Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5636220" data-attributes="member: 3192">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.</blockquote>

Verification