-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore: customized complexity
- Thread starter avin
- Start date
AeroDm
First Post
Obviously these articles have all been conceptual so it has to come with a big grain of salt, but if we presume perfect execution it sounds like a great idea. Of course, perfect execution is improbable and so problems will creep in. The first problem I see is that I can't imagine a way for this to be developed where you are producing the best systems possible. You'd have to make sacrifices in the design in order to ensure something could be easily turned on or off. This means that when someone wants to flip the skill-switch 'on,' they aren't getting the best skill system D&D could design, they're getting the best skill system D&D could design that you could also choose not to use. They are pitching a game that appeals to the widest possible audience (which is smart) instead of the best game for the audience they have (which is a bummer).
My other concern is that creating one system of D&D that plays so differently will diminish the ability of the community to get together and dish. Talking about the game is a *huge* part of the experience, and if 5e looks like four or ten or whatever different games based on what you flipped on or off, it might make it harder to talk about. That'd be a real shame and I think I might add "the ability to quickly understand the play experience of other gamers" to my list of D&D sacred cows.
My other concern is that creating one system of D&D that plays so differently will diminish the ability of the community to get together and dish. Talking about the game is a *huge* part of the experience, and if 5e looks like four or ten or whatever different games based on what you flipped on or off, it might make it harder to talk about. That'd be a real shame and I think I might add "the ability to quickly understand the play experience of other gamers" to my list of D&D sacred cows.
I think its an interesting idea. D&D has some history of this, with Unearthed Arcana. 4e has options like themes and inherent bonuses.
I think there has to be some kind of "default" settings though. What do you run for organized play? What do published adventures assume? Do they try to include every option. "I you use skills have the PCs make a Perception check. If not anybody who says they look under the bed find the treasure chest."
Also with a modular approach will it be possible for things from one option to interact with others. In both 4e and 3e, humans get a bonus feat. Is design like that possible if not everybody plays with feats?
I think if people want a range of complexity, and Basic/Advanced split might be a more particle solution.
I think there has to be some kind of "default" settings though. What do you run for organized play? What do published adventures assume? Do they try to include every option. "I you use skills have the PCs make a Perception check. If not anybody who says they look under the bed find the treasure chest."
Also with a modular approach will it be possible for things from one option to interact with others. In both 4e and 3e, humans get a bonus feat. Is design like that possible if not everybody plays with feats?
I think if people want a range of complexity, and Basic/Advanced split might be a more particle solution.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Well, it isn't as if we have never had options. Whether an option works well or not depends on the medium and what goes around it. Take switching weapons by characters. If we are talking metal miniatures, then making the weapons easily switchable probably results in a miniature that doesn't look as nice. If we make them nicer, then it takes more skill to pull the switch. So we go more abstract and use Lego figures. Fine, if you want switchable weapons--not so hot if you want a painted, realistic looking mini. But for characters, we expect to be able to switch weapons, possibly within some limits, but still.
I think part of the problem with D&D historically (all editions) has been "rounding off" the joint in a bad place. It as if we made Lego miniatures with changeable hands. Every weapons comes with a hand attached permanently, and you can pull any figures hand out and replace it with another one. If there is some good technical reason why you need to do it that way, maybe--but it does create some odd side effects. (If I want my figure to have an empty hand, I have to buy an empty hand separately.)
For a more concrete example, take "tripping". Prior to 3E, it was done more or less ad hoc (perhaps with a few monster notes that implied it--not sure). 3E makes this mainly about the character, even allowing feats. 4E makes this completely abstract. But is there any reason why better or worse tripping can't be mainly a function of weapons, plus whatever normal skill a character has? That is, a Fighter 10 probably trips better than a Fighter 1, through normal attack bonuses. And it is a lot easier to trip with a polearm than a shortsword or empty hand. How many effects are like that? If there are several, maybe "attaching" those things to weapons is a good option. If you don't want them attached, simply use the ad hoc method.
A certain amount of "rounding off" in odd places is necessary for a smooth, elegant game. But I think D&D designs have made some less than optimal trades in this regard.
I think part of the problem with D&D historically (all editions) has been "rounding off" the joint in a bad place. It as if we made Lego miniatures with changeable hands. Every weapons comes with a hand attached permanently, and you can pull any figures hand out and replace it with another one. If there is some good technical reason why you need to do it that way, maybe--but it does create some odd side effects. (If I want my figure to have an empty hand, I have to buy an empty hand separately.)
For a more concrete example, take "tripping". Prior to 3E, it was done more or less ad hoc (perhaps with a few monster notes that implied it--not sure). 3E makes this mainly about the character, even allowing feats. 4E makes this completely abstract. But is there any reason why better or worse tripping can't be mainly a function of weapons, plus whatever normal skill a character has? That is, a Fighter 10 probably trips better than a Fighter 1, through normal attack bonuses. And it is a lot easier to trip with a polearm than a shortsword or empty hand. How many effects are like that? If there are several, maybe "attaching" those things to weapons is a good option. If you don't want them attached, simply use the ad hoc method.
A certain amount of "rounding off" in odd places is necessary for a smooth, elegant game. But I think D&D designs have made some less than optimal trades in this regard.
nedjer
Adventurer
There's no pinch of salt required. this is a) the only way to satisfactorily body-swerve an edition war and b) isn't about picking over every detail, but offering a series of benchmarks/ defaults or platform's where key clusters of a group's shared preferences are easily switched-off.
RPG Treasure has four strands, which set out to achieve this and it's by far the most likely option for D&D as they're not going to be keen on going the whole hog and providing complete switching - apart from anything else GMs would spend forever setting options. So you flick a switches panel/ s in DDI and content switching (real easy with AJAX or html5), displays only your default choices. It could even autofill with art from the rules content default you prefer and link to your campaign lifestream.
In print or PDF . . . well soon as I get my backside off here and edit up the last of Tainted there'll be a basic switchable/ strands Original Game around - that's basically at or before the end of the month.
Taint is one area where Unearthed Arcana did this, but I think of it more like Wordpress, with a core and plugins. As with Wordpress you can play plugin roulette where you take a bunch of untried plugins and load them into your live game - at the risk of spraying the wall. For the more cautious or settled you stick to the default/ s and carefully add a new plugin very occasionally.
RPG Treasure has four strands, which set out to achieve this and it's by far the most likely option for D&D as they're not going to be keen on going the whole hog and providing complete switching - apart from anything else GMs would spend forever setting options. So you flick a switches panel/ s in DDI and content switching (real easy with AJAX or html5), displays only your default choices. It could even autofill with art from the rules content default you prefer and link to your campaign lifestream.
In print or PDF . . . well soon as I get my backside off here and edit up the last of Tainted there'll be a basic switchable/ strands Original Game around - that's basically at or before the end of the month.
Taint is one area where Unearthed Arcana did this, but I think of it more like Wordpress, with a core and plugins. As with Wordpress you can play plugin roulette where you take a bunch of untried plugins and load them into your live game - at the risk of spraying the wall. For the more cautious or settled you stick to the default/ s and carefully add a new plugin very occasionally.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Back to Mike Mearls?
The base assumption seems to be that customization is merely a mechanical consideration, or that customization begins with mechanics or is limited by mechanics. That's not a good place to start for roleplaying game design. There's a difference between adding narrow complexity and allowing open complexity that seems lost on many modern game designers. Adding a mechanic that allows a player to choose from a menu of specific bonuses adds narrow complexity unless the choices themselves are customizable. Allowing players to choose between nonspecific bonuses and specific bonuses, but to also allow them to decide how those bonuses manifest in-game, in relation to their character concept, adds open complexity that doesn't become restrictive. There's a mindset here that needs to be jettisoned if RPG design is going to evolve from being limited by game mechanics.
The base assumption seems to be that customization is merely a mechanical consideration, or that customization begins with mechanics or is limited by mechanics. That's not a good place to start for roleplaying game design. There's a difference between adding narrow complexity and allowing open complexity that seems lost on many modern game designers. Adding a mechanic that allows a player to choose from a menu of specific bonuses adds narrow complexity unless the choices themselves are customizable. Allowing players to choose between nonspecific bonuses and specific bonuses, but to also allow them to decide how those bonuses manifest in-game, in relation to their character concept, adds open complexity that doesn't become restrictive. There's a mindset here that needs to be jettisoned if RPG design is going to evolve from being limited by game mechanics.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
The 4th poll submission isn't working for me for some reason.
But then I really don't want to answer that one anyways. I liked the article, but I really disagreed with the polls at the end. I kept thinking over and over, "This isn't how it works at all." At least in my games. Maybe for others, but the answers simply don't apply so easily to how we play.
So here are my answers in written form for FWIW:
1. Simplicity - Both for players. As high as he or she wishes to manage for the DM. In general the higher the better for the DM, but great elegance works best. For players it's all about how much they wish to invest. We have about a dozen stats plus purchasing. Half of the previous are rolled for and the others are a pool of choices (like Race, Class, Alignment) with custom normally a last option. But for massive customization extensive background creation is possible, even throughout the campaign between sessions. All of that is turned into mechanics by the DM. The player's do not need to know how, they simply are tested on remembering what they did write. So both simple and potentially extraordinarily complex for player in my book.
2. Quick creation is essential for when a player loses a PC and wants to start a new one mid session. This feeds into #1 in that further customization can be done afterwards, but quick-starting into the game is easily and pretty much alone. Continuing higher customization and complexity can be written or generated for later sessions - the current detail only needs to cover a few hours anyways. What changes is when players want to use the first session as a party creation process, which can really amplify the game. By working out who wants what and how each can support one another the players are already working together as a team. This means detailed character creation with all the interconnections between PCs set up by the players to the degree they desire at start. So, for me, quick creation is necessary for mid-session play, but shouldn't be the only option when beginning a long campaign.
3. "Ability to Customize Fully" - This one's is sort of like the nature vs. nurture argument. It's about 50-60% nature or rolled generated abilities and 100% nurture / environment chosen customization of abilities. A PC is generated by chance rolls representing results players don't get to make. But then those results can be manipulated in the "background" by buying up and down different numbers. So that Dex can be raised (focused on in training) to qualify for the Illusionist class. But the rolls don't normally allow everything. However, beyond manipulating the information the player may also drop the character (which then becomes an NPC) and roll up another. The tough part for players comes from the choices. What class, race, equipment? Each choice improves the character in some ways and not others. But customization can also occur in each of these areas too. But "I want a Wizard who fights as well as a Monk hand-to-hand" doesn't start that way. In order for the choices to be meaningful there must be a tradeoff rather than flat out omnipotence. What I mean is a level 1 Wiz is less powerful than a level 1 Wiz + level 1 Monk in abilities. But customization at start could allow for a little of both. Customization through play could allow for both later on. Full customization is there, but influence is always limited - though game play is the promise that this can grow. [Unlimited influence, in-game omnipotence, is always the rejection of customization in the end anyways.]
4. "When it comes to character creation, what's more important to you, simplicity or customization?" This question doesn't really make sense given my other answers. Both really, it depends upon the point in the game and the level of opting in by the players.
But then I really don't want to answer that one anyways. I liked the article, but I really disagreed with the polls at the end. I kept thinking over and over, "This isn't how it works at all." At least in my games. Maybe for others, but the answers simply don't apply so easily to how we play.
So here are my answers in written form for FWIW:
1. Simplicity - Both for players. As high as he or she wishes to manage for the DM. In general the higher the better for the DM, but great elegance works best. For players it's all about how much they wish to invest. We have about a dozen stats plus purchasing. Half of the previous are rolled for and the others are a pool of choices (like Race, Class, Alignment) with custom normally a last option. But for massive customization extensive background creation is possible, even throughout the campaign between sessions. All of that is turned into mechanics by the DM. The player's do not need to know how, they simply are tested on remembering what they did write. So both simple and potentially extraordinarily complex for player in my book.
2. Quick creation is essential for when a player loses a PC and wants to start a new one mid session. This feeds into #1 in that further customization can be done afterwards, but quick-starting into the game is easily and pretty much alone. Continuing higher customization and complexity can be written or generated for later sessions - the current detail only needs to cover a few hours anyways. What changes is when players want to use the first session as a party creation process, which can really amplify the game. By working out who wants what and how each can support one another the players are already working together as a team. This means detailed character creation with all the interconnections between PCs set up by the players to the degree they desire at start. So, for me, quick creation is necessary for mid-session play, but shouldn't be the only option when beginning a long campaign.
3. "Ability to Customize Fully" - This one's is sort of like the nature vs. nurture argument. It's about 50-60% nature or rolled generated abilities and 100% nurture / environment chosen customization of abilities. A PC is generated by chance rolls representing results players don't get to make. But then those results can be manipulated in the "background" by buying up and down different numbers. So that Dex can be raised (focused on in training) to qualify for the Illusionist class. But the rolls don't normally allow everything. However, beyond manipulating the information the player may also drop the character (which then becomes an NPC) and roll up another. The tough part for players comes from the choices. What class, race, equipment? Each choice improves the character in some ways and not others. But customization can also occur in each of these areas too. But "I want a Wizard who fights as well as a Monk hand-to-hand" doesn't start that way. In order for the choices to be meaningful there must be a tradeoff rather than flat out omnipotence. What I mean is a level 1 Wiz is less powerful than a level 1 Wiz + level 1 Monk in abilities. But customization at start could allow for a little of both. Customization through play could allow for both later on. Full customization is there, but influence is always limited - though game play is the promise that this can grow. [Unlimited influence, in-game omnipotence, is always the rejection of customization in the end anyways.]
4. "When it comes to character creation, what's more important to you, simplicity or customization?" This question doesn't really make sense given my other answers. Both really, it depends upon the point in the game and the level of opting in by the players.
Croesus
Adventurer
I realize Mearls was limiting his comments to character creation, but I think one of the greatest advantages of the system he suggests is for GM prep. Individual gaming groups can agree on the level of complexity they want for characters, but a well-designed system along the lines suggested would allow the GM to use the exact same system - minus the optionals - to quickly design creatures, NPC's, whatever, with a minimum of fuss.
It's a bit of the 4E design philosophy that says not everything has to be designed the same, with the same level of complexity. As a GM, I would love something like he is suggesting.
It's a bit of the 4E design philosophy that says not everything has to be designed the same, with the same level of complexity. As a GM, I would love something like he is suggesting.
Croesus
Adventurer
If I read his article correctly, he suggested that the lack of specific rules allowed for open complexity (you can be anything), but without any mechanical backup, so players and GM's were left to figure it all out for themselves. Are you suggesting something in the rules that would give some guidance on such options, without providing the actual detailed mechanics? Or have I completely misunderstood?
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I'm suggesting mechanics that serve the character concept and advancement more fluidly, more openly, and not just at a particular "level" of play or complexity.
Similar Threads
