Mearls on The Core Game

[I'm A Banana]

From the interview linked to on ENWorld's front page:

We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.

It's interesting that the criteria for what goes into the Core Game seems to be related to "What has appeared in every edition of D&D? How have the editions all been the same? What are the minimum shared elements?"

I wonder what else those "few other things" might be. Probably some rules for monster-building? Maybe some form of "attack matrix"? Falling damage? Encumbrance? Human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling? Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric? I feel like we might be able to get close to what the Core Game looks like if we look at the things that have been in every "e" and exclude things that have not been in every "e."

He also mentions:

DMs have a similar process they can go through, adding optional rules to flesh out their campaigns. Those options can range from creating a unique list of races or classes for a setting, to adding in special rules for things like managing a kingdom or waging a war.

So it sounds like even the "core game" will be subject to revision by DM's.

So maybe "encumbrance" will be core, but there will be all sorts of rules modules you can use to get rid of it?

Perhaps there will be no "thief" in the core, but there will be all sorts of rules to mod the core "fighter" into a "thief"?

What does the rest of the hive think about this?

 

[Knightfall]

The most telling thing to me personally is that he noted classes but not races. I don't think he'd leave that under the idea of "a few other things."

More and more I keep thinking of BECMI.

 

[Rechan]

We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game.

Or they could have also asked other people what they felt was D&D's core elements.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not seeing anything that changes my opinion that the "starter set" or "core books" are made up of two things:

1. The "core" of D&D as discussed by Mearls above.
2. Extra material to turn this "core" into a simple but playable game across a few key styles.

That is, I think #1 can be identified in some kind of reasonably consistent manner by the designers (if not for all the fans), but will need some things added almost arbitrarily* to get a good starter product.

* Arbitrarily compared to what is in the core, as "core". I think they'll pick the other stuff because it works well for the starter set, or shows off some options, or is easy to convey, or any number of other good reasons.

I also predict that if the marketing people and/or text of the book blurs this distinction, that there will be massive threads screaming about those arbitrary elements in the "core".

 

[blalien]

The most telling thing to me personally is that he noted classes but not races. I don't think he'd leave that under the idea of "a few other things."

I don't think you can read too much into this. He clearly made that list off the top of his head. The core game is going to be very accessible to the vast majority of D&D players, the ones who began playing within the last 10 years. There is no way Wizards is going to cater to the small number who have been playing D&D since the beginning at the expense of alienating the new players. That means races will be in the core game (as races, not as classes), and fighters and rogues will exist as separate classes. I don't expect anything in the core game to be especially shocking to most of us.

 

[JohnSnow]

"A few other things..."

My guess is that includes: d20 combat resolution, initiative, "roll for damage," "fire and forget" magic, races, alignment, xp, gold pieces as currency, treasure as reward, +X magic items, multi-colored dragons, goblinoids as opponents, and some form of "exotic damage avoidance" mechanic.

I think that the "core" classes/races - if by core you mean "common to nearly every edition - are, (with questionables listed in parentheses):

Classes: Cleric*, Fighter*, Magic-User (Wizard)*, Thief (Rogue)*, Ranger, Druid, Paladin, (Bard, Monk, Assassin, Barbarian).

Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, (Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Gnome).

Those are the lists common to nearly every edition. The asterisk-ed classes are the ones that made the grade even in BD&D. Warlocks, Sorcerers and some others may be great classes, but they're relative late-comers. Similarly, Tieflings, Changelings, and a number of others are great races, but they lack the long history in the game of those mentioned above.

While it lacks some early history, I think "multiclassing" probably deserves to be supported right out of the gate. The cultural weight of being able to play a "Fighter/Magic-User" is too great to ignore.

Anyway, that's my list.

 

[Rechan]

I think that it won't just be what was present in every edition, but also "When someone says D&D, these are the things you think about".

So likely:

+1 Swords (Mearls had said when 4e was being designed that "Everyone knows what a +1 sword is and we weren't going to take that out").

Alignment (likely a return of the 9 alignments. Chaotic Neutral etc are in the D&D Lingo forever). Whether there's mechanical significance to the alignments is to be seen - likely an optional rule.

Saving throws (in some form).

I will also be stunned if the "Core" has less than 4 races, and less than 4 classes.

Edit: Pretty much everything [MENTION=32164]JohnSnow[/MENTION] said.

 

[WheresMyD20]

The most telling thing to me personally is that he noted classes but not races. I don't think he'd leave that under the idea of "a few other things."

More and more I keep thinking of BECMI.

I think they'll provide options for both race-as-class and separate race & class. Since there are multiple options to choose from, it won't technically be part of the "core" - each group will decide if they want to use race-as-class, separate race & class, both, or neither (humans only).

 

[Knightfall]

I don't think you can read too much into this. He clearly made that list off the top of his head. The core game is going to be very accessible to the vast majority of D&D players, the ones who began playing within the last 10 years. There is no way Wizards is going to cater to the small number who have been playing D&D since the beginning at the expense of alienating the new players. That means races will be in the core game (as races, not as classes), and fighters and rogues will exist as separate classes. I don't expect anything in the core game to be especially shocking to most of us.

I'm not saying that races won't be in the core game; I'm just saying that I find it interesting that he didn't mention race. For me, race is just a vital to a character concept as class, and I often prefer to pick the race I want to play first and them go from there.

And, I remember reading in one of Mearls' Legend & Lore columns about the idea of being able to play an old style Dwarf, Elf, or Halfling as a class through the use of multiclassing.

Could it be possible that there will be an option for playing an "Elf" as a class? I think that the designers what to give fans of BECMI the option to build a character that way if they so choose.

I also think it means that the designers are taking a closer look at what "race" and "class" mean in the game as whole. Will selecting a race be done through racial archetypes and/or class archetypes? Will there be a way to create half-bred races through feat selection or through themes or some other mechanic?

Regardless, I like what I've read so far. It sounds very intriguing and makes me want to play this new game. 4E never did that for me.

 

[Knightfall]

I think they'll provide options for both race-as-class and separate race & class. Since there are multiple options to choose from, it won't technically be part of the "core" - each group will decide if they want to use race-as-class, separate race & class, both, or neither (humans only).

Exactly. I think both options will exist. To what degree, we still don't know. I also think the idea will lead to a more core way using non-core races as PCs. Imagine a simple way to build BECMI races-as-classes for other humanoids and monsters that are comparable to the core options in power and design.

That would be cool.