Mearls: Augmenting the core

[Anselyn]

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....

They'd always be a search for the most bangs-for-your-buck option. However, interestingly, this seems to actively give the DM back more power to say no, we're not using those rules ...

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I think implementing something of this level of modularity and complexity requires a DM, and possibly the players to use electronic tools, which would probably be the primary delivery system to begin with. I am not sure books would work for such a medium.

 

[Yesway Jose]

Isn't layers the same way that other game systems work, like Savage Worlds?

If so, this isn't a novel idea, it's only novel for D&D, but it's sort of happening anyway with core 4E, Essentials, Dark Sun, etc.

 

[Agamon]

They'd always be a search for the most bangs-for-your-buck option. However, interestingly, this seems to actively give the DM back more power to say no, we're not using those rules ...

Exactly, this would be like deciding what splats to use in a campaign. But these aren't like trying to find the best feat or power combos, the rules modules would be more wide-ranging than that.

 

[Agamon]

Isn't layers the same way that other game systems work, like Savage Worlds?

If so, this isn't a novel idea, it's only novel for D&D, but it's sort of happening anyway with core 4E, Essentials, Dark Sun, etc.

There no such thing as a new idea anymore. Besides, I read that and thought, "Wow, this is like Savage Worlds! Cool!"

 

[delericho]

What Mearls is describing sounds neat and all, and may actually represent a means by which his 'complexity dials' could be implemented.

However...

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'm also doubtful that all these options will be properly supported. Witness the relative support provided to the 4e Wizard vs, say, the Runepriest.

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'm willing to keep an open mind here. It's a good idea in theory. But, I said last week that I'd believe it when I see it; this week I should amend that to "I'll believe it works when I see it."

 

[Agamon]

I think implementing something of this level of modularity and complexity requires a DM, and possibly the players to use electronic tools, which would probably be the primary delivery system to begin with. I am not sure books would work for such a medium.

While it would help, I don't think it's necessary. As has been stated, Savage Worlds does something similar.

 

[Anselyn]

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 agree that this is a real down-side to this idea. It puts the barrier back up for the drop-in player who wants an easy and fair way to join into a game.

 

[delericho]

Isn't that the same? Doesn't saying i am using the "politics and peasants" add on automatically imply the type of game you are running?

I suppose it can be read either way. Does the group set the parameters for the campaign and then choose the rules modules to use, or do they choose the rules modules and thus determine the parameters of the campaign?

Either is possible. Still, I would expect most DMs (and players) to decide what the game's going to be about first and then choose the rules to match, rather than the other way around. Surely a DM who hates politics in games isn't going to throw them in just because he has the "peasants and politics" module available!

 

[wrecan]

Does the group set the parameters for the campaign and then choose the rules modules to use, or do they choose the rules modules and thus determine the parameters of the campaign?

I'm not sure why it matters as long as the group plays the style of game they want and they have the rules that enable them to do so in the manner they want.