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

[Kurtomatic]

Y'all realize that the primary, foremost purpose of this column is to generate page hits for the website, right? If it seems kinda stream of consciousness, that's probably because it IS.

While I wouldn't accuse WotC of concern-trolling 5E for page hits (too subtle for the corporate tin ear), the emergent effect is largely the same. Nor do I think Mearls is insincere. To the contrary, I think this column is just what it appears to be: Mike riffing on whatever D&D wonkery that floats his boat in order to generate "interest".

Which seems to be working.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... Mike riffing on whatever D&D wonkery that floats his boat in order to generate "interest".

Which seems to be working.

I take Mearls at face value most of the time. I've found that to be the best way to understand where he is going with something. But I don't think generating "interest" is the prime goal here, unless you define that as, "As I wanted to discuss it, and in order to do that, got to start a conversation." But with that caveat, I agree that it is working.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...And that's the exciting part of the dials/axes idea: can D&D be a game where both of these things are options that each game table can choose from? Or that vary from scene to scene, session to session, depending on the group's interests or needs for the encounters in question? Is there a way to make it work so that both you and I could play in the same game of D&D and enjoy it?

The funny thing is that we often talk about such options as if they are things that necessarily stack one on top of the other: You've got Base, to which you can add A. Then on top of that, you can add B, and so forth. But in practice, games that have done this with extensive combat have very much had a mix and match design (sometimes with accompanying problems).

So options for roleplaying mechanics can easily include some options that are mutually exclusive, or at least highly unlikely to be used by the same group at the same time. "You have to talk in character and roleplay the conversation," is a mechanical option, albeit not very mechanically sophisticated. It is mechancially elegant, and then provides some sophistication in non-mechanical ways.

I'm also liking the increasing focus (almost doubling down, if you will) on design being informed by how people actually play the game (as opposed to how the designer plays the game, or played it at one time, or thought people would play it). This started in bits of 3E, and has become more overt over time. 4E, of course, is famously focused on how some people play, to the expense of how other people play.

 

[Falstaff]

I have to admit, it's been a long time since I paid any attention to what Wizards of the Coast had to say in regards to D&D, but I'm sure paying attention now.

 

[ceiling90]

But what would you have for a codified set of RP rules?

Wouldn't those still be skill checks?
Would it be significantly different from combat?
Wouldn't those be instead a set of special utilities?

The majority of the game where rules are even needed are in combat. That's the gamist part, and the RP part is intrinsic to the group dynamic.

Do you need more rules so you can mechanically express that your character made a pancake? I don't think so. Do you need rules to have a scathing debate against a political enemy? I don't particularly think so.

But that's what I think. You could have rules doing both. They might even be fun. But then, the question begs, where do these resources come from? Where is their cost in the mechanical aspect of character creation and maintenance? Will you in fact, even bother using them? I don't use skills that much in many of the games I run, since anything mechanically useful was codified in to rituals.

Maybe, in a way, all the game needs to fulfill the niche is an expanded set of rules on skills, and skill checks. Make more defined examples. Maybe that Diplomacy check would suffice for that scathing verbal take down... or maybe Nature to make that perfect pancake. Well anyway... maybe someone should get on to that.

As for what Mearls is talking about? I'll wait till next week.

Note: I don't mean to sound harsh, it's just, you already have a very complex set of rules, and adding more on seems a little... too much. But it's interesting that it could done, but I personally wouldn't use it.

 

[SabreCat]

Do you need rules to have a scathing debate against a political enemy? I don't particularly think so.

Need? No. But can you? Absolutely. I've mentioned Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits, which is a stellar example. (Exalted Second Edition has a Social Combat system, but it's a clumsy bolt-on by comparison.) It zooms in an argument to a combat-like level, with a sort of HP pool called the Body of Argument, and social attacks and defenses with maneuver names like Rebuttal, Incite, and Obfuscate.

Is it for everyone? No. Many players dislike how it slows things down, breaking up the normal flow of RP dialogue, especially before you've mastered the rules. Nor is it to be used every time characters disagree on something. You might RP it out, or do a quick opposed skill check or the like; those are options in BW too. But does it work, and can it be fun, detailed, and fair on par with physical combat? Hell yeah.

As for the pancakes thing, mm, I've seen it done, though it's not as common as beating-people-up or convincing-people mechanics. It usually appears in unified extended conflict systems like the PDQ system. There you use the same set of mechanics, just with different skills/traits/etc., whether you're fighting, cooking pancakes, or racing cars, if the conflict in question is important enough to the story to use detailed dice-rolling for.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Personally, I think Mearls is bored. So he decided to poke the hornets nest of the internet with a stick. We are being trolled by WotC

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I can't speak for others, but while I don't actively seek to kill PCs, as a DM I like to challenge players and am not at all adverse to the idea of character death(s).

In any case, I have to agree with mearls. While I haven't seen too many cases of DM and player conflict, the majority of conflicts I have seen had some source in combat.

 

[Anselyn]

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.

These days I mostly play ToC/CoC - but historically in D&D/Traveller/DragonQuest most of our scenarios - narratives if you will - have been about an investigation leading up to a combat that gives a resolution.

If you replace "exploration" with "investigation" on MM's list then I'd agree that the bare bones are there. Is "exploration" just sexier and more "fantasy" than investigation?

 

[GSHamster]

These days I mostly play ToC/CoC - but historically in D&D/Traveller/DragonQuest most of our scenarios - narratives if you will - have been about an investigation leading up to a combat that gives a resolution.

If you replace "exploration" with "investigation" on MM's list then I'd agree that the bare bones are there. Is "exploration" just sexier and more "fantasy" than investigation?

I would say that "exploration" is a little broader than "investigation". As well, investigation has stronger connotations (to things like crimes) that would prove more of a distraction.

Imagine Mearls having to explain that he meant "investigation" in a broad sense, and was not implying that D&D should be CSI: Waterdeep.