Mearls: The core of D&D

[Dannyalcatraz]

...So neither of these exist...except for where they exist?

The point being, they went from being damn near ubiquitous in earlier editions to being mere footnotes in the current one.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

The point being, they went from being damn near ubiquitous in earlier editions to being mere footnotes in the current one.

One of the hardest things in message board conversations seems to be matters of degree.

Proving "it exists" is easy...comparing how much it is present requires judgment and, moreso, volumes of information that are either too unwieldy or too much effort to make a simple point.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If Mearls is looking for 'common ground' to to unify the editions, he is going to fail. Sure, he could try but the real question is not one of 'Could we?'. The real question is 'Should we?' and therein lies the rub. People have stayed with their favorite edition for a reason and that being principally it 'works for them' and it is how they quantify 'what is D&D' to them.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but have a slightly different conclusion.

I don't particularly care for all that much in 4Ed, but I do think it got some things dead on correct. 3.X remains my D&D of choice.

But while I may not agree with Mearls' or RC's or diaglo's vision of what makes D&D D&D, I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. IOW, while I'm absolutely positive that there is no Grand Unified D&D possible, I don't think the search for such is a bad idea. If nothing else, such introspection will help the designers figure out what it is that the most players care about the most deeply.

So, while a kum bah yah moment is highly unlikely, we may be able to reach a Kissengerian point in game design where everybody is equally unhappy enough with the results to be equally satisfied...with the Edition Wars quieting down to the odd grumblefest.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think your second paragraph is exactly what I was trying to do, namely tease out some of the underlying processes in a complicated system...

Oh, and you were doing a good job of it, too. I was basically just coming in and saying that I think the teasing out is a worthwhile activity, but that I disagree with the likelihood of the particular emergent properties you were suggesting. Then rather than writing a huge post on what I thought it would be, acknowledging that is difficult to say.

That is, I was registering disagreement but copping out on my answer.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There is no single perfect version of D&D. There are some versions that will sell better than others--maybe even some that are a bit more imperfect than what could be done, but are more profitable.

Microsoft 7 ain't the best possible operating system. But it ain't the worst, either, by a long shot. And it is easy to envision ways that it could be worse than it is, but still sell.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

antithesis

I had an Aunt Ithesis. We didn't get along very well.

 

[Ainamacar]

Oh, and you were doing a good job of it, too. I was basically just coming in and saying that I think the teasing out is a worthwhile activity, but that I disagree with the likelihood of the particular emergent properties you were suggesting. Then rather than writing a huge post on what I thought it would be, acknowledging that is difficult to say.

That is, I was registering disagreement but copping out on my answer.

Fair enough! In the meantime, I'll just have to stand by my example.

Besides...<skims entire Internet>...sometimes copping out is the wiser choice. You never know who might be Crazy.

 

[pemerton]

Using the tables results both in potential magic, and potential problems.

Sure. This doesn't prove, though, that getting a +1 sword or quiver of +1 arrows is a semi-major event. I don't even think it provides any evidence in favour of that claim - which was the claim I was responding to in my first post about magic items in classic D&D.

None of that ever seemed to be the point.

<snip>

Agreed, but that does nothing to change the point.

Well, my point was pretty simple, namely, that finding a +1 dagger or +1 arrows, even in classic D&D, was in my experience not generally a semi-major event. So it's quite relevant to my point to indicate that finding a flametongue is different - different from finding a +1 weapon, and different in classic D&D from in 4e.

I already assumed, I'd even say "knew", that your experiences continue to be the same.

I've never said that my experiences with classic D&D and 4e were, overall or even on the whole or to a significant extent the same.

They're very different games. As I explained in the post to which you replied, magic items play quite a different role in each edition, for example, and a flametongue in classic is almost guaranteed to be more interesting than a flaming weapon in 4e, because of the very different contributions to PC abilities and flavour made by items in each edition.

But one respect in which they don't particularly differ, in my experience, is that for mid-to-high level PCs discovering a +1 dagger or sword is not terribly exciting.

People have stayed with their favorite edition for a reason and that being principally it 'works for them' and it is how they quantify 'what is D&D' to them.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but the reason I play 4e is because it gives a fantasy RPG experience that is quite different from what I think of as "classic D&D".

Or to put it another way, I'm not driven by some emotional attachment to D&D, or to my preferred edition. I'm looking for a system that will give my group the play experience we want. 4e delivers (despite - in fact, in part because, its items tend to be under- rather than overwhelming!).

 

[pemerton]

Well, it scales almost linearly: 1 hit point per level per day.

Not in Basic/Expert or AD&D. In those systems it's one or two hp per day (with a CON bonus per week, I think, in AD&D).

If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled. Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster. This would parallel the existing assumption that the rate of natural healing depends on the level of the caster (a seriously wounded 4th level fighter and a seriously wounded 12th level fighter close their wounds at the same natural rate). Some changes might be required regarding the power and availablity of such spells and to the balance expectations of your game world, but if your principle problem is only that you don't think it fair that a cure light wounds heals most ills for a low level character but literally only light wounds for a high level one that change can be easily made.

Easiness is, to a signficant extent, in the eye of the beholder. I would regard a solution to healing magic that requires rewriting and rebalancing the core ability of the cleric class - namely, magical healing - as not all that easy.

Yep. Then once you've got your basic math for that mechanic, abstract it a bit, and smooth of the rough edges for handling time. You'll end up with something very much like healing surges.

I like the way you think!

Healing surges go way way too far the other way, essentially stating that not only is some of the damage of hit points abstract, but that it all is. The Healing surge mechanic gives a character such extraordinary powers of recovery that we must assume that they are never actually injured.

Are you referring to healing surges as a mechanism for regulating hit point regain from spells etc, heaing surges as a limit on the amount of healing that my be received in a given time period, or the extended-restr-recovery aspect of healing surges?

Each of these is a distinct feature of the mechanic, and only the last seems to me clearly vulnerable to your criticism. (And it's also the part of the system that is trivially easy to change - just reduce the healilg surge recovery rate, to reflect realism and/or adventure pacing as suits your group.)