New Legends and Lore: The Rules

[P1NBACK]

Sounds like my feelings on Rule 0 would be more appropriate to a blog post than a forum, so I'll take that elsewhere.

I will correct one mistaken assumption I'm hearing in the replies to my post, though: I am the DM a good chunk of the time. I dislike Rule 0 from either side of the screen.

SC, I'm actually with you on Rule 0 as written in most game texts. I just don't think going the exact opposite route and taking away the DM's ability to make any sort of judgment call is the right change.

 

[SabreCat]

SC, I'm actually with you on Rule 0 as written in most game texts. I just don't think going the exact opposite route and taking away the DM's ability to make any sort of judgment call is the right change.

I don't either. It's a far stretch from removing rocks-fall-everyone-dies power to "taking away the DM's ability to make any sort of judgment call".

 

[P1NBACK]

I don't either. It's a far stretch from removing rocks-fall-everyone-dies power to "taking away the DM's ability to make any sort of judgment call".

Right on. I just think we need to write the game assuming that the DM has control over the aspect that they could say, "Earthquake. Take 100 damage. You all die", but won't because there are guidelines and principles at play.

But, I see all too often, people stretching and exaggerating the "dickhead DM" as if that's a commonplace thing among most D&D groups. I don't think it is. So fighting that battle seems sort of unintuitive. If most groups don't need to worry about the dickhead DM, can't we just have a straightup rule (like the AW one I quoted above) that simply says, "Hey, don't be a dickhead." And, call it a day?

This ongoing War on DMing is far-fetched, imo.

And, I'm not trying to single you out, SC. I'm not even accusing you of going down this road. I just see it all too often on these boards.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I love what I'm hearing with Mearls's further thoughts about complexity dials. The stuff about negotiations, alliances, and NPC-vs-PC coercion make me hopeful for seeing a D&D-style Duel of Wits in some upcoming product.

I hate the continued enshrinement of Rule 0. It's such a poisonous, needless thing. No, the rules can't "force" the DM to play fair... any more than they can "force" the players to do so. But a game in which "the DM can just put Tiamat in the next room of the dungeon and slaughter the characters whenever he or she wishes"--in what way is that a good thing? Why not make such a dick move be against the rules? (Funny thing is, the structure for doing so is in 4e already, though it backpedals at the last moment by making encounter budgets guidelines rather than rules.)

"Why try to legislate some of the DM’s power while leaving huge, gaping holes elsewhere?" Why indeed, Mike? Why not close the huge gaping holes too, eh?

It's the GM's world. He can do what he wants with it, the same way you can go play in a different game. What is said in any gaming book makes no difference; rule zero exists implictly.

 

[rogueattorney]

Here's a Skip Williams interview from 2009 in which Mr. Williams discusses some of the same issues but - probably not surprisingly - takes a contrary position. Check down the comments area about halfway to see Mike Mearls' comment.

 

[Mournblade94]

It's a good thing because it leaves the world full of possibilities.

But, seriously, is your game run by a 10 year old?

Oh that hearkens me back to my 10 year old GM days. I was annoyed at my party of good alignment for beatling the red dragon barely. Their -28 AC helped mind you (At that point I thought armor built on each other), and dual wielding Halberds helped ( I didn't even know what a halberd was!). So they entered a red barn, and met ANOTHER red dragon... except it wasn't a red dragon A GOLD dragon had a cabinet of paint fall on him and killed the good party for attacking him.

Ah the good old days!!!!

I got back at my friends for breaking the leg off of my OPTIMUS PRIME! I actually gave a first level a Vorpal Sword for the HUFFER autobot.

HEy I was the one that took the time to figure everythign out, so well I might as well use DM AUTHORITY to exploit my friends and win autobots.

I am vindicated slightly because people make a business out of selling World of Warcraft gear

 

[Reynard]

I don't either. It's a far stretch from removing rocks-fall-everyone-dies power to "taking away the DM's ability to make any sort of judgment call".

Actually, it's not. If the PCs are in an unstable mountain pass and use a sonic admixtured fireball, for example, "rocks-fall-everyone-dies" IS a judgement call.

 

[Mark CMG]

Looks like a call for a game (5E?) where at the minimum complexity levels the DM is optional (no adjudication needed) but with potential layers for more complex gameplay where the game can include one or more types of complex gameplay, individually or combined (political, mass combat, etc.).

I don't think the analogies hold up well given the quotes at the beginning that show a DM not being shackled by the rules while the analogies showing the Referee as removed from gameplay but bound to adjudicate strictly based on RAW. It's tough to come up with analogies that mirror RPGs and probably best to avoid using them as a part of the mindset during RPG design. The games used in the examples come with enough preconceptions that contrast RPG preconceptions so as to make them awkward at best and useless if examined too closely.

 

[occam]

- How do you balance a system with all these different complexity levels? Especially if different people at the table can use different settings?

It's worth noting that Mike has never (I think) talked about the dials being set differently for different people at the same table. If you look at this article, he's clearly thinking of the dials as being set to levels agreed to by those in a group or campaign.

For public events (like D&D Encounters), presumably the dials would be preset to some standard settings.

 

[Mercurius]

Jeez Mearls, you're such a frickin' tease!!!

Folks, what we're seeing here are 5E design musings, no more or less. No, it doesn't mean a GenCon announcement for publication next June, but it could mean June, 2013.

But as Ron said, it could also mean revised 4E core rulebooks with the complexity dial built in, which would of course effectively be 5E, or at least a true "4.5."

- How do you balance a system with all these different complexity levels? Especially if different people at the table can use different settings?

Not easily. There may be no way around the likelihood that a more detailed (higher complexity) character will be better, but that is OK, imo, if the difference is only slight. And "better" may mean just better at specific, optimized things.

For example, in the basic game--as I said in another thread--one could simply make an STR + some portion of one's level to make a Strength-based skill check. Now if you have a more detailed character, you could have different scores for different Strength-based skills, some might have a modifier of full level, some half level, etc.

So let's say that you are trained in STR skills and get half level + a Class modifier for being a fighter of +3. A 5th level fighter have an 18 STR (+4), half level (+2), and a figher bonus of +3, for a total of +9 to all STR skill situations. That would be the simple (or simplish) version. Great complexity could split STR skills into Jump, Climb, Swim, etc, with different training degrees and even class bonuses. A rogue, for instance, would get a nice bonus to Climb but maybe not to Swim. For even further complexity, you could have a "class-less" character in which you customize everything.

I'm not saying that it would be easy to make it fully balanced, but possible to make it close enough. I mean, all games reward system mastery to some degree, and that's ok, but I think the key is to make it a relatively small degree (which is one of the steps forward that 4E made from 3.5, imo).

- How do you provide ongoing support for this? Different sourcebooks for each setting (turning everything into even more of a niche product than they already are)? Or combined sourcebooks (so huge parts of each book are guaranteed to be redundant)? Or do it all in DDI (meaning a lot of extra work for the same $6 per month as if you only offered one setting)?

A truly modular approach with a simple, core base would be able to handle this.

But in terms of publication, I may not be entirely sure what you mean here, but as I've said elsewhere, I would advocate crunch stuff coming out in DDI and being compiled in annuals.

But in terms of different rules complexities for, say, a given monster, while I think there could be many degrees and options for complexity of characters, with monsters you might want to have two basic categories: the basic, Core stats which can be used in any variation of the game, and then optional advanced rules that can bring a bit more complexity and tactical depth to a monster. I mean, an orc warrior really only needs an attack and damage, but if you want to bring in special tactics that orcs have, you can add it towards the end of the stat block under "Advanced Options" or some such.

Also, what about the pregenerated adventures? And Encounters, and similar? Are they going to assume some complexity settings, or are they going to bloat up to try to support them all?

One idea that's been floating around, which Mearls mentioned one or two articles ago, is that the complexity dial can be utilized in the same game, even the same situation. In the example above, Bobby could play a simple character and Mikey a more complex one, and they could be in the same campaign--even the same situation--and use their different "complexity settings." I mean, to jump over a chasm can always require a simple roll against a target number, but the complexity is in how a character's roll is modified.

It's a shame. The notion of complexity dials really suits me, not least because I don't like the current Combat Complexity setting of 11. But I'll believe it when I see it.

I think you're going to see it so you better start believing it!