Mearls: Augmenting the core

[Crazy Jerome]

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 grant you that it is an ambitious and difficult task. However, I don't think it is quite as bad as all that, on either the mix of options for players, or re-adjusting for balance. Consider that you have several modular add ons that applies to all characters or weapon users or spell casters or fighters or wizards in particular (or elves or dwarves or people who wear flowers in their hair--doesn't matter). Assume that each one has been pegged as being worth N units of power, per the article.

You might have Fighter Thing #2 with units of power 3. And then you also have some special Fighter Feats with units of power 2. And then there is a special All Characters Option A with units of power 1. But you might also have Really Simple Fighter Thing #2, also with units of power 3. Or Really Simple Fighter Thing #1, with units of power 2.

Really Simple Fighter Thing #2 is what a fighter player picks when everyone else is getting options worth 3 units of power, and the player wants to stay uncomplicated. Or if doesn't mind a little complication, maybe he goes with Really Simple Fighter Thing #1 and the All Characters Option A. This says absolutely nothing about what other characters might pick.

Now obviously, if some of these are thematic, they might not apply in a certain campaign. But I think that ultimately boils down to what the players want and are wiling to handle. It makes sense to say, "I'd like a simple option and a complex option for a fighter having a keep." It doesn't make sense to say, "I'd like a simple option for a fighter having a keep that adds no complexity compared to a fighter not having a keep." That's not a desire for a mechanics options. Rather it is a desire that the keep be essentially color or entirely roleplaying driven. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't gain "units of power" from such things, except insomuch as the group wants to.

For balance, one of the nice things with lots of options that are discrete is that sometimes there is nothing wrong with the option as written--just the value assigned to it. In that case, rather than buff or nerf the option, you simply change the value to better reflect its worth. One of the problems with feats is that you don't have such a value. With powers (and spells in earlier versions), you always had the option to change the level. Monte Cook wrote in one of his design articles (I think for Book of Eldritch Might, could have been something else) that part of the drive to have spell levels correspond to character levels was to have a greater opportunity to tweak power level. They considered it for 3E, with the express intention of moving tings like mirror image into the level "half space" opened in such a design.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

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!

I agree. I am thinking more of what happens when a campaign evolves? For example, the basic premise of my current campaign was about exploring a lost continent, however, due to player proclivities that campaign has also evolved into a very political setting- it's an aspect chosen to explore by the party and most GMs would indulge and let the campaign evolve in whatever direction the players choose. Building in modularity into the rules system might limit such expansion, or make it more complex than it should be.

 

[delericho]

You might have Fighter Thing #2 with units of power 3. And then you also have some special Fighter Feats with units of power 2. And then there is a special All Characters Option A with units of power 1. But you might also have Really Simple Fighter Thing #2, also with units of power 3. Or Really Simple Fighter Thing #1, with units of power 2.

Really Simple Fighter Thing #2 is what a fighter player picks when everyone else is getting options worth 3 units of power, and the player wants to stay uncomplicated. Or if doesn't mind a little complication, maybe he goes with Really Simple Fighter Thing #1 and the All Characters Option A. This says absolutely nothing about what other characters might pick.

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)?

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

 

[delericho]

I agree. I am thinking more of what happens when a campaign evolves?

Aye, that's definitely an issue.

 

[KidSnide]

I think this represents a realization that D&D is played very differently by different groups and that a high-quality rules system needs to be tailored to the game the group is trying to play.

A desirable side effect of this is that GMs (typically in consultation with players) have more explicit duty to decide and communicate what the campaign is going to be about, and - likewise - what rules are going to be appropriate.

I am thinking more of what happens when a campaign evolves? ... Building in modularity into the rules system might limit such expansion, or make it more complex than it should be.

I don't see any reason this has to be limited or complicated. 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."

-KS

 

[Agamon]

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.

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.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I don't see any reason this has to be limited or complicated. 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."

-KS

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.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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)?

Well, it only took the Hero System six versions and 3 to 4 different lead designers to more or less nail it down. And they mainly didn't have to deal with large packages at a class level, that system being designed around effect-based powers. OTOH, they were well on their way in Champions 3E before they added other genres and massively expanded the universe they had to balance across.

So when I said it was ambitious and difficult, this is what I meant. Of course, AD&D 1E isn't a poster child for balance, and we made it work. Somehow, I think a version as poorly balanced at 1E--but with the options classified and called out clearly--isn't unreasonable. There will be pieces that will be terribly unbalanced, but everyone will know which ones and how much, in short order--well before any systematic fixes can be made (for the ones that aren't just valued wrong, but concretely screwed up).

There is a sense in which you can't expand scope without losing balance. But you can expand scope in a measured design that will let you gradually handle the balance issues over time (versions).

 

[Gundark]

This is part of my problem with 4e, for example that balance is achieved by making sure everyone has the same number of daily powers.

Yeah, and then Mearls says this in the article " the easy answer to the balance question would be to focus everything on one scale, with character power defined as a set value based on a character’s level. In other words, characters power never changes because of the rules modules you use.

To be blunt, this is kind of a lame solution. It puts players on a treadmill, giving them lots more choices without any payoff beyond cosmetic customization. "

It seems that they are looking beyond the 4e style of balance