Mearls: The core of D&D

[rounser]

I don't think any one aspect of hit points is particularly more realistic or less realistic than any other. They're a measurement of how hard it is to put someone out of this fight, nothing more, and that's at least as much to do with determination and morale as physical injury. Adrenaline does strange things to a body.

It's still too difficult to conceptualise as an everyday, every-combat event. We talk about mothers lifting cars off of their babies because it's an exceptional event.

Healing surges and warlords make a formerly passable abstraction (hit points) which mapped to natural healing and magical healing, quite Ripley's Believe It Or Not because they've been abstracted further into the realms of the ridiculous by regaining them through being yelled at, schroedinger's damage, and other arbitrariness simply because they're a game design convenience.

In any case, I suspect the opinions in this thread are a waste of time. Mearls' post has the air of justifying or warming people up to the idea of something already decided, like the notorious "cloud gazing" blog entry preceding 4E. I find no sign in his words that much of what has driven people away from 4E is going to change.

 

[Windjammer]

Quick question - what is Mike Mearls doing these days?

Do any of you seriously think that writing these half dignified forum posts on DDI exhausts his work output right now?

And what, for that matter, is the rest of the creative R&D 'full salary' staff at WotC D&D doing right now? Slavicsek, Cordell, Wyatt, Baker, Perkins, and co.?

By contrast, look at the author credits to the last two D&D products - Gloomwrought and Threats to the Nentir Vale. What do they have in common? Ah yes, that they are solely authored by freelancers, with no observable input from those 'full salaried' staff members.

Why, that so does not remind me of the roll out of D&D 3.5. If we're lucky, 'edition neutral' products like Dungeon Survival Guide will be round the corner any moment now.

The 'happy tent to accomodate all edition' vibe in Mearls' last L&L articles certainly seem to warm up to the mood.

PS:

but the person paying a ton of dough for one of the [editions] is generally happy through the cycle until they get to the end [of that edition] - usually when the Book of Artifacts and very experimental PC crunch books roll into town.

I see what you did there. We've also hit MM IV time.

 

[Mark CMG]

Quick question - what is Mike Mearls doing these days?

Do any of you seriously think that writing these half dignified forum posts on DDI exhausts his work output right now?

And what, for that matter, is the rest of the creative R&D 'full salary' staff at WotC D&D doing right now? Slavicsek, Cordell, Wyatt, Baker, Perkins, and co.?

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Until We Meet Again)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It would not be the worst thing to have a new edition soon.

As much as I like 4th edition. There are certain things I would rather have different. Something essentials could not do. Period!

(And in my opinion 4e was a courageous step forward... no failed experiment. 5e really could be the best edition of all times.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that is a pretty good list of D&D mechanics.

I think the core of D&D goes well beyond those mechanics, into narrative and story elements, into playstyle elements, into nostalgia, into lots of other regions.

But that list is not a bad starting list for something I would consider essential to the D&D ruleset.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You could, I suppose, have a game that says "On each successful hit, roll on the Hit Results table, and apply to the character", but unless there was a seperate chart for each creature form (biped humanoid, quadruped, centaurian, biped nonhumanoid, ooze, two-headed biped, three-headed biped, three-headed winged quadruped, etc.) the system would offer as many (or more) WTF moments as a pure hp system (without special effects), would be more cumbersome to use, and would offer what in way of amelioration for those deficiencies?

Sigh.

As someone who uses a d% Hit Chart for combat, I'd have to strongly disagree with you here. But that's because my solution was simple, even amongst humanoids: if the chart roll doesn't apply, then it deals purely "hit point damage."

If you roll on the Hit Chart, and get "Movement Appendage damaged" and you're theoretically fighting an ooze, then you shrug and say "no effect besides damage" and move on. If you're fighting a human who's had his legs chopped off already, it's the same thing. The resolution is so simple it must be staggering.

Is the Hit Chart more cumbersome? Yes. It's not really that cumbersome, but if you add anything without offsetting it in some way, then I imagine it's more cumbersome. And as the Hit Chart is only necessary if you do real hit point damage (as I've said, I use two types of damage), then it's not necessary every hit. It's only necessary once you start to actually physically harm enemies.

So, the system I use only comes into play less than half the time, and presents no "WTF" moments that you seem to think are mandatory with an incredibly simple rule of "if it doesn't apply, then it doesn't apply."

At any rate, your description (and Celebrim's input) strike me as remarkably off in this area, as it goes against my personal experience (and I really don't want to get into a long debate on this when I know that you and Celebrim probably won't budge on it). That's not to say that your experiences are wrong; far from it, in fact. Our mileage has, very simply, varied.

My players and I have greatly enjoyed the use of such a horrible mechanic as a "Hit Chart" even if you haven't. And that's fine. Because, as always, play what you like

 

[Terath Ninir]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Until We Meet Again)

I was going to post that link, too. I don't think Mearl's post is all that theoretical any more. I think it's very much a prelude to a new edition, or at least a *major* 4e shakeup.

 

[mmadsen]

For genre simulation, it is desireable that Conan not be evicerated by just any successful attack.....certainly this is not what REH describes. Despite statements to the contrary in this thread, Howard does describe Conan as having suffered minor injuries, on multiple occasions.

We agree that Conan should not be killed outright by any random attack. As a protagonist (PC) he should have plot-protection points.

I don't recall anyone claiming that Conan never suffers flesh wounds.

You could, I suppose, have a game that says "On each successful hit, roll on the Hit Results table, and apply to the character"...

You could offer a system where each player chooses specific tactics against a matrix that determines result...

You could offer a system where choice of tactic instead causes a penalty to the attack roll, and causes the special effect when successful....

In short, while I cannot rule out the possibility of a great non-hit point combat system, I have yet to see one that works as well.

Pure status based systems tend to bog down in mind numbing complexity, particularly since they are driven by the desire to achieve 'greater realism' and typically keep finding themselves not meeting this goal in practice - which the designers typically try to address with even greater complexity.

You two seem to be assuming that the only alternative to D&D's simple, abstract, hit-point system is a complex, detailed, non-hit-point system. How about a simple, abstract, non-hit-point system? (Or, rather, a simple, abstract, hit-points-optional system?)

For instance, in 3E, characters are either able (they have hit points) or disabled (they don't). We don't need to track hit points for that though. We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.

When we look at what disabled means -- single actions only, move at half-speed -- we can easily come up with a short list of equally bad alternatives -- not disabled, but dying; crippled arm, can move but can't attack; crippled leg, can't move but can attack; unconscious; etc. -- which the DM can choose from or roll against.

Plot-protection points would be available to modify to-hit rolls or to-hurt rolls.

 

[GameDaddy]

Looking over the Mearls article, the only thing I would note is the way we handled initiative back in the day, in our local group, using 0D&D.

Highest Dex, starting with 18 got to act each first round... then 17's went, then 16's and so forth. In case of a tie there was a d20 roll off... With Winner getting to act first. If a tie occurred during the rolloff, the actions happened simultaneously, and both attacks/actions were effective.

GM would assign the Dex for NPC and Monsters.

On their initiative count spellcasters could begin casting their spell, with the spell only going off, after the designated casting time had expired... Unless otherwise noted in the spell description, it took 1 combat round/Lvl to cast a spell, so a first level spellcaster would begin a spell and then one round later the spell would go off, 2nd, two rounds ...third levels spells would go off after three rounds, and so forth.

 

[Celebrim]

For instance, in 3E, characters are either able (they have hit points) or disabled (they don't). We don't need to track hit points for that though. We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.

So you've come up with a very simple wound track (with two states in this case). I believe I mentioned that as a viable alternative. See WEG Star Wars, WW's WoD, or M&M. I'm familiar with the concept.

When we look at what disabled means -- single actions only, move at half-speed -- we can easily come up with a short list of equally bad alternatives -- not disabled, but dying; crippled arm, can move but can't attack; crippled leg, can't move but can attack; unconscious; etc. -- which the DM can choose from or roll against.

And that way lies madness. Because now rather than tracking a single state on a progressive wound track, we are tracking a potentially long list increasingly complicated and potentially overlapping problems - crippled arm + can't move but can attack for example. So for example, how much weight can I lift in this condition, for example if I need to hold on to a rope to prevent my friend from sliding into a deep pit? So long as you stop and say 'ok, that's enough, I'll handle most of this by fiat', you might retain your sanity. But your simple list has lots of holes in its realism - just as the obvious example that it doesn't seem possible to carry a simple minor wound except as flavor text. Start plugging those holes and the system quickly becomes very complex.