Mearls: Augmenting the core

[wrecan]

This last article has me drooling. I desperately want to play the game that MM is hinting at.

Something has me worried, though: all the howling and naysaying on the WotC boards. The response over there is astonishingly negative. It's beyond the ordinary degree of nerd-rage. It's just downright creepy.

The WotC boards appear to be in perpetual shellshock from the Edition Wars of 2007 and the Essentials Wars of 2010. Any whiff of change creates apoplexy.

 

[Stoat]

I'm doubtful of WotC's ability to define a large number of rules modules, and to keep all of these balanced, especially if some campaign styles are going to change the relative power of some options (as he discussed). How can he be sure "Fighter Feats" is balanced with "Combat Maneuvers"... let alone with "Cleric Domains" and "Specialist Schools"? (WotC's track record in this area hasn't been terribly good: Incarnum and Weapons of Legacy, anyone?)

I agree. I don't think what Mearls is talking about is possible. To the extent it is possible, I don't think WotC can do it.

 

[dagger]

I felt a great disturbance, as if thousands of nerds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly outraged. I fear something wonderful has happened.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

LOL, not surpirsing. Mike could announce that every WotC board account is getting $100, and there would be much whining and gnashing of teeth over there.

As we said it back during the Star Wars minis days on the WotC boards, "If WotC included a $100 bill in every box of minis, there'd be people here complaining about how it was folded."

 

[Eric Tolle]

K

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....

I think it's more heading back to the Magic the Gathering style of character optimization that characterized 3rd Edition, combined with the "Complete X" books.

From a business perspective, this is awesome; you can get the core rules, and then if you want your character to keep up, you have to buy the correct "Book of Awesome Character X", with one sourcebook for each class or power type. Even better, if you join a group using options A-X, you'll be obligated to get the option books for your character.

This works even better with DDI; WOTC can emulate the highly successful Korean mmorpg model, where the basic character types are available for the basic monthly subscription rate and then additional options would be available for an additional monthly fee.

The way it will work will probably be similar to the current DDI where characters are stored online. However, the shaved elements of the character will only be available when the proper level of subscription is paid. So, if one month you only spend the base $5.00, you only can access the base sections of your character sheet. If the next month you decide to spend the extra for Options A and B, you can print out a character sheet with those options, but not option C.

The neat thing is there's no limit to the amount of add-ons and options that can be given; maneuvers, magic, items, character art- it can all be done as monthly payments or one-time fees.

Wow, I am indeed impressed by Merl's plan. It looks like D&D is going to join the 21st century.

 

[KidSnide]

If your campaign moves from pure adventuring to kingdom management, the GM says: "Ok, you've all achieved positions of influence. At your next level, start choosing kingdom management abilities.

Does this necessitate additional purchases and rules mastery? Would current characters be compatable with the new add ons? I am sure these are all questions considered and addressed by the designers.

Well, presumably, all these characters are compatible in that they all interact with combat in the same way. It's not like you'd have 2e characters and 3e characters in the same fight. It's just that characters built with Advanced Combat Maneuvers module would be more powerful than characters built without it. A party of level 4 ACM characters might face the same xp budget as a party level 6 basic characters. (Of course, there could be ACM monsters who have more complicated powers that are worth more xp...)

Some modules might allow the PCs to interact with different sub-systems. For example, a kingdom management module might provide a new "silo" where each character gets new powers that are principally useful when interacting with the kingdom rules.

Other modules just add to the power of the characters. For example, you could imagine a Book of Themes (ok, I'd imagine a better name). If the group wants mechanical support for themes, then everyone gets extra powers and the effective level of the party goes up by 1.

-KS

 

[Gundark]

But finally, the net effect of all of this is that everyone at the table has to play at the same level of complexity. If the Fighter gets "Combat Maneuvers", the Wizard has to deal with "Specialist Schools", or some equivalent. This means that there can be no concept of the "beginner class" for new players (or just those who don't want to play with all the bells-and-whistles). Anyone playing a simpler character is automatically going to be behind in the power curve.

I don't think that is what Mike was talking about though. Essentials classes are easier and they play just fine alongside the more detailed 4e classes. I got the impression from earlier articels that you could have the "newb" (or even the experienced gamer who doesn't want the options) to be able to play beside the people who want the crunchy options.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which would be great, except that that really didn't seem to be what Mearls' was saying - as far as I could see the 'simple' options would also be the baseline (least powerful) options.

But there's also potentially huge balance issues with having all these disparate "units of power" and just adding them up. If I choose Fighter Thing #2 (UoP3), is that really equivalent to Really Simple Fighter Thing #1 + All Characters Option A (UoP 2+1)?

What about Base Wizard Thing #1 + Custom Spellcasting A + Specialist Schools (UoP 1+1+1)?

It goes deeper than this. Not only are there the stacking issues, but there are 2 other classes of issues that are equally thorny.

1) Dependencies - Surely the "Kings & Courts" module that defines social 'combat' is going to depend on the "Skills & Backgrounds" module, so you don't have clean distinctions. At best only a few permutations will actually work AT ALL.

2) Interactions - When you add in the "Powers & Feats" module it is going to have to provide mechanical integration with other modules, like defining the need for rests. These will be deeper and fiddlier as well, think about all the issues between classic and Essentials 4e classes and MC feats and power swaps of various kinds. These things will just mushroom with the number of modules, and because each module is designed to be isolated from each other module it is difficult for them to resolve these things around specific resources or mechanics that may not even be in use. How will Rituals leverage APs when APs are an optional part of the "Advanced Combat & Tactics" module?

Honestly, either you end up with a very constrained design space or a game that has to lard on excess mechanics for each module to make it a black box and then doesn't all integrate very much. The cost at best is high. Personally I don't think there are very many permutations of CHARACTER resources you can support this way. You can certainly support various add-ons that are more related to the setting (a Castles and Armies module for instance, which has very little impact on the base character sheet). The question then is, doesn't 4e already allow for this? Why do we need a 5e for that kind of module?

I'll vote with Delricho, I'll believe this is possible when I see it, but all my systems design experience tells me it will come at a high cost and will not work anywhere near as well as a game designed with these features from the ground up. I'd MUCH rather see a full-featured game with a good discussion of removing some elements and a set of supplements for the DM that describe different things you can add to your campaign setting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll vote with Delricho, I'll believe this is possible when I see it, but all my systems design experience tells me it will come at a high cost and will not work anywhere near as well as a game designed with these features from the ground up. I'd MUCH rather see a full-featured game with a good discussion of removing some elements and a set of supplements for the DM that describe different things you can add to your campaign setting.

To work, it has to be designed as an integrated system. I agree fully. When it comes to system interaction, no one ever gets it right in the plan, without some actual working pieces to interact and test. No one.

Having done that, though, and deliberately designed it to be modular, then how you present and sell the pieces does not have to include the entire system. This is in contrast to a system that is modular, but wasn't designed to be that way--e.g. 1E. It still won't be perfect, but it can be done a lot better than 1E did it.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

Whatever said, designing adventure modules for such a system would be a pain in the butt.