Mearls: Playing with the core (of D&D)

[Kurtomatic]

Is "exploration" just sexier and more "fantasy" than investigation?

Yes. Investigation carries a connotation of plot (specificity), whereas exploration implies more of a sandbox (generality). I'm not talking about what the words actually mean, mind you, just the baggage they carry.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Need? No. But can you? Absolutely. I've mentioned Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, which is a stellar example. (Exalted Second Edition has a Social Combat system, but it's a clumsy bolt-on by comparison.) It zooms in an argument to a combat-like level, with a sort of HP pool called the Body of Argument, and social attacks and defenses with maneuver names like Rebuttal, Incite, and Obfuscate.

I'd love a dial for D&D to add some complexity along those lines. In addition, I like FATE's compels, where you get rewarded for playing true to your character when it would be to your own detriment. Whether deservedly or not, D&D has a reputation for players playing more to character strengths that weaknesses, and adding something along those lines would help round things out.

 

[TerraDave]

Investigation, as per CoC or many other rpgs for that matter, is optional in D&D.

It is a special, goal oriented form of exploration. But exploration can have revalation, in either case.

 

[Brooding Paladin]

Some great points made here. I really hope WotC is listening to y'all as I think a better game could emerge. I caught myself thinking more along the lines of, "I'd hope they'd give more time to fluff in addition to all the crunch." Then I realized that beneath that is a line of thinking that forms up with some of the thoughts expressed here.

While it's been interesting seeing all the tactical influence play out in 4th, we've been a little lost on skill challenges and some of the RP. The mechanics are important, but as has been said, I'd like to see them defer to the spirit of the game rather than solid mathematical results in every case.

To explain more of my position, I've always thought it was odd that they claimed to want to make the game appeal to new players, but then did darn little to explain to a new player what a Bard was or why there was such a thing as a Sorcerer and how that was inherently different from a Warlock. I felt like they missed a real opportunity to guide players, old and new, in the flavor of the game they were trying to design. Maybe it goes a little too far, but in the end it feels like the game they created had no soul. Sure, robotically all the math works and efficiencies have been gained, etc. but to what end?

I guess my only contribution is that: I hope whatever 5e brings, it brings it rooted in the soul of what D&D was originally meant to be.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I'm very happy to hear Mearls talk about "opt-in complexity."

The fact that 4e really doesn't have that -- you can't opt out of tactical combats or character builds or the need to use a character sheet that looks like a bloody 1040 tax form -- is the reason I've avoided that edition like the plague.

A 5th edition that keeps all that stuff around but makes them optional from group to group, from campaign to campaign: that's how it should've been from day one.

So if this is going where I think (hope) it's going, it will vindicate at least one old adage we have in the hobby:

Watch the even-numbered Trek movies; play the odd-numbered D&D editions.

(Only, not really, since Search for Spock and 2nd edition are awesome. )

 

[nedjer]

The co-existence of combat, exploration and roleplaying is a much wider RPG or D&D church than combat alone. Hopefully we'll get the rest of the seven dwarves next week

 

[Anselyn]

I think he has the basic three core activities identified fairly well but the views expressed about combat point to the same mistakes being made over and over.

[Quote: Mearls from the article]
"Combat is the most common point where the players and DM come into conflict, so we expect rules to keep things fair. "
[end quote]

This depiction of the core activity of combat implies an automatic adversarial relationship between the DM and the players. It is precisely this type of view that leads to a draconian RAW and the lawyerese combat rules that we saw in 3E.

The assumption with these rules is that the DM is trying to kill the PC's to best of his/her ability and these rules somehow turn this attempt at premeditated murder into fair contest.

Utter rubbish.

As long as the rules for combat continue to be designed for the DM vs player mentality, D&D will continue along its board/wargame path.

OK. I basically agree with you guys - but I'd note that from the previous article that a core element is : "Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time."

So, it's likely that a power struggle has to be part of game play. This is between characters and monsters but has to be mediated by the interaction between players and GM. I think Mearls just overstated the fact that at this point there needs to be detailed agreement on what the rules are. So, yes lawyerese is one way to go here.

However, the root of the problem is that combat is tied to a fundamental issue of power not one of story.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm loving this "complexity dial" action - this is what I've been suggesting and wanting to design for a couple years now, but haven't had the chance to really get into it. But as Aeolius said, I'd like to see three general tiers of complexity:

Basic D&D: This is the very simple core game, with races and classes determining all capacities. So there probably wouldn't be feats, skills, or powers in the 4E sense of things, just what your race and class offer as features. There would be some choice in character design, but not a huge amount - you'd pick your race and class, maybe a build, weapons, spells, etc. The game would run very quickly; an average combat would take 15-20 minutes.

Advanced D&D: This would be the "recommended" set of modular options (see below) - of a similar complexity level to 3E or 4E. Combat would be tactical, the average being about an hour.

Modular Options, aka "The Toolbox": This would be many different optional rules that can be added to the Basic or Advanced games. This could be anything from skill challenges to aspects to virtues and flaws to detailed skills, etc.

That's how I'd do it, at least.

 

[Klaus]

I'm very happy to hear Mearls talk about "opt-in complexity."

The fact that 4e really doesn't have that -- you can't opt out of tactical combats or character builds or the need to use a character sheet that looks like a bloody 1040 tax form -- is the reason I've avoided that edition like the plague.

A 5th edition that keeps all that stuff around but makes them optional from group to group, from campaign to campaign: that's how it should've been from day one.

So if this is going where I think (hope) it's going, it will vindicate at least one old adage we have in the hobby:

Watch the even-numbered Trek movies; play the odd-numbered D&D editions.

(Only, not really, since Search for Spock and 2nd edition are awesome. )

How is 4e any more complex than 3e? Specially now, with Essentials classes, character creation is very fast. By using mostly minion monsters, you can "dial down" combat and intead invest more game time into exploration and roleplaying.

 

[Griego]

I'm very happy to hear Mearls talk about "opt-in complexity."

The fact that 4e really doesn't have that -- you can't opt out of tactical combats or character builds or the need to use a character sheet that looks like a bloody 1040 tax form -- is the reason I've avoided that edition like the plague.

A 5th edition that keeps all that stuff around but makes them optional from group to group, from campaign to campaign: that's how it should've been from day one.

So if this is going where I think (hope) it's going, it will vindicate at least one old adage we have in the hobby:

Watch the even-numbered Trek movies; play the odd-numbered D&D editions.

(Only, not really, since Search for Spock and 2nd edition are awesome. )

No, no, you're getting it all wrong--4e is dumbed down, aimed at the masses of WoW players. It's not complex in the least.