Mearls: The core of D&D

[Celebrim]

D&D is a fantasy game system wherein...

0) The most important rule of the D&D game system is that the rules exist to break the rules. The rules as such are never 'complete'. Subsystems in D&D are not built around unified mechanics. Instead, each subsystem describes its own unique resolution mechanics. For example, each spell involves a unique description of its effects. Each monster can have unique abilities that break the normal rules in various ways. Each class can have its own rules subsystems and acquire its own combination of rules breaking powers. Magic items can be likewise unique in their effects, and published modules encourage the creation of locations with unique mechanics. This makes D&D a very rules heavy system built around some simple base mechanics. This works well for two reasons. First, it means that learning to play D&D is usually simple and complexity can be gradually added. Second, it means that the publishers of D&D can extend the crunch of the game with an almost endless array of supplemental material, ensuring the ability to continue to publish profitability long after the market is saturated by the basic rules.

1) Propositions are normally resolved by the roll of a D20; success is indicated by beating a target number. D&D generally considers propositions to be pass/fail and is not generally concerned with degree of success. A fairly large number of modifiers can modify the roll.

2) Most defences are passive and do not have to be declared. Opposed rolls are generally avoided by the system.

3) Combat in the system has low granularity and a moderate degree of abstraction. Individual attacks and parries are not usually modelled in favor of abstracting a potentially lengthy combat sequence down to the few potentially telling blows that occur within it.

4) Character durability is usually fairly high. Combat has low lethality and a fairly high degree of predictability due to the hit point mechanic which allows the character to absorb usually several attacks without having his combat ability degraded. This makes D&D a rather forgiving game, both from the standpoint of a new player and the standpoint of luck. It's not usually expected that any one combat might be lethal. If magical healing is used within the game, the pace of play can be quite high. Because of the hit point mechanic and the low granularity of combat, D&D tends to play out more like a strategic resource management game than a tactical game. The primary purpose of tactics is to ensure minimal consumption of critical limited resources like consumables, hit points, and spells.

5) D&D is generally more concerned with modeling pluasible outcome than specific mechanics, the rules system is moderately generic and can model a fairly wide range of settings, magic levels, technology levels and genera trappings like 'pulp' or 'high fantasy' with only small tweaks to the rules. For example, the 'Vancian' magic system can be used to adequately model virtually any fantasy game where magic is rarely or sparingly used by the protagonists. And because D&D tends to be made up of largely interrelated subsystems, a subsystem like 'Vancian magic' can easily be interchanged with a mana point system or some other system without impacting the rest of the game. This allows a high degree of customibility.

6) D&D is a class based system with fairly low granularity in character generation, favoring strong archetypes and balanced play over full customization. Character progression is in the form of levels which add fixed bonuses to the character. Levels are purchased using XP. Because the primary proposition mechanic is linear and because of the ablative hit point mechanic, D&D allows for a 'dope to demigod' power progression within the same rules system while still maintaining comparably high balance.

7) Character starting ability scores have a much smaller impact than levels. Ability scores typically provide only one modifier to a proposition role out of many possible. D&D typically uses a fairly small standard array of six ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) which is small enough to be manageable, while still being large enough to provide for quirkiness in the character's ability (ei strong but clumsy, clever but socially inept, smart but clueless, etc.).

I would propose that the designers of 4e disparaged many of the traits that define D&D. Much like the designers of 2e they thought that either everyone was playing or wanted to play the same game, or else that they ought to prefer the game that they wanted people to play to the one they were playing. The same sense of 'if you aren't playing the game this way it's badwrong fun' that showed up in the 2e core rule books, showed up in the blog posts by the designers in the run up to 4e. They acted like everyone was playing the same game and had the same problems with the existing rules set. They failed to recognize that the same attribute is often both a weakness and a strength. For example, they failed to realize that D&D's diverse sprawling rules set that provokes rules bloat is not only part of the games attraction, but also that there are reasonable reasons for wanting a diverse set of unconnected rule handling special cases. The people that enjoy that are not just suffering from nostalgia or blindness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Rolling initiative to determine who acts first" -- "at the start of a battle" need not apply.


RC

 

[mmadsen]

The most important rule of the D&D game system is that the rules exist to break the rules.

We didn't break many rules -- well, not knowingly -- back in the day. Rather, the rules covered such a narrow subset of what went on in the game that the DM had to adjudicate almost everything.

In fact, the best parts of the game were the parts the rules did not touch, and most of our problems with the game were from the rules intruding where they didn't make much sense.

Character durability is usually fairly high.

Well, after third or fourth level, I suppose...

D&D is generally more concerned with modeling pluasible outcome than specific mechanics, the rules system is moderately generic and can model a fairly wide range of settings, magic levels, technology levels and genera trappings like 'pulp' or 'high fantasy' with only small tweaks to the rules.

I can't agree. The rules never matched any fictional setting well.

 

[MrMyth]

Yet thousands of people have done exactly that when they saw the themes and flavor of 4E. I know I did.

This is a big detail. The implied setting paints worlds. Do you want to play in a world with dragonborn, eladrin, warlords and tieflings in it as a core theme, or a world with dwarves, elves, clerics and magic-users in it as a core theme? The implied setting decides that for you, because your players will be playing those classes and races. If you don't like it, and it's in the core PHB, you either ban it (annoying and inconvenient) or walk away from that vision of D&D.

But again, I think this is moving away from what Mearls is actually discussing. I can accept you saying, "Hey, I don't think the core setting of 4E" - but that is a different thing from saying, "That setting means it isn't D&D." And if that is what you are saying - did you say the same thing about Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al'Qadim, or any number of other settings that also played around with the races and classes and environment?

Mearls' point was that regardless of which of those you were playing in, there were some shared elements, and that is what he is trying to pinpoint. You may certainly have elements that you prefer in your D&D games, but that is very different from saying anyone using elements you don't prefer is not playing D&D.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No, it belongs. Alignment may be more mechanical in some editions or just flavor in others, but it's always there.

Usually in two-axis version, sometimes just law-chaos, and 4e has an odd 1 axis version.

I've played and run most versions of D&D. Again, the objection is not that alignment was or was not in D&D. I know it was, and usually with some mechanical basis. Rather, the objection is that on this particular list of supposedly key mechanics, it is out of place. It is not quite as key as the rest of the list (IMO), but if the list is supposed to be more expansive, then the list is missing some things that are as key as alignment. Mechanical support for multiple races is an obvious missing one.

I can see a list that includes such things, including alignment. And I can see a list that seeks to really get down to the truly key things, in which case you would be very selective. Of course, like any such list, the choices are somewhat subjective, and this being produced from what sounds like an internal, informal discussion, it necessarily will have some outliers.

I'm more curious, though, about the kind of thinking that led to alignment making the cut while races and other such things did not. If we did a poll of, say, most important mechanical elements of D&D, where each person ranked a large list in order, does anyone here believe that alignment would beat out all such missing elements? I don't.

It as if someone asked for the most important ice cream flavors, and got vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and toffee ripple.

 

[Celebrim]

We didn't break many rules -- well, not knowingly -- back in the day.

You misunderstand. I mean that the rules break themselves. Spells in the game work much like cards in MtG. They do what they say that they do as a special exception to the rules. They may work on some common ideas, but they may be as specific and esoteric as the writer likes.

I can't agree. The rules never matched any fictional setting well.

This might be worth forking because I recognize that my claim that D&D is generic and adaptable is not a widely accepted one, but I'm fairly sure I can defend it. The trick here is to consider what it means to support a setting. D&D achieves support for a wide variaty of settings precisely because it makes no attempt to match any particular fictional setting well. D&D isn't tightly coupled to setting, but it can do a passable job with any of them by leveraging its abstract combat system, its gamist spellcasting system, and its tinkerable system of subsystems.

Take the much derided 'Vancian spellcasting' system. People complain about this all the time, specifically that the restrictions on spellcasters in the system (spell levels, spell slots, memorization, etc.) don't seem to match to any restrictions in the source material of some fantasy story X. People are expecting some tight coupling between what they imagine the mechanics are and the game mechanics. But that is hardly essential to modelling a story. First off, few if any fantasy fiction novels have very tight descriptions of the limitations of their spellcasters. It's true that Harry Potter doesn't seem to have spell slots or spell levels. But it's equally true that Harry Potter doesn't do a very good job of explaining what Wizards can do and what their limitations are. In fact, most magic in the story serves the simple purpose of advancing the plot. Wizards in Harry Potter can do what they need to do to advance the plot and when they don't, they don't seem to use spells. So the question becomes, not whether the mechanics of spells in the game are the same as the mechanics of magic in the Potter universe, but whether the mechanics of spells in the game will match a story where Wizards appear to have restrictions on how much magic they may use and use that magic fairly sparingly.

And it will. The PC's will use sparingly at important moments in the story, and generally not outside of it. All that's really important about simulating the outcome of Harry Potters magic system is that magic is a limited resource. D&D does this well. The only thing that might have to change just a little is how we color the process of filling spell slots, and since most groups I've played with pay little attention to the in game mechanics of spell components and memorizing spells (because after a while this would be boring), that change is in fact a very very small ammendment to the rules.

Likewise, there isn't a hint of spell levels or spell slots in Tolkien's stories. But its equally true that there is almost no description of how magic works in Tolkien's stories. All we really know is that Gandalf seems to use magic sparingly, and that he seems to at some point become depleted of power and can't work magic again without some rest. So once again, while the Vancian system doesn't tightly emmulate whatever the mechanics of magic are in Tolkien's universe, in terms of outcome in play we will see the same pattern of magic use that we see in the story. Gandalf very well could be a 6th level wizard or 6th level sorcerer. The only thing that might have to change just a little is how we color the process of filling spell slots.

To anticipate where this conversation goes so that I don't have to go there again, IME, when I make this argument, the responce to it is first to deny that people who've experienced this have experienced it. In other words, groups have actually used D&D to model almost any sort of setting, so objecting to the notion that you can involves convicing people they didn't experience what they've experienced. Secondly, people will concede that people have done it, but then insist that D&D doesn't do the job well according to some arbitrary measurement of well. But I don't even have to bother to quibble with this objection (even if it is wrong). All I have to do is note that while it may be true that a system specifically designed to model some setting or the other would do a better job than D&D, that claim does nothing to harm my own claim about D&D's generic nature. Ultimately, the answer to that claim is, "So what?" I don't have to insist that D&D is both generic and that it models settings better than systems specifically designed to do so. After that, people typically respond that simulating some setting with D&D is badwrongfun because it was never intended to do that, which is not only insulting but circular logic and counterfactual. It's quite clear that early on people did think D&D was simulating a very wide range of fantasy fiction and could be adapted to many settings.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Here's a pipe dream:

What if these articles are an attempt to ACTUALLY resolve edition wars and unify editions?


Instead of a lead up to 5e, what would be amazing to see would be for WotC to release (an) intermediate edition(s) and a beautiful and solid conversion device, so that anyone could buy a product from ANY edition and quickly and easily convert it to any other edition.

Then they release their full line of PDFs for sale (as part of D&Di or not) for all editions.


Suddenly, I can play 4e, buy a 1e adventure, and EVEN BETTER, IT IS AUTOCONVERTED TO 4E by the device being computerized. I guess I'm suggesting, along with manual pen and paper, that people could buy an app/component of D&Di that would do the conversion for them.


Imagine if, as this series seems to hint, all editions truly could be unified as a "whole D&D" and anyone could play any adventure/class/kit/specialty priest/prestige class/paragon path in the edition of their choice.


If they could do THAT, I'd be back on board with WoTC big time, and I think it could do well to quiet a lot of the edition warring....and actually make new editions welcome rather than controversial. Plus, it would mean all new products they'd sell (an adventure for 5e, 6e, 7e etc) would be usable for people who play 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.

If they could do it, I don't think it'd be easy. EDIT: But if they released "intermediate" editions that attempted to capture the focus of the editions they were bridging, I think it'd help.


EDIT TO ADD: I'm thinking that they could write new materials as they do, but with the idea that it'd be converted back to prior editons. In addition they could release multi edition conversions of classics from early editions.

One other important component. I think it'd be very helpful if they were very, very up front about the focuses they were aiming for. Perhaps clarify what the intent of each edition was and say, outright "this adventure is a dungeon/city/exploratory based adventure, and due to some unique elements, is best suited to 2e, 4e, 5e, and 7e".


But man...maybe a pipedream, maybe a dream...but if this is their direction, you could color me interested.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D achieves support for a wide variaty of settings precisely because it makes no attempt to match any particular fictional setting well. D&D isn't tightly coupled to setting, but it can do a passable job with any of them by leveraging its abstract combat system, its gamist spellcasting system, and its tinkerable system of subsystems.

The degree to which D&D can support varied settings derives from how abstract or generic its mechanics remain -- but we seem to disagree about how well D&D does that.

AD&D combat is certainly abstract -- it lacks detail and complexity -- which tends to make things generic, but even a complex, overly detailed combat can be pretty generic, because combat doesn't vary tremendously across Tolkien, Howard, etc.

In fact, the few things AD&D combat does specify -- you got hit and took n points of damage -- lead to endless arguments and end up pushing a game world full of magic healing potions and spells, unlike most of the source material.

Where D&D could be much more abstract is in the magic system, which isn't at all generic. Any one of the numerous spell-point systems or roll-to-cast systems could match any number of descriptions of what might be going on in the game world of the wizard, but spell slots? "Forgetting" spells? Those are quite specific and evoke a particular flavor far from most of the source material.

And, to tie the two together, more-or-less needing a cleric -- a D&D-specific archetype -- to successfully survive an adventure? Not generic at all.

What D&D did well to support so many settings was to avoid spelling out most things. If you leave it to the individual DM, it'll be right for his campaign.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So to me at least, the core of D&D involves the distinct lack of a prepackaged experience.

By that logic, GURPS does D&D better then D&D!

 

[Celebrim]

AD&D combat is certainly abstract -- it lacks detail and complexity -- which tends to make things generic, but even a complex, overly detailed combat can be pretty generic, because combat doesn't vary tremendously across Tolkien, Howard, etc.

I disagree. Combat does vary tremendously in its depiction across authors.

In fact, the few things AD&D combat does specify -- you got hit and took n points of damage -- lead to endless arguments...

I don't understand what you mean unless you mean, "RPGs lead to endless arguments." What's to understand about 'you got hit and took n points of damage'? It's a system that's so elegant its been implemented in virtually every RPG influenced computer game that's ever been made.

and end up pushing a game world full of magic healing potions and spells, unlike most of the source material.

Stop there. Hit points do nothing to push a game world full of healing potions and spells. That's a genera decision. Most people use lots of healing magic in their games to maintain a high pace of play with few time outs where people rest and recuperate. But that's a game decision, and nothing that the rules force on you. You can play D&D without healing or healing potions, you just slow down the in game pace of the story with longer healing breaks between combat events.

Moreover, I totally disagree that the source material of D&D is generally lacking in healing magic or even healing potions. What's Miruvor in game terms if not a healing potion? Even the orcs are shown to use a similar device of their own making. Harry Potter is filled with healing magic. Lucy's vial of crystal from the Narnia series is essentially a healing potion that fulfills much the same role in the story of keeping the characters up and in the story rather than recuperating as a healing potion does in D&D. And we could go on and on. Granted, most fiction involves protagonists that are less than 6th level and most doesn't have a Magic-Mart on the corner, but those are game setting decisions and not anything that the game forces on you. Many people play lengthy campaigns of D&D at under 6th level and many also play without Magic-Marts.

Where D&D could be much more abstract is in the magic system, which isn't at all generic. Any one of the numerous spell-point systems or roll-to-cast systems...

Totally disagree. I've played those systems and most do a worse job of simulating the way magic is seen in a story than D&D does. Most also do a worse job of putting really big story changing effects into the hands of the players as well, and most are even more dependent on DM fiat to have NPC produce large story changing effects. D&D beats most point buy systems hands down when it comes to creating a narrative that will resemble the narrative that you'll find in author created fiction.

I hear this and I'm almost certain that this a totally theoretical opinion by someone who hasn't tried very often to do both.

Forgetting" spells? Those are quite specific and evoke a particular flavor far from most of the source material.

Not at all. Because if you divorse yourself from the mechanics just a second and look at the narrative of play and compare it to the narrative of literature, you'll see that even if literary spell-casters aren't specified in the text as 'forgetting spells' in the narrative they act like they do. That is to say, fantasy narratives generally show the spellcaster only doing as much with magic as is necessary to overcome the challenge (almost everything else they do could be summed up by something like the Prestiditation spell). You don't in fact see literary spellcasters exercising their magic nearly as often as point buy or roll to cast allows for. Instead they do occasional small spells, and occasional big spells, but they do something and then they stop doing it just as if they'd expended that usage. Of course, in the story this is occuring for different reasons - repeated narrative about the same magical use would be boring - but the outcome is the same.

Even in something like Avatar the Last Airbender, the spellcasters in the story act by and large like they are Vancian spellcasters despite the fact that almost nothing in the described setting matches the mechanics of that. They cast different sequences of discrete effects, and quite often leading up to the biggest splashiest finishing moves. If these finishing moves don't defeat the baddy, they often stand back and simply watch them escape... just as if they'd used up all their spell slots.

The real proof of this though is the ability of D&D to go the other way and generate the novel from the mechanics of play. Many fantasy series from Feist's Riftwar Saga, to Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksinarrion, to the DragonLance series themselves can be read as and were often inspired by the mechanics of play. Yet they read much like any other high fantasy novels.

And, to tie the two together, more-or-less needing a cleric -- a D&D-specific archetype --

Not at all. There is a much better argument that the D&D wizard is a specific archetype. The cleric is a very good implementation of a generic fantasy spellcaster and its far more appropriate to historic magic to have it tied to invocation of spirits, dieties, and mystic powers than the D&D's Wizards almost wholly modern origins. Clerics occurs everywhere through out literature, myth, and legend. The Wizard is the modern origin, and its going to be very very hard to find examples of the Wizard in literature that aren't influenced by the D&D Wizard.

...to successfully survive an adventure? Not generic at all.

Again, that's based on setting and adventure design. The rules don't force it on you. I frequently gamed in 1e without access to a cleric, and if you change the assumptions of the setting and the assumptions of adventure pacing you can dispense with clerics entirely in any addition should you desire.

Repeatedly you've asserted that the tropes and sterotypes of generic D&D prove that D&D can't be used for something other than generic D&D. But the tropes and sterotypes of generic D&D are themselves based off certain particular conventions of how the game should be played. But D&D doesn't have to have a generic setting or generic assumptions and that was recognized from almost the very beginning of the game. If you change the assumptions of the setting design and of the adventure design (that is if you prepare for play differently) then you have a game that seems very different from generic D&D while using the same or almost the same rules.