Mearls: Augmenting the core

[catastrophic]

I'm seein all these scenarios, and it really convinces me that the only viable way forward would be to ensure that the subsystems are laid out using-

A)uniform mechanics and language, including a core exchange mechanic, eg universal and splittable points

B)dials tweaked within those systems to change things like complexity, stakes, while still functioning within the same balance and assumptions about outcomes.

and,

C)certanily not a system where players nostalgic for 3e wizards get their toys back.

In other words, a lot less about tacking on modules, and a lot more about a strong robust Core that could hangle various kinds of Events, Challenges, and Resources. The modules would then me suplements that would offer norms for the kinds of events, challenges, and resources might be involved in say, building a castle of piloting a pirate ship.

And I get what people are saying about wanting to keep noncombat freeform, but to me, rules are no threat to that. One, they're optional, and two, good mechanics don't restrict the GM- they just give them more options, and better support to do what they (and the players) want to do.

Tactical system mastery vs stategic system mastery is an excellent precis of what I was trying to say before in my summary of two stlyes of gamist play.

My point would be that essentially the mastery of 3e is in builds, hence strategic.

YMMV on Eurogames but I would say they tend not to exclude players from full involvement in the game. I (too?) don't appreciate board games that have lots of downtime for players while the active players work out their move. However, this also seems to be a criticism of contemporary D&D combats.

The problem isn't just the downtime, it's disproportionate downtime. 3e was terrible in this respect, some people would play a ten second turn, others a five minute turn, round after round. 4e still has turns which are far too slow, but it's headed in the right direction.

 

[Anselyn]

I know I'm late to the thread, but this particular line of discussion has always puzzled me. I've never seen anything saying that a DM can't excise something from his game. I mean, I've played AD&D, 2Ed and 3.X games in which basic classes (typically Paladins), races (typically half-races) and other features have been disallowed.

Its like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, guys: you've always had the power to say no- just click your heels together and say "That rule's not in my game. That rule's not in my game. That rule's not in my game."

But I think this is part of the cognitive dissonance of RPGs. A bit like:

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

as pointed out in GNS Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Or you can look at the thing that compromised the original vision of Eberron. One of the first bullet points in the first book:
"If it's in D&D in it's in Eberron"

Or, you can look at:

The D&D Player's Strategy Guide is aimed at D&D players who crave the envy of their gamer peers. If you want a character that’s jaw-droppingly cool, this book is for you. It provides tips and tricks for optimizing your D&D characters—to make them more awesome and fun to play at the game table

Or, look at the 271,816 posts in:
//community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/135802/4e_character_optimization

Where's the forum for "How to choose which classes/races/feats" to have in your game?

So, yes you're right Dorothy there's no place quite like a DM's homebrew campaign - but your slippers seem to have a limited number of charges.

 

[catastrophic]

It's not cognitive dissonance, it's a give and take- a dynamic. Players and the GM colaberate, but also struggle over the story. The system dictates events, but the GM can also overrule it, as can the group in general. Roleplaying is about a give and take, which is common in numerous other areas, as well.

But at the end of the day, the GM and the Players can still sit down together and decide thet they don't want The Complete Duckthief to be a part of their game.

Heels Clicked.


PS- Do we really have to keep quoting GNS era garbage? That quote is a deliberate straw man anyway.

 

[Balesir]

The promise of those two systems is that, as far as prospects for success go, it shouldn't matter whether you use a simple or a complex resolution mechanic, and as far as choosing a mechanic is concerned, it shouldn't matter which PC is brought to the table. The choice should be driven only by considerations of pacing/player buy-in/etc. In practice, I assume that the odds of various outcomes are affected by choice of resolution mechanic - apart from anything else, I'd expect going for multiple die rolls over one die roll to reduce the swinginess somewhat. But the mathematical comparison between simple and complex is very involved and I haven't done it.

I did a simple spreadsheet for it, and the chances are significantly different for several circumstances. This is one reason why I really worry about seeing this sort of set up in a 'gamist-supporting' game. In HQ the fact that the method of resolution is "gameable" is not that big a deal - if you are using HQ to game you are really using it for something it wasn't designed for. It's a "feature" rather than a "fault"; if you are playing the game for what it's intended for you are far more interested in adding tension and drama to a specific scene for 'story' reasons than in gaming for optimal success chance, and if you are not playing for that then you are using the wrong system (try 4E ).

 

[Anselyn]

PS- Do we really have to keep quoting GNS era garbage?

Sorry. I wasn't aware of the existence of the formal proof of the GNS wrongness. In fact, it rather seems to me that GNS terminolgy has been helpful for this ongoing discussion.

Pray, tell me by which gaming philosophy I may argue?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], can't XP you, thanks for the info - makes sense (so does your suggestion for choice of game).

 

[catastrophic]

Sorry. I wasn't aware of the existence of the formal proof of the GNS wrongness. In fact, it rather seems to me that GNS terminolgy has been helpful for this ongoing discussion.

Pray, tell me by which gaming philosophy I may argue?

Sorry. I wasn't aware anyone was still taking GNS seriously. I'll start treating it as legitimate when there's a coherent, functional explanation of it's terminology.

Until then, it's just a bunch of general use phrases people use as if they were something more than general use phrases. People wrote a lot of words about them back in the day, but they never actually made it into a coherent theory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, yes you're right Dorothy there's no place quite like a DM's homebrew campaign - but your slippers seem to have a limited number of charges.

How do you see the charges being limited? If you're in my game, you're using my campaign rules or you're out- plain & simple.

 

[Anselyn]

How do you see the charges being limited? If you're in my game, you're using my campaign rules or you're out- plain & simple.

Yes, sorry- poor metaphor.

You are a wise and experienced DM*, the slippers work for you. Unfortunately there's many they seem to fail for. Clearly you make your POW v POW roll with your players in a more charming way that the "my campaign rules or you're out" might suggest.

* Dorothy Man?

 

[Anselyn]

Sorry. I wasn't aware anyone was still taking GNS seriously. I'll start treating it as legitimate when there's a coherent, functional explanation of it's terminology.

You'll have to tell us why this isn't coherent. But I certainly think it's functional and definitive in as much as it gives defnitions:
The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory

Until then, it's just a bunch of general use phrases people use as if they were something more than general use phrases. People wrote a lot of words about them back in the day, but they never actually made it into a coherent theory.

Gee, yeah. You should hear what Plato and Socrates say about this stuff - and you know; they're both old and use words that aren't even English!