Legends and Lore: Modular Madness

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, I think skills and feats could occupy the same design space as utility powers.

Conceptually, you could start with the basic system suggested in one of the articles that everything boils down to an ability check. Class could add a bonus to certain types of checks which the class is supposed to be good at - you could even retain the current skill name nomeclature, so a Rogue could get a +2 bonus to Dexterity checks involving Acrobatics, Stealth and Thievery, for example. Then, when he selects a utility "power" he can either select an actual utility power, or a constant bonus: perhaps "Educated" which grants a +2 bonus to Intelligence checks involving Arcana, History and Religion.

Ideally, this would involve even stricter siloing than currently - utility powers would have almost entirely non-combat uses, and combat-enhancing feats and utility powers could be selected in place of attack powers.

You know, I'm thinking hard about this siloing thing...

First of all how do you do it? "almost entirely non-combat uses" and "combat-enhancing" are pretty vague. Every skill in 4e except History and Streetwise IIRC has a combat function outlined for it in the PHB. I admit there are a FEW things that can MOSTLY be partitioned, but there is a VAST middle that really can't.

Secondly I have discovered that I have a fairly deep philosophical issue with the whole concept of siloing this way (and maybe in any way). People talk about a disconnect between combat and non-combat play in 4e. Is this not a consequence of this very sort of siloing? It is as if you have two characters and two character sheets and they barely intersect at all. At best this situation encourages and amplifies the disconnect between the two kinds of activity.

I understand the motivation, but I think the problem that siloing is trying to solve is the wrong problem. If the game provides reasonable weight to combat and non-combat activities then there's no need to silo anything. It is all 'playing my character' and just like I can trade off accuracy for more damage I can trade off accuracy for a more charming personality.

In any case, I would point out that you'd have to effectively wreck the game to make this kind of separation complete because my 'two character sheets' will still always intersect at ability scores, unless of course all of that goes away entirely and I'm kinda thinking that would be a very different kind of game that really won't deserve the name "D&D".

I really have no idea what MM is talking about. I thought I understood where he was going a week or so back, but after this latest article I'm just a bit confused.

If he's looking at scaling levels of complexity then I think he needs to be starting out looking very hard and very closely at something central and vital to any system - the resolution mechanic.

D&D has, imo, a task resolution system. Say what you try to do, roll a dice, see if you do it. The alternative is a conflict resolution system. Say what you want to achieve, roll a dice, see if you get it.

The thing with these is that they can often appear the same. The difference between 'I try and pick the lock' (task) and 'I want to open the safe' (conflict) is slight. What's happening there is that you are focusing your conflict resolution very tightly to emulate task resolution.

But conflict resolution mechanics can also scale outwards in a way that task resolution does not, because you get to set the stakes for what a roll means in the fiction. You can roll your Tactics skill to outflank a troll or conquer a country depending on your goals at the time.

This kind of scaling approach is what I originally thought MM was talking about, and it's something I'd be interesting in seeing. That is - if you want to keep it simple then use broad brush strokes with your rolls (conflict resolution). If you want complexity then add it by narrowing the focus of your resolution system (task).

So, for example. Group A might use task resolution for the round by round details of combat but just want a quick D20 roll for social. Group B might want the reverse - lots of detail in the politics but a quick d20 to resolve a fight. Group C might want both in detail. Group D might want neither in detail. All four options would give the game a very different feel.

Not sure this is where MM is going though.

It is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure it isn't really just semantics and level of detail. That is In your last example one group rolls a Diplomacy check to negotiate a peace treaty, the other group rolls a Diplomacy check to flatter the ambassador enough that he will let you in the door (etc).

There is a question of course about what list of skills are appropriate at different levels of detail, some other things too. At a very coarse level of detail it is hard to see one particular character attribute or area of knowledge/expertise being key. For example if you did a 'skill' check to cross the dark continent what would you use for a skill? What ability scores would modify that? I'm not sure you NEED a rules module for that kind of high level stuff, it is all going to be DM judgment call.

 

[Balesir]

3E/PF players, as best their preferences can be inferred from the rules themselves, from what they post on these boards, from the nature of the adventures that Paizo produce, etc, appear to want exploration-heavy play, with a lot of (mostly GM-controlled) worldbuilding, simulationist mechanics, etc.

<snippage>

Answering these questions requires deciding what the game is about, and what sorts of play preferences it will support. Obviously WotC want D&D to be broader and more flexible in the approaches to play that it can support than (say) Nicotine Girls. But it is not going to be all things to all people. Some choices will have to be made. And it would be naive to just assume, without reflection, that D&D's traditional rough-and-ready simulationism in support of Gygaxian gamism is an unproblematic default. I think that that will drive away those who enjoy 4e because it departs from the traditional approach. (And it is 4e's departure from that traditional approach that has led to other changes, like the new cosmology, monster backstories, etc - see Worlds and Monsters for a discussion.)

I (still) can't XP you, but this was a(nother) fine attempt to get this subtle but essential divide accross.

The divide is really between those who want to dream about a plethora of fantasy lands (which is a fine pastime - albeit one that I find better pursued using systems other than D&D) and those who want to engage in specific other activities that just happen to be set in a fantasy setting. For the first set, the setting and the characters and situations in it are of paramount importance; for the latter set these things simply provide the backdrop and structure for what they really want to do.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]: I can't XP you, either, but I agree with your synopsis. I suspect, however, that task resolution, along with the necessity of a DM, "damage" measured by hit points and characters that "go up levels" will, as with previous editions of D&D, simply be assumed with no real consideration of alternatives. I find it ironic, really, that in 4E they have finally created a system where these things actually perform useful functions, but they now are pondering switching back to game agendas for which these elements are, at best, useless, and yet are (apparently) not considering losing them. Ho, hum.

 

[Insight]

I really like the idea of a modular approach to the game.

I envision the following types of modules:
Baseline (abilities all characters have, like skills, basic attacks, and so forth)
Race/Class-specific (features and so forth, maybe powers, if they exist)
Basic options (feats, themes, backgrounds, whatever)
Advanced options (more complicated stuff)

Another possibility is to steal some of the campaign modules offered in the Spycraft 2.0 book (in the GM section). In Spycraft, each campaign is defined by one or more "keywords", each of which changes certain rules and options that are allowed in the campaign. You have options for horror, action/adventure, martial arts-specific, and others. I suppose WotC could do something like this as campaign modules, adding or removing campaign features (and related options) depending on what you choose.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You know, I'm thinking hard about this siloing thing...

First of all how do you do it? "almost entirely non-combat uses" and "combat-enhancing" are pretty vague. Every skill in 4e except History and Streetwise IIRC has a combat function outlined for it in the PHB. I admit there are a FEW things that can MOSTLY be partitioned, but there is a VAST middle that really can't.

Secondly I have discovered that I have a fairly deep philosophical issue with the whole concept of siloing this way (and maybe in any way). People talk about a disconnect between combat and non-combat play in 4e. Is this not a consequence of this very sort of siloing? It is as if you have two characters and two character sheets and they barely intersect at all. At best this situation encourages and amplifies the disconnect between the two kinds of activity.

I understand the motivation, but I think the problem that siloing is trying to solve is the wrong problem. If the game provides reasonable weight to combat and non-combat activities then there's no need to silo anything. It is all 'playing my character' and just like I can trade off accuracy for more damage I can trade off accuracy for a more charming personality.

In any case, I would point out that you'd have to effectively wreck the game to make this kind of separation complete because my 'two character sheets' will still always intersect at ability scores, unless of course all of that goes away entirely and I'm kinda thinking that would be a very different kind of game that really won't deserve the name "D&D".

Ideally, you don't silo everything. You silo the powerful stuff that obviously fits in a silo, and those silos aren't always explicitly broken down between combat and other stuff.

For example, 3E and 4E both mostly silo increases to ability scores (4E more than 3E because of magic items not providing a lot of ability bonuses). The abilities are used across the board, and are very powerful and useful when increased, but the silo is the ability scores themselves. You can't trade a bunch of skill increases to get more Str or vice versa. If it was a strictly combat vs non-combat silo, then either ability scores would only affect one or the other, or some other such split.

A system design that got around your objection above could use several silos. The trick is putting the things that work for something in an appropriately conceived silo. Maybe if Bluff and Intimidate only have very niche uses in combat, you don't worry about that and slap them in a strictly "social" silo. Anything you get in there is social skills, and only so far you can advance it. Or if they do have considerable combat uses, then you make a "combat/social" silo--and you only put things in it that work reasonably well for both.

Then that has to be considered in balance. Maybe I've got these silos: Social, Exploration, Combat, Social/Exploration, Social/Combat, Exploration/Combat. And then there is the stuff that crosses all those boundaries and thus doesn't belong in a silo at all--except maybe multiple silos to distinguish some boundary crossing things from other boundary crossing things -- e.g. ability scores versus +1/2 level modifier.

So if that is your design, your range of combat ability is everything from the base stuff that you can't help but get all the way up to maxing out silos for Combat, Social/Combat, and Exploration/Combat. Balance accordingly.

Note that an "all combat, all the time" character in such a system picked up a minimum social and exploration component via the base silos plus going after those last combat bonuses in the mixed silos. But his social and exploration bonuses will probably reflect this--e.g. lots of intimidate, not so much diplomacy, stealth over knowledge.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ideally, you don't silo everything. You silo the powerful stuff that obviously fits in a silo, and those silos aren't always explicitly broken down between combat and other stuff.

For example, 3E and 4E both mostly silo increases to ability scores (4E more than 3E because of magic items not providing a lot of ability bonuses). The abilities are used across the board, and are very powerful and useful when increased, but the silo is the ability scores themselves. You can't trade a bunch of skill increases to get more Str or vice versa. If it was a strictly combat vs non-combat silo, then either ability scores would only affect one or the other, or some other such split.

A system design that got around your objection above could use several silos. The trick is putting the things that work for something in an appropriately conceived silo. Maybe if Bluff and Intimidate only have very niche uses in combat, you don't worry about that and slap them in a strictly "social" silo. Anything you get in there is social skills, and only so far you can advance it. Or if they do have considerable combat uses, then you make a "combat/social" silo--and you only put things in it that work reasonably well for both.

Then that has to be considered in balance. Maybe I've got these silos: Social, Exploration, Combat, Social/Exploration, Social/Combat, Exploration/Combat. And then there is the stuff that crosses all those boundaries and thus doesn't belong in a silo at all--except maybe multiple silos to distinguish some boundary crossing things from other boundary crossing things -- e.g. ability scores versus +1/2 level modifier.

So if that is your design, your range of combat ability is everything from the base stuff that you can't help but get all the way up to maxing out silos for Combat, Social/Combat, and Exploration/Combat. Balance accordingly.

Note that an "all combat, all the time" character in such a system picked up a minimum social and exploration component via the base silos plus going after those last combat bonuses in the mixed silos. But his social and exploration bonuses will probably reflect this--e.g. lots of intimidate, not so much diplomacy, stealth over knowledge.

I think if you did something like this you'd have to 'hide' the silos because you'll never make a manageable system where you are acquiring resources in 5+ different categories. I'm not real sure how you would do that.

One way might be to simply rate every single character resource in terms of how much it contributes to each 'silo' and then you'd have to create some sort of meta-mechanic that either forced or heavily encouraged PCs to be built in a balanced fashion. Still seems awkward to me.

I think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns. You can keep pouring your resources into combat buffs if you WANT, but the more heavily you go in that direction the less you get for it. At some point most PCs will at the very least end up with a reasonable amount of the 'low hanging fruit' from each category. My fighter might skew pretty heavily towards combat, but he'll probably also pick up some other things that are likely to be useful to a fighter. The Bard OTOH will probably pick all the juiciest stuff from each category, being quite good as a generalist and if it is balanced properly not very far behind the fighter, but just enough to make both sets of choices worthwhile.

In effect this could be accomplished by simply making each feature cost an amount that is based purely on the number of other features you have in that silo. Basically the same concept that point buy uses for ability scores. You can get that 17 to an 18 but it is a LOT more expensive than raising a 14 to a 15 in some other stat. As long as all the combat oriented resources aren't simply flatly superior in every way you won't find too many really lopsided characters. This of course shows the problem with ANY type of system you can create though, if a group simply doesn't value one mode of play much then all of this is meaningless and effectively any silo you create for that mode of play will either just be a tax or be left empty, and it really doesn't matter which way that goes since they won't use both anyway (and actually have no problem they need to solve anyway).

So, yeah, I think diminishing returns. I also like it for the reasons I stated before, silos themselves aren't a great thing. They'd still sort of exist with diminishing returns, but at least it would be a bit less in your face.

 

[technoextreme]

My reading of it is Mearls kind of wants both, and I don't really think that is possible. The game hasn't evolved in modular steps, 4E isn't 3E with more options, and 3E isn't 2E with more options (though I suppose it is a little closer in terms of root structure). So I think the only way to do what he is suggesting (because it sounds like he wants to unify all the editions in a way that lets you "build" a campaign to taste so it could be more 4E or more 1E based on preferences) is to take the core concepts from each edition and rebuild the game from the ground up so the options are stackable.

Actually it just sounds like he is talking about 4E and 4E alone. The system actually has evolved in modular steps and it has multiple rule systems in place that can be swapped in and out at will.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually it just sounds like he is talking about 4E and 4E alone. The system actually has evolved in modular steps and it has multiple rule systems in place that can be swapped in and out at will.

I agree he seems to be talking about 4e, but he has made several references to past editions and what they do well. I believe these blog entries are there because they've started work on a new edition and I think its because they want to win back the pathfinder/d20 crowd (this is just my opinion, could be totally wrong). If so, i think there are two approaches: make an edition of the game with mechanics that appeal broadly to 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e fans but doesn't cater to anyone group specifically OR take this modular route mearls appears to be taking. I just have my doubts that a modular system built around 4e would appeal to the three other groups---their aversion to 4e is just too strong.

Personally i would consider going back to d&d if they scratched all the 4e stuff and built something that was a more natural outgrowth of the other editions. But if they just keep evolving 4e I'll just keep playing the games I play now.

 

[chaochou]

It is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure it isn't really just semantics and level of detail. That is In your last example one group rolls a Diplomacy check to negotiate a peace treaty, the other group rolls a Diplomacy check to flatter the ambassador enough that he will let you in the door (etc).

It's often cited, but I think the Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel shows how social conflict can be more detailed than a Diplomacy roll.

In the DoW each side's argument has a number of hit points (based on the arguers stats). Each side chooses actions for a round, from Avoid the Topic, Dismiss, Feint, Incite, Obfuscate, Point and Rebuttal.

The social skills that feed into those include Ugly Truth, Seduction, Command, Oratory, Rhetoric, Soothing Platitudes, Intimidation, Falsehood, Persuasion, Interrogation and Debate. There are more, but I'm too lazy to look them all up. And there are loads of traits which can have an impact as well, from Blank Stare to Weak-Willed.

Different actions cross reference with each other in different ways to determine what skills or stats are tested for the rolls, whether the outcome affects the 'hit points' for their opponent's argument, and impact on future actions.

Now I'm not getting the slightest hint that Mike Mearls is thinking about D&D in Burning Wheel terms. But BW is illustrative that getting someone to do what you want, or agree with you, or not hang you for treason can be tackled in a way that is every bit as complex and rich and tense as combat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, yeah, I think diminishing returns. I also like it for the reasons I stated before, silos themselves aren't a great thing. They'd still sort of exist with diminishing returns, but at least it would be a bit less in your face.

I think silos are also useful in preventing totally gimped characters for beginners. You don't always get that with diminishing returns. Also, there is a certain amount of diminishing returns inherent in silos if you have picks from a diminishing list and stacking restrictions too. I like my diminishing returns a bit more elegant than something like GURPS 3E exponentially increasing skill costs, because it plays all kinds of monkey business with scaling over different power levels (i.e. once a guy can afford his "epic" stuff in his main gig, he can afford "almost epic" in everything else) and complicates calculating what a character can get.

But yeah, silos are not the answer by themselves. A good mix of silo/non-silo, careful selection of lists, stack restrictions, diminishing returns, etc. are the way to go.

And really, I'll just throw out the idea that perhaps almost all of the "design issues" in versions of D&D--both when designing and when communicating/understanding the intended design--have been ultimately failures to put things in the correct conceptual box. Not infrequently, this has been aided by bad labeling or fluff that didn't match the intended use or purpose.

1E and earlier gets somewhat off a pass, because you can tell that a lot of it was made up as they went, and they were flying wild. If "cure light wounds" was really "restore luck/morale/fatigue/health"--well, they knew what they meant, and it was one of those things you had to come to terms with. But by now, I'd think the label and fluff for everything needs to be on the table for discussion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think silos are also useful in preventing totally gimped characters for beginners. You don't always get that with diminishing returns. Also, there is a certain amount of diminishing returns inherent in silos if you have picks from a diminishing list and stacking restrictions too. I like my diminishing returns a bit more elegant than something like GURPS 3E exponentially increasing skill costs, because it plays all kinds of monkey business with scaling over different power levels (i.e. once a guy can afford his "epic" stuff in his main gig, he can afford "almost epic" in everything else) and complicates calculating what a character can get.

It is at this point that I observe this is exactly the 4e design goal. Look at skills. Regardless of what resources you put into them by epic tier you are performing at epic levels of performance in all of them. This was explicit and is intended to allow all characters to perform adequately in most any situation, and mitigate the old "well, you guys don't have anyone with any hope of passing a Streetwise check in the City of Brass, too bad that plot won't work..."

There are some people who seem unhappy with that, but it works pretty well and I'm not at all convinced it is a disadvantage in what I'm suggesting.

But yeah, silos are not the answer by themselves. A good mix of silo/non-silo, careful selection of lists, stack restrictions, diminishing returns, etc. are the way to go.

Sounds complicated and you constantly run the danger of simply ruling out my perfectly good character concept because there is some silo in place that you need in order to stop the fighter from being absurdly optimized. It is a brittle design. A strong design will rely on a very few fairly transparent mechanisms that everyone can easily grasp.

And really, I'll just throw out the idea that perhaps almost all of the "design issues" in versions of D&D--both when designing and when communicating/understanding the intended design--have been ultimately failures to put things in the correct conceptual box. Not infrequently, this has been aided by bad labeling or fluff that didn't match the intended use or purpose.

1E and earlier gets somewhat off a pass, because you can tell that a lot of it was made up as they went, and they were flying wild. If "cure light wounds" was really "restore luck/morale/fatigue/health"--well, they knew what they meant, and it was one of those things you had to come to terms with. But by now, I'd think the label and fluff for everything needs to be on the table for discussion.

I'm not sure if most of the issues you refer to are at all closely related to siloing. In fact I would point out that the MAJOR flaw with AD&D was the very fact that it siloed basically EVERYTHING into "you have to be class X and if you are you just get Y" such that a fighter in 1e literally COULD NOT climb a wall, sneak, hide, or even try to open a lock. This was sort of 'mitigated' by giving the magic user access to every possible capability through the mechanism of spells. Seems to me that the siloing broke the system, and 'fixing' it just broke it even more.

Now, that isn't a blanket argument against making siloes, just one against making them work like AD&D did. Still, it does illustrate how high the cost can easily be. Certainly every category of resource needs to be available in some fashion to every class, or at least as close to that as feasible. I think adding lots of little restrictions can create the same problem.

Overall it is hard to evaluate this kind of thing in the absence of a concrete design anyway.