Mearls: Augmenting the core

[TwoSix]

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

Precisely. My attempts to amuse myself are not made in a public forum, as the authorities have made clear to me that such attempts are not acceptable.

 

[Anselyn]

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.

I think there's clearly several gamist forms out there.

a) I use the rules of this RPG as a set of abilities of my character to meet the challenges of the game world.
[We might call this a board game approach]

b) I use the rules of the game on each other to change the abilities of my character amd then meet the challenges of the world. The intra-rule gamism is prioritised.
[We might, I guess, call this an "expert play" gamist approach]

a) is possible with any set of rules agreed for the game you're playing.
b) is tricky if the rules are a variable set of rules.

Personally, I find b) (D&D as MtG), not to my taste but also something that is a barrier to new and causal players, who might excel at a) once given the tools.

Summary: You can still have gamist D&D without focusing of expert play.

 

[Anselyn]

Double post

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Sure, but your last point is the biggie. You often use examples of kingdom building and ritual use and such, which are a bit 'fuzzy' and might kind of fit in, but even then there are issues. Rituals require skills for instance. If you use them then you have to use skills. If skills are optional for rituals then the rituals all have to be designed in such a way as to work without skills, making skills not worth much. Alternatively each ritual has to specify alternative rules that work with or without skills. Worse, if the skills system is added after the ritual system then the skills system has to go in and modify rituals itself, all material that is worthless to someone not using rituals. Beyond that "Social Combat" CERTAINLY rests on skills (or needs to be basically 2 separate systems) so you have to 'stack' to get it. Given that most every table will want to use SOMETHING that skills are directly relevant for we've basically created a practical requirement that the skills module be used, so it might as well be core. You can repeat this argument with each major subsystem.

The problem with a single 'point pool' is that it will have to pit combat options vs non-combat options. We already know where that leads. Those streams really should not cross unless they have to. It might work OK, but I think it will create some funny meta-game issues for players.

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 @howandwhy99 said above - but that doesn't seem to be what Mr. Mearls is talking about.

Personally I'm not bothered by that. Let exploration be a narrative type activity and combat be a more gamist kind of activity. In fact that is already largely true with 4e as it is. It may be that some players are going to not like some of those areas of the game that don't match up too well with their style, but players already have diverse interests and I'm not sure that this really creates any new problems. An 'explorer' player has to deal with the fact that there will be combats and a 'slayer' player has to deal with the fact that combat isn't the whole game.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Here's what I think: I think part of what's being done here is an attempt to offer a "third way" to people who want to play older editions of D&D. Now, I'd like to ask that we don't get off on a tangent where someone argues that people who play older editions are financially insignificant, that you can count the numbers of AD&D fans on one hand, etc. because we're talking about pen and paper RPGs. Every penny counts in a down hobby in a down economy. WIZARDS OF THE COAST can't not notice what OSRIC and PATHFINDER are taking from them - so even if they'd just pull in a few extra hundred or thousand bucks here and there, it's a win for them.

So what I see here is them saying "Okay this new system allows all you guys who want your old-school AD&D dungeon crawls into the same big tent with people who want near EXALTED levels of gaming provided by 4e and onward, and that way everybody's happy because everybody can play the game called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and nobody has to go track down some weird alternative or dig up moldy old books that cost an arm and a leg! Win-win!"

I see this failing miserably. The horse has already left the barn, that ship has sailed, that noun has verbed. But what else can they do? Again, in a down economy, in a down hobby, even a couple of minor "cuts" can be deadly, and they have to try and apply as many bandages as possible.

They're not going to reprint AD&D. They're not going to give us the .PDFs back. They're not going to release a rule system that is truly old-school. Introducing a modularity to the rules that permits AD&D or 3e style play - IF that's what they're talking about - is all they can do to try and keep their current base and effect a stop-loss of prior players who might still consider coming back. For the record I am not one of these but despite the mechanical nightmare it might be I would appreciate the "goodwill" of such a gesture and might even buy it. I'd appreciate the return of .PDFs more but, again, for various reasons (and don't kid yourselves - piracy ain't one of 'em) they're not going to do that.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think a core game needs to be as focused, if not more so, on noncombat options as on combat options if it is going to please a broader audience interested in the RPing aspects of an RPG.

 

[fireinthedust]

Pros and Cons.


Pro: basic D&D, with rules that the GM (probably me) likes tacked on as the GM likes them.


Con: if I try to advertise a game, and I hate a rules system because it's too complex or I don't have the book, there are whiners out there who won't play without them, and there are whiners who won't play with them.

In essence, like Skills & Powers for 2e, there will be schisms within groups.


Until the 6th edition comes out and we see the most popular of the 5th edition rules being set in stone, similar to how S&P was the precursor for 3e.


Hmmm, I should write another blog on this one...

 

[Gundark]

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

I'm never buying 5th edition now!

Well I'm of the opinion that he is talking about 5e with these articles. When they were marketing 4e they sometimes did so by stating something along the lines of "3e was bad because....and here is how 4e fixed it" This style offended a lot of people (not me as I agreed with those that thought 3rd was a bad game). This seems to be a bit more "sneaky" calling an element of 4e "lame" without overtly stating that he is speaking about 4e.

 

[Gundark]

I see this failing miserably. The horse has already left the barn, that ship has sailed, that noun has verbed. But what else can they do? Again, in a down economy, in a down hobby, even a couple of minor "cuts" can be deadly, and they have to try and apply as many bandages as possible.

I think you're misunderstanding why people play earlier editons. There are definetly those who are the "one edition to rule them all" kind of folks that are happy with edition X and will be until they die. There are others who play prior editions who stick with them because the newer edition does not particularly appear to be a better alternative. If given a better game, a lot of people will try it out and play (assuming 5e is actually a decent game)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I'm of the opinion that he is talking about 5e with these articles. When they were marketing 4e they sometimes did so by stating something along the lines of "3e was bad because....and here is how 4e fixed it" This style offended a lot of people (not me as I agreed with those that thought 3rd was a bad game). This seems to be a bit more "sneaky" calling an element of 4e "lame" without overtly stating that he is speaking about 4e.

Whether he's talking about 5e or not, any time the lead developer of 4e talks about rules systems that differ from 4e (and appear to emphasize a different design asthetic) there is likely to be a perception that this reflects a negative judgment on 4e. OTOH it is also impossible to evolve the game without changing something.

Personally I think it is irrelevant WHY he's writing this column. I seriously doubt the economics of the RPG market will allow the publishing of a 5e for at least several more years. Even then I believe the economics and realities of the D&D community will kill the idea of a modular system stone cold dead (or at least reduce it to triviality). So I could hardly be offended as a 4e fan. If the discussion eventually wends its way around to a realistic discussion of making a better 4e, then it will become truly interesting.