D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[timASW]

So seeing as how the original discussion on this thread was about how DnD Next wont be able to unite the base, ill bring that back up. in This article by Mike Mearls he discusses multi-classing. After reading this article do you feel that this will help unite the different editions or push them apart? What would you guys do to change this.

Go ahead and continue with your topics that you are working on but please take some time to address this also.

I come from 4e and really dont like the multi-classing rules given then. While the rules they are presenting here are nothing like 4e, i would prefer to see them thrown out. The 3e way needs some work (no cherry picking) but works much better than 4e. The way it is talked about here i think will work. At least for me

I thought that article was really poorly written. I couldnt tell what the heck he was talking about or anything concrete about what to expect from the multiclassing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know that any amount of individual flaws adds up to that conclusion (and I tend to think that 3e's extant flaws are either overblown or ignored). How many bad lines of dialogue, bad special effects, and bad actors does it take to make a bad movie? It depends. I don't know any perfect films, but sometimes one bad element can screw things up, while others can withstand many flaws. Given the malleable nature of an rpg, I say it's very resilient to imbalances and design mistakes.

It sounds like you're saying that there's no such thing as a broken RPG. That's a very extreme position to take, and I suppose it's telling that you feel the need to stake out such a position.

I would hope that magic would fundamentally change the nature of the game by existing; as I would hope that any FRPG would be different than a historical simulation.

It's interesting that you consider an FPRG in which no one happens to play a caster to be equivalent to an historical simulation.

 

[Bluenose]

Heck, for much of D&D's history, casters were not so powerful either. Expert rules go up to 18th level (IIRC, might be 14th) and only have 6 spells per spell level. Guess what? Casters not so much of a problem. AD&D had a MUCH more restricted spell list for casters - about half or less as many spells of any given level. Add in memorization times and suddenly the caster issues go away. 2e allowed melee characters to absolutely rock - massive damage per round - so that non-casters were always on par with casters.

This is particularly a 3e issue.

Expert was 4th-14th level (Basic was 1st-3rd, Companion 15th-25th, Master 26th-36th, Immortal was, well, Immortals).

As I remember, the AD&D PHB had a 1st level Magic User spell list of 18 spells, with less at other levels. There are 3e schools with that large a variety at first level.

Another part of the problem is the ease of adding just a few more spells, and the way so many supplements, adventures, and settings did so. And then the useful ones become popular, the popular ones are dropped into the core, and suddenly the casters have a wider range of abilities than they started off with, and are going to be getting more as the edition advances.

Then of course 3e went out and nerfed saving throws severely. And did lots of other things to make sure that people who hit things were deprecated over people who manipulated the fabric of reality, most of which were in fact directly against the way the game used to work.

 

[slobo777]

It sounds like you're saying that there's no such thing as a broken RPG. That's a very extreme position to take, and I suppose it's telling that you feel the need to stake out such a position.

I think there's a lot of emotional loading in the word "broken".

A published game, not necessarily an RPG, could be "broken" in the sense that the published rules are incomplete or do not work *at all* - e.g. a card game where you need 20 victory points to win, but there are only 17 possible with the best hand. I think there would be general consensus that such a game was "broken", in the sense that it could not be played. RPGs are rarely broken in this way, because they are so open ended. In fact I cannot think of one, although some rules in, say early Chivalry and Sorcery (how to take actions in combat - no rules?) might come close.

For most RPGs as far as I can see, one person's "broken" game is another person's entertainment over many evenings. Pointing out the tears and cracks might make someone consider them as problems, but if it doesn't, then time to move on and focus on what works for you and the people that care about those discovered faults.

This gets back to the OP. Is there any way in which such different opinions about what a good, playable game looks like can be covered by one published version of D&D?

I'd have to agree with the OP and say "no". Trying to publish one set of rules for D&D would be like trying to publish one set of rules encompassing Soccer, American Football, Hockey etc. You end up with "here's a ball, there's a goal, now do what you want", and then try to cover all the rest in "modules". It's far too much, and an established game with a niche that more closely matches what I want is where I'd start.

 

[pemerton]

I've only got the BW "hub and spokes" (I think its called this. Its the freebie system core.), but reading it....FATE and BW are very similar indeed. IMO, both have a root system which is Sim-lite, and a Narrativist incentive system riding along

My first quibble with this would be that BW is not all that "lite".

But I also think the "narrativist incentive" isn't quite right - sure, it's there, but there are also other aspects of the mechanics that you're leaving out that play into pacing, player decision points and GM adjudication of failure/insertion of complications.

I think it would be hard to push 3E this way even if you bolted on the "narrativist incentive" stuff.

The rest of your post is once again excellent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It sounds like you're saying that there's no such thing as a broken RPG.

Not quite, but pretty close to that.

Given that an rpg is a noncompetitive, open-ended game, it is inherently very difficult to "break".

That's a very extreme position to take, and I suppose it's telling that you feel the need to stake out such a position.

Calling an entire game "broken" is a pretty spiteful and unproductive statement that is difficult to support for any system (especially with regards to the target in question), and that in practice is usually characteristic edition warring. That I'm taking a stand against that is indeed telling.

 

[Ratskinner]

My first quibble with this would be that BW is not all that "lite".

Well, like I said, I only have the "wheel and spoke" preview. There's not a whole awful lot there. I presume that a full game with setting would have a lot more.

I still think its lighter Sim than say..3e. There weren't any Jumping Ob# vs distance tables, frex. (Unless those show up in the full game...then, forget about this.)

But I also think the "narrativist incentive" isn't quite right - sure, it's there, but there are also other aspects of the mechanics that you're leaving out that play into pacing, player decision points and GM adjudication of failure/insertion of complications.

I fully suspect that there are things about full BW mechanics that aren't in the pdf I have. I'm not sure about the pacing & player decision points... However, I don't think the "fail interestingly" principle really inherently plays up to any particular agenda. What the GM does with it obviously can.

I think it would be hard to push 3E this way even if you bolted on the "narrativist incentive" stuff.

I agree. I think the people who do it are using the incentive system on top of D&D's long tradition of ignoring what you don't like.

 

[Grimmjow]

I thought that article was really poorly written. I couldnt tell what the heck he was talking about or anything concrete about what to expect from the multiclassing.

what i got out of it is that we pick a class at level one and that is our main class. Any time we level up, we can pick any class we meet the requirements for and can take a level in that one. If we do multi-class though, we dont gain the same things that we would if it was our main class. A level one rogue is going to have more rogue stuff then a wizard with one level in rogue. This is to avoid cherry picking

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not quite, but pretty close to that.

Given that an rpg is a noncompetitive, open-ended game, it is inherently very difficult to "break".

Knowing your standards helps. Consider that others have a much lower tolerance of (or enthusiasm for) imbalances.

Calling an entire game "broken" is a pretty spiteful and unproductive statement that is difficult to support for any system (especially with regards to the target in question), and that in practice is usually characteristic edition warring.

In this particular case - we started with the 5MWD - edition isn't even an isssue. All editions of D&D have 'daily' powers that the PCs can re-charge by choosing to 'rest,' whether for 6 or 8 hours or until a 24-hr re-set point. Perhaps 3e suffers the most egregiously from class imbalances exacerbated by the 5MWD, but the phenomenon is present in all eds.

And, again, the entire game doesn't need to be broken for it to be improved by fixing the the bits that /are/ broken.

Finally, accusations of edition warring are, likewise, non-productive. It would be as easy to say that you are edition-warring in a vigorous defense of 3e by denying that RPGs can be broken by imbalance, as it is for your to say that daring to recognize obvious failings in 3e (in the vain hope that 5e might not make the same mistakes) is edition warring.

The kernel of that "you're edition warring!" argument boils down to "dis-unity is bad, and I'm not going to compromise, therefor you are morally obligated to agree with me!"

I suppose it's all on-topic, though, as these irreconcilable differences further illustrate the impossibility of 5e's re-unification goal. :shrug:

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there's a lot of emotional loading in the word "broken".

I suppose there might be some. But, how are you going to fix something if you're afraid to ever acknowledge that it might be broken?

A published game, not necessarily an RPG, could be "broken" in the sense that the published rules are incomplete or do not work *at all* ...
RPGs are rarely broken in this way, because they are so open ended.

I think that could go either way. An RPG has to be able to handle a very wide range of player choices. You could view that charitably, and say since it's impossible to provide a distinct mechanic to cover everything players might think to try, RPGs are absolved from any responsibility to provide complete or functional or mechanics, at all. Or, you could be a stickler about it, and demand that system be as complete, balanced, and flexible as possible, within the parameters of the genre, even though perfection is natural impossible.

Pointing out the tears and cracks might make someone consider them as problems, but if it doesn't, then time to move on and focus on what works for you and the people that care about those discovered faults.

While I get that that a broken mechanic isn't experienced as broken by those who never run afoul of it, that's still no reason to leave it broken. The fixed mechanic won't bother those who never run afoul of it, either. The 5MWD issue, for instance, is right there in the D&D rules (in every edition). If 5e were to fix the isuse - make the game balanced for the 1-encounter day as well as the 'average' day - then those who never play 1-encounter days would not lose anything.

This gets back to the OP. Is there any way in which such different opinions about what a good, playable game looks like can be covered by one published version of D&D?

I'd have to agree with the OP and say "no"..... It's far too much, and an established game with a niche that more closely matches what I want is where I'd start.

Heh. If they can't please everyone, they should just be sure to include what you want. That's really what a lot of this comes down to, doesn't it? We know they're going to try to please everyone, we know they're going to fail, but we want avoid being in the groups whose stuff is left out.

The only positive advice I could give WotC is that if you're going to try to make 5e work with as many play styles and preferences as possible, you need to avoid favoring any one of them.