Quote from: Benoist;572751That's what I thought they would do, too. That's the only thing that would have made any sense, to me. Instead they chose that weird "rules salad" approach and I honestly can't see it succeed under these conditions. It's going to have its audience, like 4e, sure. But it's not going to be the breakthrough they wish for.

I am starting to think you're right.  It's like "yes" and "no" isn't in the conversation.  It's all "maybe". I have that already and it's done well to boot!

I like it overall but it's too targeted like 4e. Good thing it's just Alpha/Beta right?

Quote from: Benoist;572751That's what I thought they would do, too. That's the only thing that would have made any sense, to me. Instead they chose that weird "rules salad" approach and I honestly can't see it succeed under these conditions. It's going to have its audience, like 4e, sure. But it's not going to be the breakthrough they wish for.

So again, if instead of "rules salad" they had a "stripped-down" game that was unashamedly old-school in sympathies, and another version that was one with all the "bells and whistles" of newer editions, that would be a better situation than what they're aiming for now, right?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;573228So again, if instead of "rules salad" they had a "stripped-down" game that was unashamedly old-school in sympathies, and another version that was one with all the "bells and whistles" of newer editions, that would be a better situation than what they're aiming for now, right?

RPGPundit

I think so just so they can focus in direction if nothing else. At least the 2nd doc is far better than the first and the Warlock and Sorcerer are very interesting even if they may not be balanced yet. Give me more of those risks and I can make something of the game.

Well the thing is the base game has to have some innovations, or else there's no point.

Quote from: Imp;573267Well the thing is the base game has to have some innovations, or else there's no point.

The "point" as I see it is to both a) let me play D&D and b) get me to give WOTC some money.

They can't do tat by making a new game and calling it D&D (thy tried that twice already).

Quote from: Piestrio;573270They can't do tat by making a new game and calling it D&D (thy tried that twice already).

Exactly. We need a core that is D&D. From there, add modules to get whatever sort of Frankenstein experience you wish. Spells and Powers 5e, whatever you wish. Go to town.

When I started reading the basic concept, that's exactly what I was under the impression they were planning on doing.  Their core philosophy seemed to be

"You have the basic, then you can add layers of additional depth, but if someone wants to walk up with a character from (for argument) Module 4e, then they can just strip off the powers and play in a Module 1e game.  Similarly, someone could walk up, make a few adjustments to a Mod 1e character, and play them in a 4e game"

I really got that vibe from their articles strongly, although I wonder if MC leaving partway through caused some kind of paradigm shift.

OR

It's possible that they've set their Module 1e ruleset already and are just trying to iron out the more complex stuff.

Quote from: Rum Cove;572747I don't think it's impossible, they are just going about it the wrong way.

And you prove my point.

Quote from: 1989;573297Exactly. We need a core that is D&D.

Who's D&D is core D&D for everyone?

And when exactly does a class / race / spell / ability go from core to non-core?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;573303although I wonder if MC leaving partway through caused some kind of paradigm shift.

Agreed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;573307Who's D&D is core D&D for everyone?

The core D&D is the simplest D&D extant, you dumbass -- 0e/Basic

If you need a D&D more complicated than that, then you add your modules to make the D&D of your choice.

See also: Labyrinth Lord and the various add-on modules. This is exactly what WotC should have done for 5e.

Quote from: Spinachcat;573307Who's D&D is core D&D for everyone?

Two criteria:

Earlier over later. Sorry but feats came after stats so they are less "core", powers came after spells, etc...

Simple over complex. This is just for pragmatism's sake, it's easier to add complex systems to a simple core than the other way around.

Quote from: 1989;573309The core D&D is the simplest D&D extant, you dumbass -- 0e.

Ya.  Redbox level stuff, Fighter = Attack bonus and good AC.  Cleric = Turn and Heal.  Mage = Glass Cannon with some utility spells.  Thief = Pick Locks and Find Traps.  All very niche protected at the baseline.

I think that they would probably pass on the race as class stuff, but they could leave that in too.  LL did a good job explaining and allowing for the coexistence of the race with class and race as class in their advanced ruleset, they could just pirate that back if they wanted to and noone would even bat an eye.

Quote from: Spinachcat;573307Who's D&D is core D&D for everyone?

The core is the least number of rules you can have and still have a functional D&D RPG system.  If rules are "core", then you pretty much have to use them.  If the core rules are not a very simple and stripped down version of the system, then it will be difficult for anyone to use the rules for a stripped down game without major reworking.  The goal should be a very solid and simple core set of rules upon which other rules are built in layers or set which can be used to make the game more comprehensive and complex such that if players want complexity, they can add in the rules to get that.  But if they want a simple game, they need to be able to strip the game down to get that, and that means that either the complexity can't be core or there need to be simple alternatives to all of the complex rules that can be easily swapped in and out.

I think the Microlite games are a good example of what that core should look like.  Alternately, the rules need to provide a path of optional deletions or alternate rule mechanisms to strip the game down to that level of complexity.

Please note that Microlite is probably simpler than I'd personally want and earlier in the thread that I said I'd want a skill system, at least as alternate rules.  I also like tactical combat systems with a grid and was pretty happy with the D&D 3.5 combat system.  The point I'm making isn't about them producing a core game that matches the complexity level I'd prefer but about what I think is necessary if they want to support a broader variety of play styles and rule complexity.

Quote from: 1989;573309The core D&D is the simplest D&D extant, you dumbass -- 0e/Basic

If you need a D&D more complicated than that, then you add your modules to make the D&D of your choice.

See also: Labyrinth Lord and the various add-on modules. This is exactly what WotC should have done for 5e.

A bit hyperbolic but spot on. KISS is the key, you keep to that and the rest will follow naturally.  Piestro's earlier than later is an important collarary to keep in mind while following your guiding principal of KISS.

Quote from: 1989;573309The core D&D is the simplest D&D extant, you dumbass -- 0e/Basic

If you need a D&D more complicated than that, then you add your modules to make the D&D of your choice.

See also: Labyrinth Lord and the various add-on modules. This is exactly what WotC should have done for 5e.

What the man said. It's really not that complicated.

Ok, wait. So, let's say the core game of 5e changed two things from Red Box D&D. Combat advantage/disadvantage (which has been generally well-received around here, I think) and one other thing. Would that be ok?

And then - how many things can be different?

I'm not arguing that games must progress, really, or that the core should be composed of bits and pieces of all editions (I don't have a copy of the latest playtest, but it seems like a dumb strategy to me) but something has to be different about it or else you just reprint BECMI and start writing splats.