D&D 5E What would 5E be like if the playtest's modularity promise was kept?

Ondath

Hero
In another thread, I made an off-hand comment along the lines of "if only 5E had kept its promise from the playtest that it was going to be a modular ruleset that can reasonably emulate any kind of game you could run with the previous editions, we could perhaps have the variation we needed.", and the idea has been going around in my head ever since. What would 5E be like if it didn't go for the specific design it did but served as the edition to unite all editions?

I'll try and present this stream of consciousness with smaller headers (who do I think I am? Snarf?) in the hopes of giving my idea some structure, but this is mostly an attempt at getting the inchoate flow of ideas in my head outside so that I can get some discussion rolling. Feel free to pick apart my premise or conclusions.

Lofty Design Goals, Little Execution

For a little trip down the memory lane, here is something Monte Cook, then acting as the co-lead designer of D&D Next said in the second ever Legends & Lore article:
First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there.


In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so.

I was barely short of being 17 years old when this article came out, and my only foray into D&D was 3.5 and Pathfinder (I had rejected 4E because everyone around me had done the same), and I remember being impressed. Even though I had no experience with D&D outside the specific rules-heavy simulationism (if it can be called that) 3E and its ilk had attempted, I liked the idea of a D&D edition that could incorporate various different styles. But somewhere down the line, this promise was mostly forgotten, and the closest thing we got to the modular aspect that was promised was Feats and Multiclassing being optional rules alongside some variant rules in the DMG. The "core essence" we got ended up a lot thicker than this article implied, and 5E ended up running only a very specific style of neo-trad/OC game that, to be fair, was pretty centrist compared to the various different ways D&D has been played over time: The first few levels feel deadly enough for you to get an OSR feel somewhat, and there are rules like encumbrance and travel pace that indicate some ways to play the old-school resource management game (though they're underdeveloped). 4E's design principles are clearly hidden in the background with some monster design ideas, the short rest mechanic and a few other nods here and there. But 5E felt more like a return to the 3E genre fantasy more than anything, and I was mostly happy with that back then.

But a modular game it was not, and I think over time we've seen the designers at WotC embrace 5E's specific brand of neo-trad game. Options were expanded to make characters even more customisable, and the design paradigm post-Tasha's seems to be all about making a unified game with little optional rules, with things like feats becoming the norm for Dragonlance characters instead of an optional addition that may or may not be balanced. At the same time, other OGL products like A5E have pushed the rules in a more complex direction, deepening especially the exploration pillar and martial options. But the game most people seem to play when they play (A)5E belongs to a very specific genre fantasy.

Enter Old School Essentials
You may have caught on the term genre fantasy that I'm using in this post, and this is primarily due to what got me thinking about this whole mess of an idea in the first place: Old School Essentials. For those who don't know, Old School Essentials is the gold-standard of OSR-style play, whose Basic Fantasy rules serve as a near-perfect modernisation of the B/X rules with the highest fidelity to the original game as possible. But what's interesting about OSE is the fact that the design is pretty modular from the get-go: One form in which you can get the product is a box set with five different booklets. Core Rules, Classic Fantasy Genre Rules, Cleric and Magic-User Spells, Monsters and Treasures. The genre rules booklet gives the classic B/X player options with the four base classes and the three race-as-class options of elf, dwarf and halfling, the usual D&D selection of weapons, armour and adventuring gear, and rules for things like hirelings and strongholds. The reason these rules are siloed in a genre fantasy booklet is that the game explicitly supports bringing in other genre fantasy booklets that emulate other playstyles, all within the same B/X chassis. Similar expansions can be done for the Spell, Monster and Treasure booklets if you'd like to change those aspects of your game (one example given in the books is switching the Treasures booklet to a sci-fi alternative to create a science-fantasy game IIRC). Necrotic Gnome released the Advanced Fantasy booklets to show this modularity in action, where the Advanced Genre Rules booklet adds character creation rules with race and class as separate options, as well as more detailed rules on specific situations (charging, resurrection, etc.) simulating the AD&D 1E style of play. AFAIK, there are no other Genre Rules for OSE, though Necrotic Gnome is planning to create post-apocalyptic genre rules at some point in the future.

Lately, I've been thinking that what OSE has done can actually work as a decent proof-of-concept for what D&D Next promised. OSE determined what parts of the B/X rules were its core engine, and then relegated everything else to specific genre rules that can be swapped to create different styles of play. To be fair, all the options we have so far are within the OSR paradigm, but I think the idea can be taken further.

New School Essentials?

Now we come to the speculation part of the post, and this is really the part I wanted to get some comments on. Looking at the ruleset we got, I think these parts of the 5E rules could be taken as the core engine on which different styles of play can be built:
  • The d20 resolution mechanic, as well as the additions of advantage/disadvantage and the proficiency bonus/die (with the die idea being expanded into expertise dice in A5E).
  • The check/attack/save roll distinction
  • The six ability scores
  • Bounded accuracy in everything from HP, AC, PC and monster damage output, save and check DCs, etc.
  • Level-based progression
  • Most of the combat rules
  • Basic spellcasting rules (different component types, spell levels and slots, etc.)
While I agree that system matters, I think this very barebones chassis should be able to act as "a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game". You obviously need some genre rules (to use OSE's terminology) to make it into a complete game, but these rules should play along with every kind of genre fantasy we'd like to see from D&D (and perhaps even more, but I'll get to that in a minute). If possible, these rules would be written not in the wishy-washy "We write in natural language but we'll also make a pointless distinction between melee weapon attacks and attacks with a melee weapon" nonsense but pick a side instead: Either you write in clear, basic English like OSE or you keyword the everloving duck out of everything like 4E or MtG. I'd personally go for clear, basic English but that's just my preference.

Here's the fun part: I've been brainstorming about several different "genre rules" you could write up using the core engine I described above. The ideas below are in no way complete, but I think they could all be fleshed out to create an enjoyable version of some specific D&D edition's genre fantasy. Here are my ideas:

Genre Rules: Neo-trad
Basically the 5E we ended up getting. Lots of rules for giving the player choices in creating the unique character they want.
  • Point-buy or roll for stats to create your character, no limits on option combinations and ability score minima
  • Classes, races and backgrounds as options chosen at character creation
  • Subclasses and feats to add more customisation in later levels
  • Current list of skills, saving throws being tied to ability scores
  • The current list of 5E spells
  • The current list of 5E equipment, maybe with some of the pointless adventuring gear taken out (because who uses those in neotrad games?)
  • Very barebones encumbrance system (I honestly think PF2's Bulk system better suits 5E than it does PF2)
  • Milestone levelling or some equivalent that rewards both story progression and overcoming challenges
  • Current rules for treasure and magic items
  • Current long/short rest rules

Genre Rules: Basic Old School
I have a feeling you can build a basic OSR retroclone out of the 5E chassis I presented above, though it will probably have some modern sensibilities that won't gel with the OSR philosophy.
  • Rolling for stats to "discover" your character, ability score minima for some options
  • Only thing chosen at character creation is class (with race-as-classes), no further choices later on to streamline characer progression
  • No skills, either the background as proficiency rule in DMG or telling DMs to adjudicate based on player descriptions if you want to go full OSR
  • Saves based on effect category
  • Spells curated to create a resource management-dungeon delve play style (so no Light cantrip or Goodberry as a 1st-level spell, things like that)
  • Equipment curated for a resource management-dungeon delve play style (so the small adventuring gear is useful here)
  • Detailed encumbrance system
  • Gold as XP
  • Slow natural healing rules to make the game deadlier

Genre Rules: Advanced Old School
You can go one step further and recreate TSR-era AD&D in the 5E chassis. Just take the Basic Old School genre rules above and add race-class distinctions, levelling caps, more fiddly rules for combat and so on.

Genre Rules: D&D Tactics
I think it's a shame that 4E's negative reception caused its design approach to be completely ignored by WotC over at 5E. While it slew too many sacred cows at once, I think it had many interesting ideas, and giving those ideas their own space to live on in a modular 5E would be very useful.
  • All classes designed with the AEDU system
  • Treasure parcels and strict wealth/magic items by level progression to make the game balanced in a gamist sense
  • I honestly don't have enough experience with 4E to say what other rules would need to be changed, but those that don't need to be changed could be taken from the neo-trad genre rules I guess

And one final off-the-wall idea:

Genre Rules: Narrativism
Basically going full Dungeon World.
  • Authority over the game fiction explicitly shared between players and GMs
  • Character options designed not to give in-fiction abilities but player moves that explicitly shape the narrative
  • Explicit GM advice on how to design story at the table, framing scenes and other narrativist approaches
  • Using the probability curves of Bounded Accuracy to create PbtA-like result distribution (basically, get a complication under a certain result, above that get success at a cost, at an even higher number get a complete success, but mapped to 5E's d20 probability distributions)
I'm not saying dividing the game into these genre rulebooks would've been a better or more popular game than what we got in the end. But I wanted to get the idea out of my head to see how the game design could've gone in this direction, had things been different.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
I find the idea Monte presented intriguing, but I understand why it was not really discussed by WotC past that article. While adding modules is certainly possible, the modularity he hinted at is particularly difficult. But thank you for finding his actual quote.

Regarding your suggestions, I don't think they are quite hitting on the concept Monte is talking about. One of the things your suggestion seems to be missing is the idea that these different modules could be played at the same time. Discrete rules modules are definitely possible with 5e (and somewhat already present), the difficulty is getting them to work simultaneously.
 

Ondath

Hero
Regarding your suggestions, I don't think they are quite hitting on the concept Monte is talking about. One of the things your suggestion seems to be missing is the idea that these different modules could be played at the same time. Discrete rules modules are definitely possible with 5e (and somewhat already present), the difficulty is getting them to work simultaneously.
That's a good point, though OSE (where I got the idea of genre rules) actually allows different genre rules to be played together, at least between the Basic and Advanced options that have been released so far. Their claim is that this will also be the case for the post-apocalyptic genre rules, but of course that idea will need to be tested once the book comes out.

Worst case scenario (where different genre rules can't be played in the same table) would be that you could make some conversion guidelines between different genre rules, which should at least allow one character to be created under one genre rules, then be transferred to another genre for another table. This way, each table can choose the specific genre they're aiming for and still allow for some mobility between each other.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
To truly get to either Basic or Advanced Old School I think you'd have to make some more changes:

--- a non-linear stat bonus system, where the 8-13 (or even 7-14) range has no bonus and it J-curves out from there in both directions
--- a slight "de-bounding of accuracy" in general
--- no feats; those worth keeping become baked into class progression for one or more relevant classes and the rest are dropped outright
--- alignment as a true mechanic gets added back in, along with spells-items-etc. that work with and-or rely on it
--- casters get reined in via easy interruptability and via some spells carrying real risk to the caster and-or allies but at the same time unshackled in that many spells get de-nerfed and the concentration mechanic largely Goes Away
--- no death saves; instead you die at 0 or optionally at -10 with 0 to -9 meaning unconscious or conscious but non-functional, and dying
--- bring back some of the real 'nasty': various effects (e.g. disintegrate, some poisons) bypassing damage and going straight to 'dead', items and possessions destroyable on a failed save vs AoE damage, etc. (and dare I say level drain? :) )
--- a rejigging of classes such that there are fewer casting classes and more non-casters, by ratio
--- lower hit points for everything in the setting - PCs, NPCs, monsters, the whole lot.
 

It is a bit modular.
You can rather play a vanilla race with nothing complicated with a simple class. In the same game another PC can have a race with all sorts trickery, coupled with a complex class and feats. And still both enjoy together.
 

Ondath

Hero
To truly get to either Basic or Advanced Old School I think you'd have to make some more changes:

--- a non-linear stat bonus system, where the 8-13 (or even 7-14) range has no bonus and it J-curves out from there in both directions
--- a slight "de-bounding of accuracy" in general
--- no feats; those worth keeping become baked into class progression for one or more relevant classes and the rest are dropped outright
--- alignment as a true mechanic gets added back in, along with spells-items-etc. that work with and-or rely on it
--- casters get reined in via easy interruptability and via some spells carrying real risk to the caster and-or allies but at the same time unshackled in that many spells get de-nerfed and the concentration mechanic largely Goes Away
--- no death saves; instead you die at 0 or optionally at -10 with 0 to -9 meaning unconscious or conscious but non-functional, and dying
--- bring back some of the real 'nasty': various effects (e.g. disintegrate, some poisons) bypassing damage and going straight to 'dead', items and possessions destroyable on a failed save vs AoE damage, etc. (and dare I say level drain? :) )
--- a rejigging of classes such that there are fewer casting classes and more non-casters, by ratio
--- lower hit points for everything in the setting - PCs, NPCs, monsters, the whole lot.
I agree with all of these except the first and last points, mostly because that would require changing bounded accuracy to a certain extent. I think limiting stat increases to 18 and putting a level cap at around 14 (like B/X did) could achieve these results while keeping different genre rules working within the same mathematical range.

I do wonder why you think de-bounding accuracy is needed for an old-school feel, though! My impression was that 5E got the idea for bounded accuracy from earlier editions and their limited range in the first place.
 
Last edited:


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I agree with all of these except the first and last points, mostly because that would require changing bounded accuracy to a certain extent. I think limiting stat increases to 18 and putting a level cap at around 14 (like B/X did) could achieve these results while keeping different genre rules working within the same mathematical range.

I do wonder why you think de-bounding accuracy is needed for an old-school feel, though! My impression was that 5E got the idea for bounded accuracy from earlier editions and their limited ranger in the first place.
They may have, but the older editions aren't in fact as hard-bounded as all that; it's not that you outright can't achieve numbers outside a certain range, it's just very difficult.

But in 1e, say, if you were lucky enough to get a stat up to 19 or 20 or even 21 through finding the right items, you could keep it and the game system could fairly easily handle it; all it took was a quick peek at Deities and Demigods. :) (and it handles Strength up to the equivalent of 24 already, except instead of the 19-23 range it uses the 18.xx percentile system for those increments)

By the same token, if you're lucky enough to find a +5 sword and with it and a bunch of other things get your to-hit up to +10 or even higher, you should be able to do this; and again the game can handle it.

Along these lines, I've never agreed with 1e's hard limit where the best AC you can get is -10; in my view if you can somehow get your AC to -11 you should be able to use it. The best I've ever seen is -12, and that was done by a player who was something of an optimization master, so as DM I'm not too worried about those few extra points rearing their heads now and then.

And that's something that to me is vitally important for the old-school feel: the sense that everything is open-ended, even if getting to those open ends might be nigh impossible.

As for the last point: lower hit points all round makes combat faster, swingier, and deadlier - and thus a less-attractive option in many cases - which also is very old-school.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top