Mearls: Augmenting the core

[AbdulAlhazred]

I just don't see the primary problem as being needing different levels of complexity in the GAME. Players may need it, and AD&D and 4e Essentials (to a lesser extent) pull that off. The thing is 4e is large and sprawling and there are parts of it that are just 'fiddly', and I would MUCH rather see a game that just built on the strengths of 4e and fixed those things. Combat can be quicker but still equally tactical, options can be less in number but equally significant, etc. Once you do that then the game is darn clean. You can simplify the combat rules a bit and get rid of tracking so many things, pare down the out of turn action hairball, etc, but most of it can be pretty close to what we have now and easily be 50% as complex and 2x as fast to run a fight. At that point a much wider variety of play styles are going to be automatically supported, and with a few tweaks to how powers are acquired and what they are useful for you'd be in very good shape.

 

[Stormonu]

At first, reading through the article, I don't think I understood. Seemed like Mearls was just rambling.

Now, after reading a few posts it almost sounds like the same thing that was presented back in 2E with the Player's Options books. Basically, optional rules you could use to tack-on or replace sections of the Core D&D rules.

To me however, that sort of system was a titanic flop. There never was any support for it because there was no way for the designers to know what you had implemented and to what degree.

Personally, I'd like to see a simple-yet-elegant base system for the core. Add-ons yes, that can take the game in different directions, but that have little to no impact on the basic balance of the game. Maybe have a Birthright-like add-on for ruling a kingdom, but should the characters go off on some dungeon crawl, those rules shouldn't skew things in such a way you can't run, say White Plume Mountain because the characters can draw on too many unaccounted-for abilities.

 

[howandwhy99]

I can think of 2 different methods implementing modular rule supplements.

1. Fully integrated modules built from a core game. Sort of like a basic game with a number of optional subsections for a more advanced game.

The upsides are many. Designers can create and sell many different add-ons for each subsection. Groups only purchase and use the modules they like. Modules can be customized to particular adventuring activities, they could even be designed to highlight special elements within a setting. Perhaps even new subsections could be devised?

But what I'm reading from the column is: every module must balances with every other in every possible combination. While that's a big upside it's also really scary as a downside. What happens if the very tough balancing act doesn't work.

I think the major reasoning for this is the desire for a game that caters to each individual player, while all are still in the same game. I have complex+3 combat rules, you have core simple, but we are both in the same combat at the same table. Maybe I'm reading too much customization into what he's saying though.

2. "Silo"ed mini-game modules with a connecting core game. For example, the core ability stats might balance each character within each mini-game, but the modules are not balanced across each other.

Skirmish combat would not be the same system as mass combat. The arcane magical spellcasting could be different from a divine prayer ritual system. Sailing rules and stronghold building / management could each their own thing.

The upside is still each group choosing the modules they wish to use, but this time all the players are using the same module. This still offers optional purchase and usage as well as customization. What it doesn't offer is integration between each system or differing levels of complexity for each player in the game.

The downside is more uniformity for all characters at the table within each module - but this is already the case. The upside, however, is each supplemental game is vastly easier to balance. It's simply the core stats and how they integrate into the modular mini-game designed in and of itself for fun play.

3. I know I said 2, but another leaps to mind. Perhaps some layers could be integrated and other not?

The skirmish combat system integrated with a mass combat system sort of makes sense. Plus, a stronghold building game doesn't need to include stronghold management. The second could really be another beast as running a city isn't exactly the same as building one. But having integration in certain elements like this could go a long way. Of course it has its downsides too as larger numbers of supplements increase the potential balancing act.

4. Well, I leave others to think of anymore.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I really like where Mearls is coming from.

It's like he's casting the net wide and far to capture the core elements of 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th editions with a holistic framework.

I liked 2E simplicity but plenty of those rules were really clunky. I won't go into details. It would be really nice if a coherent 4E framework underpined a streamlined 2E mini-less system (sometimes I really would like to do without the battlemat).

Also the bottom line here is that WotC can only afford to support 1 system at a time and the player base has splintered and entrenched according to the play styles each edition provides. Imo, A viable future only points to a broad house that supports all play styles to date, and allows limitless expansion. A tall order perhaps, but Mearls obviously backs his team and self - and I like that.

 

[catastrophic]

I'm wondering what this signals about the essentials style fighter, and it's success, or lack therof, because despite it being used as an example in previous colums, it seems impossible under the concept as written.
Either:

A) Everyone has to be on the same complexity tier,

or

B) Simpler characters are allowed, but just less powerful.

I can also imagine an even worse scenarion, which is

C) DMs who are fans of garbage 3e style fighters can now choose to have fighter-types be not only simplistic, but weaker than caster classes, just like in 3e-

-With the addition of other modules as options, this can even lead to-

C1) Fighters in such campaigns being saddled with other rules modules to make up the power difference, despite the balance between the modules being dubious at best and the efforts at balancing being every bit as tokenistic as other attempts to suggest that 100 0 level men-at-arms really help you fight a dragon as much as being able to cast a limited wish,

or, with the effective sidelining of other modules even when they are given lip service-

C2) A perpetuation of the game- and comunity-damaging idea that some of the human beings at your gaming table should get to do less and have less fun than other human beings, based on wether they wanted to be a cool guy with a sword, or a cool guy with a magic wand- or perhaps based on how much 'system mastery' they posess


Of course, in theory, the final version of such a product would have even bigger damage values to bring the boring fighter option into balance with the unboring other class options, but there's nothing like that stated in the actual article.

 

[catastrophic]

2) Interactions - When you add in the "Powers & Feats" module it is going to have to provide mechanical integration with other modules, like defining the need for rests. These will be deeper and fiddlier as well, think about all the issues between classic and Essentials 4e classes and MC feats and power swaps of various kinds. These things will just mushroom with the number of modules, and because each module is designed to be isolated from each other module it is difficult for them to resolve these things around specific resources or mechanics that may not even be in use. How will Rituals leverage APs when APs are an optional part of the "Advanced Combat & Tactics" module?

See, this is why i'm talking about folding and unfolding different kinds of 'Points' on that other thread, and the other issue relating to it.

The key would be to ensure that the various systems interact through a central point exchange system, and then the DM would decide which systems were used, and how points interacted and did not interact.

By doing this, and by also, for isntance, ensuring subsystems used similar mechanics and concepts, it would be viable to balance various systems for things like say, combat, grand ritual magic, and kingdom building.

So your kingdom might net you some resource points, which you could spend on up to half the cost of the grand ritual you're casting. The other half of the cost might come from drawing on your party's life force in the form of wound points(a healing surge like resource), and that will make fights harder for some time. OTOH, in another game you might just cast the ritual with a more general 'hero point' value, which would also play various other roles, while a third game might require a more detailed gathering of magical resources- but they'd still be defined as points, and plug into the system in the same way.

OTOH, if those systems interact in a messy, detail-oriented way, then the interactions just become massive and unmanageable. I can't imagine the meals additive approach being as simple to navigate as one where the various options and subsystems are more deliberatly 'baked in' and designed to interact only in clear, simple, and managable ways.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, and then Mearls says this in the article " the easy answer to the balance question would be to focus everything on one scale, with character power defined as a set value based on a character’s level. In other words, characters power never changes because of the rules modules you use.

To be blunt, this is kind of a lame solution. It puts players on a treadmill, giving them lots more choices without any payoff beyond cosmetic customization. "

It seems that they are looking beyond the 4e style of balance

Oh man, did Mearls just attack players of 4e for the style of play they like?

I'm never buying 5th edition now!

 

[Balesir]

Oh man, did Mearls just attack players of 4e for the style of play they like?

No, he didn't, but if it amuses you to think so, I won't be the one to hold you to task for it .

The issue I personally have with Mike's noodling, here, is that what he describes fits an Explorative/Simulationist game well, but fits with a Gamist game very poorly, done the way he describes it.

For an explorative game where 'discovering' the setting, the characters and the situation are the focus, more possibility, more options, more things to explore - without the real necessity of any real "balance" - is just what The Doctor ordered. For a 'gamist' experience of using your brain and imagination to use the rules systems to get cool results, however, you need to have a defined actual, well, game to play.

It's just possible that this will evolve into a set of "mini-games connected by a core system", as [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] said above - but that doesn't seem to be what Mr. Mearls is talking about.

 

[Agamon]

At first, reading through the article, I don't think I understood. Seemed like Mearls was just rambling.

Now, after reading a few posts it almost sounds like the same thing that was presented back in 2E with the Player's Options books. Basically, optional rules you could use to tack-on or replace sections of the Core D&D rules.

To me however, that sort of system was a titanic flop. There never was any support for it because there was no way for the designers to know what you had implemented and to what degree.

Personally, I'd like to see a simple-yet-elegant base system for the core. Add-ons yes, that can take the game in different directions, but that have little to no impact on the basic balance of the game. Maybe have a Birthright-like add-on for ruling a kingdom, but should the characters go off on some dungeon crawl, those rules shouldn't skew things in such a way you can't run, say White Plume Mountain because the characters can draw on too many unaccounted-for abilities.

The former is not what he was saying, it's more akin to the latter. A core base of rules with modules of rules add-ons, not build your PC peicemeal.

 

[Agamon]

No, he didn't, but if it amuses you to think so, I won't be the one to hold you to task for it .

He was trying to amuse the rest of us rather than himself, I think....