The Campaign Builder's Guild

Well, product development and management is something I have a passing familiarity.
And a modular approach, with a a good, clear simple basic game, has a number of advantages, especially to a game trying to reclaim the mantle of 'Lingua Franca' for the industry.  Whether they can pull it off is a completely different issue from what they need to do to be competitive.  Your "hacking guide' is similar, but what I would want is for them to create add-on, advanced sets for things D&D could do better.  Like an advanced combat rules set, an advanced social rules set, advanced magic rules, Wilderness exploration rules, urban and mercantile rules, each with variations to make the game grittier, or deeper.
So that when someone posts a thread like, "I want to run an exploration game with low magic and an emphasis on commerce, what system should I use", then D&D5e, with 'these magic rules' and the Wilderness exploration rules' is an appropriate option.

As for the power curve, I was not clear enough.  I was looking for a return to a game that was not predicated on a 1-20 advancement systems where no one dies and everyone moves on to fight gods down the road.  A campaign-driven game.

Quote from: LordVreegYour "hacking guide' is similar, but what I would want is for them to create add-on, advanced sets for things D&D could do better.  Like an advanced combat rules set, an advanced social rules set, advanced magic rules, Wilderness exploration rules, urban and mercantile rules, each with variations to make the game grittier, or deeper.

I don't see this working. First of all, it relies on the assumption that the authors of D&D will somehow be able to write multiple coherent systems when they can't even manage to write one and make it work. So, in practice, it's a nonstarter.

Beyond that, though, assuming we had competent authors behind D&D who could theoretically do this, it still makes something like, for example, a monster manual a complete mess. Each monster would have to include both basic and advanced combat stats, basic and advanced social stats, basic and advanced magic stats, and so on, and if a new module comes out after that monster manual is published, then DMs will either have to hunt down errata (if they exist) or improvise if they want stats to use the new module. What would likely happen (because this is how most systems with numerous optional rules go) would be that WotC eventually settle on some selection of optional modules as "the standard" and publish material that assumed that was basically what you were doing-- and if anyone wants to do anything any different, they're on their own. Only, unlike a "hacking guide" where DMs are on their own but given a lot of insight as to how the system works and how to build good crunch, instead, DMs are just given these prebuilt subsystems that may or may not work right and if they want to houserule it's as much of a shot in the dark as it is now.

Quote from: LordVreegI was looking for a return to a game that was not predicated on a 1-20 advancement systems where no one dies and everyone moves on to fight gods down the road.

The best answer is "don't play D&D," then, but you already knew that.

Anyway, you never responded to my invitation.  :grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistEach monster would have to include both basic and advanced combat stats, basic and advanced social stats, basic and advanced magic stats, and so on, and if a new module comes out after that monster manual is published, then DMs will either have to hunt down errata (if they exist) or improvise if they want stats to use the new module.

This really depends on how certain rules and mods are structured.  I agree that it could be a huge mess (and, frankly, I'm sort of expecting it to be at least a little messy...) but I'm not sure it has to be.

For example, it's really easy to increase lethality in 3.X without statting out every monster for a second time - just change the death's door rules, modify the massive damage threshold, change death to being at HP 0, etc.  Ditto with adding in injury subsystems, critical hit tables, called shots, PC action/drama/hero/meta points, character generation methods, xp advancement rules... there are lots things you can change that don't require extensive rewrites for every monster.  People do this with d20 stuff all the time.  Houseruling and hacking have been a core part of D&D since pretty much year dot, so it's kinda nice to see them acknowledge the centrality of customization - although I'm not terribly optimistic about the execution.

Still don't really care about the system that much, though.  Much more interested in the quality of dungeons & fantasy worlds than math.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegYour "hacking guide' is similar, but what I would want is for them to create add-on, advanced sets for things D&D could do better.  Like an advanced combat rules set, an advanced social rules set, advanced magic rules, Wilderness exploration rules, urban and mercantile rules, each with variations to make the game grittier, or deeper.

I don't see this working. First of all, it relies on the assumption that the authors of D&D will somehow be able to write multiple coherent systems when they can't even manage to write one and make it work. So, in practice, it's a nonstarter.

Beyond that, though, assuming we had competent authors behind D&D who could theoretically do this, it still makes something like, for example, a monster manual a complete mess. Each monster would have to include both basic and advanced combat stats, basic and advanced social stats, basic and advanced magic stats, and so on, and if a new module comes out after that monster manual is published, then DMs will either have to hunt down errata (if they exist) or improvise if they want stats to use the new module. What would likely happen (because this is how most systems with numerous optional rules go) would be that WotC eventually settle on some selection of optional modules as "the standard" and publish material that assumed that was basically what you were doing-- and if anyone wants to do anything any different, they're on their own. Only, unlike a "hacking guide" where DMs are on their own but given a lot of insight as to how the system works and how to build good crunch, instead, DMs are just given these prebuilt subsystems that may or may not work right and if they want to houserule it's as much of a shot in the dark as it is now.

Quote from: LordVreegI was looking for a return to a game that was not predicated on a 1-20 advancement systems where no one dies and everyone moves on to fight gods down the road.

The best answer is "don't play D&D," then, but you already knew that.

Anyway, you never responded to my invitation.  :grin:

As I said, whether they can pull it off is a completely different story from a product management standpoint.  And no, you'd not need to stat any of the bits you are talking about as the MM, etc, don't require more stats per rule.  The rare occasion where such a thing might take place would be addressed in the appropriate advanced rule set.  The advanced rules would never change a stat on a monster, and rarely need any change.  They'd just cover more things, and as said, include stuff along the lines but more codified than a hacking guide.

And I think playing a game with out the needed 1-20 advancement, et al, IS D&D before it pandered.  But that is most certainly an opinion.....

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Elemental_ElfFrom what I have seen, many Char-Opers actually say it is not worth it to take the ability score increase at every level. Feats are just better most of the time.

There are no examples of feats in the basic rules so I don't know what they're going for. Do you have some examples?

Archery Master You have mastered bows and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits: • You gain proficiency with martial ranged weapons. • Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. • Your ranged attacks ignore half cover and three-­‐quarters cover. • Once on your turn when you use your action to make a ranged attack with a short bow or long bow, you can make one additional ranged attack with that bow, but all of the attacks that are part of the action take a –5 penalty to the attack roll.

Superior Magic Adept Prerequisite: Improved Magic Adept Choose one 4th-­‐level spell from the same spell list you used for the prerequisite feat. You learn that spell and can cast it once per day.

Tactical Warrior You exert control over your foes on the battlefield. You gain the following benefits:• When you make a melee weapon attack against a creature within 5 feet of you, you can mark that creature until the end of your next turn. A creature that is marked by you takes a −2 penalty to attack rolls against any creature it is not marked by. • A creature that moves while within 5 feet of you provokes an opportunity attacks from you. • When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, that creature must stop moving for the rest of the turn.

Tough Your hit point maximum increases by an amount equal to twice your level, and whenever you gain a level, your maximum increases by 2.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Elemental_ElfEvery creature in the Monster Manual will remain relevant throughout the entire 1-20 experience. The difference is that a single goblin will not pose a threat to a 20th level Fighter but a hundred will. The new D&D does away with the idea that players escalate in power from dirt farmers to gods in 20 levels.

Quote from: LordVreegAnd getting away from the old power curve is a tremendous step forward.

I don't consider this a good idea either. The big thing with D&D 5th edition was that it was supposed to "feel like D&D." This was obviously a big deal to them, as it seemed like the playtest surveys were always much very concerned with "feel." So, with that in mind, games can work with a flat power curve but that creates an entirely different feeling because there just isn't a lot of advancement. It removes the possibility of epic zero-to-hero tales or fearsome monsters that can only be taken on by mighty adventurers... and doing that doesn't "feel" much like D&D.

You have to start somewhere and it is immeasurably easier to scale power up, than to scale back/down. The goal would seem to provide a feel that is much more akin to traditional/popular fantasy works, then through variant rules and supplements add in the more wuxia, superheroic and epic modules.

Beyond people responding to the questionnaires saying they wanted this kind of feel, WotC has a lot of raw data from the 4E Character Builder that implies the majority of players play in what was called the heroic tier (i.e. the first third of the leveling experience). Those levels were dominated by the fairly traditional use a village/town as a homebase, explore and dungeon-delve in a region or kingdom (as opposed to the entire continents/worlds or the planes).

Official description of the Heroic Tier [spoiler]The Heroic Tier

From the PH: In the heroic tier, your character is already a hero, set apart from the common people by your natural talents, learned skills, and some hint of a greater destiny that lies before you. Your capabilities are largely determined by your choice of character class and to a lesser extent by your race. You move around on foot or on a relatively mundane mount such as a horse. In combat, you might make mighty leaps or incredible climbs, but you're still basically earthbound. The fate of a village might hang on the success or failure of your adventures, to say nothing of the risk to your own life.

From the DMG: Even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and some hint of a greater destiny that lies before them.

At the start of their careers, characters rely on their own abilities and powers, and they wield mundane gear. They acquire magic items quickly, though, and might even fill their available item slots by 10th level. In combat, they can make mighty leaps or climb incredibly fast, but they're still basically earthbound and generally remain visible. Since they rely on healing surges to regain lost hit points, heroic tier characters are likely to take an extended rest when surges get dangerously low. However, toward the upper end of the tier, even death is a surmountable obstacle because of the Raise Dead ritual.

Adventures: The fate of a village might hang on the success or failure of heroic tier adventurers, to say nothing of the characters' own lives. Heroic characters navigate dangerous terrain and explore haunted crypts, where they can expect to fight savage orcs, ferocious wolves, giant spiders, evil cultists, bloodthirsty ghouls, and shadarkai assassins. If they face a dragon, it's a young one that might still be searching for a lair and has not yet found its place in the world—in other words, much like themselves.[/spoiler]

The data has been called faulty by some because people tend to experiment/play around with classes more in the heroic tier (i.e. make a Wizard and a Fighter and debate which to play) as opposed to higher level play where they would focus on a set idea and building that up. However, from my own experience, the Heroic Tier was really where I played 90% of all the 4E games I played and DMed (by the same token, if you go to busy PbP forums, it is the same way). I think there is a general love of fantasy that is popular in books and TV shows, which is anything but superheroes running around playing god. There is most assuredly a market for more powerful concepts (level 15+ gestalt/tristalt in 3.5/PF has a lot of love on pbp forums these days) but the core of the game does not need to cater to that niche.
 

Interesting feats... I'll have to ponder the math a bit more once I've learned more about the system. I wonder how it will play out.

Anyway, I'm fine with "Heroic Tier," but I don't think there should be 20 levels of it. I mean, the designers don't either, because 5e has tiers-- but the problem is, without sharper power scaling, it becomes hard to have a meaningful progression up the tiers. Let's say there is some horrific monster that is an even match for a level 20 character. Well, if we're following the paradigm that 100 orcs should also still be a challenge for that level 20 character-- those numbers have to work both ways, so that means that 100 moderately competent peasants will be a match for our horrific monster. It just totally eliminates the call for adventurers. Even in the "Heroic Tier," in that description it says the "fate of a village" is supposed to rely on them, but if the power progression is so low that the villagers actually stand a chance on their own, what fun is that?

Quote from: sparkletwistLet's say there is some horrific monster that is an even match for a level 20 character. Well, if we're following the paradigm that 100 orcs should also still be a challenge for that level 20 character-- those numbers have to work both ways, so that means that 100 moderately competent peasants will be a match for our horrific monster. It just totally eliminates the call for adventurers.

Ooh, I don't know about that.  How many moderately competent people are you willing to lose to take a monster down?  How many peasants would volunteer for this?  Maybe if you're willing to lose your blacksmith, fletcher, tanner, cobbler, and most of your militia you can take the monster down (but now you're left with a village sans a lot of craftsmen and warriors).  But why not pay the mercenaries who've wandered into town to do the dirty work for you without loss of life?

I'll also point out that this doesn't remove the motivation behind most location-based adventures, i.e. dungeon crawls, where the primary reason for being in a place is usually to find some kind of treasure.

In my head, the adventurers should be valuable to the village not because they're exponentially more powerful than mere mortals but primarily because:

(1) They're more willing to risk their lives.  They`re willing to take dangerous jobs.
(2) They have knowledge, know-how, strategic thinking, expertise - experience, basically.  They've dealt with threats before.  They have skills, not necessarily god-like abilities.
(3) They have the right equipment - armour, weapons, ten-foot poles, thieves' tools - that villagers may not have access to.
(4) They have the chutzpah and resourcefulness to handle the unexpected.

Quote from: SteerpikeHow many moderately competent people are you willing to lose to take a monster down?  How many peasants would volunteer for this?  Maybe if you're willing to lose your blacksmith, fletcher, tanner, cobbler, and most of your militia you can take the monster down (but now you're left with a village sans a lot of craftsmen and warriors).

You've mentally merged my "Heroic Tier" talk about a village with my numerical example that was based around a hypothetical balance point at level 20, which is... a completely different game. Or at least it should be. According to the rules, "The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance." That was the level of threat that my example was talking about. You have a point when talking about a village winning a pyrrhic victory or calling in a level 5 hero, but the balance point at level 5 is such that it will take even less peasants to handle those threats. The power growth is just... completely unimpressive.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'll also point out that this doesn't remove the motivation behind most location-based adventures, i.e. dungeon crawls, where the primary reason for being in a place is usually to find some kind of treasure.

Well, yes, but what it does do is ensure the locations don't progress in challenge very much, either. The total amount of proficiency bonus you gain from levels 1-20 is plus four. Magic items and stat boosts can certainly raise this a little more but the idea of a high level dungeon-- some whirling vortex of blades that only a high level Rogue can disarm, an ancient magical secret that only a high level Wizard can control, or whatever-- just can't happen, numerically speaking. There just isn't enough separation to give them DCs of the level that they "deserve."

I guess I see your point.  You're saying that, basically, everyday people shouldn't have any chance at high-level adventuring - you need superheroes.

I think this depends on what your fantasy cup of tea is.  If you're really into the old mythic stuff, you need to be Hercules or Gilgamesh or Beowulf to even think about taking on high-level threats.  God-like strength and/or magical prowess are required for high-level adventuring.  If you're into Tolkien, even a couple of Halfling commoners with a bit of pluck & luck, a few magic items, and a lot of ingenuity can take down ultimate evil.

EDIT: I'm sort of devil's advocating here a bit... as I've mentioned I'm not too thrilled about bounded accuracy in general.  I think it's more the HP bloat that bothers me more than anything else.

Quote from: SteerpikeYou're saying that, basically, everyday people shouldn't have any chance at high-level adventuring - you need superheroes.

Yes, exactly!

Quote from: SteerpikeI think this depends on what your fantasy cup of tea is.  If you're really into the old mythic stuff, you need to be Hercules or Gilgamesh or Beowulf to even think about taking on high-level threats.  God-like strength and/or magical prowess are required for high-level adventuring.  If you're into Tolkien, even a couple of Halfling commoners with a bit of pluck & luck, a few magic items, and a lot of ingenuity can take down ultimate evil.

Well, I agree, but I think this should also be built into what level the game is. We don't need 20 levels of "Heroic Tier" with no options for mythic heroes, because those halflings can just be low level characters if that is the feel you want. (Perhaps give them a few meta points, too, which are often the best way to model pluck, luck and ingenuity with RPG mechanics...)

I would argue with you more vehemently if HP weren't so insane.

High level characters in 5E are curiously bumbling/inept but weirdly difficult to kill.  It's like the only skill they actually devote time to is defense.

I don't care how strong your "will to live" is or how good you are at turning a wound into a glancing blow, if more than about 6 arrows make it through your armour/shield, you should really be dead, and that's being very generous.  Unless you are literally supernaturally tough - but then you should also be supernaturally good at other things too, surely!

Frankly, I left D&D because of the scaling back in AD&D.  It was too much, too fast, and much of it was HP bloat, but still, spell powers growth was also a little much.  I purposely went the other way, so that my games could go on for years and years with small, steady increases in ability without losing mortality.

And all the games afterwards were worse.  We used to make fun of games where PCs became like gods, as Monty Haul childrens games.  You'd read in the Dragon or others where Gary's and Rob's games would take years to get to high levels like 9 or 10, and where it didn't matter how many sessions it took, you needed 'X' experience to gain a level.   
Then, as time went on, the games went the direction of expectation, of 1-20 then godhood.   

But it is always better to have different types of games to be covered by the rules.  I'd rather they had gritty versions that allow for long, mortal games, as well as games for those that want to transcend mortality and fight powerful dragons and gods.

I'm fine with "zero to hero" and I'm fine with slowly, realistic progress where characters remain "mere mortals" - they're both valid approaches.  Killing gods & dragons is cool; we're playing a fantasy game.  Gritty heroics where death is around every corner and you must survive by your wits is totally cool too.  The weird thing about 5E is that the HP feels like it comes from the first school and everything else from the second (sort of - there are gritty but granular systems, too), so we have these charactes who can take more hits than a video game protagonist but are only marginally better at swinging a sword around.  Which makes no sense when you stop and think about it, because swordplay is something with a pretty high skill ceiling and a there's lot of gradation between swordsmen - I've fenced on and off for a decade and I'm way more skilled than when I started but way less skilled than experts - whereas the ability to sustain lethal blows is not a thing you can learn.  One can make the argument that parrying is part of HP, but then Dexterity should really be boosting HP, not AC, you should be gaining profiency bonuses to HP, etc.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'm fine with "zero to hero" and I'm fine with slowly, realistic progress where characters remain "mere mortals" - they're both valid approaches.

Another option that harmonizes pretty well with having tiers of play is essentially players starting with their character concepts fully realized, but not really gaining much power beyond that. FATE and other games that don't strongly stress advancement work this way and I actually rather like it; my advocacy of the "zero to hero" playstyle in this case more because of the weirdness (that you've already observed) with bounded accuracy seems to clash with what has seems like it has been the dominant D&D paradigm for quite a while now.

My goodness the Basic Rules book has no teeth and no vision. Its pitch is terrible and the pdf isn't visually or verbally arresting. It needs to be filled with bad-ass images like this one, which is for some reason on the basic rules download page but not in the book itself. Also where are the half-demons and dragonpeople and furries? I'm not even joking. Elves and dwarves don't cut it. I have no idea how they imagine this is going to reinvigorate the IP.