Mearls: Augmenting the core

[howandwhy99]

Remind me never to post when being kept up over late by irresponsible parties. Here are some other ideas though.

3E rule supplements tended to come in a few varieties.

First were the common variations on already included elements with stats. Monster books were not really adding new rules, but offered variations on how those rules could be combined. (yeah, 3.0 had some new specific rules, but 3.5 hammered these out). Beyond this were new spells and magic items. Same rules, different combination. In terms of complexity, we don't really leave what's already possible within the original framework.

Second were supplements that included small, unique rules, but overall looked like the first kind. This included core classes and prestige classes. New races had some new abilities, but as the edition went on I think these fell more often into type one. The new rules here were balanced with the original ruleset, but each one needed rigorous balancing with every other rule published. I don't think that happened often enough, especially when multi-classing PrCs occurred, and combo were created the new rules hadn't accounted for. Not that I blame anyone, designing for 3E had to have been a trial. In terms of complexity this is expansion of one large core game with more integrated rules, but at least they were few in number when developed.

Third came supplements that were subsystems in and of themselves and balanced as a whole against the core system. Expanded Psionics and later books like Magic of Incarnum are good examples. Designers could balance the supplement internally as well as to the core game, well, to the degree anyone could. New elements created by reconfiguring powers and whatnot for these systems were easier to add later. Each had it's own level of complexity for players to learn, but they were often in addition to the core game. Power levels were not supposed to change overall when any were included however.

I think what Mr. Mearls is looking at is something like the third option, but where supplemental subsystems DO increase PC power levels. Wisely though, I don't believe he's even going to attempt anything as complex as the 3E core game. I think the core/simple rules will be just that. But, having reread the article again, every player in a particular campaign will be at the same complexity level. So some campaigns are core/simple, some core+1, some core +5, etc. The trick is those +1s could be different for each player in the game. 10 players? core+3, a DM might be looking at 30 additional subsystems. That kind of thing would really need to be hashed out beforehand though for each group. Each player may only be worrying about Core plus three other options, but the DM needs to know them all. At least, that's how I read it now. It's possible DM load might shift to players who opt for such increased complexity.

4E design is siloed as I understand it, so combat options are primarily unaffected by outside of combat rules. Frankly, I don't know 4E well enough to talk about published supplements or how they are modular.

For OD&D and AD&D I could post later. It's a different animal, but has its similarities to 3E too.

 

[Balesir]

I think there's clearly several gamist forms out there.

a) I use the rules of this RPG as a set of abilities of my character to meet the challenges of the game world.
[We might call this a board game approach]

b) I use the rules of the game on each other to change the abilities of my character amd then meet the challenges of the world. The intra-rule gamism is prioritised.
[We might, I guess, call this an "expert play" gamist approach]

a) is possible with any set of rules agreed for the game you're playing.
b) is tricky if the rules are a variable set of rules.

Personally, I find b) (D&D as MtG), not to my taste but also something that is a barrier to new and causal players, who might excel at a) once given the tools.

Summary: You can still have gamist D&D without focusing of expert play.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by (b), but I am mainly talking about (a) as expressed in the game play itself, rather than as a character building activity. When I say a game is "gamist" (or "simulationist", or whatever) I am referring to the focus of attention of the players while actually playing the game - i.e. when sat at the table, not when designing characters. This fits the definitions of the game "focus" terms developed on The Forge, and actual play is, to me, where the "rubber meets the road".

To support this style of play well, you need to have rules for game event resolution that are not GM dependant; players other than the GM should have a solid understanding of what their character can do without recourse to GM fiat and not generally subject to GM "modification". In other words, as you say, the rules must be agreed and understood in advance. They should also be balanced in the senses Mike Mearls describes, so that challenges can be designed that are fair and achievable without "tweaking" part way through. They also need to offer real opportunities for meaningful player action; if there are no real advantages to be gained from character actions during a challenge, then there is no "hook" to hang the "good play/bad play" judgement on.

A modular system that manages all of this, and is amenable to clear understanding such that the rules are well understood in common by GM and players alike, I just don't see as a practical possibility.

Personally I'm not bothered by that. Let exploration be a narrative type activity and combat be a more gamist kind of activity. In fact that is already largely true with 4e as it is. It may be that some players are going to not like some of those areas of the game that don't match up too well with their style, but players already have diverse interests and I'm not sure that this really creates any new problems. An 'explorer' player has to deal with the fact that there will be combats and a 'slayer' player has to deal with the fact that combat isn't the whole game.

I think I have been unclear in what I mean by "exploration" or "explorative play". I'll try to be clearer.

To begin with, I don't mean dungeon delving (outside the combat parts) or 'travel play'. For me, combat can be played "exploratively". It's all down to what the players are mentally focussed on at the precise moment of play. If they are focussed on "experiencing" the in-game setting and situation, exploring their character as a character, or grokking just how swordsmanship/magical spells/applications of divine power work in the game world - that is explorative, or "simulationist", not gamist, play.

If, on the other hand, they are concentrating on the situation as described by the GM, the play mat and figures, and the game rules and considering how best their character can make a decisive play - a 'coup d'oeil' - then that is gamist play, whether the game action is combat or some other challenge, task or obstacle.

What I desire of this specific game system, therefore, is a game that supports the focus on the 'coup d'oeil', not a game that focusses on combat, or on non-combat, or any other (from my perspective) ephemeral aspect of style or genre.

 

[howandwhy99]

As a community I think we might want to mention whether or not a working system as mentioned in the article appeals to each of us. Sure there are concerns about its viability, but what are folks enthusiasm towards a functioning game as the one described?

I do not believe this is a "here is 5th edition" article. Rather this is the D&D designers playing around with what they do best, something they do for a living. That play is a good thing in my book and I suggest we don't shut it down simply because of worry over the workload they would have to engage in. Would something of this nature work for you? Would you prefer it? What do you think about such a game in relation to the options you have now? What could you do in a game like this you can't do now? Et cetera.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As a community I think we might want to mention whether or not a working system as mentioned in the article appeals to each of us. Sure there are concerns about its viability, but what are folks enthusiasm towards a functioning game as the one described?

I'm happy about it if it is pushed hard enough to produce some useful, real changes in play by switching out modules. I'm not so happy if it is partially tried, but they get cold feet and water it down too much. That doesn't mean that it has to be throughout the system. As mentioned earlier, not only do I not think that practical, I don't think it would be all that useful or fun, either. You need something static to anchor the modular stuff to. So for example, I wouldn't support a modular swapping of classes with skill-based characters.

Good, robust, different working modules appeals to me. I'd rather have 3 or 4 or 6 than a greater number of sort of decent modules. I'm not even that picky about which modules. If they try 12, and 7 are really good, I want those 7, and not the other 5.

 

[catastrophic]

Rituals require skills for instance. If you use them then you have to use skills. If skills are optional for rituals then the rituals all have to be designed in such a way as to work without skills, making skills not worth much. Alternatively each ritual has to specify alternative rules that work with or without skills. Worse, if the skills system is added after the ritual system then the skills system has to go in and modify rituals itself, all material that is worthless to someone not using rituals. Beyond that "Social Combat" CERTAINLY rests on skills (or needs to be basically 2 separate systems) so you have to 'stack' to get it. Given that most every table will want to use SOMETHING that skills are directly relevant for we've basically created a practical requirement that the skills module be used, so it might as well be core. You can repeat this argument with each major subsystem.

I certainly agree that skills should be core, but I don't think that in turn leads to skills having to be redrawn for each module.

Consider the following: what if each module that used skills did so in a uniform fashion? This is again where abstracting things is useful. For instance, if the skill portion of each module was built on the same 'skill challenge' chassis, each one based on the same system, in other words.

So wether you are building a castle, or sailing acros the ocean, or doing social combat, you're always going to be rolling skills vs dc to get sucesses, based within a framing mechanism like a general 'stakes and points' system which allows people to say, increase risk at the possible cost of more resources. And again, as noted before, those resources are standardised, even if they're split into subsystems.

That doesn't mean different modules won't feel different- within that system, the DM might decide that, for instance, building a castle is pretty steady reliable work about building up successes and spending resource points across rounds (which could take weeks of game time), while sailing through a hurricane is a high-stakes affair where resources are spend if and when it becomes a matter of life and death.

And specifc to each module, you could have differences too- if you're halfway trhough your successes for sailing your pirae ship out of a storm, you're still only halfway home. But if you're generated half the successes to build your castle, you're probably able to plonk down your gatehouse or keep- you just don't have the curtain wall done yet.

And this could work for grand rituals, social combat, and so on. A unified resolution mechanic (which is vital in any event), but one which can be tweaked and altered to provide proper feel for various modules.

And if you wanted to, you could add module-specific subskills with each module, and simply let people grab a subskill each time a new module was accessed. You could do rewrites of character skill lists, as well. Each subskill could be based on a stat, or based on a 'broad' skill like athletics.

And look, I say this as somebody who feels that modular design is a lot easier said than done, and may be impossible. But there are ways to get things done, even if they would not lead to everyone buying the product, which is clearly what they're hoping for. You may well be right, but I think it's interesting to discuss the options.

The problem with a single 'point pool' is that it will have to pit combat options vs non-combat options. We already know where that leads. Those streams really should not cross unless they have to. It might work OK, but I think it will create some funny meta-game issues for players.

To me the way to solve that is to keep those relations simple. This would also mean that the subsystems were really meaingful. I'm not talking about buying more weapons with resources either- i'm talking about things like action points and healing surges, which many GMs already use to adjudicate out-of-combat events.

The interactions in such a suystem would be limited to two, optional forms. One, points converting- EG, magic points become resource, points, when a wizard builds their castle using magic. Two, stakes and scenes- EG, if you have an army at your back, or cast a grand teleportation spell, the system would recognise that effct, not in terms of how easy it is to win a fight, but what might be at stake in this battle. This is part of why a stakes system would be needed- it allows for this kind of give and take.

And notably, these relations would be optional.

In the system I envision, a GM would be able to rule that, say Wound Points and Action Points don't interact with other points, meaning they would only be used in combat.

In another game, if the pcs want to say use magic points to boost their physical reserves (by converting them to Wound Points), within reason, and assuming a decently balanced system that made getting those magic points pretty challenging, I don't have a problem with that, if that's the playstyle that DM and group are after.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think if we are going to continue in a discussion about variable complexity, we should also include elegance.
Without noting where the simplicity is, the ease of player access for each rule set, we just get bigger and bigger morasses of text in books. If each sentence in all the d20 books were a rule, I think I'd have gone mad.

I like [MENTION=81381]catastrophic[/MENTION]'s idea about the core game including a central point exchange.

Ideally, this would be the hub where all the integration between subsystems would occur. I see this as entirely a resource trading game. Gold Pieces and Experience Points are a common division, but with a common exchange rate. Make one core, like Life Points - I'd suggest XP, and trade everything out of that for more area specific resources. Some systems would use Gold Pieces as they are monetary, others time-based (AEDU?) for action economies, perhaps something different for Mearls' social combat, etc.

By making the integration point exclusively the core game, designing mini-games with the conceit of all resources reducible to a natural number total (the core resource) still allows vast flexibility in design. Pretty much every game is a math game at some level, so it's hardly a hindrance. This enables almost limitless flexibility in supplemental design without balance and integration worries. That's what I mean by elegance. 50 men-at-arms using d6 halberds hacking 1/round against a 30 Build Points log palisade finish in 50/30 rounds, or roughly 2 Turns.

I also like what [MENTION=114]Plane Sailing[/MENTION] said about horizontal growth, not simply vertical modularity.

It doesn't need to be 10 minute combats, 1 hour combats, 3 hours... etc. Alternate focuses can be improved upon. But there should be a core game that will cover every option, if no detailed add-on is used. I'm guessing some kind of skill system will be opted for, but then those skills would be understood to become referents to mini-game abilities. That's not easily put together, but it could work if no skill was given too much influence. For instance, if perception were used in nearly every module.

I also like his point about different PC levels being about different types of adventuring. That's an old school way of doing things though and I'm not sure it will fly for everyone.

Definitive die resolution hard wired into every game from the core game sounds good, but I actually warn against it. More than anything else I see that as limiting imaginative game design. Simple and elegant? Sure, but it would also limit the options of every die roll in every supplement thereafter. This one's a tough call for me given I know how important a single unified mechanic is now in RPG design. I can only state my opposition as to how limiting it would be to designing games. If each and every board game I've ever played required a 1d20 roll and nothing else, I probably wouldn't care for games at all.

 

[catastrophic]

Yeah but just because a mechanic is unified, doesn't mean it has to be uniform in use.

All the systems could use the same basic skill resolution system say: you have DC's, aplicable skills, successes needed, and i'd add, stakes, and 'Points usages', both optional and compulsory.

Then, each subsystem takes that broad resolution mechanic, and specialises it to the task at hand.

Piloting a pirate ship through a hurricane is a high stakes, high DC event with a limited number of successes needed, and no compulsory points, but options for burning say, action points and wound points to keep the ship afloat. The time frame is in minutes, maybe hours at most.

Building a castle is a medium stakes (making your castle fall over is harder than letting your pirate ship sink), medium DC event, with a large number of successes needed, but interum goals (like building various structures) during the process. You would need to spend resource points and possibly magic points to make progress, and without those points, you don't have the resources to proceed. Spending optional points would be optional based on GM taste, and really based on the style of the PCs, and might depend for instance, on wether they are epic enough to carry around huge bits of stone, or use magic to halt wall collapses. Time frame would be in months.

Casting a grand magical ritual would be a high stakes, low DC event, with a medium number of successes needed. Magic points would be compulsory to spend on a grand ritual, but other settings in the campaign might allow pcs to say, use necromancy to channel their Life Points as Magic points. OTOH a gm (and an optional subsystem) might get even more detailed and require specific spell components- but these components would still be valued in Magic Points, this value then deterimining the level of challenge needed to recover them. That would set the stakes for an encounter based around say, getting griffon's feathers*, or the blood of a dragon.

And in all these cases and many more, there would be various other sub rules as well, advice on storylines based around the subsystem, and probably a mod of the combat system for say, battles on the high seas, sieges or mass combat, and mighty spell duels. So a rules based suplement, but a broader suplement as well. But the core mechanics would be the same for each.



*As an aside, this would also allow for varying levels of complexity in tasks to serve double duty. After all, getting Griffon's feathers (3 Magic Points, hence perhaps a 'CR' 3 encounter or challenge) would take a while scene for a bunch of level 3 heros, whereby they would scale a mountain with ropes and pittons, struggle to the nest of a mighty griffon, and ward it off long enough to grab a single feather. OTOH, for a group of level 12 paragons, such a task could be as simple as a group skill check, or even a single hero making a skill check, describing them zooming to the top of the mountain using their flying hook, punching a griffon in it's beak, and grabbing a handful of feathers- and if he fails the roll, he gets bitten, and loses a Wound Point,while still achieving the goal. Or perhaps less boisterous narrative, if need be.

Either way, the point is that a CR3 encounter for a 3rd level party, could easily be comparable to a CR12 skill roll or simpler event resolution for a 12th level party. And this doesn't plreclude those simpler resolution methods being used for say, the CR3 party- it would just be a mtter of changing the stakes. A higher stakes roll could fail, while a lowe stakes roll might at worst cost you a Point on a failed roll, with the task still being a success.

This is also part of why stakes would be a useful addition to such a system- it allows the GM to contextualise harder and easier tasks, and use them as he sees fit.

 

[KidSnide]

When it comes to non-combat game areas, I think a modular design system is something that evolves from the attempt to allow richer more immersive(*) gameplay than available in basic skill challenges.

Stepping back a bit, if you're going to have a complex challenge resolution system, the players should be making decisions based on their character's abilities and the in-game realities of the challenge at hand. In combat, you decide which monster to attack, which weapon or spell to use and whether to press the advantage, regroup, or retreat -- all based on the tactical information in front of you. The default skill challenge mechanic has the merits of flexibility, but -as written - each challenge is a matter of maximizing the number of rolls that take place with the party's best plausible skills. Without significant GM skill and effort to run (and redesign!) the skill challenge, the player choices are attenuated from the in-game reality.

With a modular system, you can have a very simple core: ability checks (perhaps with a level bonus and a fixed +5 skill bonus if you have the relevant proficiency) against standard DCs. More extended challenges that want the longer playtime and probability smoothing that comes from multiple rolls can use something close to the existing skill challenge system. Both of these are reasonable for games that want a non-combat challenge mechanic, but don't want a lot of rules weight for that area.

And then you can have modular subsystems. A overland journey, kingdom management, mass combat or epic-level adventuring system can introduce mechanics (possibly of multiple levels of complexity) and adventure guidelines appropriate to give focus to that kind of system. Some of these mechanics will work better than others, but a "everything doesn't have to be core" philosophy would prevent a bad supplement from polluting the rest of the game.

Business wise, "modular" products could include a mixture of new modular mechanics, module-flexible crunch that would be usable in a more basic game and appropriate fluff and GM advice.

-KS

(*) "Immersive" in the normal sense of getting the players feeling involved in the game, not in the strange Mearlsian use of the word...

 

[Gundark]

I think you don't know me well enough to apprehend my understanding of why people play older editions of AD&D. Nothing you said runs contrary to what I've said. In fact it essentially supports exactly what I said, so thanks...

Your Welcome.......I think...um wait....what?

Why do I feel that these aren't the droids I'm looking for....

 

[pemerton]

I wonder whether ideally though there ought to be an ultra-simple resolution mechanism for all kinds of things (melee, magic, social, exploration, sailing, politics, traps) which has options for simple checks (single die rolls) or complex checks (series of die rolls) as a baseline. So there are simple ways of handling ALL those things.

Then you could have modules which could be plugged in to extend any one of those things in a way which respects the basic mechanics but builds on top of it (ideally in a non-fiddly way!) which expands the options from simple and complex checks to elaborate checks (or some more appropriate name). Not 'more powerful', but 'more options'. A combat module might include more combat maneuvers that could be undertaken during a complex series of checks (and would include the extensions which are valid for PCs and Monsters - so you could seamlessly overlay it on ANY baseline adventure).

This roughly describes Burning Wheel at the level of action resolution mechaincs, but not at the level of (intended) play, nor at the level of PC build.

The idea in Burning Wheel is that you will only use "elaborate checks" when the stakes of the conflict warrant it - so dispatching a couple of non-name guards is (let's say) a simple "to hit" vs "AC" check (4e minions approximate to this, although I don't now how often they are used in this way), whereas duelling with the man who killed your father involves wheeling out the whole elaborate combat system.

Whereas Mearls (and you, if I've followed properly) seem to be envisaging that, at any given table, we would always use simple checks for combat, or always use elaborate checks for combat. And once you start changing the PC build rules to introduce the necessary elements for making elaborate checks work, perhaps you're more-or-less obliged to always use elaborate checks (otherwise, you've got all this dead real estate on the character sheet!).

The reception of 4e (skill challenges, minions etc0 suggests that many D&D players don't like the idea of changing resolution mechanics based on metagame concerns ("How big a deal is this, here and now, at our table?"). Which presumably explains why Mearls seems to be going the way he is rather than the BW way.

But the BW way doesn't splinter players. Everyone's PC is built of the same mechanical pieces. And choice of action rsolution mechanics can be very flexible and spontaneous. Whereas the Mearls approach seems to imply that no two tables are playing the same D&D. Is this a desirable outcome for WotC?

A modular system made up of options which has alternatives to its major core mechanics and makes many of them optional? BW is probably about the closest thing, with several combat systems. I would call this by no means common, nor would I venture to state that a market leading RPG can viably do that.

As I've said, I think Mearls is talking about something that, although structurally resembling BW, would be used very differently in play.

Can you say more about your doubts about viability? This could help me answer my question about whether it's desirable for WotC to have highly fractured tables?

Let exploration be a narrative type activity and combat be a more gamist kind of activity. In fact that is already largely true with 4e as it is.

And in case you thought I'd been replaced by aliens, I just felt I better state my concerns about this casual equation of 4e combat with gamism and exploration with narrative. I like combat-driven narrativism in 4e, and personally find that exploration, unless kept on a tight leash, is the enemy of narrative (too much minutiae, too little drama!).

For an explorative game where 'discovering' the setting, the characters and the situation are the focus, more possibility, more options, more things to explore - without the real necessity of any real "balance" - is just what The Doctor ordered. For a 'gamist' experience of using your brain and imagination to use the rules systems to get cool results, however, you need to have a defined actual, well, game to play.

Yeah, I'm not sure that Mearls is describing a game I want to play - although I play 4e a bit differently from you, my playstyle also benefits very much from well designed and balanced rules.