name Dungeons & Dragons. Still, there's probably a basic set of rules that can serve as "core" and make about 80% of folks happy.

 

[Kilmax]

I completely agree with the OP. By the comments I've read this week, I'd say most people are, IMHO, misinterpreting the intention behind the new iteration. It seems that "a modular game" is usually being seen as "the stuff I don't like won't be core"; and "appealing to players of all editions" is seen by some as "appealing to me only".

Honestly, if WotC decide to make a game for everyone, there's definitely going to be something in the book that won't please you. But I think their goal is to make this kind of stuff optional -- optional in the sense that the game won't need it to function just perfectly, not in a flamist "put it in the back of the book, together with the stuff I don't like" way. And I believe this is will be the norm for everything in the new system: customization. From the use of skills and feats to the rarity of magic items, the presence or absence of a healer character in the party and combat options. Therefore, each group will actually have to pick which sub-systems will be used at the table (maybe with a checklist similar to the Unearthed Arcana one in 3e) even with some groups actively choosing not to use any of them.

So, in this way, what would be considered core? Nothing, because everything will be part of the game. The rules won't be presented as "core" and "optional", with the "true" elements of D&D first, and all the other stuff afterwards. I can't see how in the Seven Hells WotC will make rules elements loved by many fans, such as some races and classes or feats, appear as mere "optional" material in the back of the book or in supplements. I think they've learned that lesson from 4e too. These add-ons will most likely be presented as "modules" or "rulesets" at the appropriate place in the book, to be used at one's own preference; not as some leftovers they made and didn't know what to do, but since it's ready let's put it on the book anyway.

(An alternative to this could happen if the publishing format for D&D Next is radically changed from what has been done on the last 10 years or so, consisting instead of smaller books with self-contained sub-systems. I think it would be a mess, but maybe they could make it work.)

I sincerely believe some people are acting like this out of sheer passion for the game, not realising they're actually hurting it. But others are just ready to hate the next D&D anyway, independently of the resulting product. So, we'll just have to bear with them.