Mearls: Playing with the core (of D&D)

[TerraDave]

Again, I expect some reactions:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Playing with the Core)

 

[Gargoyle]

From the end of the article:

So what does the game look like if you strip everything away except for essential mechanics, and then orient them to support exploration, roleplay, and combat? What would D&D look like? We’ll start answering those questions next week.

Essentials 2.0 ? lol, I honestly don't know what direction he's going with this.

 

[TerraDave]

Oh, the speculation has been "raging" for a while.

For once, I am willing to admit I am not sure.

 

[BlackMoria]

Odd that. It looks like stream of conciousness stuff but to what end, I don't know.

Justification for 4E? Or setting up expectations for 5E? I don't know where he is going with this, which is probably intentional, so I guess we have to wait for the punchline.

 

[Aeolius]

"exploration, roleplay, and combat"? WotC doesn't want D&D to be about exploration and roleplaying... after all "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." (James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)).

::ducks::

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Most interesting to me was the suggestion that exploration, roleplay, and combat should all have dials for complexity--so that each group could dial up or down to suit their game.

Also interesting to me that the various forms of narrative are not included in that list, as they would also seem to have implicit mechanical dialing options.

 

[Windjammer]

Fascinating. I think one prediction can be safely made about 5E: whatever it is, whenever it's out, its primary design goal will to be recognisably D&D. To as many people as possible.

4E went the other way. The 4E design team too probed how far they could go in making a good game without going too far into the area of 'that's not D&D anymore' (see Races&Classes designer diaries). But their point was that on occasion they were happy to sacrifice 'sacred cows', both mechanically and story-wise (something Mearls' L&L columns haven't even touched on*), if it made for a better game. That's exactly what they went for: produce a mechanically superior game, even if it went against D&D's history, mechanically and otherwise.**

This sort of trade off will be anathema to 5E. 5E would rather harvest recognisability - because that translates into recognition and acceptance - than a superior game engine. Mind you, these two things need not always pull in opposite directions; it's just when they do, you got to make up your mind where your priorities are.

This suggested inversion of priorities would also fit with making the D&D fanbase less divided a primary goal, something close to the surface in Mearls' first Enworld posting when being made D&D Group Manager in 2010:

I'm acutely aware of the pressure of the position, the expectations, and the current atmosphere among D&D fans.

That whole post is worth rereading. Replace his references to 2E and 3E with (respectively) 4E and 5E, and you got the perfect picture of the reclaimed fanboys they're shooting for.

* What if we need the Great Wheel, five types of humanoids as low level foes, and so on for it to be D&D? What if D&D today, as opposed to in 1976, is a cultural icon with a history, and that you better not ditch 90% of that history in revamping the game for a contemporary audience?
** Here's how Mearls describes the mood at WotC R&D when 4E PHB 1 hit the shelves in June 2008:

With the PH 1, there was a lot of stark terror that everyone would hate the new game. That tempered everything - there was a lot more tension and waiting.

 

[Aeolius]

Most interesting to me was the suggestion that exploration, roleplay, and combat should all have dials for complexity--so that each group could dial up or down to suit their game.

That sounds like a step in the right direction. Then roll-players and role-players could find games that are openly advertised as either leaning one way or another or ones with an even mix of it all.

Having three levels of complexity for combat would be nice. Level 1 would not involve minis or options other than initiative, roll to hit, and damage, whereas Level 3 would be designed to placate the most steadfast wargamers.

All three levels would be supported by the D&D Virtual Tabletop (Mac OS/Windows/iOS), which would be play-tested and ready before the revised ruleset was released, so that it would be mentioned in the rulebooks. Playing online should be an integrated option from the beginning, not an afterthought.

 

[MrMyth]

"exploration, roleplay, and combat"? WotC doesn't want D&D to be about exploration and roleplaying... after all "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." (James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)).

Sure, that particular interpretation of one quote is far more relevant than the advice, in the DMG, written by James Wyatt, about the core modes of D&D being exploration, conversation and encounters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think he has the basic three core activities identified fairly well but the views expressed about combat point to the same mistakes being made over and over.

[Quote: Mearls from the article]

"Combat is the most common point where the players and DM come into conflict, so we expect rules to keep things fair. "

[end quote]

This depiction of the core activity of combat implies an automatic adversarial relationship between the DM and the players. It is precisely this type of view that leads to a draconian RAW and the lawyerese combat rules that we saw in 3E.

The assumption with these rules is that the DM is trying to kill the PC's to best of his/her ability and these rules somehow turn this attempt at premeditated murder into fair contest.

Utter rubbish.

As long as the rules for combat continue to be designed for the DM vs player mentality, D&D will continue along its board/wargame path.