Mearls: Augmenting the core

[TerraDave]

It all about layers.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Setting the Bar)

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

It's an interesting take on things, especially discussing it from an R&D point of view. Essentially, MM's discources comes down to the next edition of D&D being all things to all gamers via modular add ons. It's a high threshold with the downside being that it becomes the bard of AD&D. Something about rules add-ons defining the type of game i'd be running as a GM rankles me-not sure what it is though.

 

[the Jester]

I'm really liking what I'm seeing in this series of articles. A good way to cater both to more kit-bashy players and "let's hurry up and get started" types.

 

[delericho]

Something about rules add-ons defining the type of game i'd be running as a GM rankles me-not sure what it is though.

I think you've got it backwards - the type of game you're running defines the rules add-ons you're using.

 

[Agamon]

Modular rulesets, hey? Interesting. Something that might finally divest the game of power creep. If newer, more powerful rules are added to the game, they cost more to impliment. So long as the costs are well balanced....

 

[Yesway Jose]

So long as the costs are well balanced....

That's a loaded gun. The way the optimizers are pouncing on this or that mechanic, and then WoTC has to nerf a variety of powers accordingly, imagine the headache of balancing for each layer and balancing for the almost infinite interactions between multiple layers.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I think you've got it backwards - the type of game you're running defines the rules add-ons you're using.

Isn't that the same? Doesn't saying i am using the "politics and peasants" add on automatically imply the type of game you are running?

 

[Tuft]

I think you've got it backwards - the type of game you're running defines the rules add-ons you're using.

Imagine the discussions between DM and various players on what modules to include and exclude...

 

[Anselyn]

Something about rules add-ons defining the type of game i'd be running as a GM rankles me-not sure what it is though.

The reaction at the WOTC board is pretty mixed and the idea of how a DM defines their campaign or adventure is a major comment. I agree that separating flavour mechanics from power mechanics is one apsect of this, which is adressed in the column.

MM says

First, we’d need clear names for any new sub-systems. You’d want to tell a new player that you’re using feats and skills for all characters, martial maneuvers for fighters and rogues, domains for clerics, and school specialization for wizards, or whatever your specific mixture of options looks like.

It seems to me that if you were using Character Builder or Hero Lab and could say - OK for my campaign use this .DM_SPEC file to preload options then it wouldn't be a problem. Also, the programme could calculate for the DM how many "Units of Power" (UPs) the campaign was calibrated to. This would then feed into the encounter generating part of the GMs suite of tools.

MM

With this approach, rules modules serve to help a DM define a campaign. Some of the options apply to the core, but others are tools to customize a game and create a unique setting. Ideally, using these options is no different for a DM than explaining to a player that her campaign is set in renaissance Italy combined with air ships, dragon overlords, and magic.
By tying options to how they affect character power, and using that increase as a tool for DMs, we can create a menu of options that allow a DM to sculpt the rules to match a campaign. If those options are conceived, designed, and presented correctly, they become useful identifiers that DMs and players can use to describe their preferences and campaigns.

This is general seems to be a move towards enabling DMs to be active game builders and world builders rather than administrators of the one game. I like this as it means that it sees TTRPGs as a bespoke item for a group of players made by and for them. I see this a move away from a MMO-like experience with the DM as the central CPU.

 

[Ainamacar]

It all about layers.

It's official: Mearls has ruined onions.

The one thing I don't really like about his solution is the constraints it places on the added modules so that they are individually balanced against each other, even though that is probably the sanest way forward. Even though this would guarantee that every character is balanced (in a perfect world), I have my doubts that this is a desirable trait, since some abilities would probably demand an implementation that doesn't fit nicely into integer multiples of power units, unless a power unit is very fine-grained in which case we're almost talking about system points like character points in other games. A fine-grained approach is probably not what he is suggesting, however, and reduces the key virtue of simplicity.

This is part of my problem with 4e, for example that balance is achieved by making sure everyone has the same number of daily powers. (Not edition warring, it is just something I find unpalatable.) Granted, what he is suggesting still offers a lot more flexibility, but a lot of design space is potentially lost since the overall premise of balance is over complete characters and not just their individual components. The ease and potential benefits to the game might offset that, and 3e was a snakepit for balance in part because balancing the sum of 20 things is a lot harder than balancing 20 individual things. So even if my premise isn't wrong the proposed layers might still be the best option. Plus, even if design space is lost, if it gives the developer greater opportunity to boldly create (like the restrictions of poetry), then the actual effect is net positive. Still, it gives me pause.