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

[Windjammer]

Sure, that particular interpretation of one quote is far more relevant than the advice, in the DMG, written by James Wyatt, about the core modes of D&D being exploration, conversation and encounters.

Not to side track the conversation, but before you submit things from the 4E DMG Wyatt copied from the earlier Dungeon Mastering for Dummies (written by Baker and Slavicsek for D&D v.3.5), I'd give priority to things Wyatt specifically wrote for 4E.

Wilderness exploration itself is delegated to a sample skill challenge (based on Endurance and Nature), half a page in the 4E DMG. Contrast the pages upon pages in the 3.x DMG on the diverse natural environments and hazards. That's why the Dummies advice copied into the 4E DMG comes across as a bit different.

Mind you, I'm personally very happy with 4E's way of giving 99% of all mechanical support to combat, and handwaive the rest. Freeform roleplay interlaced with occasional skill checks is all I ever needed for that. I only wish ritual magic was a bit more worked out to aid the non-combat parts of the game, but that's about it.

 

[billd91]

Most interesting to me was the suggestion that exploration, roleplay, and combat should all have dials for complexity--so that each group could dial up or down to suit their game.

I like that idea very much. I think it's been something D&D has been needing since it started becoming more tactical-focused in combat with PO: Combat and Tactics.

 

[DaveMage]

lol, I honestly don't know what direction he's going with this.

That seems to sum up D&D overall the last four years pretty well.

Seems as if it's one experiement after another. (Gleemax, 4E, Essentials, Board Games, DDI, VTT, etc.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like that idea very much. I think it's been something D&D has been needing since it started becoming more tactical-focused in combat with PO: Combat and Tactics.

We can make educated guess on how they might dial combat. We've seen it before. And certainly we can extrapolate dialing up exploration a bit, simply comparing Basic/4E with other versions. But what is the Combat and Tactics equivalent for exploratoin? Survival guide? And what, pray tell, is the equivalent for roleplay--short some kind of Forge-style mechanics?

 

[SabreCat]

I'm really intrigued by this, especially the "dials" as mentioned above.

My one worry is his casual relegation of roleplaying as being outside the rules, especially when as examples he lists things that I would love to see mechanical structure for (alliances, castle-building, all that), even if at a broad "set stakes and roll" framework. Somebody needs to get the man into a few games of something like Burning Wheel to show off how intensely cool the "roleplaying" sector can get when supplied with a strong mechanical underpinning.

But if he really considered RP to be outside the rules, why would he include it as one of the things that can be dialed up and down in complexity? Guess I'll have to wait and see.

 

[billd91]

[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.

I disagree. I think his analysis here is spot on. There's a reason combat rules have always been a large portion of the actual rules engine of D&D (excluding mini-rules like individual spells that otherwise take up a lot of print space). And it's not because the game is fundamentally about killing things [and taking their stuff]. It's because it's nature - life and death struggle - fairly demands the most treatment to keep it fair and organized. That has nothing to do with expecting a DM to have an adversarial relationship with the players in general.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree. I think his analysis here is spot on. There's a reason combat rules have always been a large portion of the actual rules engine of D&D (excluding mini-rules like individual spells that otherwise take up a lot of print space). And it's not because the game is fundamentally about killing things [and taking their stuff]. It's because it's nature - life and death struggle - fairly demands the most treatment to keep it fair and organized. That has nothing to do with expecting a DM to have an adversarial relationship with the players in general.

With regard to 3E and later rule treatments it has everything to do with it.

As far as always being a large portion of the rules goes, it doesn't fit with some D&D games. I can run Moldvay basic and keep it fair and organized with only a couple pages of rules for combat.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm really intrigued by this, especially the "dials" as mentioned above.

My one worry is his casual relegation of roleplaying as being outside the rules, especially when as examples he lists things that I would love to see mechanical structure for (alliances, castle-building, all that), even if at a broad "set stakes and roll" framework. Somebody needs to get the man into a few games of something like Burning Wheel to show off how intensely cool the "roleplaying" sector can get when supplied with a strong mechanical underpinning.

But if he really considered RP to be outside the rules, why would he include it as one of the things that can be dialed up and down in complexity? Guess I'll have to wait and see.

He said in part outside the rules, and I fully agree with that. I can't imagine a game that codified RPing as a self-contained, fully defined subgame in the way 4E codified combat. Or, well, I can, but I wouldn't want to play that game.

Obviously we have rules that relate to RP, and we have had in all editions of the game. The mere existence of a Charisma stat is a rule relating to RP.

 

[SabreCat]

It's because it's nature - life and death struggle - fairly demands the most treatment to keep it fair and organized.

This is often said, but doesn't hold true. There are games where combat is treated no differently from any other form of inter-character conflict or moment of narrative uncertainty, and they're just fine on the fair-and-organized front.

D&D is very much about grand fantastical battles--clashing swords, fireballs ripping across the battlefield, slaying dragons. When you open the rulebook, you can tell this by the amount of time, care, and detail given to these battles. During the game, you can tell by how closely we zoom in on the action, going down to blow-by-blow description, rolling dice and engaging the mechanics repeatedly and rapidly. It's not the only thing the game's about, but the way the system is built does put big blinking signs on that part of it saying "here's where the action is."

 

[SabreCat]

He said in part outside the rules, and I fully agree with that. I can't imagine a game that codified RPing as a self-contained, fully defined subgame in the way 4E codified combat. Or, well, I can, but I wouldn't want to play that game.

That's a fair correction--I was probably overreacting to that, then.

I for one would love to see at least some parts of RP codified as self-contained, fully defined subgames (a "social combat" system like BW's Duel of Wits, for example). And that's the exciting part of the dials/axes idea: can D&D be a game where both of these things are options that each game table can choose from? Or that vary from scene to scene, session to session, depending on the group's interests or needs for the encounters in question? Is there a way to make it work so that both you and I could play in the same game of D&D and enjoy it?