Mearls: Augmenting the core

[catastrophic]

One of the useful things being a useful comprehensible set of reference terms that are shared - even if the overall theory fails.

Actually, no, that's exactly where the theory falls down, because there was never a clear explanation on what the terms actually meant. To be clear, everybody thinks they know what the terms mean, but consistantly in it's heyday, any given person trying to explain the theory on a forum would find themself contradicted by somebody claiming greater authority and knowlege.

The essays on GNS would be epic affairs, but they never really managed to explain what the hell they were on about in a clear or concise way- and when they claimed that they did, it was only by using definitions that themselves relied upon other definitions, that in turn needed essays to explain, and still only did so poorly.

And to be frank, if all GNS does is offer a broad description of terms, then it's predecessor- GDS- works far better for that goal. Because it doesn't pretend to be something more than it is.

And again, the people who used to act as proponents for GNS have themselves move on from it.

Do you think that discussion on these boards would be clearer and cleaner if GNS terms were banned?

Don't be pathetic.

I get the impression that for you a theory is right or wrong and you will only engage with the right ones.

I get the impression that you think you're being clever. You're are in error. There's nothing about the falability of theories that validates the exceptionally fallable and incoherent theory that is GNS. By that logic, we must abandon all rigor- and that's kinda the point of theories. You have to be able to test them. You should be able to support them. They have to like, work, and junk, at least to some degree.

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.

So you're comparing GNS to newtonian physics. Ok, the problem is that one of these theories is a very functional and effective way of looking at the world, who's falability does not eclipse it's utility, enabling people to, for instance, launch lunar missions and build skyscrapers, and the other is a bunch of long-form wank about tabletop rpgs that, as a theory, barely even influenced the RPGs made by it's proponents, let alone anyone else's.

 

[tuxgeo]

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.

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 imagine a lot (<-- that's two words, there) of marine or naval connotations. Duckthieves would be common along the shore, and near the docks, and haunting the wharf wherever they go.

Wiki-fu on cotton duck mentions "canvas," "sneakers," and "sea bags" -- so this should apply to sneakers that are made of canvas, amIrite?

Duckthieves would wear a lot of duck-cloth. Duckthieves would be good at ducking into an ally when they hear the rhythmic marching of the approaching town watchmen. Duckthieves would be adroit at ducking into a sewer to evade pursuit.

Duckthieves would be good at amphibious landings -- up from the water, onto the shore, and keep going without loss of either step or turn: "Let's vary piracy -- with a little burglary!" (yes, G&S again. . . .)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And the leader of the Duckthief guild would be called..."Mallard" (m'Lord).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

A more realistic goal is that you shoot for all of them to be balanced with each other (perhaps with a few exceptions that are clearly designed to never be used togethr), but you don't expect to fully succeed. So part of the DM advice is along the lines of which ones do work together well, and under what conditions. Thing X with Thing Y works decently well together in the heroic tier, but breaks down thereafter. Use together at your own risk.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A more realistic goal is that you shoot for all of them to be balanced with each other (perhaps with a few exceptions that are clearly designed to never be used togethr), but you don't expect to fully succeed. So part of the DM advice is along the lines of which ones do work together well, and under what conditions. Thing X with Thing Y works decently well together in the heroic tier, but breaks down thereafter. Use together at your own risk.

Nobody has yet addressed the real issue though. I could care less about 'balance' between modules, I'm not even sure that is a meaningful concept. Each one will provide some different game experience, obviously. As Mearls the Mad explains it you'd use one or another in your game. In effect there would be N modules and some multiple of N different games, all calling themselves D&D.

So, how will you support this monstrosity? Which of the N D&D's will you write modules for? Will you try to design every module so when you add some element to the game for that module (IE a feat to the feats module) that it doesn't break ANY of the other modules it might be used with? How would you do that? What modules will the DM side general material (IE MotP) assume are in use? Clearly if there are even 2 choices for each major subsystem (besides not using that subsystem at all, a third choice) then you'll rapidly end up with most possible setups of game neither supported nor compatible with other material.

No sane game publishing company is going to go down this road. Certainly not one as averse to niche products as WotC is.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, I am pretty sure I floated the suggestion of just abolishing the half-level bonus at one point. This and doing away with stat bumps actually makes a pretty clean core combat system that can still 'ramp up' but isn't so clearly a simple proportional scaling game.

And really, I think the game does a decent job now of distinguishing the feel of the game at different tiers. It could probably do a BIT more, but remember, it is A game, not 3 games. It is bound to be that a lot of what was true in heroic tier will continue to be valid in paragon, etc.

 

[Quickleaf]

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

GNS debates aside, I think us hardcore gamers can tend to exaggerate design issues by overlooking simple solutions. I mean, many children's games have multiple versions with layers of complexity, without any page count!

Maybe we and Mr. Mearls need look no further than.... Duck Duck Goose?

And the leader of the Duckthief guild would be called..."Mallard" (m'Lord).

Really? That's hilarious. I'm away from my Complete Duckthief at the moment, but I'll take a gander when I get back home.

 

[KidSnide]

So, how will you support this monstrosity? Which of the N D&D's will you write modules for? Will you try to design every module so when you add some element to the game for that module (IE a feat to the feats module) that it doesn't break ANY of the other modules it might be used with? How would you do that? What modules will the DM side general material (IE MotP) assume are in use?

I know that Mearls hasn't gone into this yet, but it's pretty obvious that the core game could only exist in a small number of variations - probably two: simple and tactical. That would hearken back to new (and more compatible) versions of D&D and AD&D. Anything else would be a matter of:

• power-neutral player options (like most of 4e);
• power-non-neutral player options (like powered up themes) that come with a level adjustment, much like 3e monster races; or
• new subsystems that open up new gameplay types like outdoor exploration, mass combat, kingdom management and maybe epic tier.

Obviously, an unorganized morass of unplanned modules would create, well a total nightmare. But there is a possibility of a restrained and controlled system of modules. We just haven't gotten that far.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, how will you support this monstrosity? Which of the N D&D's will you write modules for? Will you try to design every module so when you add some element to the game for that module (IE a feat to the feats module) that it doesn't break ANY of the other modules it might be used with? How would you do that? What modules will the DM side general material (IE MotP) assume are in use? Clearly if there are even 2 choices for each major subsystem (besides not using that subsystem at all, a third choice) then you'll rapidly end up with most possible setups of game neither supported nor compatible with other material.

As I said earlier, you:

1. Have some things that are off limits to the general modularity of the sytem. I used the example of not having a skill-based character system that could replace a class-based one, as an obvious place to keep a single structure. But there would need to be others. Modules can't just hang in space with anything you can imagine. They need to be attached at points that are designed to support the attachment.

2. The things picked as modules need to tie back into something you can label, so that you can use the label to stand for all the possible modules. For example, depending on the module, with a "longsword" you might only be able to roll a d20, add a modifier made of STR mod + a few other things, beat AC, and if you hit, do 1d8 + mods. Pick a more complex module, and you can do more with that "longsword". But it stays a longsword.

Naturally, both of those requirement feed off each others, as well. That is a big part of what makes them work. Because you can't just do this for "longsword", which is easy, but it also has to work for "flaming longsword +3" or whatever. Note, that might mean that certain options were out. If you want three particular modules (because you like what they bring), then having +N weapons may not work. That's a trade off.

Nor is the effect limited to things as singular and concrete as a "longsword". You can do the same thing with class labels, role labels, race labels, spell schools, effect keywords, etc. Whatever is worth making static in the structure and attaching a label to, so that they things around it can vary.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? That's hilarious. I'm away from my Complete Duckthief at the moment, but I'll take a gander when I get back home.

It's in that loony section stork at the back of the book, along with a piece of short fiction, Drake of the Locks.