Here comes 5e.

[Matthew]

Ultimately, I think it's this desperate desire to be all things to all gamers that will be 5e's undoing. The notion that "the core" of D&D lies in things like armor class or hit points or even six ability scores is woefully reductionist. It's focusing on the wrong elements of D&D's lasting appeal. As a design principle, it's flawed and will result in a least common denominator game no one will embrace, regardless of what edition they play.

That is true, but I think it is also good that they are seeking to identify the system "fundamentals", the visible bits common to all iterations. From that foundation you can go in a few different directions as far as game play is concerned.

A nice compromise would be awarding XP for completing objectives. Gary did this with DJ, and many other games use this method as well. If the objective is to obtain loot, then you've got the original motivation intact. This also allows players to rescue the princess, recover the lost Widget or save the kingdom and still obtain reasonable XP with requiring greed alone as motivation. So, whether the motivation is getting rich, laid, powerful or all of the above, then the method for getting there remains wide open, in that, combat becomes A tool, not THE tool.

That sounds interesting, even more so if modules are subsequently marketed according to play style preferences. Adventure modules targeted at an old school audience would be cool, it is chiefly the repackaging of the rules that has alarm bells ringing for me.

"Put everyone on the same scale and let people choose the level of detail" means they're going to try to create balance between a whole myriad of options, including separate options that work on different "levels of detail." The entire scheme is going to rest on these different options, and different *approaches* to a PC, being balanced. Color me pessimistic.

I think it's a good idea to support different approaches to play as optional, pluggable "modules" in the rules. I don't think it's a good idea to try and make anything and everything work at the same table.

I agree, but on the other hand, and as some folks have pointed out, the "essentials" fighter and the standard D20/4E fighter have apparently been operating together successfully. A similar situation was created by the introduction of the "war blade" into D20/3E and having them operate alongside the standard fighter. The D20/3E fighter is not much different from the AD&D fighter in terms of how you play one, that is for sure, a couple of extra abilities here and there probably would not make much difference at the table. Not so sure about D20/4E, as I am less familiar with that system, but if Heroes of Neverwinter is anything to go on it would be pretty straightforward as well. Probably, damage and hit point inflation would be the real issue, both for monsters and adventurers.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I agree, but on the other hand, and as some folks have pointed out, the "essentials" fighter and the standard D20/4E fighter have apparently been operating together successfully.

I hardly think the level of "simplification" achieved in 4e Essentials is going to satisfy most 1e fans. There are minor differences in the level of complexity between "essentials" characters and the original 4e PHB characters (mostly concerning the number of choices you make when leveling up), but they all require the same extremely complex, extremely tactical underlying game structure. If a 4e fan is playing at your table and getting everything they want from the game, your combats WILL include minor actions, standard actions, move actions, immediate actions, immediate interrupt actions, healing surges, action points, marking, square counting and "save ends" effects. These things define the 4e experience in the same way that XP for treasure, save or die effects and combat segments define the 1e experience. Your character may not be making use of any of those mechanics, but you will be sitting around waiting for the 4e fan while they make use of them. And if you aren't, (for example, if the game is missing all of those things and instead uses a more 1e-like combat system) then the 4e fan is the one getting hosed.

[Matthew]

I hardly think the level of "simplification" achieved in 4e Essentials is going to satisfy most 1e fans. There are minor differences in the level of complexity between "essentials" characters and the original 4e PHB characters (mostly concerning the number of choices you make when leveling up), but they all require the same extremely complex, extremely tactical underlying game structure. If a 4e fan is playing at your table and getting everything they want from the game, your combats WILL include minor actions, standard actions, move actions, immediate actions, immediate interrupt actions, healing surges, action points, marking, square counting and "save ends" effects. These things define the 4e experience in the same way that XP for treasure, save or die effects and combat segments define the 1e experience. Your character may not be making use of any of those mechanics, but you will be sitting around waiting for the 4e fan while they make use of them. And if you aren't, (for example, if the game is missing all of those things and instead uses a more 1e-like combat system) then the 4e fan is the one getting hosed.

True, but maybe that is where the game master complexity comes in, determining what level of complexity the character is going to plug into the game at. Bear in mind here that I am speculating as to what they are actually doing, not predicting the degree to which they will be successful. Still, they are talking about lowering the entry bar and also about the "one action round, which suggests that the complexity of D20/4E combat is not going to be the default. Even so, first and second edition AD&D do have segments and initiative modifiers, both of which could be adapted to integrate the various actions if a D20/4E character was introduced to something like an AD&D game. Mind, I am doubtful that there is going to be much call for AD&D characters to adventure alongside D20/3E ones or D20/4E ones, I suspect it is just going to be "possible", more of a sop than anything. On the other hand, it could be like bringing a character from another campaign into a new one, in that certain tweaks are made and then you are ready to go. The more I think about it, the less impossible this all sounds to me.

[rogatny]

I think WotC is basically saying that people are going to be able to construct their D&D characters much like Magic: the Gathering decks. You can use pre-made decks or you can construct your own. You can construct an extremely intricate deck with all sorts of complex interrelations between the cards and all sorts of tricky ways to cause damage and win the game that requires a lot of thought in terms of playing. You can also construct a deck that's as subtle as a sledge hammer, draw the card, use the card, and batter your opponent over and over 'til you win. All are perfectly valid ways of playing Magic, and may or may not work better than the other depending on whatever collections of cards you and your opponent have agreed to play with.

I think the problem with this approach in terms of the various versions of D&D out there, is that not everyone wants to be playing the same game. You're playing Magic, I'm playing Chess, and our buddy is playing Password. Can WotC really produce a game that makes it so that we can all play our game at the same time? I don't think so.

It makes me wonder if WotC really understands how different the actual logistics of running a D&D game can differ from ruleset to ruleset, and table to table. At my last game session, we never once performed a skill check, we never used a battle board or miniature, we never once consulted a rule book, no one used a feat, power, or combat maneuver. We engaged in a half dozen combats in just under three hours while exploring multiple levels of a gigantic dungeon while keeping a thorough map on graph paper (yelling in excitement when we figured out that one of the passages we were exploring joined up with a room we had been to during a previous session). We were a party of mixed levels, with multiple npc cronies of various levels following us about, fighting completely unbalanced encounters from giant rats to demons. Maybe three magical spells were cast all night.

In short, my game was practically nothing like the 4e game being played on the other side of the store in terms of physical materials used, pace of game play, activities simulated, or method of adjudicating those activities. And I don't see how those issues can be reconciled such that the same core rules can be used to play my loosey-goosey, exploration focused game of OD&D and their precise, tactical skirmish focused game of 4e.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

True, but maybe that is where the game master complexity comes in, determining what level of complexity the character is going to plug into the game at.

Read this as: The DM gets to decide who isn't having fun at the table.

Still, they are talking about lowering the entry bar and also about the "one action round, which suggests that the complexity of D20/4E combat is not going to be the default.

Read this as: 3e/4e fans will not be happy playing with the default level of complexity.

Even so, first and second edition AD&D do have segments and initiative modifiers, both of which could be adapted to integrate the various actions if a D20/4E character was introduced to something like an AD&D game.

Initiative modifiers are present in 3e and 4e too, but they don't have anything to do with the 4e round structure that I was discussing above. A huge amount of the tactical nature of 4e combat requires that characters have the ability to act not just on their initiative turn, but outside their turn (during other characters/enemies turns) to 1) Grant combat bonuses; 2) Impose combat penalties; 3) Inflict damage or some kind of condition (immobilized, slowed, weakened, dazed, etc.) as a result of another creature's actions; 4) Move themselves or another combatant as a result of another creature's actions; 5) Make an out-of-turn attack triggered by another creature's actions; etc.; etc.; etc. You can't "replicate" that kind of combat with anything remotely resembling the simple abstract combat of 1e. The two are by definition (i.e. detailed vs. abstract) mutually exclusive. Someone who desires one will never be satisfied with the other and any compromise is going to be just that, a compromise, something that won't really satisfy either party.

Mind, I am doubtful that there is going to be much call for AD&D characters to adventure alongside D20/3E ones or D20/4E ones, I suspect it is just going to be "possible", more of a sop than anything. On the other hand, it could be like bringing a character from another campaign into a new one, in that certain tweaks are made and then you are ready to go. The more I think about it, the less impossible this all sounds to me.

If all the designers were talking about was being able to take a 5e character from one DM's game, do a little conversion work, and fit it seamlessly into another DM's game, I would have no skepticism at all. That isn't the bar they are setting for themselves though. They claim that people who prefer different editions will all be able to 1) play at the same table; 2) Use the same published adventures; and 3) all get exactly what they want out of the game together. To me that shows a major and fundamental misunderstanding about what aspects of each edition are important to the people who like them.

To return to the spaghetti sauce analogy, what the designers are proposing would work fine if RPGs were a solo endeavour (i.e. everybody gets their own plate of spaghetti); they they're not. RPGs are a communal, cooperative activity (i.e. everybody is sharing the same bowl of spaghetti). What the designers seem to be proposing is that if you have someone who likes bolognese and someone who likes alfredo, you just dump both sauces into the communal bowl. To me, that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

[Stormcrow]

Frank Mentzer says he allows any edition of character in his game. You might ask him how he accomplishes it.

[Matthew]

Read this as: The DM gets to decide who isn't having fun at the table.

You could read it like that, but I think you would be wrong to. If the type of play is being clearly labelled up front then everybody knows what they are letting themselves in for, but players still get some control over how their character will interact with the game.

Read this as: 3e/4e fans will not be happy playing with the default level of complexity.

That is possible, probable perhaps, but I suspect most hardcore D20/3E and 4E folk will simply gravitate together as they already do. My experience is that more than anybody it is the game master who really decides what edition is being played, most players will just happily go along with the game chosen.

Initiative modifiers are present in 3e and 4e too, but they don't have anything to do with the 4e round structure that I was discussing above. A huge amount of the tactical nature of 4e combat requires that characters have the ability to act not just on their initiative turn, but outside their turn (during other characters/enemies turns) to 1) Grant combat bonuses; 2) Impose combat penalties; 3) Inflict damage or some kind of condition (immobilized, slowed, weakened, dazed, etc.) as a result of another creature's actions; 4) Move themselves or another combatant as a result of another creature's actions; 5) Make an out-of-turn attack triggered by another creature's actions; etc.; etc.; etc. You can't "replicate" that kind of combat with anything remotely resembling the simple abstract combat of 1e. The two are by definition (i.e. detailed vs. abstract) mutually exclusive. Someone who desires one will never be satisfied with the other and any compromise is going to be just that, a compromise, something that won't really satisfy either party.

I think you are wrong about that, and the reason is segments. I am pretty confident you could get something like the action system to correlate with segments and in turn that would work for initiative modifiers in second edition, but it would not be like it is in D20 where you are determining order of action, rather it would be something more like assigning actions to segments shared by all characters. So, for instance, if an immediate action is "1 segment" it would go before a "3 segment" action. To be clear, I have not worked out the details, I just think it could be done.

If all the designers were talking about was being able to take a 5e character from one DM's game, do a little conversion work, and fit it seamlessly into another DM's game, I would have no skepticism at all. That isn't the bar they are setting for themselves though. They claim that people who prefer different editions will all be able to 1) play at the same table; 2) Use the same published adventures; and 3) all get exactly what they want out of the game together. To me that shows a major and fundamental misunderstanding about what aspects of each edition are important to the people who like them.

What they have been saying is that an AD&D player can come and join a D20/3E player's game, that is not quite the same thing. Let us take another look at what was actually said:

"And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

That is a very different paradigm to what you are describing above. All that is being said is that a 1E player can join a 3E style came without the obstacle of options, not that they can play in a 1E manner at the table.

To return to the spaghetti sauce analogy, what the designers are proposing would work fine if RPGs were a solo endeavour (i.e. everybody gets their own plate of spaghetti); they they're not. RPGs are a communal, cooperative activity (i.e. everybody is sharing the same bowl of spaghetti). What the designers seem to be proposing is that if you have someone who likes bolognese and someone who likes alfredo, you just dump both sauces into the communal bowl. To me, that doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

Sure, sure, I understand all that.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

Read this as: The DM gets to decide who isn't having fun at the table.

You could read it like that, but I think you would be wrong to. If the type of play is being clearly labelled up front then everybody knows what they are letting themselves in for, but players still get some control over how their character will interact with the game.

All you are saying is that people are free to choose not to play in games they don't enjoy. I agree. The designers seem to be saying they can fashion a set of rules that make playstyle differences irrelevant because people can choose the level of complexity associated with their character. My contention is that one factor doesn't necessarily address the other.

Read this as: 3e/4e fans will not be happy playing with the default level of complexity.

That is possible, probable perhaps, but I suspect most hardcore D20/3E and 4E folk will simply gravitate together as they already do. My experience is that more than anybody it is the game master who really decides what edition is being played, most players will just happily go along with the game chosen.

I agree. Which means that WotC could simply publish 1e/2e, 3e and 4e simultaneously and get the same result. What they will not get is what they are claiming, that 1e and 4e fans will sit down at the same table together and enjoy a game of 5e without compromising any of their play priorities.

Initiative modifiers are present in 3e and 4e too, but they don't have anything to do with the 4e round structure that I was discussing above. A huge amount of the tactical nature of 4e combat requires that characters have the ability to act not just on their initiative turn, but outside their turn (during other characters/enemies turns) to 1) Grant combat bonuses; 2) Impose combat penalties; 3) Inflict damage or some kind of condition (immobilized, slowed, weakened, dazed, etc.) as a result of another creature's actions; 4) Move themselves or another combatant as a result of another creature's actions; 5) Make an out-of-turn attack triggered by another creature's actions; etc.; etc.; etc. You can't "replicate" that kind of combat with anything remotely resembling the simple abstract combat of 1e. The two are by definition (i.e. detailed vs. abstract) mutually exclusive. Someone who desires one will never be satisfied with the other and any compromise is going to be just that, a compromise, something that won't really satisfy either party.

I think you are wrong about that, and the reason is segments. I am pretty confident you could get something like the action system to correlate with segments and in turn that would work for initiative modifiers in second edition, but it would not be like it is in D20 where you are determining order of action, rather it would be something more like assigning actions to segments shared by all characters. So, for instance, if an immediate action is "1 segment" it would go before a "3 segment" action. To be clear, I have not worked out the details, I just think it could be done.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Adding multiple actions into the round isn't the point. Yes, you could have segment 1 actions go before segment 3 actions but that doesn't replicate the action/response nature of 4e combat. Having a prearranged order of actions at the start of the round is antithetical to what makes 4e tactical combat tick. The multiple choice points and complex interactions of combat are the point. They are what make 4e combat unique and fun for people who like that game. You say, "We can take those elements, simplify them and make them work with the same basic structure as 1e/2e/3e combat.". As someone who likes 4e, I read that as "We can get rid of all the things I like about 4e combat in order to make it compatible with other editions.".

If all the designers were talking about was being able to take a 5e character from one DM's game, do a little conversion work, and fit it seamlessly into another DM's game, I would have no skepticism at all. That isn't the bar they are setting for themselves though. They claim that people who prefer different editions will all be able to 1) play at the same table; 2) Use the same published adventures; and 3) all get exactly what they want out of the game together. To me that shows a major and fundamental misunderstanding about what aspects of each edition are important to the people who like them.

What they have been saying is that an AD&D player can come and join a D20/3E player's game, that is not quite the same thing. Let us take another look at what was actually said:

"And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

That is a very different paradigm to what you are describing above. All that is being said is that a 1E player can join a 3E style came without the obstacle of options, not that they can play in a 1E manner at the table.

That isn't the only quote addressing the issue and it isn't the full extent of the claims being made. I agree, your interpretation is plausible (although, I would argue, not different enough from the current situation to make me in any way enthusiastic about 5e). But your interpretation is much more conservative than the message that is actually being sent by the WotC people talking about 5e.

[Matthew]

All you are saying is that people are free to choose not to play in games they don't enjoy. I agree. The designers seem to be saying they can fashion a set of rules that make playstyle differences irrelevant because people can choose the level of complexity associated with their character. My contention is that one factor doesn't necessarily address the other.

I suspect that the difference is going to be that they planning to "codify it", like they did with the various tiers of levels in D20/4E. My interpretation of what they are up to is that they are designing a structured modular rule system with clearly defined player choices based on what the game master presents. When Mearls says that a game master who wants to run a combat heavy game turns to the combat chapter, it seems to me that he is talking about a fully fledged modular add on, rather than a collection of optional rules.

I agree. Which means that WotC could simply publish 1e/2e, 3e and 4e simultaneously and get the same result. What they will not get is what they are claiming, that 1e and 4e fans will sit down at the same table together and enjoy a game of 5e without compromising any of their play priorities.

They could, but it would not sell as well as releasing a new edition, which is an underlying factor. Also, their desire is to unite everyone under a "Dungeons & Dragons" brand so that everybody feels like they are playing the same game, even though they may be playing different "editions".

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Adding multiple actions into the round isn't the point. Yes, you could have segment 1 actions go before segment 3 actions but that doesn't replicate the action/response nature of 4e combat. Having a prearranged order of actions at the start of the round is antithetical to what makes 4e tactical combat tick. The multiple choice points and complex interactions of combat are the point. They are what make 4e combat unique and fun for people who like that game. You say, "We can take those elements, simplify them and make them work with the same basic structure as 1e/2e/3e combat.". As someone who likes 4e, I read that as "We can get rid of all the things I like about 4e combat in order to make it compatible with other editions.".

Probably I am being a bit unclear. Let us say that you have a round going on and everybody has chosen a "basic action" that is worth, say, 5 segments. Each character has five segments of action left, so maybe they get assigned to interrupts or whatever and then deployed when the occasion arrives [i.e. When Character A goes to complete his 5 Segment Attack Action, Character B uses his 1 segment interrupt, then takes his five segment action as normal].

That isn't the only quote addressing the issue and it isn't the full extent of the claims being made. I agree, your interpretation is plausible (although, I would argue, not different enough from the current situation to make me in any way enthusiastic about 5e). But your interpretation is much more conservative than the message that is actually being sent by the WotC people talking about 5e.

It is not the only quote, no, but it is a pretty clear one. WotC are expecting there to be different sorts of games that characters from other styles of games can participate in. As long as those two variables are expected it does not sound like they are expecting players from one style of game to get everything they expect out of another style, just that they will be able to use their character and avoid some of the barriers.

[AxeMental]

Frank Mentzer says he allows any edition of character in his game. You might ask him how he accomplishes it.

Its an interesting idea. You'd need to bring some basic things all into line (combat rounds, D20 vs tables, arbitrary saves vs. stats etc.).

If the DM is back behind the screen in total control, he can do whatever the hell he wants in secret, and it will work (the player won't know the difference) its just a matter of determining who hits who when, and who goes first...so not a big deal as long as there is an appearance and assumption of neutrality (is doesn't have to work perfectly). 4E would need to be fit into the combat round (as BPoM mentions).

The problem isn't getting players using PCs from different systems together in a group (in and out of combat) the problem is people who prefer 1E don't like 3E and won't want to sit and watch that idiotic 1/4 dark elf, 1/4 halfing, 1/4 duck, 1/4 green slime monk assassin wizard show boat with some idiotic combination of feats and skills. Nor will they want to go up against monsters with PC classes. The two games are pretty much designed to appeal to different sorts of people. One is playing someone ordinary doing the extraordinary the other is playing someone extra-ordinary doing the ordinary.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

They could, but it would not sell as well as releasing a new edition, which is an underlying factor.

I'm not sure the new edition paradigm is going to work the same this time as it has in the past.

Also, their desire is to unite everyone under a "Dungeons & Dragons" brand so that everybody feels like they are playing the same game, even though they may be playing different "editions".

Yeah, it says D&D on all of my 1e, 3e and 4e books. If they just made all of those options available, everyone WOULD be united "under a "Dungeons & Dragons" brand.

Probably I am being a bit unclear. Let us say that you have a round going on and everybody has chosen a "basic action" that is worth, say, 5 segments. Each character has five segments of action left, so maybe they get assigned to interrupts or whatever and then deployed when the occasion arrives [i.e. When Character A goes to complete his 5 Segment Attack Action, Character B uses his 1 segment interrupt, then takes his five segment action as normal].

That system sounds even more complicated than the 4e system while still not offering the cooperative tactic-style combat that makes 4e work. It's also not at all what I would be looking for if I wanted a 1e-like combat system. Yes, adopting that system might create a combat chapter that uses terminology common to every previous edition, but it doesn't make that system 1) a good substitute for any of the previous editions; or 2) a good game in and of itself.

It is not the only quote, no, but it is a pretty clear one. WotC are expecting there to be different sorts of games that characters from other styles of games can participate in. As long as those two variables are expected it does not sound like they are expecting players from one style of game to get everything they expect out of another style, just that they will be able to use their character and avoid some of the barriers.

Again, I think your conservative interpretation is achievable and reasonable, but it doesn't fit the picture that is being offered up by WotC. From what I have read they are promising a lot more than that and I doubt their ability to deliver.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure the new edition paradigm is going to work the same this time as it has in the past.

Probably not, but I would not discount money as a factor.

Yeah, it says D&D on all of my 1e, 3e and 4e books. If they just made all of those options available, everyone WOULD be united "under a "Dungeons & Dragons" brand.

It sure does, but all with different logos.

That system sounds even more complicated than the 4e system and not at all what I would be looking for if I wanted a 1e-like combat system. It also lacks a good part of the stuff I would be looking for in a 4e-style combat.

Well, I am not designing it, just thinking some first thoughts about it. The end result I would expect to be a lot better!

Again, I think your conservative interpretation is achievable and reasonable, but it doesn't fit the picture that is being offered up by WotC. From what I have read they are promising a lot more than that and I doubt their ability to deliver.

Fair enough, I am not interested enough to go hunting down those quotes, so I will just take your word for it.

[foxroe]

I pretty certain that Mr. Mentzer's take on this is...

Player: "I whip out my Orb of Omnipresence, tap into the Realm of Martial Awesomeness, then draw my Sword of a Thousand Truths from my Scabbard of Silent Souls. While brandishing my superior blade, I proclaim, "Thou Shalt Nottesteth Pasteth!!!!". And yeah, according to the rules, I get +4 for that."

Frank: "OK. Roll a d6."

[SimperingToad]

I suspect Frank's games have no players with 3E or 4E characters. The rest are pretty interchangable.

'Twould be interesting to find out what he does with such. Foxroe's take probably wouldn't be far from the mark.

[geezerdm]

I suspect Frank's games have no players with 3E or 4E characters. The rest are pretty interchangable.

'Twould be interesting to find out what he does with such. Foxroe's take probably wouldn't be far from the mark.

I've read that Dave Arneson would run 1e and 3e PC's at the same table. I could see doing that, by cutting out most of the crap 3e includes on the dm side of the screen.