Mearls: Augmenting the core

[Tuft]

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?

There are two common complaints against splatbooks and other optional rulesets:

1) Power creep.
2) Increased complexity.

If you put a "price" on their use, options can be unabashedly more powerful (such as e.g. Gestalt rules), without complaints about power creep - assuming that the price is obviously correct, of course...

And second, since there is a price, players will only ask for those options they *really* want - no unnecessary complexity. People will probably want to buy (or subscribe to) the splats, just to have the option available - but they will not have the large complexity of "everything is core", since just a fraction of the options will be in play at the same time.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Some of the most contentious points in D&D revolve around magic -- swinginess and power level of magic, reliance on healing magic, magic items, plus magical-like martial exploits.

If D&D had layers, then what's the baseline/core conceit for magic? Would you agree with a barebones D&D baseline consisting of fighters, rogues (as a variation of fighter), and rituals?

And then on top of that a few optional layers offering a few different types of magic systems and wushu martial exploits?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Clearly, the duckthief and witches are part of the same setting ...

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Would it be possible to bolt both onto the basic system? If so, how do the two interact?

If not, and one version becomes more popular than the other, are you cutting your own wrists as a company by trying to fully support both games?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Some of the most contentious points in D&D revolve around magic -- swinginess and power level of magic, reliance on healing magic, magic items, plus magical-like martial exploits.

If D&D had layers, then what's the baseline/core conceit for magic? Would you agree with a barebones D&D baseline consisting of fighters, rogues (as a variation of fighter), and rituals?

I think that'd be fantastic. I think there are one or two OSR games that already work this way. And outside of game-inspired fiction, you could model a LOT of fantasy novels and movies this way, where the only spellcasters have a unique set of superpowers that aren't required to be codified in a graduated system like D&D wizards use.

And then on top of that a few optional layers offering a few different types of magic systems and wushu martial exploits?

There should absolutely be a book that allowed coolness like wushu stuff or even world-cracking Exalted levels of power at the top levels.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Would it be possible to bolt both onto the basic system? If so, how do the two interact?

That would be a task for someone smarter than me. Didn't Mearls say, though, that he didn't think having them all work together in the same game was unnecessary? That said, if all the options were "priced" similarly, it theoretically should be possible to balance them against one another. But I definitely think that'd be hard to pull off.

If not, and one version becomes more popular than the other, are you cutting your own wrists as a company by trying to fully support both games?

If they didn't think they were cutting their wrists by just sticking with 4E, I don't think we would have had this steady trickle/flow of "all versions of *D&D are *D&D" from them over the past few months.

And what if they supported each line the way they've supported each setting in 4E? Maybe the Vancian magic gets a few modules and monster books that feature that content, but it's siloed in its own line; and the 4E powers system gets its own modules and monster books as well; but the "core" stuff just features adventures and monsters that don't use any power system available to players, and it thus works without having to own anything but the core books.

 

[catastrophic]

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:

I'm not playing the gns game with you, and that includes the bit when you pretend the burden of evidence as to it's validity rests with me.
There's a reason why it fell out of favour, even amongst it's most zealous proponentsm, who moved onto the big model, and beyond.
Lots of interesting things came out of the forge movement: a coherent, functional theory was not one of those things.

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!

No see, those guys explained their ideas in coherent, functional ways. GNS never did.
It's fine to use terms like 'simulationist', but you don't get to pretend that it has any special credibility or value.

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!

To be honest, TCDT stretches credibility at times. I mean, did we really need three different paraduckamental planes, each described in detail? I don't even know how pcs could adventure in that plane made completly out of ducks, unless they were continually casting the passduck and airy ducks spells.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They'd have to be completely quackers to even try.

 

[catastrophic]

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..

This is part of why i'm getting sick of the red queen.

They should just set up powers, say five per pc, on top of that add in a power for role, a power for power source, maybe add one extra really cool power per tier, and that would be ideal. Why do there have to be levels (in combat terms) at all?

Maybe monsters could level, but even there, 4e fights are defined mainly by feel, not power level. Some gms make their games tougher, or use more nastier effects as things level up, but ultimatly, that's just down to the feel of the game. Other games might start with nastier effects in the earlier, gritter levels, and then move to more exotic effects as the pcs becomg more powerful.

And we all know there are issues with access to epic tier- and everyone should realise by now that monsters wiht bigger hp and slightly nastier effects are not going to get you an epic tier feel.

There are a few issues, like range, movement, and map scale that do seem to go up by level, but again, these are options that could be used at any level or tier, or could simply be established by tier, in what would probably be a more effective way to add their 'feel' to the encounters.

So why not just have combat be level-less, and leave level outside the combat system? That would focus 'power level' on issues like resources, story, and stakes, and maybe battlefield scale. All the level/combat grind gives us is lots of extra pages of chaff monsters and powers.

 

[Anselyn]

Lots of interesting things came out of the forge movement: a coherent, functional theory was not one of those things.
[...]
It's fine to use terms like 'simulationist', but you don't get to pretend that it has any special credibility or value.

One of the useful things being a useful comprehensible set of reference terms that are shared - even if the overall theory fails. Do you think that discussion on these boards would be clearer and cleaner if GNS terms were banned?

I get the impression that for you a theory is right or wrong and you will only engage with the right ones. Well, look at Newtonian dynamics - that's an incorrect theory (OK a limiting case of a more complete theory) but it's a more useful thing to use to model the behaviour of your car than not using any theory at all.