Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Mark CMG]

[MENTION=5](. . .) over the course of his career (. . .)

I love your underlying idea for many reasons but this one quoted phrase causes me to dispute tying passive learning to a system that increases the bonus level-upon-level. For my own part, I have worked with a system that allows players to justify increasing their bonuses by substantiating increases (even mid-level) based on actual situational factors (and there are limits to just how much any person can learn in any given period, passively or actively).


For instance, if much of what gets accomplished between level four and five takes place in or on the ocean, a player could certainly justify that they gained some skill in swimming, even if the actual time at the table doesn't specifically involve the character actively trying to learn to swim better.


To use an example similar to your own, if the characters are in the city much of the time between levels two and four, and for expeiancy's sake we choose to allow equipment purchased from the list between sessions, certainly a player would have cause to say their character has become more streetwise and familiar with the ins and outs of purchasing from merchants, perhaps even extending that reach toward other social skills.


In this manner, passive learning in-game becomes actively implemented, meta-game-wise, for specifc circumstances that are clearly justifiable, IMO.

 

[Balesir]

Ravenloft, for instance, would theoretically be balanced around Core + Ravenloft, with sidebars talking about what's been tweaked and why.

So you have a separate game - so why not just treat it as such?

And D&D has never really been a perfectly balanced Gamist-with-a-capital-G vehicle, so I'm not sure the risk of it failing to accomplish something that it's never achieved outweighs all the good that could come from a more modular system design.

I'm not at all sure that 'perfection' is possible, in this (or most other) respect(s), but 4E D&D comes far closer to a functional Gamist game than any other system I have seen. And I have seen a lot.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC still has Rich Burlew's setting from the setting search last decade; perhaps it's time for that to see the light of day?

I don't think that'll ever be published as a pay-for-play supplement, unfortunately. It was designed in a different era for a different game under different assumptions. If we're lucky, we'll see it released online as a freebie for the next big D&D anniversary (or maybe for Eberron's 10th or something).

 

[Mark CMG]

(snippage)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. My bad for assuming and sorry if that cast your conjecture in an unfair light. It's an interesting premise and I guess we will know more eventually.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not at all sure that 'perfection' is possible, in this (or most other) respect(s), but 4E D&D comes far closer to a functional Gamist game than any other system I have seen. And I have seen a lot.

If Mearls (and, by extension, WotC) were happy with how 4E worked out, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Balesir]

If Mearls (and, by extension, WotC) were happy with how 4E worked out, this thread wouldn't exist.

I agree - but how does that relate to the previous comments? I said 4E is the best Gamist engine so far produced - I stand by that. That fact that WotC/Mike Mearls aren't satisfied with it isn't really relevant to that. I suspect that its performance as a Gamist-supporting system is not what they are dissatisfied with.

 

[Mark CMG]

If Mearls (and, by extension, WotC) were happy with how 4E worked out, this thread wouldn't exist.

A new edition probably has to be different enough from the previous edition(s) to warrant the time and money for development (more of the same and who would buy it?), which might also require that regardless of how happy the company designers are, they need to make changes. This all assumes that at higher corporate levels certain financial goals are expected/required to be met. The trick, I suppose, to this sort of edition-cycling is to prep the fanbase, warm them to your ideas, and not piss them off if it can be helped. That's why a lot of this stuff looks less like a dialog (or insight into a dialog) and more like marketing, regardless of what the case might actually be.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If Mearls (and, by extension, WotC) were happy with how 4E worked out, this thread wouldn't exist.

For better and worse, since the start of 3E, the one common denominator of WotC designs has been that someone on the design team wanted to build on what came before and solve new problems too. This necessarily means a design that spirals around the destination, even if staff isn't changing.

There might have been a touch of that in the 1E design, but it was so big on getting a hodge podge of house rules down into a single set of rules, I don't think much time was spent on solving specific problems. And 2E largely punted on the whole issue and went after setting elements.

 

[chaochou]

I thought the article was interesting enough. I like the fact he's asking questions about the need for layering - looking at stuff like that is his job, after all.

But it's very difficult, imo, to draw conclusions simply from him musing about ditching derived values from attributes and using the raw numbers. It's not like that's an innovation in game design. It would be a mechanical change for D&D, but until I see a fuller picture I can't really guess what his point is.

Still, next week he says he's talking about the role of classes. Might be some more clues there.

 

[Markn]

I really feel that Mearls' articles are leading to a new edition. If so, this could possibly be the first edition design that is open to the public and not just play testers. I am convinced that Mearls follows threads like these after each article as a litmus test for his ideas. Obviously, he has certain ideas but uses feedback to alter them when necessary and he can't just come out and say "Hey I'm creating 5e, wanna help.?". If you stop and think, this could be a landmark moment in the history of d&d and this method could go a long ways to fueling hype and excitement for the next edition since we are invested from the start.

Just my observation....