Mearls: The core of D&D

[tomBitonti]

But but but ...

I'm having an issue with Mike's list, as it seems disingenuous.

4E added these core principles:

* decoherence of description and effect;
* reliance on a combat grid;
* reduction of effects to a simplified grammar (damage, shift, a few states);
* universal class design (all classes have at-will, encounter, and dailies);
* much modified fire-and-forget (a wizards spells are hardly the same as a daily or encounter power);
* use of healing surges as a measure of health

(The point on relying on a combat grid is true for 3E, too.)

Not meaning to pick a fight, but those are core principles of 4E, and define the 4E game as much as Mike's list.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.

Partly because so many FRPGs have truncated or non-existent alignment systems.

The nine alignments is an (A)D&D thing that no other game I can think of uses.

While there is no other 9-point alignment in any other FRPG I can name- and I can name lots- there are MANY with 2, 3 and 4 point alignment systems.

 

[tomBitonti]

Delete me

 

[MrMyth]

The mechanics don't make the game.

There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.

Hmm. To some extent, but... with all the different settings that D&D has seen over the years, I'm not sure you can pin down a handful of flavor elements and point to them and say, "That's D&D. Those other approaches and flavors? Aren't."

 

[TarionzCousin]

I didn't see cheeto-stained fingers on the list.

 

[rogueattorney]

There are a number of rpgs that are pretty close to being "D&D" according to that list that aren't "D&D" according to their brand name, and I'd say a number of those games are more akin to a particular version of D&D than other versions of D&D. For example, Tunnels & Trolls and OD&D are quite clearly related, and T&T is far more similar to OD&D than 4e is to OD&D.

So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the "core" ideas for D&D are really what makes it D&D. Really, I think the main thing that makes a game "D&D" as opposed to any other role playing game is the name on the front of the product.

As for his various core points, there are a great deal of semantic nits to pick...

Alignment - Alignment as personal ethos has not always been a part of D&D. What alignment was began quite fuzzy, and from latter OD&D to the end of 1e seem to move from "What side of the cosmic struggle are you on?" to "general personality descriptor." Alignment as personal ethos was solidified as a concept with 2e.

Beyond that, many, many people play D&D while ignoring alignment completely, while the game remains D&D.

Attack rolls w/ a d20 - The original attack roll in OD&D was a 2d6. The d20 was used in the "alternate combat system" from OD&D.

Additionally, does it really matter what dice is used to determine if an attack hits if the odds remain unchanged? If my character has a 50% chance to hit AC X, does it really matter if I use a d20 a d4 or flip a coin? I guess I don't get what's so magic about the d20.

Hit points - What hit points are a measure of has changed from edition to edition, from the more abstract (1e and 4e) to the more concrete (B/X and 3.x e). The consequence for running out of hit points has also changed from edition to edition.

Rolling initiative - There's probably no rule that has changed more from edition to edition. OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, B/X D&D, 2e, and 3e all had very different initiative rules. I don't see how initiative is a unifying concept in D&D except to say that each edition had a method of determining who went first, a trait shared by chess, baseball, and pretty much every other game or sport ever created.

Saving throws - This is really nit-picky and semantic, but saving throws in pre-2e weren't rolls to evade danger. They were rolls to survive a catastrophic event. You made saving throw rolls only after your character failed to evade the danger. Saving throws were less like "to hit" rolls and more like damage rolls.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that even these core concepts are subject to debate, and that some of the key differences between editions are obscured by the fact that some of the same terms are used very differently from edition to edition.

 

[Shemeska]

Hmm. To some extent, but... with all the different settings that D&D has seen over the years, I'm not sure you can pin down a handful of flavor elements and point to them and say, "That's D&D. Those other approaches and flavors? Aren't."

That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).

 

[Mallus]

That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).

That's true, but consider this...

... OD&D & AD&D were built with the operational-level, campaign model in mind; players with multiple characters in a range of levels, multiple parties exploring/exploiting the campaign setting simultaneously, character balance across levels, management of hirelings/followers/fodder, the general timbre being swords & sorcery flavored resource acquisition (ie, money & magic).

... 2nd Edition was presented more like epic high fantasy. Adventuring parties as the Fellowship of the Ring. This, in large part, reflected a newer crop of players who were fantasy fiction fans first, and wargamers second, if at all.

But they're virtually the same game, mechanically speaking. Plus, plenty of people played AD&D in high-epic fantasy mode.

So setting difference aside, you have a history of the same mechanical framework being put to very different uses (albeit with many similarities).

 

[MrMyth]

That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).

Sure, but I think that may be where you missed what Mearls is saying. He set out to create a list of elementswhere, "if any one of them were missing, you’d feel like you weren’t playing D&D."

You can't really focus on flavor elements in such a list, because if you do so, you are effectively saying, "Dark Sun isn't D&D" or "Spelljammer isn't D&D" or "Planescape isn't D&D".

You say that the mechanics don't make the game. But they do - that's why Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms and Eberron are all still D&D. There is something shared among them that goes beyond basic flavor assumptions about the setting. And that's what Mearls is trying to pin down - what those common elements are.

I think that trying to address that as some sort of point on Mearls losing sight of the core flavor of D&D is a distortion - or at least a misinterpretation - of what he is actually saying.

Edit: And just to clarify - I'm saying I necessarily even agree with his list, myself. But I think his post was about those shared mechanics themselves, and not the context in which they have been placed by different editions or different settings, and that trying to read it otherwise is not the most reasonable interpretation of his article.

 

[Umbran]

So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the "core" ideas for D&D are really what makes it D&D.

As MrMyth noted - what Mearls listed isn't "what makes it D&D". They are a list of mechanical elements that seem to be commonly thought to be required before it can be D&D. They are not sufficient, but they seem to be required.

To analogize: the concrete foundation in the ground isn't what makes your house your home, but it is required for the building to stand. And while it does not completely determine the nature of the building, it does have some impact on what is done in and with the rest of the structure.