# Twelve actions for an even fresher 6th edition, or for an ultra-basic retooling of 5e



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Twelve actions for transforming the 6th Edition of D&D into a Eurogame without boardgamizing it. *[Cross-posted from the Mearls tweet thread.]

Action 1: *Keep it Simple.* Boil down the rules to the very barest minimum, with the very least bookkeeping...basically "5e Basic Rules meets the OD&D White Box". Much more succinct than 5E Basic. Take the most streamlined options from all editions. Four races. Four classes. Only "coins" (no GP, SP, CP). No skills...only ability checks. No feats. Level up after each adventure (no XP). Reach level 20 in twenty sessions.

Action 2: *Core D&D is D&D.* Make this Core D&D set...simple as it is...the baseline for all further products and Organized Play. It's not just a "lead in" to the "real" game. The Core D&D text...I'd call it a booklet, rather than a book...is available at various price-points: as a free PDF, as a super-low-cost black-and-white “poor-boy’s” paperback, and as a deluxe hardcover with original, full-color art. But the text is the same.

Action 3: *A Cultural Community of Authors. *Offer a simple “D&D Compatible” license from the start. So that gamers take up the role of stakeholders, instead of just "customers" and “fans/fanatics.” This is a requisite for evoking a long-term culture. Craft the license so that (like Pathfinder Compatible) these Third Party offerings may not be standalone, and must refer back to the Core D&D book. Other than that, keep it simple. Promise up front to keep this Core D&D edition stable for exactly 10 years. (No 3.5E rupture of the community substance.)

Action 4: *World-Hopping is D&D.* Make an extradimensional nexus the "Core Setting"...either the World Serpent Inn, or the City of Doors. The D&D version of Monte Cook's "The Strange." Write and publicize D&D in such a way that world-hopping is an “expected” way to play D&D. (In Gygax’s day, it was!) Retool the D&D Multiverse to be viewed as a single "mega-setting". 5E is already going in that direction; for example, by listing all the worlds (even Mystara and Birthright) in the DMG, and by how in the newest APs, there are suggested placement notes for each world. (Despite my griping about the state of D&D, this is a good move -- thanks Mearls!) 

Action 5: *All Genres are D&D.* For 6E, “D&D” just means “RPG”, in a similar way that “Kleenex” means “facial tissue.” This is already happening: during the 4E era, Gamma World was branded "D&D.” For 6E, incorporate every single RPG IP which is owned by WotC into the D&D Multiverse. Not only FR, GH, DL, EB, DS, BM, MY, BR, RL, PS, and SJ...but also Nerath, Jakandor, Pelinore, Thunder Rift, Ghostwalk...every d20 Modern/Future/Past campaign model...every Alternity setting...every Amazing Engine setting...the old TSR IPs: Dawn Patrol, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gangbusters...the worlds of standalone TSR novels such as "Jewels of the Elvish"...WotC’s former peripheral lines: Dreamblade, Mirrorstone Books...everything. It's all in the D&D Multiverse. The various Earth-based campaign models (Urban Arcana, Boot Hill, Dark.Matter) are parallel timelines of “D&D Earth.” 

Action 6: *In the Business of Excursions.* This is the business model: churn out stand-alone, high-quality, but relatively short, one-shot Excursions (=adventures or adventure paths) to each of these worlds. The Excursions double as a succinct world sourcebook. As far as genre: mostly Fantasy Excursions, but some SF, some Modern and Past (set on D&D Earth), some Superhero. Include in the Excursion what new, specific rules modules are necessary for that particular setting. But make sure it’s all 100% compatible rules-wise...to the extent that a PC could really multiclass in Fighter/Star Pilot/Gunslinger/Wheelman/Superhero Brick. Beyond the one-shots, only continue those lines which sell best. But with the one-shots themselves, take risks...experiment. Try one Magic: The Gathering excursion.

Action 7: *Appendices for Localizing and Scaling. *At least within the same genre, each Excursion has an appendix containing notes for placing it in any of the other D&D worlds of that genre. In regard to Fantasy Excursions, if it turns out that Forgotten Realms really is far and away the bestseller, then “cynically” brand most of the fantasy Excursions as FR; as long as there are good conversion notes included for each world, it’s fine by me! Furthermore, each Excursion has a second appendix for scaling the challenge level...anywhere from level 1 to 20! Instead of a 1st-level stirge, there’s the 20th-level “legendary stirge”. Instead of the ancient red dragon, there’s a red wyrmling, okay? I’m serious. Totally modular. Zany? Maybe. Doable? Yes.

Action 8: *Mastery and Renewal of Worlds.* Really make it possible for newbies to master the old campaign settings. Connect the newcomer with the rich depths and intricacies of the D&D Mulitverse, instead of treating the consumer like we're amnesiacs. Like this:
• The D&D Classics PDFs are a great start. Keep them coming and low-priced. Connect them with a print-on-demand service.
• But more importantly, hire some freelancers to gradually, over the course of five years or so, convert each and every D&D Adventure from previous editions into a Core D&D Excursion, by offering a free PDF web-enhancement which contains updated 6E statblocks, along with the two appendices (Localizations and Scaling), so that the Classic adventures are “officially” modular for any setting and any challenge level! Officially place every fantasy adventure in every fantasy world (except for ones which don’t fit at all, such as underwater adventures in Dark Sun.) Once all the Classic PDFs are available and placed in each world, make a map which shows where all the adventure sites are (at least in WotC’s version of that world).
• Also in the new 6e Excursion to those worlds, include a complete product guide along with the URL for the D&D Classics website, and the URL for the official “aficionado (fan) website”, such as the Vaults of Pandius for Mystara.
• Promote these old official aficionado websiites. If they’re inactive, designate another. This connects the newcomer with the existing cultural communities.
• Offer a Community Use License for each setting IP (not only the rules system), which allows individuals to publish world-specific resources, as long as they refer back to one of the WotC-published Excursions. This would basically be a “Greyhawk Compatible” license (and “Mystara Compatible”, “Dragonlance Compatible”, and so forth). Maybe call it something like: the “My Own Greyhawk” license, since it would a legitimate way of publishing our own parallel versions of those worlds. Again, they couldn’t be standalone, but you could say exactly how your own world is the same or different than the WotC-published version...and even sell it as a game product in stores. This would really get the community’s cultural juices flowing.
• Expand the Community Use License to allow for arts and crafts, costumes, props, coins, artifacts, music, films, and cultural events. Try this with one of the “lesser used” worlds first, as an experiment, to see if anything blossoms.

Action 9: *A Cross-Platform Effort.* To get the Core D&D movement rolling from the get-go, negotiate deals with several other RPG publishers...from large to small... for them to produce a one-shot Excursion which converts one of their worlds to Core D&D...it could be a just-released setting or a classic “old school” world: Titansgrave, Freeport, Aquaria, Glorantha, Golarion, Call of Cthulhu, Conan, Deadlands, DC Adventures, Dr. Who, World of Darkness, MnM/Earth-Prime, RIFTS, Pendragon, Tunnels & Trolls, Talislanta, The One Ring, Tekumel, Zeitgeist. As an appendix, include an official conversion guide to and from Core D&D and their house system, and a complete product listing for their world. This would be a tremendous act of goodwill, which would cross-fertilize interest in the offerings of both publishers, while invigorating the TTRPG culture as a whole. From a commercial perspective, the "D&D Compatible" license is crafted to inspire any and all TTRPG publishers to offer Excursion Worldbooks and other resources which synergistically fuel sales of WotC's Core D&D booklet (which is required to play any D&D Excursion). But all publishers are lifted by the cross-fertilization.

Action 10: *Forays into Strange Waters.* Beyond the TTRPG scene, actively seek out one-shot deals with a whole slew of fantasy and SF novel IPs, video game IPs, action figure IPs, trading card game IPs, children's book IPs, comic books IPs, cartoon IPs, television and film IPs, boardgame IPs...even unexpected genres: the worlds of Stephen King, Barsoom, Pro Wrestling, Soap Operas, Sitcoms, Major League fantasy sports leagues, the worlds of Cartoon Network, Capcom Fighters, the Wizard of Oz, Sesame Street, Tom Clancy, mystery authors, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Mario World, Looney Toons, Harlequin Romance, Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, the Wonderful Worlds of Disney, Settlers of Catan...if it’s a story...it can be a D&D game. Really stretch the limits of what the six attributes can do. (In some cases, the attributes could be renamed to more flavorfully fit the genre...such as Perception or Willpower for Wisdom.) Advertise these Excursion/Worldbooks in non-RPG venues. Toy lines Hasbro already owns could be a place to start: Candy Land, Transformers, GI Joe, Duel Masters, Monopoly (there is actually an in-world story which has been developed through various offshoots), Risk, Zoids, M.A.S.K., Pound Puppies...and My Little Pony. Some of these would use the “Kid's D&D" rules module...even more streamlined than Core D&D...like WotC’s “Monster Hunters” or “Pokemon Junior Adventure Game” or Monte Cook’s “No Thank You, Evil!"

Action 11: *Advanced is Unearthed.* What we now call D&D, with its massive, gearheady PHB and DMG, in 6E is called “Advanced D&D”. The AD&D book is a gigantic Ptolus-sized tome which serves as a combined Advanced PHB, Advanced DMG, and Unearthed Arcana rolled into one. The AD&D book contains comprehensive rules and guidelines for crafting one’s own Excursions and for Worldbuilding. The goal is to really provide the aficionado with the tools and resources necessary to write and self-publish nigh-professional-quality Excursions. The AD&D book isn’t even released until a year or two after Core D&D and a whole bunch of Excursions.

Action 12: *Plastic is Chintzy.* Use wooden tokens instead of plastic figurines! ​


----------



## Leatherhead

I require definitions, several of them.


----------



## transtemporal

Leatherhead said:


> I require definitions, several of them.




Same. Firstly, what is a "Eurogame"? Secondly, what is "boardgamizing" and why is it an implied bad thing?


----------



## Paraxis

I think you just summed up Savage Worlds very well.


----------



## Jaracove

I've barely broken the spine on my 5ed!


----------



## CapnZapp

Jaracove said:


> I've barely broken the spine on my 5ed!



Don't do that... Break the cover instead


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

transtemporal said:


> Same. Firstly, what is a "Eurogame"?




Eurogames are "designer boardgames"...basically, high-quality "indie boardgames" with wooden parts instead of plastic. And each expansion pack is totally modular. Settlers of Catan is the prime example: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game

Catan has been very successful in penetrating to a wide audience. And, unlike TTRPG books, Eurogames stay in print, without having to be revised every few years like TTRPGs.



> Secondly, what is "boardgamizing" and why is it an implied bad thing?




Boardgames are not a bad thing. Even D&D-branded boardgames (such as the Ravenloft cooperative boardgame) are not a bad thing. But they are not a D&D Tabletop RPG.

This 6E "Eurogame" OP was prompted by how in the "Mearls tweets" thread, some posters are thinking about how to turn all of D&D into one-shot boardgames with only pre-generated characters, and no level advancement! The hope is that D&D products could have more shelf-life, and would be simpler for a general audience.

But turing D&D into a boardgame confuses all these goals.

In contrast, my 6E Core D&D "Eurogame" concept keeps the high-quality, totally modular, standalone, long-shelf-life aspects of Eurogames, without losing the key RPG features of character creation and level advancement. The most streamlined features of D&D are retained--it really is a RPG--but all rules modules are packaged within discrete "one-shot" products which are half adventure path/half-worldbook, called Excursions. The Excusions are crafted to stay in print for ten years.

Only after a couple/few years-worth of Excursions have been published, are the rules modules gathered up and expanded into an optional "Advanced D&D" mega-book. But the super-simple Core D&D booklet remains the core product for ten years.


----------



## delericho

TraverseTravis said:


> In contrast, my 6E Core D&D "Eurogame" concept keeps the high-quality, totally modular, standalone, long-shelf-life aspects of Eurogames, without losing the key RPG features of character creation and level advancement.




The key problem with this is that the vast bulk of the D&D rules _are_ the character creation and level advancement options. Take those out, and the rules really could be a booklet; leave them in, and it's hard to see how it could get much shorter than Basic.


----------



## ehren37

I don't get why you'd really want to "Eurogame it" D&D is classic Ameritrash in board game lingo, where the story evolves from play and complications as opposed to a more clinical resource management and strategy exercise that largely eschews randomness.


----------



## Zaruthustran

Some interesting ideas there. I'm curious: what are your bona fides? What authority/experience do you base these recommendations upon?


----------



## Yaarel

I can get on board with many of the calls in the original post, especially for core rules to be simple, robust, and setting-neutral. 

Move complexity over to specific settings.

The part of D&D that I value is world-building.

It is useful to have a hub that can inform diverse settings.

The only call I object to is for forcing all players to accept all settings. You cant have a setting for a light romantic comedy while far realms is invading. It is important to keep separate settings separate.

Obviously, some players want to hop back-and-forth between Forgotten Realms and Gamma World, for example. However the decision to bridge these two settings creates a new setting that is unlike either setting alone.

Not everyone who plays Forgotten Realms wants Gamma mutants and lasers. There is no need to force players to included unwanted settings.

Let players play in a setting of their choosing.


----------



## Yaarel

delericho said:


> The key problem with this is that the vast bulk of the D&D rules _are_ the character creation and level advancement options. Take those out, and the rules really could be a booklet; leave them in, and it's hard to see how it could get much shorter than Basic.



Not every setting needs every class. You can build most of the setting using simple ‘core’ rules. Then opt in to include certain complex classes that seem pertinent.

The simple core includes a set of simple classes, that all other classes measure against to determine balance.


----------



## spinozajack

To me a perfect D&D-esque boardgame would consist of:

1) A large randomly re-configurable tileset dungeon, or one world board and several dungeons. 
2) Standard sized minis included for the default characters
3) Super simple levelling, which must be in the game for it to be called D&D. You beat this monster after rolling a d20 a couple times? You gain a treasure card from the deck. Some cards say "gain a level'. When each character gains a level, he / she gets a new attack or more hit points. Hit points are very low, and increase slowly. Like, single digits.
4) Monster packs (cards + minis) can be added. Aftermarket sales win.
5) PC race / class cards can be added. Aftermarket sales win.

Each player starts off in their own realm corner of the world board. They have to travel to the other area, with a chance of random encounter while travelling overland. It's a cooperative game, but players start off on their own. Maybe at the end, if they beat the dungeon, they can decide to fight each other for the treasure. 

I would start with basic D&D and make it even more basic.


----------



## I'm A Banana

ehren37 said:


> I don't get why you'd really want to "Eurogame it" D&D is classic Ameritrash in board game lingo, where the story evolves from play and complications as opposed to a more clinical resource management and strategy exercise that largely eschews randomness.




A major part of the reason I can't abide many Eurogames for long, but am still quite enamored of D&D's potential: it's not usually about puzzle-solving to reach a goal, it's about a cycle action and reaction that keeps the game moving fluidly and nearly seamlessly from one game loop to another.


----------



## Wik

Yeah, most of those points have nothing to do with "eurogames".  Geez, Settlers of Catan isn't even exactly a good example of a "eurogame", because it has direct player conflict (in the guise of the robber).  

A "eurogame", to use a general definition, has these general points:

1.  No direct conflict between players (you can bid for resources and whatnot, but you can't play cards that screw over another player).  
2.  No elimination of players from the game (ie, you can't kill another guy.  Games are usually scored by victory points)
3.  "controllable chaos" is preferable to games that rely heavily on random chance;  games without any random element can be common
4.  Engine Building/Economic Engine building is key.  Once the game gets going, it keeps going because someone has built a strong economic engine.  

Basically, D&D will hopefully NEVER be this.  As a board game, it's "Ameritrash", and the D&D board games out there are VERY Ameritrash.  (that 'trash' part of "ameritash" is misleading, as is the "ameri" part.  Risk, for example, was made by a frenchman, and it's still at least kind of ameritrash).  

Ameritrash games, generally speaking:

1.  Have direct player conflict, and MAY have venues for player elimination (ie, last man standing wins!)
2.  Have lots of fiddly pieces, cards, abilities, etc. 
3.  Rely more on random chance (who gets dealt the best cards can win!)

For what it's worth, you can have rules-heavy Eurotrash games (Caverna), and rules-light Ameritrash games (various Risk versions out there, RoboRally).  And most of the twelve "points" have nothing to do with the board game movement at all;  they're just a general "what I'd like to see in 6e", which is a totally fair thing to talk about, albeit a bit early.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Wik said:


> most of the twelve "points" have nothing to do with the board game movement at all; they're just a general "what I'd like to see in 6e", which is a totally fair thing to talk about, albeit a bit early.




You're right...most of the specifics of the points are not about Eurogames--that was a holdover from me cut-and-pasting it from the Eurogame conversation on another thread. However, the business model and overall aim is inspired by Catan: how can D&D be streamlined enough for a general audience? ...And yet still be truly a RPG...not a boardgame.

And, like Catan's expansion sets, how can D&D expansion products be crafted in a way so that they are supposed to stay in print for decades?

If I understood his tweets, Mearls was lamenting how TTRPG aficionados expect several brand-new 300-page books to be produced every year, and then more books, and more books, on and on. Which led to speculation on how to just turn D&D into a cooperative boardgame. But in my view, that would be the end of the TTRPG. If that's what people want, then might as well just ditch everything but the D&D Cooperative Boardgames. (Which are fine, but they're not TTRPGs!)

So I tried to sense out the middle way which is really better than what 5E is right now, and is also better than "boardgamizing" D&D. That's where I'm coming from. I feel pretty satisfied with the general thrust of these twelve points.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> I can get on board with many of the calls in the original post, especially for core rules to be simple, robust, and setting-neutral.
> 
> Move complexity over to specific settings.
> 
> The part of D&D that I value is world-building.
> 
> It is useful to have a hub that can inform diverse settings.




Exactly.



> The only call I object to is for forcing all players to accept all settings.




I wouldn't say "forcing." The Core D&D booklet could be used for any setting. All the Fantasy Excursions would have an appendix which gives detailed suggestions about placing it and adapting it to each of the main D&D fantasy worlds...so that a group could stay within a single world if they wished.

The World-Hopping Nexus "Core Setting" would be there to instill a new tradition in the next generation of players; so that more groups might be open to purchasing Excursions from other worlds besides their usual favorite (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Eberron).

But the Core Setting wouldn't be mandatory, anymore than Oerth was mandatory for 3E or Nerath for 4E. And the big Advanced book, chock full of worldbuilding guidelines, would come out before long.



> You cant have a setting for a light romantic comedy while far realms is invading. It is important to keep separate settings separate.




The D&D Simpsons excursion into Springfield, or the D&D Fat Albert excursion to North Philly, wouldn't be purchased by groups who only want to play in one particular fantasy setting...that's fine.



> Obviously, some players want to hop back-and-forth between Forgotten Realms and Gamma World, for example. However the decision to bridge these two settings creates a new setting that is unlike either setting alone.




That's true. However, a similar thing could've been said about the "forced" change in FR for 3E which connected all of the countries via teleportation gates; from an out-of-game perspective, this was done so that DMs and players wouldn't stay in the habit of only purchasing products which are set in the particular region of the Realms their adventuring party happens to reside. There were probably purists who were against that change, and who still don't include Gates in their campaigns. Fine. Yet Gates did become a widespread element of many FR campaigns...and likewise, a 6E world-hopping aspect could be instilled into the Realms setting.

Forgotten Realms has had cross-overs throughout its existence: there are officially gates between Mystara and Toril described in the back of the BD&D Gazetteers, the Kids from the D&D Cartoon Show have been spotted in the Realms, there's Elminister's visits to Modern Earth to meet with Ed Greenwood, and some of the pantheons came from Ancient Earth.* So there are Modern and Past elements in Forgotten Realms already. I don't know of a direct tie between FR and the SciFi settings off-hand...though if you count the Realms ties to Spelljammer there are connections (some of the Spelljammer races are actually from Star Frontiers).

*Even these other genres could fit in a traditional Realms campaign: "D&D Egyptian Adventures" and "D&D Babylonian Adventures" might each be an Excursion/Worldbook...and there would a Localization appendix telling how to use these in a Forgotten Realms campaign, either by involving some scheme from Mulhorand and Unther to reconnect with their ancient homelands on "D&D Earth", or by rebadging the map and proper names to actually take place in Mulhorand and Unther.



> Not everyone who plays Forgotten Realms wants Gamma mutants and lasers. There is no need to force players to included unwanted settings. Let players play in a setting of their choosing.




Most "Excursions" would be medieval/high fantasy. Others would be experimental forays into other genres. There'd be no forcing. Some groups wouldn't purchase some Excursions.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Kamikaze Midget said:


> A major part of the reason I can't abide many Eurogames for long, but am still quite enamored of D&D's potential: it's not usually about puzzle-solving to reach a goal, it's about a cycle action and reaction that keeps the game moving fluidly and nearly seamlessly from one game loop to another.




Honestly I'm not so into Eurogames or any boardgames myself. TTRPGs are so much more fun.

And I'm not making these suggestions just to make D&D more hoity-toity.

I just want to take some of the "streamlinedness" and modular business model of Eurogames to make a TTRPG even better.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

delericho said:


> ...the vast bulk of the D&D rules _are_ the character creation and level advancement options. Take those out, and the rules really could be a booklet; leave them in, and it's hard to see how it could get much shorter than Basic.




I'm opening up a can of worms here--and I realize the devil is in the details--but for 6E, I'd make the Core D&D game a whole "tier" of complexity simpler than 5E Basic Rules. Something *closer* (I say *closer*, not identical) to the 3E Chainmail Skrimish Game, or the 4E Cooperative Boardgames, or WotC's Monster Slayers kid's game, or Milton Bradley's HeroQuest. Yet still keeping character creation and 20 levels of advancement.

I would start with the 5E Basic booklet. But it can be made even more streamlined. For goodness sakes, the "Player's Rules" alone are 115 pages!

First off, cull the verbose descriptions: do we really need three paragraphs about choosing a PC's height and weight?!?

1970s-era OD&D was in several regards, even more streamlined than the 5E Basic Game. The spell lists were shorter. There were less kinds of armor. There was only one kind of coin. No skills. No feats. Class abilities? Few to none.

The rules of Risk and Monopoly have stayed the same for decades. Why does D&D necessarily have to become more and more granular?

Not that I'd return to the idiosyncracies such as THAC0, Name-Level Titles, and Alignment Languages. But I would take 5E Basic, OD&D, BECMI, 3E Chainmail, and the D&D Cooperative Boardgame, put them together into a crucible and melt them down into a tiny lump of golden D&D essence. That would be 6E Core D&D.

As for 6E Advanced D&D, I would make it possible for a range of complexities to be played at the same table. 5E is already doing it somewhat with how the default Basic builds of each class can be played alongside PCs which have been customized with feats and subclasses. Or how in 4E, an Essentials Fighter could be played at the same table as a PHB Fighter. But I'd go even further...something like how Monte Cook's kid's game "No Thank You, Evil!" will have three complexity tiers, for different ages--but which can be played at the same table.

It wouldn't have to be "perfectly" balanced. The Core D&D Fighter might be hardly more than a slightly more coherent version of the OD&D Fighting Man. While an Advanced D&D Fighter would have a full array of customized feats, bells and whistles. But it would be "legit" for someone to play a Core Fighter at the same table. (And a kid could sit at the same table, and use an even simpler "kid's version" of the Fighter.)

I realize that my vision is easier said than done, but I'd be glad for Core D&D to be even simpler and shorter.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Zaruthustran said:


> Some interesting ideas there. I'm curious: what are your bona fides?




I played BECMI when I was a kid. I've played 3E a few times.
I came up with the name for the official Mystara website.
I used to interview game designers: http://www.pandius.com/shenry.html
I'm the author of an ingenious and unique hodgepodge of D&D offerings, which have mostly been either ignored or vehemently despised by the wider community: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/
I have agreements with two fictive IPs (one cartoon show and one fantasy novel series) to write RPGs for them.



> What authority/experience do you base these recommendations upon?




My own sense of what feels right. What I'm looking for.

I'm pretty skilled at feeling my way through systemic "yuckiness" in various fields of life (not just the state of an RPG product line or company), and then imagining what would soothe and wash away that yuckiness.

Thanks for your interest!


----------



## painted_klown

Perhaps this will be an unpopular thought ITT, but I LOVE 5E. What's wrong with the game simply continuing on as it is?

I have a feeling that if 6E were to come around and be vastly different than all previous editions, then it would cause another "splintering of players" much like 4E & Pathfinder. 

5E is the first edition of D&D that I have ever played, and when compared to PF, I find the rules relatively easy to follow and understand. I am not sure that going any more basic than the current basic rules will attract a slew of new players. I think that those who do not play either want to play D&D (and they don't understand it), or they don't want to play (and they don't understand it). IMO, revamping the game into something else entirely, will not change that. 

As someone who wanted to play D&D long before I ever did, I felt the #1 "barrier" (by far) was not knowing where to start & what books I needed. 

With the seemingly endless slew of books available for D&D, and non-players not being aware that there are several different editions (and essentially several different games all called D&D), it becomes VERY confusing quickly when you head to a game shop without a clue...even when the desire is there. 

The key to making 5E the "evergreen edition" is simply educating the general public on where to start, and then educating on what the "other books" are for. I sincerely feel that WotC have done a great thing with 5E. Making the basic rules as a free PDF that is legally available on their website was key IMO. It gives players a great place to start AND it's free. It's there to whet the appetite as well as get people gaming and interested in the brand. Once people have a true understanding of how the books "interact" with one another, and that there are indeed several versions of D&D, it's easier to get them excited to play, and (of course) purchase more books to have more options, or an adventure, or whatever they are looking to add to their game. 

While I do feel that WotC have made HUGE strides in the right direction, I feel their website is a jumbled mess that is nearly useless. Even this very forum has threads dedicated to placing links to point us in the right direction to find certain things. This should never be necessary IMO. Why make it so difficult to navigate the one website that pretty much anyone would think to to go when trying to learn about D&D?

My ideas to fix it?

Make the "landing/home page" a "Welcome to d&d 5th edition" type page. On this page, begin explaining to new visitors that D&D has been through several editions in the past, and that 5E is the latest and greatest. Then explain that only 5E books and materials are needed to play. Clearly state that anything NOT 5E is essentially a different game, with different rules. State all of this with the least amount of wording necessary. Make is clear that "D&D is 5E". 

The home page for the TTRPG must also be free of the other D&D branded stuff such as boardgames (can be confused for as box set), video games (I thought D&D was a PnP game?), or ANY other D&D merch that is NOT the PnP TTRPG. Do not confuse already confused consumers. 

Next, there should be one link and one link only on the home page. That link could be labeled "what do I need to know". When you click on said link, it will explain what the 3 core books are, and how they relate to each other. Then explain what adventure paths/modules are, and how they relate to the 3 core books. They can also put in a plug for the starter box. On this page, you can include links to the free PDFs as well as a link for the starter box. Explain their relationships to each other, and why you may want to start with either of them. 

The rest of the website should be easy to navigate for more advanced consumers, or the now educated beginner. 

I'll let the "Wizards" handle it from there...LOL!

IMO, YMMV, Etc.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

painted_klown said:


> Perhaps this will be an unpopular thought ITT, but I LOVE 5E. What's wrong with the game simply continuing on as it is?




I admit that 5E is the most coherent version of D&D yet.

And...I would like an even more streamlined version; I think it would be good for the game.



> I have a feeling that if 6E were to come around and be vastly different than all previous editions, then it would cause another "splintering of players" much like 4E & Pathfinder.




If there were a totally fresh cultural impulse, and if previous editions and settings were lovingly and clearly embraced--in the manner depicted in the OP, with free 6E conversion PDFs for (eventually) every single book from previous editions, and with a chart showing how all these editions and worlds are related (something like you suggested)--and if there were a 6E self-publishing license from the get-go, then much of the splintering tendency would be transmogrified into convergence.



> Making the basic rules as a free PDF that is legally available on their website was key IMO. It gives players a great place to start AND it's free.




I would supplement this with a dirt-cheap black & white softcover version.



> Why make it so difficult to navigate the one website that pretty much anyone would think to to go when trying to learn about D&D?




Frankly, this sort of obscurity is, in my view, indicative of a sort-of "corporatist" blind-spot. It's hard to explain, but there can be an ingrained institutional "culture" which unconsciously obscures basic common sense, clarity, and freshness. This systemic obscurity can even influence the website design.



> My ideas to fix it?




Good ideas.


----------



## Parmandur

Slightly off-topic, but not all of the D&D board games are American style: Lords of Waterdeep is a Eurogame, by the traditional reckoning.





As to how to Eurogame D&D, qua TTRPG: that's what we are seeing from WOTC now.  Honestly like how 5E is being handled much better than the "open culture" suggestions in the OP.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Parmandur said:


> Slightly off-topic, but not all of the D&D board games are American style: Lords of Waterdeep is a Eurogame, by the traditional reckoning.




Good point.



> 5E is being handles much better than the "open culture" suggestions in the OP.




We'll see!


----------



## Parmandur

TraverseTravis said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see!






Sure will!



No offense meant, interesting ideas.  Just...skeptical.


----------



## Big J Money

FWIW, I don't find the "one level per session" pace appealing.  I think it's just as simple to provide three options, fast pace, slow pace and one in-between.  I'd be more interested in a level per 5-10 sessions (slow pace).  Medium would, I guess be every 2-3.  But I see what you're trying to do with the simplicity.

Just as simple would be to tie it to adventures or quests.  One level per adventure/quest, etc.  Then there is some sense of in-fiction relation.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Big J Money said:


> Just as simple would be to tie it to adventures or quests. One level per adventure/quest, etc. Then there is some sense of in-fiction relation.




Yes you're right, that would be the nextmost quick-and-easy way of ditching XP accounting.* I didn't say it in the OP, but I was imagining that in a streamlined D&D, many adventures would only be one session long.

Thanks for chiming in.

*(I am the only one who's felt a bit embarrassed when running a D&D game with non-gamer friends, when at the end, we're tallying up XP like some bean-counting accountants? "Experience Points" are just not cool. They sound too much like "brownie points." )


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

spinozajack said:


> To me a perfect D&D-esque boardgame would consist of:




Is this what you'd also picture as a perfect boardgame-esque TTRPG? Are you imagining this replacing the TTRPG, or do imagine it as a side-line product like the D&D Cooperative Boardgames?



> I would start with basic D&D and make it even more basic.




Exactly.


----------



## Hussar

Yaarel said:


> I can get on board with many of the calls in the original post, especially for core rules to be simple, robust, and setting-neutral.
> 
> Move complexity over to specific settings.
> 
> The part of D&D that I value is world-building.
> 
> It is useful to have a hub that can inform diverse settings.
> 
> The only call I object to is for forcing all players to accept all settings. You cant have a setting for a light romantic comedy while far realms is invading. It is important to keep separate settings separate.
> 
> Obviously, some players want to hop back-and-forth between Forgotten Realms and Gamma World, for example. However the decision to bridge these two settings creates a new setting that is unlike either setting alone.
> 
> Not everyone who plays Forgotten Realms wants Gamma mutants and lasers. There is no need to force players to included unwanted settings.
> 
> Let players play in a setting of their choosing.




I get that, but, there's a problem here.  You're forcing those of us who don't enjoy world building to spend considerable time prepping a campaign or going out and buying a new setting book.  What you are talking about is exactly how Savage Worlds works.  You have a very basic game engine and then you have to build each campaign, more or less, from scratch.

I'd rather there was some of the heavy lifting already done.  D&D has always come with a pretty strongly implied hodgepodge setting that's pretty easy to lift out and replace.  That means that the world builders out there have a bit more work to do, since they have to strip out stuff they don't want, but, others get to sit down and play right away.  That's a major strength.


----------



## aramis erak

D&D cannot make the leap to something that light and stay feeling like D&D... 
but the HeroKids or some similar particularly light RPG could.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

aramis erak said:


> D&D cannot make the leap to something that light and stay feeling like D&D...
> but the HeroKids or some similar particularly light RPG could.




I definitely feel you, and I respect that view.

Yet I want to consider and explore the possbility.

Similar views were expressed when, early in 5E development, it became clear that 5E was going to be much more streamlined than 4E or 3E. In various web-articles, WotC designers went out of their way to say how much fun they're having playing earlier editions such as BECMI, as a sort of "research" for 5E.

Why not go one step further?

I think I may have a different experience than many gamers because my main world has been Mystara...which has only been officially expressed through BECMI D&D and AD&D2E. We Mystara-folks are used to simply accepting that in the "BECMI Reality", there are simply no Rangers, Bards, Sorcerers, Barbarians, and so forth. The official conversion guides would even say that if an AD&D PC with one of those classe enters the BECMI Reality, they retain their character concept and equipment, but rules-wise, are transformed into either a Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, or Cleric. When the AD&D2E version of Mystara came out, several of the famous NPCs we thought were Thieves, Fighters, and Clerics, turned out to be Bards, Paladins, and Druids! But in BECMI D&D, a "barbarian" is just a Fighter with a temper. So we Mystara-aficionados are used to being flexible in regard to "granularity", so that each rules set is like a different lense to view the same world.

It might be very difficult to evoke that flexibility in other segments of the D&D crowd. Perhaps other gamers are only used to D&D becoming more and more granular.

But still, if the game has:


The 6 attributes
The 4 races
The 4 classes
hit points and armor class
20 levels of advancement
Character creation
 
Isn't it D&D?

I admit that this minimalist way would not be accepted by itself. It would feel like a loss. But if it were in conjunction with many of the fresh evolutions I list in the OP, I think it could fly.


----------



## Yaarel

Hussar said:


> I get that, but, there's a problem here.  You're forcing those of us who don't enjoy world building to spend considerable time prepping a campaign or going out and buying a new setting book.  What you are talking about is exactly how Savage Worlds works.  You have a very basic game engine and then you have to build each campaign, more or less, from scratch.
> 
> I'd rather there was some of the heavy lifting already done.  D&D has always come with a pretty strongly implied hodgepodge setting that's pretty easy to lift out and replace.  That means that the world builders out there have a bit more work to do, since they have to strip out stuff they don't want, but, others get to sit down and play right away.  That's a major strength.




You did go out and buy a setting book. Heh, you are the proud owner of the ‘D&D 5e Forgotten Realms Players Handbook’.

I suspect a Forgotten Realms expansion pack is coming soon.

Core rules can be simpler and usable in other settings.


----------



## Yaarel

I would have core rules only use ability bonuses for mechanics, and remove ability scores.

If some settings want to add a fiddly complication, by using scores to determine what these bonuses are, fine.

I have been browsing the AGE system. The fact it only has simple bonus numbers makes the system self evident and easy.


----------



## Yaarel

For the simpler core, reduce all distance ranges to three categories:

Melee = 1 yard, wield sword
Close = 10 yards, throw dagger
Distant = 100 yards, shoot bow

Reach ‘plus’ doubles it.

Close plus = 20 yards, throw javelin



If some settings want to make the ranges of weapons more fiddly fine. Just add specific numbers within parentheses:

Close (7 yards/20 yards) dagger
Close plus (10 yards/40 yards) javelin



Especially in mind style, there is no need for fiddly distances.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> I would have core rules only use ability bonuses for mechanics, and remove ability scores.




For sheer simplicity's sake, I agree.

The only hesitation I have is that this "6E Core D&D" has to "look" like Iconic D&D. The "Iconic Factor" might trump the "Simplicity Factor" in some cases. The "aesthetics" of the traditional "Strength 18" might trump the simplicity of saying "Strength +4."

Similarly, Green Ronin's use of only a d20 (for True20 and MnM) is in some regards simpler than keeping all the polyhedral dice. And the 3d6 of Fantasy AGE is "simpler" than having to buy funny dice at a hobby store. But the "Iconic Factor" might necessitate keeping all the polyhedrons.



> If some settings want to add a fiddly complication, by using scores to determine what these bonuses are, fine.




Interesting idea to only show the numbers for some settings (Excursions), as an "aesthetic" feature. Perhaps the D&D Fantasy Excursions would keep the "traditional 3 to 18", but the Modern, SciFi, and Superhero Excursions would introduce the simpler (-4 to +4) notation. Good idea.



> I have been browsing the AGE system. The fact it only has simple bonus numbers makes the system self evident and easy.




Yep, from what I've seen so far, AGE appears to be, overall, the closest existing system to what I'm looking for.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> For the simpler core, reduce all distance ranges to three categories:
> 
> Melee = 1 yard, wield sword
> Close = 10 yards, throw dagger
> Distant = 100 yards, shoot bow




Yep, three or two ranges is plenty.


----------



## Yaarel

Have the system use bonuses only. Have ‘iconic settings’ use ‘iconic scores’.

But even a setting that has scores, its *mechanics* never uses scores anyway.

There is no Stealth check that uses a score in a roll: ‘d20 + Dexterity 15’. Rather, it is only ever a bonus: ‘d20 + 2 Dexterity’.

The scores only sit on the character sheet, and otherwise are never used nor seen.


----------



## Yaarel

Essentially, scores are merely a method of randomizing ability bonuses, by using 3d6 to determine bonuses.

But I would rather have point buy anyway.

Elf Wizard

0 Strength
2 Dexterity
0 Constitution
3 Intelligence
0 Wisdom
2 Charisma



And done.


----------



## painted_klown

TraverseTravis said:


> I would supplement this with a dirt-cheap black & white softcover version.



Excellent idea. The printing costs (on a large scale) would probably be low enough to make purchased copies less than paying office max or whatever to print them out. If they could keep the cost at $12 or less, these would be great to buy stacks of to hand out to new players, or even potential players. The more I think about this idea, the more I wish it were real. All of my friends are in their mid to late 30s. For better or worse, we aren't really the types who like to sift through PDF files, especially 115 pages of a PDF. It would be MUCH easier to have these at the table to hand out to players when going over rules, teaching them the game, rolling up characters, looking up spells, etc. Heck, I would buy 4 copies, for that reason alone. I imagine that others would as well.  



TraverseTravis said:


> *(I am the only one who's felt a bit embarrassed when running a D&D game with non-gamer friends, when at the end, we're tallying up XP like some bean-counting accountants? "Experience Points" are just not cool. They sound too much like "brownie points." )



LOL! Don't feel bad man. I ran a group through LMoP and never once kept track of XP. Too much book keeping for me, as it was the first time I had ever played or ran D&D. Instead, what I did was read ahead in the adventure and level everyone up "when it was time". My players loved it, and were always excited when we ended a session with me saying "Ok, at the start of the next session, we're going to level everyone up". I think with the pre-generated adventures, this is probably easier to get by with, on a home brew, I doubt it would work as well, unless you were more experienced than I am as a DM. 

Great thread, and great discussion BTW!


----------



## Hussar

Yaarel said:


> You did go out and buy a setting book. Heh, you are the proud owner of the ‘D&D 5e Forgotten Realms Players Handbook’.
> 
> I suspect a Forgotten Realms expansion pack is coming soon.
> 
> Core rules can be simpler and usable in other settings.




Yes and no.  FR is pretty darn light in the core books.  The godly classes aren't FR based - they can be, as the gods are listed, but, they can also be a variety of other settings as well - the monsters are definitely not FR, and there are very few actual references to any specific FR lore in the core books. 5e is no more FR than 3e was Greyhawk.  It's a pretty thin veneer and that's about it.

What you are seeing as FR, is just bog standard D&D.  Named spells, godly clerics and druids, Great Wheel cosmology and whatnot.  I know you want D&D with godless clerics, but, considering there has never been an edition that has done that, I'm thinking that's more on you.


----------



## Henry

Yaarel said:


> Essentially, scores are merely a method of randomizing ability bonuses, by using 3d6 to determine bonuses.
> 
> But I would rather have point buy anyway.
> 
> Elf Wizard
> 
> 0 Strength
> 2 Dexterity
> 0 Constitution
> 3 Intelligence
> 0 Wisdom
> 2 Charisma
> 
> 
> 
> And done.



...and not D&D to me.

Objectively, I know it's the same; functionally, it's the same; but something about that 3-18 base range says "D&D" same as classes and levels do that just have to be there for me.


----------



## Parmandur

Point buy is lame, rolling for stats is fun.  It's fine as an option, for those who want it, but I would not but a D&D that was point buy or eschewed the traditional random array.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Hussar said:


> I know you want D&D with godless clerics, but, considering there has never been an edition that has done that, I'm thinking that's more on you.




Off-topic reply:

BECMI D&D has no gods. Clerics were described as receiving their spells from their alignment.

In later boxed sets, the "Immortals" filled the "god" niche, but they were purposely depicted as "not-gods"--they were high level NPCs who, through adventuring, became Immortal-level, Silver Surfer-style superheroes. From an Out of Game perspective the "Immortals" terminology was mainly an attempt to protect Basic D&D from 1980s-era accusations of pagan worship.  

Because this "godlessness" became associated with the BECMI core setting, even the AD&D2E version of Mystara included a "Philosopher" kit for the Cleric class, which was just a regular Cleric, but who received their spells from their Alignment.


----------



## aramis erak

TraverseTravis said:


> Off-topic reply:
> 
> BECMI D&D has no gods. Clerics were described as receiving their spells from their alignment.
> 
> In later boxed sets, the "Immortals" filled the "god" niche, but they were purposely depicted as "not-gods"--they were high level NPCs who, through adventuring, became Immortal-level, Silver Surfer-style superheroes. From an Out of Game perspective the "Immortals" terminology was mainly an attempt to protect Basic D&D from 1980s-era accusations of pagan worship.
> 
> Because this "godlessness" became associated with the BECMI core setting, even the AD&D2E version of Mystara included a "Philosopher" kit for the Cleric class, which was just a regular Cleric, but who received their spells from their Alignment.




In later materials, the Immortals can directly grant spells to their clerics. It's actually pretty bog-standard, except that some clerics are not affiliated with the immortals knowingly.


----------



## Hussar

TraverseTravis said:


> Off-topic reply:
> 
> BECMI D&D has no gods. Clerics were described as receiving their spells from their alignment.
> 
> In later boxed sets, the "Immortals" filled the "god" niche, but they were purposely depicted as "not-gods"--they were high level NPCs who, through adventuring, became Immortal-level, Silver Surfer-style superheroes. From an Out of Game perspective the "Immortals" terminology was mainly an attempt to protect Basic D&D from 1980s-era accusations of pagan worship.
> 
> Because this "godlessness" became associated with the BECMI core setting, even the AD&D2E version of Mystara included a "Philosopher" kit for the Cleric class, which was just a regular Cleric, but who received their spells from their Alignment.




Ahh, see, I never got into the Rules Cyclopedia stuff.  I started with Moldvay Basic which states:



			
				Moldvay Basic Page B10 said:
			
		

> Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess.




So, when I started D&D, clerics have always been tied to a god.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

aramis erak said:


> It's actually pretty bog-standard, except that some clerics are not affiliated with the immortals knowingly.




...And the Immortals were all mortals who just adventured their way beyond 36th level.
...And PCs are expected to become Immortals themselves, by adventuring through the Masters boxed set, onto the Immortals boxed set.

That's different than all the other D&D worlds.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Anyway, to get back on topic...and to perhaps close out this dwindling thread...

...When I dwell on it, I feel frustrated by how now matter how well I or any other D&D aficionado expresses a vision for 5E or 6E, there is this monolith that won't listen.

Maybe I should start my own RPG enterprise which follows the business plan laid out in the OP.

Yet that means no access to the D&D worlds, which I put so much love and effort into. All those years cultivating the D&D Multiverse...particularly the "mothballed" worlds...are left in the compost pile. That chunk of imagination--the entire D&D mythology--is locked in the hands of a giant corporation. (That's why I advocate that copyright law be reduced to the length of one generation...21 years...so that each human generation is truly free to contribute to the mythologies and ideas we were raised on.)

Ah well, I've expressed myself clearly. A few EN World fellows heard me and responded, and your feedback made the idea even better. Thanks for that.

Shane H.
https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> Ahh, see, I never got into the Rules Cyclopedia stuff.  I started with Moldvay Basic which states:
> 
> So, when I started D&D, clerics have always been tied to a god.




To be fair, they attempted to "lessen" the role of gods in Basic as part of the reaction to BADD and the idea D&D teachers you worship false Gods thing. So Mystara/Basic moved to "clerics get power by alignment" and "Immortals are not gods, just really powerful beings that kinda look like them but don't demand worship (but some are anyway.)" 

Only the most ardent Basic fan really presses the issue; immortals are effectively gods for nearly all purposes except origin.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

TraverseTravis said:


> Anyway, to get back on topic...and to perhaps close out this dwindling thread...
> 
> ...When I dwell on it, I feel frustrated by how now matter how well I or any other D&D aficionado expresses a vision for 5E or 6E, there is this monolith that won't listen.
> 
> Maybe I should start my own RPG enterprise which follows the business plan laid out in the OP.
> 
> Yet that means no access to the D&D worlds, which I put so much love and effort into. All those years cultivating the D&D Multiverse...particularly the "mothballed" worlds...are left in the compost pile. That chunk of imagination--the entire D&D mythology--is locked in the hands of a giant corporation. (That's why I advocate that copyright law be reduced to the length of one generation...21 years...so that each human generation is truly free to contribute to the mythologies and ideas we were raised on.)
> 
> Ah well, I've expressed myself clearly. A few EN World fellows heard me and responded, and your feedback made the idea even better. Thanks for that.
> 
> Shane H.
> https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/




Just keep in mind that listening works both ways. You may have an interesting, even potentially highly successful concept....but it may not work as a D&D for the generation of fans out there now. It might create a new player base for a different kind of crowd, though. I know as I was reading your OP I was stopped hard in the first line....my thought being, "This is a game, and it could be D&D licensed, but it would definitely not be D&D." 

Tradition sucks, but sometimes the issue is simply that change makes something fundamentally different. What you have described, taken in and of itself, intrigues me. But as a 6th edition D&D that has been Eurogame-treated it sounds like my exit from the hobby.


----------



## Yaarel

It is possible to use the 3e Open Gaming License to reconstruct it as the rules system that one needs. Then, make this rules system available to others, so they can use the system when designing their own setting. Each designer owns rights to their setting, but the system remains public domain.


----------



## Sadrik

TraverseTravis said:


> Action 1: *Keep it Simple.*



Yes simplicity. 4 classes, the four most basic classes Fighter/Rogue and then Magic-user/<armored caster>. I might even say only human in core. Then spend most of your page count on equipment. Have a simple spell system, perhaps even as simple as calling the schools the spells abjuration, evocation, etc. as the spells themselves. For non-spell casters they need a combat ability. Each class and spell system could be further defined in the excursion rules and more specialties and add on systems given. A stripped down muscle car.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 2: *Core D&D is D&D.*



Yes, a core book that is made under several price points and formats.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 3: *A Cultural Community of Authors. *



Keep a license that allows for others to add to the tapestry that is D&D.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 4: *World-Hopping is D&D.*



Not necessary. Allow DMs to determine if a central setting is needed. A multi-genre setting is neat, but not all would like it. It would have to be an option not a characteristic of D&D.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 5: *All Genres are D&D.*



D&D is synonymous with RPG. Make the system allow any type of settings. How gritty the setting is can be set in the excursion rules. I think this is an excellent notion.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 6: *In the Business of Excursions.*



Yes with a simple core, you can add all the complexity into the excursions. Write lots of them. Perhaps do a manual of different settings and only provide enough to get the setting started for character generation and throw a few ideas for a DM. Then popular ones get more. Crisis on infinite D&D.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 7: *Appendices for Localizing and Scaling. *



Yes with many excursions you would need to have lots of conversion notes. Then this adds to the playability of any of the excursions in the various settings.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 8: *Mastery and Renewal of Worlds.*



Not sure about this one, but updating and including the previous modules and adventures into the game could be good. It will keep those shared experiences alive.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 9: *A Cross-Platform Effort.*



Would be nice, however, they have their own games and systems and may be like um... why would I compete with myself?



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 10: *Forays into Strange Waters.*



Sure. Low priority though.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 11: *Advanced is Unearthed.*



More the complexity to another book. 

They could also treat the current 5e PHB as the complex "advanced" book and have a new simple D&D 5e core book that does everything you are looking for. I would be interested.



TraverseTravis said:


> Action 12: *Plastic is Chintzy.*



Um, non-issue.

Good ideas, I support a simpler game that has added on complexity. I role-play for the game events and camaraderie not the crunch. I also am interested in experiencing settings through the game rather than simply reading about them in a source book. Shearing complexity allows more space for fostering ideas and creativity.


----------



## Parmandur

camazotz said:


> Just keep in mind that listening works both ways. You may have an interesting, even potentially highly successful concept....but it may not work as a D&D for the generation of fans out there now. It might create a new player base for a different kind of crowd, though. I know as I was reading your OP I was stopped hard in the first line....my thought being, "This is a game, and it could be D&D licensed, but it would definitely not be D&D."
> 
> 
> 
> Tradition sucks, but sometimes the issue is simply that change makes something fundamentally different. What you have described, taken in and of itself, intrigues me. But as a 6th edition D&D that has been Eurogame-treated it sounds like my exit from the hobby.





Yeah, just not all that appetizing...


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

camazotz said:


> Just keep in mind that listening works both ways.




When I start a thread, I do try to listen and respond to nearly everyone.



> Tradition sucks, but sometimes the issue is simply that change makes something fundamentally different.




Another way of handling "tradition" is to ask "what is organically the next step?" I agree that the next step needs to be an organic continuation from where we are now. Otherwise, there's a rupture, like occurred between 3E and 4E. Yet I feel that much of my vision for D&D is organic, *if taken all together.*

And though I titled the OP "Sixth Edition", most or all twelve points could be implemented even within 5E. 

Even the super-simplified Core D&D idea could be offered as a separate line alongside the 5E line. Mearls has stated that he wished he had offered 4E as a separate tactically-oriented D&D-branded game, while keeping 3E as as the traditional TTRPG. Likewise, an experimental Ultra-Basic D&D TTRPG could be offered alongside the existing product line.



> D&D that has been Eurogame-treated it sounds like my exit from the hobby.



and 







Parmandur said:


> Yeah, just not all that appetizing...




Despite the confusing title, my OP was actually written to *counter* the idea that D&D should just become a boardgame, or just a series of unconnected pre-generated quasi-RPG boxed sets. People are seriously suggesting that over in the Mearls Tweets thread. And it sounded not all that appetizing...like my exit from the hobby.

An earlier poster was right--the twelve points I wrote have little to do Eurogames or any other kind of boardgame. I used the word “Eurogame” in the sense of making products which are intended to stay in-print for a long time.

The twelve points are basically just a fresh concept for 6E. Or a way to retool 5E without an edition change.


----------



## Sadrik

TraverseTravis said:


> And though I titled the OP "Sixth Edition", most or all twelve points could be implemented even within 5E.
> 
> Even the super-simplified Core D&D idea could be offered as a separate line alongside the 5E line. Mearls has stated that he wished he had offered 4E as a separate tactically-oriented D&D-branded game, while keeping 3E as as the traditional TTRPG. Likewise, an experimental Ultra-Basic D&D TTRPG could be offered alongside the existing product line.
> 
> The twelve points are basically just a fresh concept for 6E. Or a way to retool 5E without an edition change.




I concur, an idea like this could be implemented right now. 5e can support a stripped down 5e core rules book. The 5e rules are elegant enough to do it. From there, it would not be so difficult to extrapolate other setting books and games with their version of the material presented in the PHB/DMG/MM (though likely not in that format). These settings could attract those to play them.

What you do not want to happen though. D&D gives a very D&D RPG experience. You want to make sure that experience can happen still. Watering down the offerings on D&D may give the impression that efforts are spent elsewhere. While some may be ok with that others will rip wotc for deciding to make a star frontiers game in 5e for instance. To be clear, I would like to see more settings and a stripped down system to handle them. I am not everyone.

How do you appease the I only play D&D crowd with the I play RPGs crowd? While making them both feel at home? It is a difficult thing.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*How to not get stuck in re-capitulating each campaign setting every time a new rules edition comes out.*



Sadrik said:


> I concur, an idea like this could be implemented right now. 5e can support a stripped down 5e core rules book. The 5e rules are elegant enough to do it.




Yes, exactly.



> Watering down the offerings on D&D may give the impression that efforts are spent elsewhere. While some may be ok with that others will rip wotc for deciding to make a star frontiers game in 5e for instance. [...] How do you appease the I only play D&D crowd with the I play RPGs crowd? While making them both feel at home? It is a difficult thing.




This is what I propose, as the way to "satiate" interest in the existing D&D worlds. Instead of the existing model (adopted by WotC from Paizo) of writing more and more Adventures (e.g. The Rise of Tiamat, Out of the Abyss), I would only release what I call "Excursions". Excursions are Adventure + Worldbook rolled into one.

Only after these 12 Excursions are published, would I move on to other settings. 

1)* Excursion to Toril: The World of Forgotten Realms
*2)* Excursion to Oerth: The World of Greyhawk
*3)* Excursion to Krynn: The World of Dragonlance
*4)* Excursion to Eberron: A World of Swashbuckling Action and Dark Adventure
*5) *Excursion to the Known World: The Classic D&D World of Mystara
*6)* Excursion to Athas: The World of Dark Sun
*7)* Excursion to Aebrynis: The World of Birthright
*8)* Excursion to Nerath: Points of Light in a World of Untamed, Mysterious Darkness
*9)* Excursion to Blackmoor: The First Fantasy Campaign
*10)* Excursion to Ravenloft: The Demiplane of Dread
*11) *Excursion to Wild Space: The Worlds of Spelljammer
*12)* Excursion to the Great Wheel: The Worlds of Planescape*

I would publish these within the course of 2 to 3 years, and get them out of the way, so that the next 7 years of this D&D edition can be devoted to *new* settings!

Each Excursion would contain:

An all-new, complete, medium-length adventure, located within an iconic place of that world, or which visits several key countries of that world. There would be a segway for running this adventure as a world-hopping excursion, arriving from another D&D world (implied by the word "excursion"). Or the adventure could optionally be run as the start or continuation of a single-world campaign.
A world map showing the entire planet and its continents. (For the Spelljammer and Planescape excursion, there would be a map of Wild Space and the Great Wheel.)
A succinct overview of the world. What is unique about this world? Boil down the fluff of the earlier Campaign Setting books into a single chapter!
The key new PC races, classes, and spells. Of course this could only be a sampling.
A Localization Appendix with a detailed adaptation of the adventure for each of the main D&D worlds.
A Scaling Appendix which gives statblocks for adjusting the adventure to any level between 1 and 20. That way, any Excursion can be played in any order!
A brief out-of-game Publishing History and complete Product Listing for that world (in small print!), with the URL to the D&D Classics website.*

*Note about stoking synergy between the Excursions and the D&D Classics PDFs: All of the D&D Classics PDFs would be connected with a print-on-demand service. And simultaneous with each Excursion, "crunch update" PDFs begin to be written for each of the D&D Classics PDFs from that world. Within a few years, all of the previous editions' adventures and sourcebooks would have a web-enhancement with updated stats for all the crunch. These are just plain black-and-white PDFs with no fluff--only statblocks and rules updates. The reader is even encouraged to print it off and cut out the statblocks and lightly tape them to the page in their Classic book. "Crunch" includes not only NPC and monster stats, but also a new version of whatever new classes, PC races, and so forth are found in that book. These simple PDFs take the place of having to regurgitate the entire world every time a new rules edition comes out--a trap which all previous editions have either fallen into (by writing yet another Campaign Setting book for the same world), or turned away from (by mothballing lesser-used worlds). The massive task of writing these PDF sheets is either done by paid freelancers, or by explicitly encouraging D&D aficionados to write these; either way, they are made available by hosting them at an official website for each world (e.g. the official "fan" sites) and by bundling them with each D&D Classics PDF.

Each world only receives one book. Every other yearning is satiated through the making all of the vast published corpus available as a print-on-demand, with a PDF "crunch update."

Then the worlds are "complete", and we can at last move on to new worlds.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Sadrik said:


> es with a simple core, you can add all the complexity into the excursions. Write lots of them. Perhaps do a manual of different settings and only provide enough to get the setting started for character generation and throw a few ideas for a DM. Then popular ones get more. Crisis on infinite D&D.




Yes, I hadn't thought of also offering a book which packs in a whole bunch of different Campaign Models, each with a Mini-Excursion. Sweet.

I agree with, and am edified by most of your feedback.



> I role-play for the game events and camaraderie not the crunch. I also am interested in experiencing settings through the game rather than simply reading about them in a source book. Shearing complexity allows more space for fostering ideas and creativity.




My experience exactly. That's what I'm trying to say.



> Would be nice, however, they have their own games and systems and may be like um... why would I compete with myself?




Well, Green Ronin is hoping to offer its renewed Blue Rose setting in two different rules systems: its own Fantasy AGE house system and FATE, another company's system. And GR has offered Freeport in several different systems (3E, True20, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, FATE), some of which are owned by other companies. There are probably several other examples. Theoretically this is "competing with themselves", but another way of looking at it, is as a synergistic penetration into various cultural communities, to the benefit of both. It's kind of like making a novel available in different formats (Kindle, Large Print, Audiobook) and also translating it into different languages.

Those companies which made D&D-Compatible excursions, would be tapping into a the large player network / customer base of the D&D cultural community. Since the Excursion would be free to include a "to-and-from" conversion guide, along with a product catalog, this could be a boon for any game company. There'd be a certain number of D&D players who purchase the "Excursion to Golarion" (by Paizo) or the "Excursion to Middle-earth" (by Crucible 7), and then decide to purchase PF Golarion sourcebooks and The One Ring sourcebooks for use in their D&D game. 

And to reiterate Hasbro's gain: Unlike the 3e-era OGL, but like the Pathfinder Compatible license, none of these Third Party Excursions would be allowed to be standalone. (E.g. the new SRD could not be used to publish something like the 3e-era Conan RPG- or MnM-style standalone d20-based games.) They'd all have to refer back to the Core Rules, thereby fueling Hasbro sales. And it would grow the D&D cultural community, instead of fracturing it in a neverending, mercantile, dog-eat-dog, edition war.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Oddly reading more about this in the recent posts is making me think more of Basic/Expert D&D and the gazetteer series of old...


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Culture Excursions*

Besides the "Big Twelve" D&D fantasy worlds, here are some other possibilities. 

"Culture Excursions" modeled on Oriental Adventures, but with Kara-Tur broken out into separate "Chinese" and "Japanese" soucebooks--we have enough experience of Wuxia films and Samurai films to know the difference! Some of the books could be shorter than others, or some could be grouped together into a single book, but here's a rough list: 

*Excursion to Shou Long: A Land of Wuxia Adventures
Excursion to Kozakura: A Land of Nipponic Adventures
Excursion to Al-Qadim: A Land of Emirate Adventures
Excursion to Maztica: A Land of Mesoamerican Adventures
Excursion to Anchorome: A Land of Turtle Island Adventures
Excursion to Katashaka: A Land of Nubian Adventures
Excursion to Osse: A Land of Dreamtime Adventures
Excursion to Mulhorand: A Land of Pharaonic Adventures
Excursion to Unther: A Land of Babylonian Adventures
Excursion to Chessenta: A Land of Hellenic Adventures
Excursion to the Shining Lands: A Land of Bollywood Adventures
Excursion to the Moonshae Isles: A Land of Celtic Adventures
Excursion to Rashemen: A Land of Slavonic Adventures
Excursion to the Hordelands: A Land of Tartarian Adventures
Excursion to Koryo: A Land of Coreanic Adventures
Excursion to the Island Kingdoms: A Land of Austronesian Adventures
Excursion to Tabot: A Land of Himalayan Adventures
Excursion to Malatra: Adventures in the Golden Land
Excursion to the Uthgardt: A Land of Northern Adventures
Excursion to the Great Glacier: A Land of Hyperborean Adventures
Excursion to Lopango: A Land of Amazonian Adventures
*
Each "Cultural Excursion" contains:

An adventure. The adventure is set in the Forgotten Realms country which most resembles that Real World culture. FR because it's the most popular world. (But see the "Localization Notes" below.)
A map of the Forgotten Realms country in which the adventure is set.
A Scaling Appendix for using the adventure for any challenge level between 1 and 20.
New PC races, classes, spells, and monsters inspired by that Real World culture. Note that even though FR is the model setting, it doesn't use these cultural parallels without altering them a bit.
A D&D pantheon (such as Asgardian, Celtic, Olympian, or Pharaonic). All of these pantheons exist in the Great Wheel.
A "Gamer's Glossary" which gives the names for the Core classes, races, equipment, spells, and monsters in that Real World language. For example, bushi = Japanese for "fighter" and wushi = Chinese for "fighter."
A Localization Appendix, with detailed suggestions of how to use and place this content in each of the main D&D worlds. Some D&D worlds have parallels (or mixed parallels) to many of these cultures; in such cases, the conversion notes are especially ample, and even include a map showing the equivalent country in each of those settings. (e.g. Mesoamerica = the Olman Isles in Greyhawk, and the Tiger Clan and the Azcan Empire in Mystara). The D&D Earth localization notes suggest how tho use this with the Modern D&D campaign models: e.g. China and Japan in Urban Arcana or Dark•Matter.
Explicitly explains how some settings, such as Mystara, contain close parallels to Earth cultures, while others are somewhat more mixed (Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms), and some have only faintly Earth-inspired elements (e.g. the Plains Barbarians of Krynn are only slightly reminiscent of the Indigenous cultures of the North American plains), while some worlds avoid any cultural parallels (e.g. Dark Sun). Also, in some cases, there are multiple parallels in the same world (such as Toril's three Arabian-style cultures: Calimshan, the Bedine of the Anauroch Desert, and in entire Zakhara continent); all of these parallels are included in the localization notes.

The various "localizations" in each of the D&D worlds are listed here: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/culture-books

I don't know of Roman or Andean parallels in Toril, so those Cultural Excursions would need to be based in a different D&D World (e.g. Thyatian Empire and Oltec Empire in Mystara), or in D&D Earth.

As I said, some of these books could be combined into one, but that's roughly what I'd like to see.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Genre Excursions and more*

Various modern, future, and historic genres:



*Excursion to the Sea of Fallen Stars: D&D Pirate Adventures. *(Uses FR as example setting, but provides Localization notes for the Pirate cultures of all the D&D Worlds.)
*Excursion to the Imperium Romanum: D&D Roman Adventures. *(James Wyatt's two Roman-themed campaign models -- Imperium Romanum and Shield of Faith. And Localization for using elements of the book for the Minotaur League of Krynn, for the Thyatian Empire of Mystara (though it's mixed with Byzantine Greek culture), and a time-travelling excursion to the Old Oeridian Empire of Greyhawk.)
*Excursion to Camelot: D&D Arthurian Adventures*
*Excursion to El Dorado County: The Wild West D&D World of Boot Hill *(Includes Localization notes for Mystara's Cimmarron County...the only Wild West culture I know of outside of D&D Earth. Oh, and Murlynd from Greyhawk had pistols. If Old Western won't sell, then Boot Hill could be folded into the Modern Fantasy book as a campaign model.)
*Excursion to D&D Earth: Modern Fantasy Adventures. *To test the waters, could contain short campaign models for Urban Arcana, Dark*•*Matter, and others. Localization notes for the "future modern" version of each of the main D&D worlds: Greyhawk 2000, "Modern Realms" (with the "United Realms of Anchorome", the "Faerunian Union", and the "People's Commonwealth of Shou Long"...)
*Excursion to the Future: D&D Science Fiction Adventures.* To test which settings people are interested in, this could contain brief campaign models for all the TSR/WotC SF settings, such as Barsoom/Mars, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Star*Drive, The Galactos Barrier (TSR's very own "Star Wars"), Once and Future King ("Arthur...in space"), and Mystara's Galactic Federation (TSR's own "Star Trek").
*Excursion to the Fading Realms: D&D Comic Adventures*. Includes a campaign model for each of the HackMaster-licensed versions of the D&D worlds. Jester PC class. Best of the joke stuff from years past...dread gazebo.

There's a fuller outline of the genres here: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/genre-books

The "culture excursions" and "genre excusions" could be interspersed with some of the one-off classics:



*Excursion to Pelinore: The Classic D&D World of TSR UK's Imagine Magazine*
*Excursion to Io's Blood Islands: The World of a Council of Wyrms*
*Excursion to the Realm of the D&D Cartoon Show*
*Excursion to Jakandor: Land of Legend and Isle of Destiny
*
And sometime after the "Big Twelve" worlds are done, show us the two runners-up to the contest which Eberron won:


*Excursion to [the world of Rich Burlew]*
*Excursion to [the world of Nathan Toomey]*

Then have another Campaign Setting Search, and include the dozen winners as Campaign Models, packed into a single book!

Hey, I think WotC ought to hire me as product consultant.


----------



## Yaarel

Theres no need to make an ‘excursion’ an entire world. Make it a region, or even a locale.

The ideal example is the Menzoberranzan locale, one of the Drow subterranean cities from the Forgotten Realms world. If the players want to explore Drow flavor, just plug the city somewhere in whichever world setting one is using.

Want Gith flavor? Figure out how to fit in a Githyanki city or a Githzerai settlement. Done.

Even a futuristic setting, can be an isolationist utopian city, in a medievalesque world but normally inaccessible.

Settings dont need to be entire worlds. Focus on the interesting stuff, and mix-and-match. Build worlds like lego bricks.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> Theres no need to make an ‘excursion’ an entire world. Make it a region, or even a locale.
> 
> The ideal example is the Menzoberranzan locale, one of the Drow subterranean cities from the Forgotten Realms world. If the players want to explore Drow flavor, just plug the city somewhere in whichever world setting one is using.
> 
> Want Gith flavor? Figure out how to fit in a Githyanki city or a Githzerai settlement. Done.
> 
> Even a futuristic setting, can be an isolationist utopian city, in a medievalesque world but normally inaccessible.
> 
> Settings dont need to be entire worlds. Focus on the interesting stuff, and mix-and-match. Build worlds like lego bricks.





I see your point, but the idea is to get all the worlds updated, reconnected, and done with, so that the entire D&D cultural community is united and satiated. Then bring in new building blocks which will fit in any of those worlds, or which can be used to build one's own world.


----------



## Yaarel

TraverseTravis said:


> Unlike the 3e-era OGL, but like the Pathfinder Compatible license, none of these Third Party Excursions would be allowed to be standalone. (E.g. the new SRD could not be used to publish something like the 3e-era Conan RPG- or MnM-style standalone d20-based games.) They'd all have to refer back to the Core Rules, thereby fueling Hasbro sales. And it would grow the D&D cultural community, instead of fracturing it in a neverending, mercantile, dog-eat-dog, edition war.




Wait. The very act of flavoring the Core rules for a new setting, necessarily rewrites the core rules. In other words, the core rules generate settings as a stand-alone product complete with core rules.

The same is true for the 3e SRD.

Consider how Dreamscarred Press is an indy publisher that creates a stand-alone product for a psionic setting. It uses the SRD psionic material, and the Expanded Psionic Handbook as an inspiration for the setting.

Pathfinder embraces this indy psionic setting, and features it in the Pathfinder website for all psionic needs. Reciprocally, Dreamscarred updated its products to be fully compatible with Pathfinder products. Pathfinder players buy these stand-alone psionic products, either to play in a full psionic setting with psionic-only classes, or just to add a dash of psionics to their Golarion setting. Even when they use the fully psionic setting, the players still tend to use Pathfinder products, for character options, Rulebook consultation, monsters, treasures, etcetera.

Thus there is a profitable synergy, even when the core rules themselves, the 3e SRD, are free and belonging to the public.


----------



## Yaarel

Personally, I feel WotC does best to release the 5e SRD as OGL.

Likely Paizo would then create products using the 5e SRD system. Some of its Pathfinder customers would then buy WotC products as well.

There would be more adventures.

Other indy companies would help grow the 5e culture too.


----------



## Yaarel

Amazing. Pathfinder is releasing the rules for its Occult Adventures - just hitting the market now - as part of its Open Gaming License (OGL).

This integrates the psionic tradition within the medievalesque Golarion setting. It downplays the parapsychological technobabble, and portrays it as ‘psychic magic’, borrowing flavors from Victorian Era occultism and spiritualism. In this way, the telekinesis tradition comprises the classical five elements (ether, air, water, fire earth) with a dash of Avatar elemental bending.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> Wait. The very act of flavoring the Core rules for a new setting, necessarily rewrites the core rules. In other words, the core rules generate settings as a stand-alone product complete with core rules.




I don't know the exact situation of Dreamscarred Press, yet the Pathfinder Compatible license says:

_"In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. *Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder*."

_For the proposed "D&D Compatible" license, the Third Party Excursions could either:
A) Use the Core races and classes as-is. This would be for a straightforward medieval fantasy world-excursion. In this case, they would just point the reader to the class chapter in the Core D&D book.
B) Modify and tweak some or all the Core races and classes to match their setting. E.g. some world might call fighters "Warriors."
C) Or don't use any of Core races and classes, but offer their own, entirely different races and classes. 

But in any case, the Third Pary Excursion would have to refer back to the Core D&D for all the basic rules: ability scores, movement, environmental hazards, lighting, and so forth.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> Pathfinder is releasing the rules for its Occult Adventures




The traditional gonzo psionics rules would be in the Dark Sun Excursion.

The 19th-century style Occult/Spiritualist psionics would be in the:

*Excursion to Gothic Earth: The D&D World of the Masque of the Red Death*


----------



## Yaarel

The OGL itself allows for stand-alone products, using or modifying core 3e mechanics in the SRD.

However, the OGL does not allow use of Intellectual Property of WotC, such as the D&D brand name, settings, and so on.

Dreamscarred originally used the OGL to make stand alone products.

The Pathfinder has a separate contract allowing Dreamscarred to refer to Pathfinder intellectual property. The updating of Dreamscarred products complies with the rules in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. But you can still use the Dreamscarred independently, using SRD.


----------



## Yaarel

The reason Pathfinder exists is, the WotC 4e license tried to reverse the open philosophy of the OGL. Paizo refused, continued with the 3e OGL - had enough customers who wanted to stay with 3e content - and from this, Pathfinder emerged.

4e made the mistake. If it allowed a 4e OGL, Paizo would have continued to make 4e products, Paizo would have filled in the gaps in the consumer base, 4e would be a more enduring endeavor, and the symbiotic relationship would benefit everyone - especially the D&D players. Paizo was symbiotic with WotC until the 4e legal scarcity consciousness.

The main difference between the 3e Open Game License and the 4e Game System License, is the *requirement* to make stand-alone products impossible and to refer to rules in 4e books. This requirement is a mistake.

Stand-alone products - when they are compatible with other stand-alone products - are a successful symbiosis that allow players to mix-and-match.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Yaarel said:


> The reason Pathfinder exists is, the WotC 4e license tried to reverse the open philosophy of the OGL.




Exactly.

But the semi-open Pathfinder Compatible license works pretty well too. The "no standalone" requirement works fine for Pathfinder. I think it could be a fitting model for for a "D&D Compatible" license. Believe me, I'm willing to consider even the most totally open option: releasing the D&D game, and even the setting IPs, into the Public Domain. But for this thread, I aim reigning in my Open Culture fervor, and trying to depict the most fitting community license--neither too Open nor too Closed.



> The main difference between the 3e Open Game License and the 4e Game System License, is the *requirement* to make stand-alone products impossible and to refer to rules in 4e books. This requirement is a mistake.




The 4E GSL was a disaster for two reasons: 1) it was incomprehensible except to industry insiders with enough money to keep a lawyer on hand, and 2) it was pervaded with ill-will from the start. It was arrogantly crafted to destroy and dicker with Paizo and all Third Party and amateur publishers. The GSL was the fear-based fruit of mercantile-corporatist thinking.


----------



## Yaarel

Pathfinder ‘compatibility contract’ = 4e GSL

The only difference is, Pathfinder itself uses the OGL. So, indys can likewise use the OGL without Pathfinder, and still be compatible with Pathfinder.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*Department 7*

Okay, so going back to "World-Hopping as the Core Setting."

This does the same thing for the entire D&D Multiverse as the "gate" concept did for 3e Forgotten Realms.

Examples of non-D&D settings which are based on world-hopping:

Sliders
Quantum Leap
Stargate
Monte Cook's new meta-setting: The Strange.

Examples of world-hopping aspects in TSR/WotC books:

Queen of the Demonweb Pits. All those demiplanes.
_Tangents_ sourcebook for the Alternity scifi RPG (AD&D2e-era) (There's a review here.)
_Chronomancer_ sourcebook for AD&D2e. Had three time-travel character classes (chronomancer, temporal champion, and temporal raider).
Dimension X campaign model from d20 Future. Had "dimensional rangers" as a character class.
Alternate World Gates from the BECMI D&D book, _AC4: The Book of Marvellous Magic_ by Frank Mentzer. Had gates from Mystara to the AD&D World of Greyhawk, to Boot Hill, to Gangbusters, to Dawn Patrol (WWI biplane setting), Gamma World, and Star Frontiers. (I cut-and-pasted the description of those gates at the bottom of this page.)
The Nexus from the TSR UK BECMI adventure CM6: Where Chaos Reigns. (PDF here.)
The World Serpent Inn from 3e (PDF download here)
Sigil, the City of Doors, is poised as a world-hopping nexus.

Here's what I imagine:

1) The 6E Core Book would have a little section where the DM designs a village, and names it. This would be the beginning of a 6E Worldbuilding tradition. 6E is both Worldbuilding and World-Hopping.
2) There is an introductory adventure which involves an incursion of monsters from another world.
3) At the end, the characters are introduced to a world-hopping equivalent of the Pathfinder Society. They meet a Dimensional Ranger.
4) This organization is none other than Department-7 from d20 Modern. Here's the description from the d20M SRD:

_"Department-7 is a fictional elite organization that the heroes belong to that deals with situations threatening the modern world. Depending on the campaign, Department-7 might have federal authority, or it might be a state or local agency, or perhaps a private institution. In some campaigns, it might have an international scope thanks to ties to the United Nations or some global conglomerate. Department-7 might deal with homeland defense, law enforcement, espionage and intelligence, or counterterrorism. In some games, it might have a charter to investigate paranormal activity or alien incursions or dimensional displacement.

"It is our hope that other publishers will use Department-7 as an example in their products, thereby providing a common feel for the game."_

Department-7 exists in all D&D Earth timelines (i.e. d20 Modern campaign models), and are behind the Dimensional Rangers. But in 6E, they have a presence in not only the "D&D Modern" timelines, but also in the medieval fantasy worlds. Perhaps the name is slightly different in non-modern worlds: something like "The 7th Society", or "Fellowship of the Seven". They have a base in Sigil.

4) The characters receive devices (kind of like the Wayfinder compass from Pathfinder) which enable them to hop to other worlds (subject to the DM's preparaton.) They are simply an in-game device for enabling the DM to introduce the players to any of the D&D Excursions, from all worlds and times.

5) From there, the PCs are set to visit any world and time (that the DM has prepared!). The Excursions assume the PCs have arrived from another world, but the book can of course be used just as well by single-world campaigns.

6) However, at the same time, the DM is encouraged to design their own world, beginning with that home village.

Though some have expressed reservations that basing the Core Setting on world-hopping is too different than the usual D&D campaign, I am firmly behind this. Nearly all of the editions have had a Core Setting: 1e s Greyhawk, BECMI's Known World of Mystara, Black Box D&D's Thunder Rift, 2e Forgotten Realms (it was explicitly stated that everything that is published for 2e exists in the FR), 3e's genericized Greyhawk, 4e's Nerath, 5e's Forgotten Realms (though localization notes for other worlds are beginning to appear in the APs).

Likewise, my 6E would have the ultimate core setting: World-Hopping + World-Building. But there'd also be a sentence in the Core book saying: "Though the World-Hopping theme is the Core Setting, of course, longtimer DMs will know how to use this book for their own campaign."

And each Excursion would have three options for using the adventure:

A) The default option: The PCs just arrived via another world, as agents of Department-7.
B) The DM is localizing the content to another published setting. That's what the Localization Appendix is for.
C) The DM is cutting-and-pasting the adventure and its locale into the DM's own homebrew world.

For business model reasons, Option A would be the default segway--so that more and more groups are used to adventuring across worlds (which means buying Excursions to various worlds!). Yet Option B and C would be explicitly supported in all Excursions. That's not so bad is it?


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

*World-Building is also part of the Core Setting.*

So I covered the World Hopping. That would be one-half of the Core Setting. But only half. The other half is World Building.

Just as the 4E default theme was "Points of Light", 6E's default theme would be "World Hopping + World Building"

In previous editions, the starting village was already named and mapped out (BECMI's Threshold, 3e's Oakhurst, 4e's Fallcrest). But in 6E, there'd be a page showing different village layouts, and the DM would be guided to choose one, or mix-and-match layouts, or draw their own from scratch. And each DM would name their own village! There could be a table of random syllables, like: Oak-, Fall-, Elm--+ -ton, -ville, -stead, -wick.

In 6E, when the characters come back to their home village after Excursions to other worlds, and when the DM is ready, the DM could begin to have the PCs explore the environs of their own homeworld. Of course, this homeworld could be one of the "Big Twelve" D&D Worlds (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc), but the default Core World would be the Un-Setting: a Make-your-own-World.

From the very start, the Core D&D rulebook would explictly say that it a tradition in 6E for each DM to not only visit other worlds, but also to make their own world, beginning with this simple village. Like Worldhopping, Worldbuilding is not *required*, but it is the expected default tradition. 
Worldbuilding would simply be part of the game.

There would be clear steps for Worldbuilding, as clear as PHB's step for character generation.

One way to go about it is to start with an adventure-driven, gradual building of the setting. Once the DM gets around to considering what lies beyond the village, just place any adventure site (e.g. dungeon). And then another and another. Connect and place them on the map as you go--not ahead of time. Then make an overland map showing where those dungeons are...the "seven hexes" micro-campaign world. Place a town in the hexes. Then visit a city, then map the country, then map other countries, then map the continent, then map the world.

And each DM is encouraged to cut-and-paste entire countries from the various Excursions they own, and stitch them together, and rename them. That guidance is all in the Core D&D booklet.

*What if a DM is set on using a single, published world?*

The Core D&D book makes clear that each gaming group's campaign is a distinct parallel Multivese, in distinction from WotC's D&D Multiverse.

So even when the PCs visit a published world such as Forgotten Realms, its's a distinct parallel version of the one published by WotC. Each campaign is an alternate timeline of the published world. (Another way of looking at it is that the published world is the alternate timeline!)

And so every self-respecting DM or Gaming Group is guided to come up with their own name for their version of the published world, even it it simply be: "So-and-So's Forgotten Realms" or "Such-and-such Gaming Group's World of Greyhawk".

*Advanced Worldbuilding*

As I said, the Advanced D&D book would be a gigantic Ptolus-sized tome, and the DMs section would contain a Worldbuillding smorgasbord...a distillation of:


All the stuff from the 2E-era World Builder's Guidebook
The stuff from 3e's Stronghold Builders Guidebook.
3e's Cityscape urban worldbuilding sourcebook.
The dominion-creation rules from the Companion boxed set from BECMI D&D.
All the planet creation and solar system creation rules from Spelljammer
The plane and cosmology creation from various editions' Manuals of the Planes.

In the Advanced D&D tome, there'd be explicit guidance and tables for "How to name a Campaign Setting", using published setting names as examples. The name could be chosen...or rolled randomly!

A table something like this:

First Name Element:

Colors: "grey", "black", "red", "blue", "golden", "silver" etc.

Other adjective, usually mysterious: "forgotten", "dark", "savage", "hollow", "known", "unknown", "mystery", "hidden", "secret"

Monster: "dragon", "ghost"


Second Name Element:

Animal: "hawk", "wolf", "eagle", etc.

Geographic: "realms", "moor", "coast", "world", "isles"

Celestial: "sun", "moon", "star", etc.

Arms and Armor: "steel", "lance", "knife" "sword", "axe", "helm", "shield" etc.

Other: "walk", "way", "guard", "watch"


And the planet name might be different than the Campaign Setting name (e.g. Toril vs. FR):

"Earth"-like names: Oerth, Uerth, Aerth, Yarth, Nerath

Other names: Toril, Abeir, Mystara, Aebrynis, Athas. There'd be a table of suggested syllables for combining to name a planet.


There'd be a section on how to design a logo, explaining how all the TSR/WotC D&D logos were designed.


*In 6E, self-publishing is part of the game!*

And to cap it off, part of the "game" would be for the DM or Gaming Group to eventually publish their homebrew world! That's exactly what the D&D Compatible license is for.

To that end, there'd be a passage in the DM's section about how to write an Excursion/Worldbook. There'd be a template showing what needs to be included, which is really modeled on the published Excursions. The goal is to help DMs and gaming groups publish their world in a format which approaches professional quality.

Self-publishing becomes part of the game! An "optional" part, of course, but an explicitly supported part.

In conclusion, 6E would satiate both crowds: those who love the existing published worlds (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk), and those who love to build their own. Both approaches would be fully supported through a unique synthesis of World-Hopping plus World Building.


----------

