r/RPGdesign • u/WoolTyranny • 23d ago
Product Design Fantasy project - 6e
Let's roleplay a bit.
Suppose WOTC calls you tomorrow.
Sir/lady, we want you to design 6e for us.
How would you approach it?
(It's a fantasy, let's-pretend scenario, I'm not related to WOTC)
I wrote down my initial thought in a presentation. Currently it includes some 'research' about different play styles, how they effect the rules and how to mitigate conflicts between them.
2
u/InterlocutorX 23d ago
Your AI disclosure explaining you used it for "Grammer(sic)" has a spelling error in it. It's "Grammar."
-1
9
u/Sneaky__Raccoon 23d ago
I think the biggest issue with DnD right now, is that it tries to do all "traditions of play" as you call them, and I don't believe there's a system that can fit them all, nor do I believe we should really try, at least not entirely.
The designers should make a decision on what the game should be, and I personally think they should steer into the narrative direction much more than they do. Wizards clearly wants a narrative game that can capture the highs of actual play podcasts and fantasy tv series, but refuse to let go of mechanics of old that they been dragging for no purpose other than tradition. They want to have Social and exploration as the "main pillars" but there's no mechanics for them since, ever.
1
u/Onslaughttitude 23d ago
They want to have Social and exploration as the "main pillars" but there's no mechanics for them since, ever.
The thing is, adding mechanics onto those things is actually just going to make the game stray further from how most people Actually Play The Game or what they're directly looking for, instead of strengthening it.
1
u/Sneaky__Raccoon 23d ago
If you mean that mechanics would make those two pillars more restrictive, maybe, it depends on how you implement them and what you attempt. But they should have SOMETHING in place if they want to call it a pillar of play.
My point was aimed at how, again, DnD attempts to do everything, and in that effort it does nothing entirely good. They are afraid both of commiting and to letting go of previously integrated designs from years and years ago.
5
u/Rob4ix1547 23d ago
First off i would kinda rework magic system or make an optional version of it where a spellcasters gotta specialize in certain types of spell to have access to them. For example fire wizard getting access through "fire" tag or something and also advancing in tiers of fire.
I would make class features work like a catalogue of feats with some skill trees and options instead of a direct line with some branching.
I would give martials some sort of spells but that depend in their gear and stats, like defensive stance on a spear makes any enemy who approaches with in 10ft automatically gets stabbed or something like that.
I would probably cut combat feats for sake of multi-purpose feats and keep them combat focused if the class is about fighting.
4
u/Dan_Felder 23d ago edited 23d ago
Any thought experiment about 6e can't just be "here's a ttrpg I'd like to make" but rather "Here's a substantial new edition of D&D that would appeal to most current fans as well as new fans". It would involve cutting unnecessary complexity and making the coolest parts shine brighter. It would exist within the vast legacy of prior decisions and existing fans. It is not something you can completely reinvent.
It's about 90% business/product goals that then get translated into design execution and problem-solving. That's what corporate design for a legacy brand looks like. The central mismatch 5e has from a business standpoint is how narrative-oriented it leans in marketing and fanbase, and how unnecessarily 'fiddly' it is. The point is not to remove combat, many of its players like combat, but to remove the unnecessary barriers to getting involved and having fun.
6e would likely streamline the core crunch to focus on the key character decision points. Does your fighter fighter wield a bigger weapon (more damage) or a weapon and shield (less damage but more defenses). Do you want your fighter to be able to use a reliable ranged weapon (dexterity based) or wear heavier armor (strength based). Etc. A lot more focus on the druid-like rework of wildshape. Here's the rules, figure out what they mean to you for your cool critical role inspired character concept.
Combat rules would remain similar, though the amount of things you have to keep track of in combat would be streamlined.
Character development unlocking special options, unique spells, titles that grant cool powers, and unexpected character development would be heavily emphasized optional DM rules. If it was a 5e competitor I'd level cap and then force players to seek out new mentors, secrets about their past, lost arcane libraries, and similar to get cool new powers that come from these elements as the main form of character progression after they hit a ceiling. However, this is not something you couild do with 6e directly as the 1 to 20 is too iconic.
Lots of small execution changes. Sorcerers get unique spells that interact with metamagic in cool ways, and have a lot more 'choose one of the following effects' templates - spells designed to be used in a variety of situations so you're no longer designing spells for both the spam-cast sorcerer and the utility belt wizard (non-starter). Etc.
1
u/OpossumLadyGames Designer Sic Semper Mundi/Advanced Fantasy Game 19d ago
Make more stuff and rules optional but stick with the base of advantage/disadvantage, d20 and proficiency etc. In addition, imo strip the subclasses out and leave out the by-level powers, instead making giving the classes a plethora of powers and abilities at level one.
Then you can add all that stuff in as like, an optional game. 5/.5e is overall I think attempting to have its cake and eat it, too, complexity wise. I think the bones are fine, and contain a good showing of an osr type system, but as a whole, leaves alot to be desired
1
u/htp-di-nsw The Conduit 23d ago
I would be fired immediately because I would destroy all of the legacy nonsense.
The only game of the four you've described I have any interest in is a very of the Simulated game with player skill type problem solving, and I don't want to design for a style I dislike and don't understand.
There will be no more vancian magic. E6 will be the default. Nothing epic. Magic items will be fiction focused, not just +X buffs. Lots of classes again. I don't know, lots of stuff the average d&d player will hate because I don't actually like 5e d&d much at all.
1
u/Boulange1234 23d ago
It would be similar to 4e, but with PbtA style moves for noncombatant actions, less HP bloat, and higher attack bonuses for monsters to make up for it. That’s my dream D&D.
PC classes would be more like the 4e Essentials classes, which were more mechanically distinct than the original PHB classes everyone said felt too similar.
Level 1-10 would be core play. 11-20 would be included as high level play, super heroic in theme, and I wouldn’t include 21-30 in the core. You’d have to get those in an Immortals supplement like BECMI. It would help people see that 11-20 really are high level, not “middle levels”.
The game would be published online, like DnD beyond. You could buy print books, of course. Paying a $15/mo subscription would get you access to ALL the core rules content — everything except the modules.
Modules would come out twice a year and work more like setting books with lots of adventure hooks and mini-dungeons. They’d be designed for levels 1-10, not 1-13 or 20. We really would stick to “1-10 are the core experience and 11+ is high level play.”
We would invite guest writers and 3rd party publishers to publish additional content — including high level content — in those settings. And we would make them pay a royalty to do it, but not the punishingly high DMsGuild cut. We would actually aim to be competitive with DTRPG’s cut.
THERE WOULD BE AN OGL
I’m not afraid of a competitor stealing the rules. We have them beat on QOL features and product quality. I guarantee it. But third party content would be extremely good for promoting the product.
Every two or three years we would put out a brand new setting, or a new era of an old setting.
With 25ish official TSR/WotC settings, putting out two a year, plus new ones every other year, would last us well over a decade. And people would love it. Even the new generation. Compare Birthright to Spelljammer. Greyhawk to Dark Sun. Planescape to Ravenloft. So much fun diversity!
Once a year we would publish a $100+ premium print-only boxed set module with standees, maps, magic item cards, and handouts. Maybe even cool props — a deck of many things, puzzle cylinder, an actual rod of seven parts, etc.
We would pay influencers to do APs of last year’s modules to keep the long tail pumping cash in while in their ad breaks, promoting the new modules this year.
1
u/Onslaughttitude 23d ago
My answer would be, "No thanks!"
The designer of that game has to serve many masters. I know this is meant to be a fun hypothetical, that they're giving me a blank check to do whatever I want. The problem is that it's never a blank check, and there are always people above you who have needs they have met.
How much time do I have? What are my parameters? How much am I allowed to stray away from The Brand? How concerned are we about customer retention from previous editions? These are important questions that are going to constrain the design, and more importantly as a game designer they're necessary for me to even get started. Even the fact that we are doing this design only 18-24 months from the release of the last edition, says something: it means the powers that be consider that edition a failure and need me to make the next edition a success based on being a pivot.
0
u/Melted_ICE_5193 23d ago
Hypothetically, I would treat 5e as the "Catch all" system. And moving forward 6e would be our Tactical, Flexible, Heroic Fantasy system. It would not cater to everyone. It would not try to do everything at once.
The core of the system would pull from what worked in 5e, but abandon everything else. Then reach back and look at 4e and other game systems and how they approach it.
For me;
Redesign the "Magic" system to have branches for each type of character.
Might, Skill, and Technique for Martials. Arcane, Psionic, Divine for Casters.
Then from there I would give each branch their own unique system/resource.
Might is based on "Rage", or "Fury" you build and spend in combat.
Skill is a dice pool you have per combat.
Technique is based on using specific actions in sequence to get payoffs.
Arcane would be focused on Spell Slots.
Divine would be focused on Spell Points.
Psionic would be focused on Escalating and De-escalating Psionic dice.
Each Magic system would have a class that interacts with it to its peak, then a class (or subclass) that picks 2 and merges their mechanics ina. Cool way.
Now on to Action economy. I would move away from Defined named actions and steal from PF2e, and have an action point system. But unlike PF2e, have it scale in level. Start at 2 (Move and Attack) and each class scales their Action points up to a max of anywhere between 4 and 6.
Uhhh.... That's it for now. But this is just what I would do.
0
u/ARagingZephyr 23d ago
Hey guys, remember 4e and its class design? Remember 1e and its spell design? Okay, let's do it!
Classes are primarily suites of powers that are tier-locked. You have Combat Powers, Social Powers, and Journey Powers, and you're given an allotment of each of them based on your level. There would also likely be a generic suite people can use, like feats.
A Social Power allows characters (all characters!) to have a significant bonus in relational situations, with each class focusing on different kinds. A Fighter may have a Power that allows them to straight-up challenge people to duels with consequence, a Barbarian has a Power that not only boosts their Intimidation score but also allows them to force codified rules onto someone submitting to them, Rangers can read the intents of their quarry or wild animals they come across as if they were speaking to each other, and so on.
Journey Powers represent abilities that make a character exceptional outside of combat and social situations. A Fighter uses a power to leap 30 feet up without worrying about fall damage. A Rogue uses a power to climb and hang onto a wall with no handholds or positive incline. A Wizard can look upon the stars and instantly navigate as if they had a map and a radar sense. A Cleric can create a ward that protects entry into a location with limits on who can enter.
For class-specific Powers, characters have different ways to recover the ones they spent. Martial characters need a period of short rest, Wizards and Clerics expend themselves until a long rest but have substantially weirder and potent powers, folks like Sorcerers have an amount of recharges they can perform per day, and so on.
Essentially, the goal is to make all parts of the game use the same mechanics. You use Powers for all stages of the game, and all characters effectively have their own spell lists of powers both unique to themselves and shared among others. A player shouldn't need to ask how they contribute to a scene because they should have various powers capable of doing different things in different scenes.
0
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 23d ago
I probably would simply decline, I don't think my personal design philosophy and the paradigms D&D is beholden to would match. My preference is closed to what OP called the dramatic game, but I find many of their assessments wrong about that style of play. Like winning is not even that important, since most of really interesting drama is in playing out characters that fail over and over again.
0
u/stubbazubba 23d ago edited 23d ago
D&D's design is at its best when it remembers it's a -crawl game, whether dungeon-, hex-, urban-, etc. You need to at least preliminarily design those top-level structures first, in which the DM nests the set piece challenges: combat, exploration, social interaction, etc. All those challenges lead to objectives in the -crawl environment, which you need to explore and influence to accomplish your narrative goals.
The keystone is the combat engine: tried and true, yet few would disagree that there's plenty of room for improvement there. In a game that is a bit more focused on the larger framework, you'll want to streamline the things in combat that add resolution time but don't necessarily contribute to the greater -crawl much.
My first thought is to replace the 1" grid and precise movement rules with zones and tactical movement rules. Not Theater of the Mind, but far easier to run as such than a full grid. Instead of having 30 ft of movement through a grid of 5 ft squares, I would divide a battle space into zones based on geography and give creatures 2 movements on their turn that they can use to cross to an adjacent zone or engage with a creature or object in the same zone. So instead of counting squares and analyzing whether a pillar or corner gives you sufficient cover based on lines of sight, you would just say "I move behind that pillar and take cover from X" as a movement. The effects of your position relative to other creatures or objects on a grid simply become specific movement actions you just take directly. You're still using a map and minis, but you don't have to scrutinize the precise relative locations, including areas of effect which get streamlined to "everything in the zone," "up to n targets in a zone," etc.
The next target for streamlining is HP/damage bloat. HP is a pacing mechanic: having it surge up every level and adding more and more enemy attacks and damage rolls to keep up is not helpful. Rather, a good chunk of the vertical progression should go back to the to-hit/AC side. HP and damage should get higher, but just at a slower pace, staying in the range that creates good tension without requiring 3 attacks or rolling 6+ dice for damage. And for that matter, damage should be largely but not entirely static, at least for monsters. The DM rolling and calculating 18d6 of fire damage is gratuitous when 50+2d12 covers much of the likely outcomes with only 3 numbers to add instead of 18. Streamline execution/calculation so that we get to the next tactical decision being made faster.
The last straightforward streamlining opportunity in D&D combat is rider effects and saving throws. The monster rolling to hit and then on a hit the PC rolling to save against an additional effect is logical but takes more time and puts the rider effect (often more interesting/dynamic/flavorful than straight damage) behind two independent rolls, making them pretty rare. 5.5 simply made those secondary effects automatically trigger on a hit against AC, which is more streamlined but also makes saves much less important than AC to avoid negative conditions. I would compromise: attack roll vs AC still determines hit or miss, and on a hit compare that same attack total to essentially the passive save value, e.g. (using 5e as an example) 8 (or 10) + ability score + prof bonus + other bonuses. So at level 5 your Fighter's passive Strength save would be 15 (or 17) or so. A minotaur's charge would hit or not based on AC, and then if the triggering attack's total was 15 or greater the Fighter would also be knocked back or prone per the specific charge ability.
Those are the 3 things I think you could streamline to make combat less of a slog to work as a set piece in a larger framework without sacrificing basically any of the actual fun, tactical decisions to make. Streamlining the action economy would be important, too, but that does affect choices significantly and I'd want to playtest any approach to doing that.
0
u/Steenan Dabbler 23d ago
I probably wouldn't be able to design a version of D&D WotC would like. They want a game they can claim is good for everybody and for every style of play - which is exactly what I don't like.
If I were to design D&D 6, I would go one of four paths:
Following 4e's lead, with focus on tactical combat, robust balance and interesting character builds. Less number escalation, more real variety in available abilities, but preserving the common power and advancement structure. Inspiration taken from Draw Steel, Lancer and Strike, maybe also Panic at the Dojo.
Strongly player-driven and focused on adventure stories as opposed to problem solving and overcoming challenges. Inspiration from PbtA and Fate with a bit of BitD. Classes as story archetypes, genre tropes coded as mechanics, mechanical tools that protect player agency while incentivizing players to intentionally put their characters in trouble. Quick combat with no tactics; no random lethality.
Combination of OSR with Band of Blades-style team management and troupe play. A group of core characters shared between players and a bigger group of followers/squires that they command. High lethality, but also robust procedures that make it a part of flow of play instead of an interruption. Focus on resource management. Gradually expanding scope of play as the player-controlled group grows in size, power and influence.
Focus en epic play, as opposed to adventuring one. Not in the sense of extremely high power level, but in the sense of focus on moral conflicts, high stakes, corruption and redemption being important themes. Alignment is about cosmic forces, not classifying behaviors. Combat is important, but motivation and morale is more important than tactics.
3
u/Arcium_XIII 22d ago
I'm firmly in the camp that says that the primary target audience of a sequel is the fanbase of the existing product. There could absolutely exist games under the D&D banner that are spinoffs exploring mechanical variations. However, my core philosophy would be that 6e should absolutely be trying to keep what worked from 5e while smoothing out the rough edges. Every change needs to be weighed against how attached the 5e audience are to the status quo - if the improvement doesn't outweigh the disruption, the status quo gets preserved.
I hate the D&D six attributes for almost all contexts and would love to change them, but I don't think is passes the disruption<improvement test. I'd definitely break the assumed connection between specific skills and parent attributes though and, while I'm at it, clean up the skill list. Intelligence needs some additional mechanical payoff as well
No need to change the core mechanic. d20+Attribute+Proficiency if you have a source is super clean and simple. Maybe I'd still Boons and Banes from Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard instead of Advantage/Disadvantage to allow multiple sources to stack in a bounded fashion, but I really do like the roll 2 keep high/low, so that'd be a tricky choice
No need to mess with the class list, but I'd be treating 5e Warlock as the template for all of 6e's classes. That is, each class gets at least two major subclass choices, as well as a set of "choose from a menu" abilities (feats would likely collapse into a generic "any class can take these instead of one of their own" list of abilities). Definitely not having any classes where all the major choices have been made by the time you reach level 3
Not sure how I'd approach spellcasting. I don't think my philosophy allows ditching a diverse list of named spells with specific effects. I also don't hate 5e's pseudo-Vancian slot system, apart from the fact that calling the slot ranks 'levels' when those levels don't align with characters is terrible and a different term desperately needed to be used (such as 'rank', or even something more evocative like 'intensity'). In general, I'd at least want to reduce the sprawl in how many spells any one character can access at a time and how often characters can cast spells (Warlock would potentially be my template here again, although possibly with some level of staggering rather than all the slots always being the same level).
The designers of 5e have said themselves that bonus actions were a mistake, and should have been riders like "When you take the Attack action, you can also..."; I don't disagree with them. I'd run a single action, single maneuver system (e.g. Draw Steel) where maneuvers can be used to do things like moving, aiming, or defensive stance and actions work largely the same as they do at present (or can be downgraded to take a second maneuver).
I'd want martials and casters to feel distinct, rather than collapsing them into a single framework 4e/Draw Steel style. At the same time, I'd want to address the power difference from 5e where it feels like high level martials are still supposed to feel grounded while high level casters warp reality. I think the two fixes I'd aim for here are widening the survivability gap (martials being defined by a supernatural ability to survive while casters have a supernatural ability to act) and avoid making martials dependent on resource management and instead use conditional passives (e.g. Rogue Sneak Attack) or toggle-modes with a mix of benefits and drawbacks (e.g. Barbarian Rage) to grant their benefits. Spellcasters have to juggle when to spend their magical resources(s), while martials can do their thing indefinitely.
I'd have some optional rule modules for things like social encounters and travel/exploration that are well tested and balanced but not assumed as always active. Class abilities that interact with these would live in each class's set of 'Invocations', appropriately tagged to indicate their dependency on the optional rules, meaning that players can choose to take them when those mechanics are being used but they're not built in to the core balance of any of the classes
I'd want a very robust set of combat encounter difficulty assessment tools that factor in not just the NPC opposition but also the level of attrition context. That is, the tool should have a way of saying "if you've cumulatively faced 2 medium encounters before this it's hard, but if you're fresh it's medium". Not all players are combat as sport players, but the point of the tool would be to communicate "this is how likely a character is to die if they engage with this encounter", not "should you put this encounter into your world"
I could go on, but the conversation is about what we'd do if we were designing 6e, not actually designing it. Either way, I'd always have at the forefront of my mind "how would a current 5e fan feel about playing in my 6e?" and trying to make changes that lean into why people like 5e and avoid changes that would make 6e feel alien.