Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[fireinthedust]

He's wrong about Perception: it didn't disappear, it got replaced by Spot, Search and Listen checks. Thieves had the ability to do that, and Int and Wis took over for other characters.

Also, for some reason Wisdom is used for perception checks and Willpower bonuses. I think it's misplaced. Wisdom is possible for characters who have bad sight/hearing, or who've been humbled by an addiction (ie: hindering their willpower).


Overall I think he's got something. I'm glad he has the history about how Ability Score bonuses were an afterthought to what was already present in the game (class bonuses like saving throws).


There are games that already do this: True20 and Mutants & Masterminds (both Steve Kenson games), and Dragon Age (another Green Ronin product). DA goes so far as to have *everything* based on ability scores, with your access to different actions based on skills (ie: you can use a str-based sword attack if you have the Longsword training).


I'm guessing there'll be a new edition soon. Now that Slavisek is gone there's got to be a power shift in the company, and internal concerns being voiced about 4e as-it-stands. Note the article discussing distaste for the 2-page encounter spread by Cordell. Now this series of articles discussing "wouldn't it be nice if we had a system that wasn't what we've got".

Okay, I'm posting further discussion on my blog!

 

[Viking Bastard]

I think all these posts are a journey...who knows were...but they don't really stand alone.

He may very well be building towards a new edition or something, but these articles mostly sound to me like something someone who has recently been put in charge of D&D would blog about as he mulls over his options.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think the idea was that 4e progression mechanic (1/2 level) would be added straight to your stats, so the 20th level guy would still tend to be better.

It wasn't obvious from his example, but that does make more sense. I just can't see how you'd leave out a level adjustment from saving throws in D&D.

Despite that, I still think it is a bit short sighted. His proposal would certainly streamline the character sheet but at the expense of speed of play. If you only have the six stats and then powers/feats provide all modifiers, that means you have to search your sheet every time and add all the little odds-and-ends to calculate your score. Eventually, some player is going to realize that instead of calculating his score against attacks by adding his Dexterity + his ineffable dodge ability + his shield, he should just write it down on his sheet... maybe call it armor class. The reason we "bring in sub contractors" is because they come up often enough that it is worth putting them on salary.

I think Mearls' point is that minimalist D&D wouldn't have all the little odds-and-ends... or would have a very, very small number of them. Again, it's not clear from his examples.

I agree, though, that a few subcontractors, like armor class, are worth putting on salary.

 

[TerraDave]

He may very well be building towards a new edition or something, but these articles mostly sound to me like something someone who has recently been put in charge of D&D would blog about as he mulls over his options.

They seem like that. Maybe they are meant to. But there is actually much more coherence across them then first appears.

And the WotCies have been keeping a pretty tight lid on their communications and musings.

I don't know. But its something.

 

[TerraDave]

Instead of trying to invent a better mousetrap for the umpteenth time, why don't they focus on consolidating, editing, re-presenting logically and balancing a prior edition?

Well, they actually did that with 1E (called it 2E) and 3E and now have been doing that with 4E. (But don't call it 4.5).

And besides, who says the current plan isn't some variation of that?

 

[WheresMyD20]

He may very well be building towards a new edition or something, but these articles mostly sound to me like something someone who has recently been put in charge of D&D would blog about as he mulls over his options.

I think it may be telling whether or not these blog entries actually lead up to an entry where he lays out his actual rule outline for how he'd build minimalist D&D or if he keeps that secret.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am not sure there is a core of D&D. For me, D&D was great for so many years because it brought all different kinds of gamers to the table. It was broad enough in scope to appeal to lots of people.

 

[Salamandyr]

Honestly, I'd be happier with even less emphasis on attributes. They're a pretty big character trap.

Want to be a fighter that's lean and fast rather then muscular? No, you suck. Want to be a thief that survives on his wits and charm rather then fast fingers? No, you suck.

Want to be what most fantasy characters are - fairly good at most things, and a bit better in one attribute? Man, you really, really suck! At everything!

I don't mind keeping the scores around, but I'd be happier if they were disengaged from things like attack scores and even (Controversial, I know) skills.

I think something like this could be acheived by keeping the base bonuses from attributes smaller. I think BECMI's attribute bonii were about right 0 to +3 (only from an 18) and no higher. A great score was nice, but not absolutely necessary.

 

[Viking Bastard]

They seem like that. Maybe they are meant to. But there is actually much more coherence across them then first appears.

We're definitely talkin' hardcore mulling, not idle musings. He's given this a lot of thought, obviously.

Mearls is behind Essentials, right? Essentials showed that you can play around with classes' internals as long as they output the correct math. How you get to that math is less important as long as the math is correct.

That's what Mearls's articles seem to me to be heading towards. That is, expanding 4e along those lines, rather than a full new edition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think something like this could be acheived by keeping the base bonuses from attributes smaller. I think BECMI's attribute bonii were about right 0 to +3 (only from an 18) and no higher. A great score was nice, but not absolutely necessary.

Earlier editions (pre-3e) had much more contained attribute bonuses. I just re-explored 2E in a Ravenloft campaign and I forgot how low some of the bonuses were. Personally I did think some of the modifiers got out of hand 3E and later. I felt the range was a little off.