Keldryn
Adventurer
It's an interesting article, and it's nice to read some of Mearls' thoughts on the subject, given his current role. The complexity issue is one that I have spent entirely too much time thinking about.
First off, I would like to define a few terms as to how I will be using them:
An archetype is a character that recurs in myths and stories and has become a part of the collective consciousness. By definition, an archetype would be defined only in very broad strokes. Some archtypes are truly cross-cultural, while others are limited to specific cultures or genres. The heroic knight, the wise old wizard, the grizzled veteran, the naive farmboy who will become a hero, the wisecracking rogue, the trickster, the fallen hero -- these are all archetypal characters which have appeared time and again in film, myth, and literature.
A character concept includes the character's role in the world, where he or she came from, and his or her primary motivations in life. It's more about who the character is than what the character can do. This isn't about writing a page of backstory, but one or two sentences that can be read to the other players to help them imagine who this character is. The grizzled veteran who was a scout in the king's army during a decade-long war, but found that he had no place in society once the war was over and turned to selling his blade to the highest bidder. The spoiled noble who dabbled in magic while growing up lost his family fortune and joined up with a group of mercenaries in order to support his extravagant lifestyle, even though he considers them to be lowly physical laborers.
The build refers to character options that you may choose in order to customize and specialize your character. This focuses almost entirely on what your character can do and can become a game-within-the-game, as many options will work best when combined with other options. The build could be a means of supporting and fleshing out the character concept, or it could be the focus of character creation entirely.
Where we came from
OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and AD&D draw very clear inspiration from classic literary and mythological archtypes, as well as archetypes emerging from fantasy literature published in the mid 20th century. If you wanted to play a knight, an archer, a barbarian warrior, or a mercenary captain, then you created a fighter. Other than how you chose to arrange your ability scores, a knight would differ from an archer by how you portrayed him.
Build options were pretty much non-existent in the earliest versions of D&D. AD&D 2nd Edition was where the build started to take hold in the core game; the Player's Handbook included weapon specialization, non-weapon proficiencies, cleric spheres, wizard school specializations, and discretionary points for thieves and bards to spend on abilities. The PHBR series began adding more options very quickly. I find it interesting to note that the earlier PHBR books featured kits that were still rather concept-driven and archetypal in nature: the peasant hero, the noble warrior, the gladiator, the witch, or the swashbuckler. Later books in the series started adding kits that seemed based around abilities rather than concepts. And I don't think I have much to say about the role of the build in 3rd and 4th Edition D&D that isn't immediately obvious.
I make no secret that I favor concept-driven character creation as opposed to build-driven character creation. Support for a wide range of character concepts is important, but I'm not that concerned about the ability for a player to create anything that he can imagine as, frankly, many of those ideas are just plain dumb. Archetypes are very useful for RPGs, as they allow someone unfamiliar with the subject matter to jump in much more easily and they faciliate communication. Many longtime gamers will write off the classic archetypes as boring, but I feel that D&D is at its best when it is rooted in strong archetypes.
Where we are going
The game's focus on the build seems to be a major point of contention for many, and perhaps this is the natural conceptual point for a Basic/Advanced D&D split. The Basic D&D game would present character classes that represent classic fantasy archetypes and a limited number of options to customize those classes. Character creation would be entirely concept-driven; this is probably a more natural approach for new players. The Advanced D&D game would open up character creation; if a player's spark of inspiration for a character really does come from a desire to play a dwarf-tiefling crossbreed who fights with a dagger strapped to his tail and a quadruple-bladed sword wielded in one hand, while casting web spells through his enchanted nosering*, then the system would support that sort of mechanics-first design.
*Just plain dumb Exhibit A.
The Basic D&D game would be very judicious with its use of temporary hit points, "until the end/beginning of somebody's next turn" effects, conditions that require tracking (marks, quarries, curses, etc), and triggered actions. Mearls' article focused entirely on the complexity of character generation, but there are a host of in-play complexities that players of fighters generally didn't have to deal with in earlier editions. In my experience, a player who wants to play an Essentials-style slayer also doesn't want to have to track temporary hit points as separate from regular hit points, remember which one-round buffing effects apply on this turn, or deal with triggered actions apart from "if he moves away from me, I get to hit him." Keep the interactions between the different moving parts of the system fairly straightforward. No chains of triggered actions. Limit the one-round effects to daily or encounter powers only. Reduce the focus on tactical positioning.
The Advanced D&D game would use the same core rules as the Basic game, but include many more character options. These character options could also be more complex in terms of how many pieces of the system need to interact with each other. Fully embrace the tactical nature of combat. Character classes can be more flexible, with the versions in the Basic game an example of what can be "built."
The hypothetical Basic D&D isn't just for new players. It's also for players who simply don't want to deal with a large number of rules, character sheets that look like tax forms, characters that take an hour to create unless you use a computer, a complex tactical battlegrid, battlefield effects that change on a round-to-round basis, or a dozen options to consider ever turn in combat. These players aren't dumb; some are more focused on story and character interaction and others are casual players who enjoy the social aspects of playing. OD&D through AD&D 2e (core) were reasonably accessible for these players. 3e and 4e have a much greater focus on tactical combat and build options, and this focus is an obstacle for many.
First off, I would like to define a few terms as to how I will be using them:
An archetype is a character that recurs in myths and stories and has become a part of the collective consciousness. By definition, an archetype would be defined only in very broad strokes. Some archtypes are truly cross-cultural, while others are limited to specific cultures or genres. The heroic knight, the wise old wizard, the grizzled veteran, the naive farmboy who will become a hero, the wisecracking rogue, the trickster, the fallen hero -- these are all archetypal characters which have appeared time and again in film, myth, and literature.
A character concept includes the character's role in the world, where he or she came from, and his or her primary motivations in life. It's more about who the character is than what the character can do. This isn't about writing a page of backstory, but one or two sentences that can be read to the other players to help them imagine who this character is. The grizzled veteran who was a scout in the king's army during a decade-long war, but found that he had no place in society once the war was over and turned to selling his blade to the highest bidder. The spoiled noble who dabbled in magic while growing up lost his family fortune and joined up with a group of mercenaries in order to support his extravagant lifestyle, even though he considers them to be lowly physical laborers.
The build refers to character options that you may choose in order to customize and specialize your character. This focuses almost entirely on what your character can do and can become a game-within-the-game, as many options will work best when combined with other options. The build could be a means of supporting and fleshing out the character concept, or it could be the focus of character creation entirely.
Where we came from
OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and AD&D draw very clear inspiration from classic literary and mythological archtypes, as well as archetypes emerging from fantasy literature published in the mid 20th century. If you wanted to play a knight, an archer, a barbarian warrior, or a mercenary captain, then you created a fighter. Other than how you chose to arrange your ability scores, a knight would differ from an archer by how you portrayed him.
Build options were pretty much non-existent in the earliest versions of D&D. AD&D 2nd Edition was where the build started to take hold in the core game; the Player's Handbook included weapon specialization, non-weapon proficiencies, cleric spheres, wizard school specializations, and discretionary points for thieves and bards to spend on abilities. The PHBR series began adding more options very quickly. I find it interesting to note that the earlier PHBR books featured kits that were still rather concept-driven and archetypal in nature: the peasant hero, the noble warrior, the gladiator, the witch, or the swashbuckler. Later books in the series started adding kits that seemed based around abilities rather than concepts. And I don't think I have much to say about the role of the build in 3rd and 4th Edition D&D that isn't immediately obvious.
I make no secret that I favor concept-driven character creation as opposed to build-driven character creation. Support for a wide range of character concepts is important, but I'm not that concerned about the ability for a player to create anything that he can imagine as, frankly, many of those ideas are just plain dumb. Archetypes are very useful for RPGs, as they allow someone unfamiliar with the subject matter to jump in much more easily and they faciliate communication. Many longtime gamers will write off the classic archetypes as boring, but I feel that D&D is at its best when it is rooted in strong archetypes.
Where we are going
The game's focus on the build seems to be a major point of contention for many, and perhaps this is the natural conceptual point for a Basic/Advanced D&D split. The Basic D&D game would present character classes that represent classic fantasy archetypes and a limited number of options to customize those classes. Character creation would be entirely concept-driven; this is probably a more natural approach for new players. The Advanced D&D game would open up character creation; if a player's spark of inspiration for a character really does come from a desire to play a dwarf-tiefling crossbreed who fights with a dagger strapped to his tail and a quadruple-bladed sword wielded in one hand, while casting web spells through his enchanted nosering*, then the system would support that sort of mechanics-first design.
*Just plain dumb Exhibit A.
The Basic D&D game would be very judicious with its use of temporary hit points, "until the end/beginning of somebody's next turn" effects, conditions that require tracking (marks, quarries, curses, etc), and triggered actions. Mearls' article focused entirely on the complexity of character generation, but there are a host of in-play complexities that players of fighters generally didn't have to deal with in earlier editions. In my experience, a player who wants to play an Essentials-style slayer also doesn't want to have to track temporary hit points as separate from regular hit points, remember which one-round buffing effects apply on this turn, or deal with triggered actions apart from "if he moves away from me, I get to hit him." Keep the interactions between the different moving parts of the system fairly straightforward. No chains of triggered actions. Limit the one-round effects to daily or encounter powers only. Reduce the focus on tactical positioning.
The Advanced D&D game would use the same core rules as the Basic game, but include many more character options. These character options could also be more complex in terms of how many pieces of the system need to interact with each other. Fully embrace the tactical nature of combat. Character classes can be more flexible, with the versions in the Basic game an example of what can be "built."
The hypothetical Basic D&D isn't just for new players. It's also for players who simply don't want to deal with a large number of rules, character sheets that look like tax forms, characters that take an hour to create unless you use a computer, a complex tactical battlegrid, battlefield effects that change on a round-to-round basis, or a dozen options to consider ever turn in combat. These players aren't dumb; some are more focused on story and character interaction and others are casual players who enjoy the social aspects of playing. OD&D through AD&D 2e (core) were reasonably accessible for these players. 3e and 4e have a much greater focus on tactical combat and build options, and this focus is an obstacle for many.
