For serious. You know how, even here, when the discussion of "what is your ideal D&D movie like" comes up, and so many people are like "ok. One: don't call it D&D. Two: don't have a cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue. Three: don't have a human, elf, dwarf, and halfling" and so on? Welp. There you go. The D&D that is D&D is strange and off-putting. Now, the D&D you can make out of D&D, that can be something.
Interview with Mike Mearls
- Thread starter LostSoul
- Start date
mhensley
First Post
Yup.
Ideally, IMO 4E should have made the D&D core more generic, to improve it, rather than less. Rename cleric to priest and paladin to knight, that sort of thing - people understand what they are. No eladrin/dragonborn/tiefling bollocks as new races, but rather mythological stuff like fey and trolls (not that that would work in D&D by default, as the D&D troll is lifted straight out of three hearts and three lions, and far too savage to play).
That doesn't preclude flying the freak flag of dragonborn-like original creations in supplements, either. It just offers a good mythological fantasy baseline for those of us who don't like WOTC's style all the time.
But I get the feeling they were thinking "must be like WoW to stay current" and "need marketable and trademarkable distinct brand identity", plus their surveys of what was popular*, and that got in the way.
*: Maybe people were playing half-dragons for the stats, and tieflings because they felt special because they weren't a core race? Or maybe for the rather superb +2 int, +2 dex? Who knows. I do know that the new baseline looks like arbitrary and random, though, and though it would be fine as a specific homebrew or setting, as a baseline for all campaigns IMO it kind of stinks.
Last edited:
"Design for effect" (DFE) is the phrase that's used in wargaming/boardgaming circles for some of the stuff Mearls is talking about (e.g. picking a minimum-crunch rule mechanic which gives a 'correct' result, like Second Chance = halfling, instead of a possibly more complex rule which simulates whatever piece of the world is responsible for the result).
I'm actually sort of suprised that I haven't seen anyone throwing the DFE meme around in any of these 4e discussions.
I'm actually sort of suprised that I haven't seen anyone throwing the DFE meme around in any of these 4e discussions.
DFE appears to ignore that boardgames are at a very high level of abstraction compared to RPGs. Wargames less so, but still abstract. RPGs have to make sense in a sense of visualising what's going on in a way that neither boardgames nor wargames players really need to.
In other words, getting the right result isn't good enough in an RPG if you can't suspend disbelief for the process of getting there, whereas in a boardgame it's fine.
That's why DFE probably doesn't make as much sense for D&D as it does for M:tG. I wonder if this has been considered.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
My sisters are twins. One of the studies mathematics, the other Egytology/Philology. Twins can be very different.
It appears that is pretty popular, and I think I was thinking along that way, too. And I expected that might happen (before we saw the first excerpts and design thoughts).rounser said:
But I think generic games are not suited for a mass market. Without strong flavor, what's left on an RPG? You only have a basic rule system, and the players have to make up all the flavor on their own. But why would they do that?
You need to create an emotional appeal, and rules alone just don't do that. And without that appeal, you can target only a subset of people - those that already know what kind of flavor they like, and only want a rules system that helps them recreate that. But that's not the majority of gamers. That's not the beginning players. You don't invoke a sense of wonder in them, and they won't magically add it on their own without some kick-start help.
Last edited:
Samuel Leming
First Post
The designers of 4e certainly considered it. A large chunk of that interview was on their decision to cut out rules that were only there to support verisimilitude and role-playing.
Sam
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Are you sure that's what they say, or that's what you feel they did? Because they certainly did want to go away from some simulation aspects and henceforth "verisimilitude", but did they also want to avoid rules that just exist for role-playing?
Hmm...
Maybe you are right. Craft (Basketweaving) certainly is only usable for simulation or role-playing (or rather: to give some role-playing color to your character by mechanically representing a part of his "personality". The skill itself is not needed for actually role-playing out your character).
Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight are mechanics that are useful for conflict resolution and role-playing, and stayed.
I began to like the DFE or blackbox approach more and more during the initial reveals of 4E. It feels more goal driven and helps you achieving exactly the result you want. Using simulation feels more and more just like going a long-winded road.
As an example - A 3E character at 12th level might have several buffs (let's include magical items) active on himself, typically for the entire encounter or several hours. Effectively, the actual numbers that define this character in play are the buffed statistics, not the unbuffed. So, why not just cut the chase and create a system that automatically creates the buffed version of the character? (That's basically what Iron Heroes does).
Of course, there are some cases where the unbuffed state matters. For example during an ambush at night, or if the buffs are being dispelled.
An "effects driven" approach would be to define these stats the other way around. Dispel Magic might just cause the character to become "weakened". In an ambush situation, the attackers might automatically deal extra damage and get an attack bonus. (Or again, the victims are just weakened)
The end results will look very similar, but from a gameplay perspective, the simulation approach gives you a lot of work to arrive at your typical state, and have you reverse that work in an atypical state, while the effects driven approach gives you only work when in an atypical state.
To some degree I can understand that it doesn't feel "right" on a philosophical level (or from the verisimilitude point of view) to go this approach, but is it really worth bogging the game down for that?
The more you have to simulate, the more complex is running or playing the game. You get bogged down in details. While from an outside perspective, everything might make sense, but while playing the game, you are not immersing yourself in your character and his thoughts, you're busy doing the math for your character.
I don't feel closer to my character when I recalculate my attack bonus and damage after taking some strength damage, even though this nicely simulates how my character is losing strength. It makes sense, but do I _feel_ it while I am (re)running numbers?
People have different views on this - they value different parts of the game experience. If running numbers is required to make the game world simulation work, so be it. If you can't map every part of the game model to the game world, or vice versa, the game just doesn't feel like it's really about that fictional world.
In the end, both sides might see that if the rules don't follow their mental model, they will lose their immersion - they will be reminded that it's just a game, nothing more.
Last edited:
Goumindong
First Post
Frankly, the less DFE things are, the harder i have "visualizing" things, since i end up spending so much time working through more and more arcane rules which don't have an end result.
Its not hard to visualize "the wizard throws a fireball that explodes terribly, scorching a number of the kolbolds, one of them is burned horribly" when you throw a fireball, get a critical and hit the rest.
Similarly, for an example that came up today.
Its not hard to imagine when i tell my players that the beast has grabbed one of the K.O. members of the group and is trying to drag him down under the earth with him. One of the players ran over and grabbed him as well to keep it from happening.
Now i've got a tug of war between the player and the beast. If you can imagine what your players look like and what the creature looks like, imagining the tug of war is not difficult.
I don't actually mind the tiefling. Well, I hate the art, but a tainted race, that's something I can work with. As far as cleric and paladin go, those names have bled enough into the general culture that they're ok, and at least 4E has taken steps to alleviate the "off we go on an adventure, let's be sure to bring along a clergyman" D&Dism that is one of the game's weirder aspects.
Funny, I've never been at peace with the stock D&D troll either. I've always replaced it with one that plays off of Tolkein's version.
