Mike Mearls comments on design

[BryonD]

And I'm just not seeing "simplicity without tradeoffs".

I'm seeing a lot of people tout the simplicity part with a marked evasion of discussion of the tradeoffs part. It isn't a question of openly saying there are no tradeoffs.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.

Probably similar. Video games handle this sort of thing different ways. It bears mentioning that the ones that are truest to life (say... Morrowind) are typically also the most frustratingly useless.

 

[Rechan]

That's not his point. His point is that the use of the word "fun" doesn't give any information because it varies with each and everyone. He has to define what he thinks is "fun" in order to give it meaning through context.

So now the designers need to explain what words mean to them before they can even respond?

 

[grimslade]

Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.

Her'es your quest.

Here's the XP and items you'll get if you do it.

Joe is attempting to be an idiot savant of flamebaiting. ;>P

The note cards are a suggestion for a type of handout that is a reminder to a player of the boons one can achieve if they work on the DM's plot line. Quest notes have been a staple of RPGs for many years, whether written as notes from a GM, quest logs in CRPGs, or Certs/ARs in RPGA and other Living Campaigns.
The whole quest article was to point out that there will be pages in the DMG devoted toward developing story based awards to PCs and for the possibility of cooperative design of campaign and character goals. The notecards again are a suggestion/sidebar.

 

[BryonD]

Are you done? I was trying to be polite and you jumped down my throat.

Where exactly did I jump down your throat? I'd point to "think skin much" as the first rude post in the exchange. That was your reply to my correcting your declaration of what understanding was needed by me. I'd love to be done. But come on, don't try to misrepresnt me to me and then call a correction jumping down your throat.

 

[Glyfair]

This is not a contradiction. The OP does not like [culturally specific, non-descriptive] feat names coded into the rules. He wants them to be specific to each campaign world or culture.

This reminds me about a Hero Wars discussion when it first came out. One of the feats* for Orlanth is called "Sunset Leap." Everyone was asking what Sunset Leap was supposed to be. The final answer seems to be "whatever you want it to be at the time" (and is mythically appropriate, but that's a Glorantha thing).

I think having descriptive titles that the players and DMs flesh can be a strong hook for a game. I might quibble about where it's been done, but I think the concept is a strong one.

* Feats in HW are subsets of divine magic. If you worship Orlanth you have a "Movement" category of magic. "Sunset Leap" is one of the feats in that category (typically there are 4 or 5 named feats in a category listed, and you can improvise more).

 

[Rechan]

Where exactly did I jump down your throat? I'd point to "think skin much" as the first rude post in the exchange. That was your reply to my correcting your declaration of what understanding was needed by me. I'd love to be done. But come on, don't try to misrepresnt me to me and then call a correction jumping down your throat.

How about because it wasn't a "Correction" so much as an excuse to get defensive? Or is that some more double speak crap?

You came off offended that I was saying you don't understand the situation. Whatever you Read, that is not what I was Saying. But any way I try to explain, it's "double speak crap".

Come on. There was no reason to "correct" me.

 

[MerricB]

I'm seeing a lot of people tout the simplicity part with a marked evasion of discussion of the tradeoffs part. It isn't a question of openly saying there are no tradeoffs.

Personally, I believe that a lot of the tradeoffs will include areas of complexity that most people will enjoy shedding; this isn't to say that everyone will think it's an improvement!

One thing that I hope this edition promotes is the idea that you don't have to design an NPC exactly the same way as a PC to get a balanced and playable opponent; indeed, I'm not sure that the complex way we used in 3.5e actually worked the way it should have. NPC Challenge Ratings were notoriously unreliable...

Cheers!

 

[The Little Raven]

Not trying to get flamed here but that sounds a lot like a quest log in say, Guild Wars.

And character sheets are just like character sheets in MMO games, since they show you the extent of what your character can do.

What's your point? A good system of organization is a good system of organization, no matter what it's origin.

 

[grimslade]

Rechan and ByronD could you take a few deep breaths and drop the whole argument. It is boring for everyone else and detracts from a pretty civil discussion so far. Stick to your points and leave the poster out of it.

On the whole concept of tradeoffs:
There is a lot of risk being taken with D&D with 4E. I believe the risks are being taken now while D&D is a strong brand and market leader because D&D can take a dip in numbers and still right itself. I feel like 4E is a 'let's see what sticks" experiment in flavor with a solid mathematical background. There have been 7 years worth of 'more fluff, less crunch' threads on various message boards. The counter-argument has always been that crunch sells. Maybe 4E is giving fluff a chance. The merits of the fluff in question I will leave to the 10 eyed spheres.