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

[Lanefan]

I don't think 4e is more complicated. I want to take my turn on my turn. I can't think of another turn based game that has so many inroads to interruption. When it's not my turn I want to get up and get a drink or a bio break or flip through a rulebook. 4e does not like this and punishes players who do it. There's more but I hope you understand.

Actually, I don't understand.

Probably because I don't see the game as turn-based at its foundation. Something's happening all the time - or should be - and if you're not paying attention you'll miss it. Earlier editions were even better for this, as things could happen simultaneously. Later editions have forced a more turn-based rule-set but it isn't necessary.

To me, your way equates to watching a hockey game but only opening your eyes and turning the sound up when your team has the puck.

Lan-"he shoots, he scores!"-efan

 

[pemerton]

I'm Basic D&D: This is the very simple core game, with races and classes determining all capacities. So there probably wouldn't be feats, skills, or powers in the 4E sense of things, just what your race and class offer as features. There would be some choice in character design, but not a huge amount - you'd pick your race and class, maybe a build, weapons, spells, etc.

No powers, but you'd pick spells?

Maybe I've misunderstood, but this looks like you're describing Essentials - martial classes get features, magic-using classes get powers.

 

[pemerton]

With a fair DM and players deep into RP, you don't need rules for RP -- players just do it, and the DM makes a ruling about the outcome, and you continue.

But for less experienced players, or for players whose social skills are at a significant disconnect with their characters' social skills, it helps to have some rules to handle the resolution of roleplay.

use[/B] rules for all kinds of things that you don't need. For some people, this includes more formal methods of structuring roleplaying--and not just for beginners, either. The BW Duel of Wits is challenging, fun, and sometimes a laugh riot.

I'm with Crazy Jerome here. Roleplaying mechanics aren't about supporting beginners (the games that are well known for using them certainly aren't normally though of as introductory RPGs). They're about introducing the same sorts of dynamics into socially challenging situations as combat and movement rules introduce into physically challenging situations.

 

[Jhaelen]

I tell my DM what my character says and does, and the DM, having prepared in advance, knows what his or her NPCs will do in reaction to what I say and do, and tells me the result. End of story.

Yup, likewise: Who needs combat rules?

I tell my DM what my character does, and the DM, having prepared in advance, knows what his or her NPCs will do in reaction to what I do, and tells me the result. End of combat.

Any DM worth his salt will have prepared the NPCs in sufficient detail that no dice-rolling whatsoever is required. By describing the combat tactics my character is using, the DM can easily compare it with the enemies' tactics and tell what the outcome of the fight will be.

 

[chaochou]

Maybe this is a semantic point, but I think using 'roleplay' as one of three categories muddies the water in this discussion.

For me 'roleplay' is the whole thing - if we're jointly imagining a combat then we're roleplaying, if we're jointly imagining poking around a ruined temple then we're roleplaying, if we're jointly involved in a moral dilemma over our characters then we're roleplaying.

I'd prefer to see a different term for this third category. Something like 'Characterisation'. Combat, exploration, characterisation.

I think it's easier to have a discussion on whether rules help or hinder characterisation without it getting drawn into a 'you don't need rules to roleplay' quagmire.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A game needs rules for things the game expects the players to do a lot of.

Additionally, a game does not need rules unless it's resolving a conflict, so all rules need to be conflict resolution tools first and foremost.

A good DM is a substitute for any rules on all occasions. A good DM can run FATAL and make it a great game. A good DM should not be a prerequisite for play. Normal DMs should also be able to play.

D&D has never generally expected players to do "a lot of" social stuff, but it's always had some "social powers," either through things like NWPs and skills, or through spells like Charm Person. These help resolve social conflicts, convincing NPC's of things.

D&D has usually had a LOT of Exploration stuff. NWPs and Skills again, but also a boatload of spells like Fly, Teleport, Scrying, Water Breathing, etc. In most editions, these exploration tools wound up being the most powerful things in the game (the ol' scry-buff-teleport relies on them!). These help resolve environmental conflicts, getting from Point A to Point B with the least amount of attrition (and, also in this category, Investigation stuff that resolves conflicts of exposing information to the party).

4e mostly killed these two avenues, because rituals and skill challenges are weak sauce for people who want to do a lot of social stuff or exploration stuff. Skill challenges lack depth, uniqueness, and diversity, while rituals are high-level, narrow use, expensive, and risky.

They are the seeds of good ideas, of course. Rituals are a great way to silo combat magic from noncombat magic, they just need to be accounted differently and expanded. Skill Challenges are the core of a great "lite combat" system that can be used for a variety of challenges, they just need more detail and individuality. And the whole system needs to zoom out a bit from combat so that those conflicts are relevant to the gameplay, rather than just condiments on our combat burger (warburger?).

Oh, and the game needs to be, like, 10 levels instead of 30. But that's a pacing/marketing decision.

 

[Umbran]

Also, I don't need no steenkeen rule book to tell me how to role play.

That's nice for you.

Why all the talk of needing rules for RP? Makes not a lick of sense to me.

Think beyond yourself for a moment. To be successful, that same product has to serve thousands or tens of thousands of people who aren't you.

If everyone were the same, and had the same needs, it would be a boring damn world. So, we should allow that anything that's not made specifically for us, personally, probably has to serve needs other than ours, that we may not understand.

Really, just because you don't have a use for it, doesn't mean it isn't useful for someone else. And them needing it doesn't make them dumb, or bad roleplayers, either. Dollars to donuts, there's stuff in the book that you love to have, that they don't need, and think is a waste of space.

And, don't freak out, but they just might include something that you think you don't need - something from which, if you gave it a chance and full consideration, you might learn something new, or be reminded of something you'd gotten lazy about, or the like.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

I'm very happy to hear Mearls talk about "opt-in complexity."

Actually, I think Paizo, when they helmed Dungeon magazine, had the right idea for that.

They adopted a standard "Core Rules" engine for thier modules [PHB, DMG. MM]. Then, if they wanted to add complexity, or a creature that wasn't "core", they not only referenced where it came from, but they have USABLE information ont he creature right in the module.

And even 2E had an "add-on" complexity level, with the "Skills and Powers" and "Tactics and Options" books. (Gratned, those were not well received in general, but I tend to think that was more due to the CONTENT than the CONCEPT.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Letting the dice fall where they may, and the existence of npcs or monsters that may come into conflict with the PCs is not the same thing as a direct DM/Player conflict.

I have said this before but no amount of lawyerese in the rules will keep a jackass from spoiling the fun of everyone else should they decide to do so.

Writing the rules with the assumption that everyone is out to be a jackass sucks the fun right out of the game.

 

[RHGreen]

Maybe this is a semantic point, but I think using 'roleplay' as one of three categories muddies the water in this discussion.

For me 'roleplay' is the whole thing - if we're jointly imagining a combat then we're roleplaying, if we're jointly imagining poking around a ruined temple then we're roleplaying, if we're jointly involved in a moral dilemma over our characters then we're roleplaying.

I'd prefer to see a different term for this third category. Something like 'Characterisation'. Combat, exploration, characterisation.

I think it's easier to have a discussion on whether rules help or hinder characterisation without it getting drawn into a 'you don't need rules to roleplay' quagmire.

I agree. That is what roleplay used to mean. It's the whole thing. Now days it means teddy bears teaparty. It's where a group innanely babble to the DM and he rewards or punishes you depending on wether he likes or hates you.

Lend him a tenner = "You win the argument and have 10,000 men to aid you in the capture of the dragon."

His girlfriend* fancies you = "The judge is an immune carrier of the Ebola virus. Talking with him in close contact causes your rectum to fall out. You die. The end. Go home."


*Yeah, I know, bad analogy.