Mearls: Augmenting the core

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

I don't know what a duckthief is, but the name is so compelling, I want it in my game.

Is it a thief who is a duck? Is it one who steals ducks? Is it a thief with a bad back from doing a lot of ducking? I bet the Complete Duckthief has ALL of those!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The two games that I know that have a simple contest/complex contest mechanic that are meant to be used in tandem (depending on the table's preferences as to how much detail is warranted) are BW and HW/Q. I imagine there are other games like this too.

In both these games, the character build rules yield featurs/attributes/abilities/whatever that can be used in either simple or complex checks. This is a bit like 4e's skills - these can be used for a skill check, or a skill challenge; and a bit like 4e's attack bonuses - these can used both to attack a minion, or to attack a normal monster. If we think more about the 4e example, we also note that many powers do variable damage and/or inflict effects on a hit - if all the combat was against minions, this would be wasted rules text. So the existence of this rules text creates obvious pressure to have some combats against non-minions (of course, pressure for that comes from other places as well!). HW/Q and BW don't tend to have this sort of stuff - PC abilities/resources that can only be used in complex challenges.

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 don't know, but I suspect, that the designers have relied more on playtesting than on maths to achieve a sense of "balance" or "equality" between simple and complex mechanics. (Notoriously, 4e is still grappling with this issue in its ongoing revision of DC numbers, skill challenge 'advantages', guidelines on what DC to use in what sort of challenge involving what sort of PC, etc.)

Right, and since you may use either (or one of the several) combat systems at any given point in play in those systems it is less of an issue. There could be the oddity that my bard is awesome if the abstract system is used and sucks if the tactical system is used, but at least my resources apply in some situations. In Mearls' proposal by contrast you'd be playing with module X OR Y, but once you pick tactical combat then my bard just sucks... Or you have to now provide a whole alternate set of resources or hacks to all of a whole set of resources when you introduce the tactical combat module to fix all of that. It is fairly easy to see this becoming unworkable quite quickly.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here, so am not sure if I agree. I've tried to explain how in HW/Q and BW, the qualitively different complex resolution mechanicsm aren't meant to make a given score in a given attribute more or less significant in one version of resolution than the other.

This is just a flaw in design. For modules to work in the way Mearls is talking about, I think this just has to be corrected. (Before the brawler fighter was published, or the improved grappling feat, I had implemented a house rule that grabs, bull rushes etc get a +2/+4 bonus at paragon/epic tier.)

Sure, and when you design a system all in one shot you can easily correct those things (even if it doesn't always manage to actually get fixed). Even here though we can see how including enhancement bonus threw things off, as I'm guessing they dealt with the consequences of magic items AFTER they roughed out the core math. Supposing items were a 'module' in a modular system, well, this example would be easily fixable as you've outlined, but there would certainly be a lot of these kinds of things that would come up as each module interacted with the core.

Some people have suggested limiting modules to only tweaking some sort of restricted "API" of things in the core, but I feel like that is a pretty harsh restriction to place on modules (IE no, no, you can't make a module that affects AC, that's off limits).

I don't know if I follow all of this, but I think I follow at least some of it.

It made lots of sense late at night. Try having a couple drinks and staying up for 24 hours and read it again

The bit about "approach" and "PC food rules" seems right to me. It's going to be hard to have a good, coherent game in which it is meant to be viable to treat rations and other resources both in a very abstract, "test your resource attribute" sort of way, but also in a "did you remember to buy enough food while you were in town" sort of way. The second approach, for example, requires fewer attributes on the PC sheet (no "resources" attribute) but brings a particular element of D&D play that's always been very central - gp - into the equation. How is all this to be balanced and reconciled? Dunno.

The earlier paragraph, about combat vs exploration, is a bit more hazy to me. But why, in exploration, can't I use rules provisions to get an advantage (eg I use a charge of my Wand of Metal Detection or take a swig of my Treasure Finding Potion). And in combat why can't I draw on my story resources - like using my dedication to Bahamut to help me fight this cleric of Bane, or - to be even more metagamey - using my earlier pleasant conversation with the captain of the guard to bring it about that he turns up to help me out when I'm being overwhelmed by a couple of assassins in a dark alley (The Riddle of Steel allows the first sort of "story resource", andh HeroWars/Quest both sorts of "story resources", to figure into combat).

Right, I think that all makes sense, modulo how 'meta-game' you want to get with that kind of thing, but fundamentally that's kind of a separate question I think. The real question again is with the value of resources under different variations of the rules.

For these sorts of cases - like "will the muddy ground factor into the fight" or "will they have a special advantage against a Roper because they've got a lot of bottles of spirits and really good Escape checks" - I think you're right. A game like HW/Q relies on these sorts of tactical issues not factoring into resolution in the same way as in D&D - rather - to the extent that they are relevant at all - they generally provide augments, and augments can be applied in either simple or complex contests.

In BW, I think that that sort of detail is going to get lost if you go for simple rather than complex resolution - just as damage rolls and effects, in 4e, get lost if all you're fighting is minions. I think the BW attitude to this is the same as the 4e attitude to fights with minions - you win some, you lose some, it will all come out in the wash! The less plausible, and the more like desperate handwaving, that that seems, the less viable the "modules" idea will look, I think.

Right, and this is kind of the beating heart of the issue. Is it possible to make a set of modules such that choice of alternates won't change the balance of value of resources so much that it breaks other modules. Again, people have suggested that modules only expose a limited set of things that can be tweaked by other modules, but that doesn't help with this kind of question. If tactical factors are not important in the simple combat module or represented in a very different way (as they almost have to be) then items, powers, feats, etc will have significantly different values under each system. Again this is not too big a problem if you start out with a design where you know what all the alternatives are. When you contemplate adding new versions of existing subsystems later on it seems like it would get ugly.

Personally, I would expect Mearls' modules - if they move from hypothetical to actual - to look more like HARP than like BW. Which gives rise to the "fracturing" concern that I voiced upthread (as did others - including you?).

Right. I would expect adding modules would create almost geometric increases in complexity and issues. A system with 3 parts where 2 are replacements for each other is fairly trivial, there are just 2 instances interactions between the 2, so there is a single increment of added complexity. Now add a 4th module that relies on either of the previous 2 permutations (IE you have A, B or C, and D) you have now ABD and ACD on top of AB and AC. So you now have 4 increments of added complexity, and 4 different sets of values that every element in the game might potentially have. It isn't too hard to balance 2 things against each other, but it gets a good bit harder with 4, especially if the balancing is say between abstract combat and tactical combat, or between say a spell point system and Vancian casting.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I have to be missing something. "Layers" isn't the right term, but I understand what the idea is.

In every edition of D & D you could pick and choose what supplements and rules you wanted. In 1E you could or could not use the Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneers Guide, etc.; in 2E you could or could not use any of the additional books; in 3E you could or could not use splats, 3pp, etc. (I don't do 4E.) And that has nothing to do with houserules and homebrews - which trancend all editions.

So, why is this seen as so novel?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As far as I can tell, in my limited play experience, but wider reading, the difference between combat systems in Burning Wheel is very slight in overall effectiveness. The main reason for this is that there are only three basic combat systems, and two of those are for specialized circumstances (mainly range or mainly melee), and the one that is general purpose uses far fewer rolls. This latter means that loss of effective in tactical play due to armor, weapons, precise spell application, etc. are compensated for by much more effective use of "fate" points (three types in BW).

There are some edges cases. A heavily armored group with very little "fate" available would generally prefer, on a strictly gamist approach, to go for the more tactical system, while the opposite would also apply. However, neither situation is one likely to occur in BW very often, and the gamist play in it is more focused on "use whatever you got" than particular tactics anyway. That is, in any campaign of BW, one would generally expect to use all three subsystems, or it you didn't, presumably you had some reason why not.

And all that said, if it really started to be an issue because of drifted play, I think the "heavy armor" in simple combat is the only one that would be a long term problem--and it could easily be mitigated via several different simple house rules.

Contrast that to the issue of modules for Fantasy Hero. In Hero, nearly all powers have derived calculations. If you decide, for example, that all spellcasters of a certain type need a several actions to cast their spells, then you must rework every single shorter spell used by that faction to have more of the "extra time" limitation--and this will change the point cost of the spells. And that is a relatively benign and easy change. If you make a change in such powers that affects the "active cost", the consequences will be more ranging. Moreover, FH is meant to be tweaked this way to evoke a certain flavor. Therefore, any module written for FH is mainly written for a given flavor, rather than any FH campaign.

Of course, this isn't the best of examples, because BW isn't meant to be run with modules. Locations and creatures and spells and such may be useful to develop (to a point), but the module is supposed to evolve in play, and be somewhat based on character direction and changing situation.

If the supposed D&D modular version is going to edge into some of the same territory that FH hits, with its changes, then I agree that modules (and campaign sourcebooks) are not going to work very well. You simply can't get down to that level and make it coherent to read, let alone organize and play. If fireball is allowed to have functionally different effectiveness depending upon modules chosen, and you do that for all spells, it will never work.

What might work instead is to have whole systems of magic, but then portray NPCs as using a set of things. Something like the Rolemaster spell lists will do for discussion, though I consider that rather clunky. Basically, an NPC has a block of spells with a label, based on form and style, rather than individual spells. So when you say an NPC is an illusionist of 7th level, you know that he uses one of several packages. However, that might be overkill, given the 4E direction with monsters not built as NPCs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have to be missing something. "Layers" isn't the right term, but I understand what the idea is.

In every edition of D & D you could pick and choose what supplements and rules you wanted. In 1E you could or could not use the Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneers Guide, etc.; in 2E you could or could not use any of the additional books; in 3E you could or could not use splats, 3pp, etc. (I don't do 4E.) And that has nothing to do with houserules and homebrews - which trancend all editions.

So, why is this seen as so novel?

What is novel is the degree of difference. 2e for instance had a number of optional combat rules that slightly tweaked which weapons worked against which other weapons or armors for instance, or added some bonus for a specific tactic. This was pretty limited and each optional piece was quite focused. The upshot being as you say, it wasn't a big deal, though some of the later 2e 'modules' DID rather break the system.

With 4e Mike is talking about things like having a totally different skill system or combat system as a module. Needless to say this touches on all other aspects of the game and we're basically arguing about whether or not you can create a viable game system that can support all the different variations.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What is novel is the degree of difference. 2e for instance had a number of optional combat rules that slightly tweaked which weapons worked against which other weapons or armors for instance, or added some bonus for a specific tactic. This was pretty limited and each optional piece was quite focused. The upshot being as you say, it wasn't a big deal, though some of the later 2e 'modules' DID rather break the system.

With 4e Mike is talking about things like having a totally different skill system or combat system as a module. Needless to say this touches on all other aspects of the game and we're basically arguing about whether or not you can create a viable game system that can support all the different variations.

But it's not completely unheard-of. The Book of Nine Swords, the 3E Tome of Magic, Incarnum and even 3E Psionics all added new systems to the game that people chose to use or not use. If the content packs were packaged like that -- with a theme for each, so you'd get a whole package of content along with the new options -- I could see it working.

To me, the big question is how they package up the 4E-style combat and flavor into one package. Maybe it's a Battle for Nentir Vale book, or something?

If WotC wanted to kill two birds with one stone, they could put the 3E feats/skills system into a pre-apocalypse Forgotten Realms setting book ...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4E powers condensed down into a much less redundant list, perhaps sharing powers across roles or even classes more freely--would be a lot more portable in such a system than the current setup.

For example, picking options that let you do striker kind of things with one-handed weapons is a lot more suitable to modular swapping than picking rogue powers used by a few specific weapons.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4E powers condensed down into a much less redundant list, perhaps sharing powers across roles or even classes more freely--would be a lot more portable in such a system than the current setup.

For example, picking options that let you do striker kind of things with one-handed weapons is a lot more suitable to modular swapping than picking rogue powers used by a few specific weapons.

Yup, I'd be quite happy with a power list that was cut down by at least 75% and I think it could be done with almost no real impact to the game. A few things would work differently, but the net result wouldn't need to be all that different.

1) Scale powers. Instead of having several different powers that are nearly the same thing at different levels simply scale one base power. This alone could cut power lists by 25% or more.

2) Make a smaller number of more fundamental classes. Instead of 30 classes with power lists, something like 5.

3) Attach more niche powers to themes or other elements that can be shared across classes. This can especially work well for utility powers.

4) Move most utility powers into skill powers.

5) Simply eliminate powers which are either useless or are just minor variations on existing powers and let feat/theme/whatever riders provide more variation.

6) Reduce the number of different levels of powers. With scaling powers and riders that can be added you just don't need powers scattered over the whole level range. I could easily see 10 groups of powers (1 each EDU per tier plus A) per class. With less bins for powers to go into there is less need for 'filler' powers that seem to mostly exist so that class X has 5 powers at level Y rather than that it NEEDS more powers.

There are probably some other things that could be done, but that's the general idea.

But it's not completely unheard-of. The Book of Nine Swords, the 3E Tome of Magic, Incarnum and even 3E Psionics all added new systems to the game that people chose to use or not use. If the content packs were packaged like that -- with a theme for each, so you'd get a whole package of content along with the new options -- I could see it working.

To me, the big question is how they package up the 4E-style combat and flavor into one package. Maybe it's a Battle for Nentir Vale book, or something?

If WotC wanted to kill two birds with one stone, they could put the 3E feats/skills system into a pre-apocalypse Forgotten Realms setting book ...

Bo9S adds things. I doesn't change existing things. Combat rules are the same with or without Bo9S even if it may add some new ones. The Mearls the Mad Machine wants to have something like two different alternate mutually incompatible combat systems. That's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't know what a duckthief is, but the name is so compelling, I want it in my game.

Is it a thief who is a duck? Is it one who steals ducks? Is it a thief with a bad back from doing a lot of ducking? I bet the Complete Duckthief has ALL of those!

I'll tell you what a duckthief isn't; it's certainly not someone who helps you find a witch!

*ducks*

*ducks again for Sir Bedevere*

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Bo9S adds things. I doesn't change existing things. Combat rules are the same with or without Bo9S even if it may add some new ones. The Mearls the Mad Machine wants to have something like two different alternate mutually incompatible combat systems. That's a whole other kettle of fish.

It's the exact same thing. A UD&D version of Bo9S (which was, of course, a trial balloon for a lot of 4E) gets bolted on in lieu of whatever we'd call the UD&D 3E book.

The way this would probably have to work is for there to be no spellcasting in the UD&D core book, so that you'd have to choose what power model -- if any -- to bolt on. Pick Vancian magic or pick the 4E powers system. Pick skills/feats or pick 4E powers for everyone -- or neither of the above, for a different feel.

A basic UD&D system where everyone plays an unskilled character who mostly just knows how to stick swords into the enemy means that, out of the box, the game is set up to run stuff like Conan or Oz, where only the NPCs have magical powers.