Mike Mearls, I am calling you out! (Legends & Lore 6/28)

[delericho]

Yet again, I at least am not talking about D&D going in a direction as a whole, but about options for how to play the different spheres being discussed (specifically with respect to dialing complexity or detail up and down). Are you saying that if a suggestion for an abbreviated exploration sequence like that were an option in a DMG, you wouldn't want to play the game at all?

No, if it's an option, it's fine, of course. But if it's the default (meaning it will be assumed by the 'official' campaigns and all the pregenerated adventures), then it is a problem, even if other options are provided.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm gradually growing more firm in my conviction that a system with options needs to keep the base as simple as possible. That is, options should only add, not subtract. And since "simple" is one of the optios that people frequently want, it has to be the base.

Not only does this make learning the system easier on people, it also stops a lot of design holes, cold. Or at least makes such holes a lot harder to miss. (Nothing is perfect.)

If Simple Base SB has options 1 - 10, which can be used in many combinations, then there may be a few problems with particular options--or more likely, option combinations. But you can reasonably expect SB to work pretty well by itself, and also with some of the more popular option sets. Fixes to the options won't touch the base. However, if Complex Base CB has options 1 - 10, some of which take things away--then you can expect more combination screwups and a greater likelihood of a pervasive problem running through CB. Perhaps some of the more popular options mask this problem, complicating testing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, it can be fun. But roleplaying encounters are even more open-ended and fluid than combat encounters. I'm afraid I have a really hard time seeing a system developed that will be better than what we have now.

Another neat idea I voiced about two years ago, that mearls subsequently STOLE FROM MY MIND, was the idea of scaling complexity, the idea that one size never fits all players, and that people should be able to pick and choose their level of complexity for events that suit them. Some people like in-depth interaction mechanics, some people don't, and both options should exist. Right now, in 4e, the option does not exist to have awesome interaction mechanics like Third Wizard posted, because Skill Challenges and Rituals are weak sauce for that. Though the option does exist to NOT have them, so those people are well served.

He's since taken credit for that idea, despite my DMCA takedown notice (a crudely drawn picture of a butt with the words "Mike Mearls" in old english font emblazoned above it like a tramp stamp, that I subsequently jammed in someone's mailbox), and posted several articles about how D&D can be a "big tent," embracing many kinds of players.

WHICH WAS MY IDEA BACK IN 1995 WHEN I FIRST PICKED UP A PLAYERS' HANDBOOK!

MEARLS!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjd7L6txGLk&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Khannn‬‏[/ame]

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Another neat idea I voiced about two years ago, that mearls subsequently STOLE FROM MY MIND,

I don't think you can steal from yourself, but next time, wear a tinfoil hat.

 

[Shadeydm]

We have to get them both back onto the transporter pad before its too late!

 

[delericho]

Another neat idea I voiced about two years ago, that mearls subsequently STOLE FROM MY MIND...

Are you sure you're not both being influenced by the dreams of Gygax? He slumbers fitfully now, but it is said that when the stars align, he shall wake and devour the corrupt acolytes of both Dancey and the Rouse alike...

was the idea of scaling complexity, the idea that one size never fits all players, and that people should be able to pick and choose their level of complexity for events that suit them. Some people like in-depth interaction mechanics, some people don't, and both options should exist.

That's a really nice idea in theory, but how do you see it working in practice? Or should we wait for Mearls' column next week to find out?

 

[The Shaman]

*snippage*

I'm confused. Lidda takes the "consequences" Reticent and Disheartened, yet as far as I can tell, neither of those consequences is reflected in either her actions or the roleplay text. She seems neither reticent nor disheartened by the mercenary's success.

What am I missing here?

 

[pemerton]

Exploration

<snip>

Here, I don't think the game is actually lacking much. Honestly, the most appropriate resolution is probably "the players declare what they're doing; the DM describes what they find." Sure, you'll need some mechanical support, to decide whether they actually find the trap/clue, survive the wilderness, or understand the symbolism in that painting they found (or whatever).

But I don't think it's appropriate to have a massive, rules-heavy resolution method here.

<snip>

Roleplaying

<snip>

I don't think the game is actually lacking much here. Once again, the players will largely drive the action, with the DM narrating the results. And, again, there is a need for some mechanics to determine success or failure, but again I don't think this wants the same level of detail as combat scenes.

<snip>

Action Scenes

<snip>

The difference between these and the exploration/roleplaying events is that these tend to be (hopefully) exciting, fast-moving scenes with immediate life-or-death consequences. As such, it's entirely reasonable for the game to move to a much finer granularity of resolution here.

I think I look at each of these quite differently.

On exploration, I tend to agree with SabreCat:

There are other ways of dialing complexity than resolution methods. Does exploration involve graph paper and descriptions like "you proceed 50' down the corridor, then it turns to the left and goes another 20' before ending in a T-intersection"? Or is it "you make your way through the necromancer's labyrinth toward his lair. Everybody roll Dungeoneering, those who fail lose a healing surge to traps before they arrive"? Or somewhere in between?

In a session that I GMed earlier this year, the PCs were sent 100 years into the past by some witches, and found themselves exploring an abandoned manor. The climax of the session was a combat against a swarm of necromantic spiders in a wizard's library and laboratory. After that combat I moved very quickly through the rest of the exploration - just telling the players the most interesting things they found in the rooms they hadn't yet checked out, and glossing over the details. Some sort of mechanical system to support this, rather than just my vague handwaving, might have been helpful for this.

On action scenes, I don't think it's relevant that they have life or death consequences for the PCs. Because from the point of view of the players, they're just more scenes in which the PCs may or may not achieve their goals, and any given action scene may carry no more emotional weight than a non-action scene.

Because the current design of the 4e mechanics almost inevitably causes action scenes - especially combat - to carry the single biggest load of investment in play, it means that a good 4e scenario will be one in which combat and emotional weight are tightly correlated. (A weakness of some WotC modules, in my view, is that they invovle combats which don't carry much emotional weight, and hence are just a waste of everyone's playing time.)

If the game had more flexible combat/action mechanics, then it would be possible to include combat scenes that carried little emotional weight and yet didn't needlessly bog down the game (eg wandering monsters, which I don't particularly care for but that many others do). And mechanics for non-action scenes that could be dialled up to reflect the same degree of investment as 4e's combat mechanics would open the door to scenarios in which non-combat scenes are able to carry a greater amount of the overall emotional load of the scenario.

Which brings me to social conflicts:

there's no reason to assume that a social combat system would have to produce the same results, if it were better designed than Skill Challenges are for structuring social conflicts.

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], not long after 4e came out, had some posts on these boards where he pointed out a key dynamic of skill challenges: the GM doesn't get to roll. Which means that to get the sort of back-and-forth, and resultant tension, in a social skill challenge that is there in [MENTION=12037]ThirdWizard[/MENTION]'s FATE example becomes tricky.

It's not enough to introduce complications or adversity only when a player fails on a check, because that limits it to two complications before the PCs fail completely. But it can be awkward to introduce complication or adversity in response to a player succeeding on a check, because a successful skill check is, intuitively, meant to bring good consequences.

The DMG2 goes some way to suggesting how skill challenge successes can be used to mark progress through a series of complications, rather than just gradually accumulating the elements of success - and I have used some of those ideas to run successful skill challenges - but its certainly an area where more advice and examples from the designers could help.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm confused. Lidda takes the "consequences" Reticent and Disheartened, yet as far as I can tell, neither of those consequences is reflected in either her actions or the roleplay text. She seems neither reticent nor disheartened by the mercenary's success.

What am I missing here?

I would assume that you're missing the rules text on "Reticent" and "Disheartened."

They're probably like conditions. Making stuff up, but I bet you'd see something like:

Disheartened: Take a -2 penalty on all social rolls, and a -4 penalty on Will saves against fear effects.

Reticent: Take a -1 penalty on all social rolls; opponents who attempt to Speak Over You gain a +2 bonus on their checks.

Etc.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm confused. Lidda takes the "consequences" Reticent and Disheartened, yet as far as I can tell, neither of those consequences is reflected in either her actions or the roleplay text. She seems neither reticent nor disheartened by the mercenary's success.

What am I missing here?

It's been a while since I've played a FATE-based system, so someone else probably has a better idea of how it works, but:

I think Lidda gets an aspect that Brand can tag (spend a fate point for an extra +1?). The GM can also compel that tag, so either she acts in a manner determined by the GM (I believe) and gets a fate point, or spends two fate points to resist the compel. I think Lidda still has free range of action otherwise.