Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5624871" data-attributes="member: 59082">The idea behind this thread is to have our own little Legends & Lore shindig and muse a bit about this idea of “complexity dial” that Mike Mearls has been talking about. Now this isn’t a new idea; some of us have been clamoring for one version or another of it for years. What is new--and exciting--is that the Head Honcho at D&D is talking about it. Now whether this is just him thinking aloud, early design ruminations for 5E, or perhaps even a new Basic 4E, remains to be seen. But the idea here is to explore how this might actually work in terms of game design. We can apply it to any game, but I'm going to focus on 4E, partially because that is likely the basis of any further design for D&D.So how do you see this working? I’ll throw some thoughts out there and feel free to jump in. (Bear with me...this is loooonngg...)     The “Complexity Dial”  The idea is pretty straight-forward: You have a simple, core game that we could call Basic or Core D&D. Onto that can be pasted various options for greater complexity, which we could call Advanced Options. Now beyond that basic differentiation, there are a few approaches:     <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> “Static” complexity dial. This is a simple bifurcation of Basic and Advanced. You can either play the Basic game or the Advanced game, but the rules offer options for both.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> “Dynamic” complexity dial. This is a bit more complex – you still have a Basic game, but you can pick and choose which Advanced Options you use. Want greater detail in Skills but not Feats? Then you can “dial up” on Skills but not on Feats.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">“Ultra-dynamic” complexity dial. As above, but with two further additions: One, you could have different characters of different complexity in the same game; two, different complexity depending upon the situation. For example, one combat could be quick and dirty and resolved in a couple rolls; another combat could be 4E-esque in its tactical intricacy.</li> </ul>  For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to fold the latter two approaches into simply the “dynamic” complexity dial because I think the former would eventually lead to the latter, or at least have the option to be that detailed. I’m also thinking that the first option, the “static” approach, is yesterday’s news and not really a step forward. So what we’re talking about here is the dynamic approach.     How Could This Work?  One image that comes to mind is that of an outline that you can “open” up. So you might have the key headings – the Roman Numerals of I, II, III, IV, etc; these would be the primary statistics, like Ability Scores, Hit Points, Defenses, Races, Classes, and Basic Attack. And then each can be “opened up” into A, B, C, D, which can be further opened up into 1, 2, 3, which can be further opened up into a, b, c, etc.     Perhaps the most straightforward example is that of Skills. Here you have at least three “complexity ranks”:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">  Ability Scores (e.g. Strength)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill Groups (e.g. Athletics)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill Specialties (e.g. Jump, Swim, Run, etc)</li> </ol>  You don’t really need to get anymore detailed than that. Or rather, further detail can be added through more and more Skill Specialties. In other words, I would think it unnecessary to break Jump down further into Long Jump and High Jump, but I suppose someone might want to do that and the rules could certainly accommodate that.     So the idea in the “dynamic” approach is that one character might only use their STR to jump over a chasm, while another might use Jump. The challenge would be in finding a way so that one approach is not superior to the other statistically.     If we take the Ability modifier as the base, untrained score, we could break down training into three categories:  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Proficient: Ability modifier + level</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Trained: Ability modifier + half level</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Untrained: Ability modifier</li> </ul>Depending upon the class, skill use in the primary ability score could be Proficient, Trained in 1-3 others, and Untrained in the rest. So a fighter might be Proficient in STR, Trained in DEX and CON, and Untrained in the rest. A rogue might be Proficient in DEX, Trained in STR, INT and CHA, and Untrained in WIS and CON. A bard might be Proficient in CHA, Trained in DEX, INT, and WIS, and Untrained in STR and CON. And so forth.    From that "Basic" approach, which provides relatively straight-forward modifiers to all skill situations based upon Ability Scores and Training, you could add greater detail. Proficiency in an Ability Score group could equate with various degrees of training in different skill or weapon groups, with specializations in one or two areas. Proficiency in Strength, for example, could mean Proficiency in a specific weapon group (say, Heavy Blades) and training in all Martial weapons, whereas Training in Strength could mean Proficiency in a single weapon type (longsword), Training in a specific weapon group (Heavy Blades), and Untrained in all other weapons.     (Or something like that; I’m just working it out as a type – the specifics aren’t that important at this point, but rather an exploration of the flexibility of the modular approach)     The above approach can be taken with most aspects of the game, although it gets a bit trickier with Feats and Powers. These could be, for example, equivalent to Skill Specialties, like so:  <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Classes/Races</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Class Builds/Styles/Features</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Feats/Powers</li> </ol>           In the simplest version of the game, you choose a Race and a Class and whatever the default features are, that’s what your character can do. But if you want a bit more customization, you turn up the dial and choose a build or a style, or among certain features. If you want further complexity, you break those down and choose individual feats and powers.     Let’s look briefly at magic. It is hard to get really simple and still retain the concept of “spells.” The complexity dial might have more to do with how the magic is used – the frequency and customization of spells – rather than what is used. For example, we might have something like this:   <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Vancian Magic – “fire and forget”</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Powers – At-will, Encounter, Daily, Utility</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Power Points</li> </ol>        To put it another way, the complexity has to do with to what degree the player is “in charge” of what their character can do. Power Points, for instance, would allow a PC to use a Daily power more than once but at the expense of, say, two Encounter powers. For even further complexity, power points could be used for spontaneous casting.     The Core Game  If almost everything is Advanced Options, what would the Core game look like? This is where Mike Mearls (or whoever) would have to make some hard choices. My sense is that it would be something like this:     Six Ability Scores  Race (and resulting features/powers)  Class (and resulting features/powers)  LevelHit Points  Armor Class and Defenses     That’s about it. Then everything else would be optional and unfold from the Abilities, Race, and Class, so you’d have modular rules for Skills, Feats, Powers, Stunts, Aspects, Advantages and Disadvantages, Combat Styles, Power Points, etc.      The Problem of Tournaments and Conventions  It is all well and good to have a fully customized game in an individual game group, but what do you do outside of your own game group? At, say, a convention or game store session? It could be a mess, albeit one that manages to work. Imagine sub-titles like “An adventure for a party of five 6th level characters, using Core rules plus Feats, Skills, and Combat Styles.”     It could also be simpler than that, with clearly defined complexity ranks, such as Basic (the core game), Intermediate (moderate complexity), and Advanced (very detailed complexity). Individual campaigns could still go by a pick-and-choose approach, but public games would be very specific (e.g. “A 6th level adventure using Intermediate rules).     On the other hand, a truly dynamic game wouldn’t require that as different players could use characters at different complexity ranks. So it could just be a 6th level D&D adventure, but with each player having characters of different complexities. That possibility, to me, would be what would make this hypothetical new edition truly a step beyond what has come before.     Further Considerations or, “It ain’t just the crunch!”  This modular approach can be applied not only to the rules but to the “fluff” of the game which, I think, would go a long way towards re-capturing that classic D&D feel that many feel was lost with recent editions. For instance, the Basic game could include only the very essential, classic races—humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings—and the core, archetypal classes—fighter, mage, rogue, and cleric, as well as probably a few others. Different products could introduce “fringe” races and classes, from tieflings and dragonborn to warlords and sorcerers.     This isn’t all that different than, say, what 4E has done. But with a more intentional modular approach, what is “core” can be clarified. You start with fighters, mages, rogues, and clerics, and then you add in paladins, rangers, bards, druids, and barbarians, and then warlords, sorcerers, warlocks, etc.     Imagine also how Character Builder could be designed to allow various Advanced Options and could be printed out (or displayed) showing varying degrees on the complexity dial. Want to see only the Basic character? Should be simple enough. Want to see the “skill tree”? Just click and expand. Want to allow only Core and Player's Handbook 2 classes? Just select the relevant options.     "5E" Product Line  I'm going to step a bit beyond the original parameters of this post and speculate a bit about what sort of product releases would work best for this sort of configuration of D&D, namely as a 5E of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Some have said that 5E will be mainly, or even purely, digital. I don’t think this has to be the case, although certainly we may never see books like Martial Power 2 again. Instead, Advanced Options can first appear on DDI, with perhaps yearly “annuals” in hard-copy form, as well as deluxe items like mega-adventures, theme books, campaign sets, etc.      So you might see something like this in terms of product release:     <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Starter Set – the new “Red Box” covering the Core game through a few levels.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Classic Three Hardcovers – Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual – with the Core game and iconic classes and races through all 20-30 levels, plus the extended family of classic races and classes (ranger, paladin, druid, bard, half-elf, gnome).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rules Expansion Annuals - these would compile the prior year's DDI content of new rules, and would fall into three categories: Player books, DM books, shared books. The players' books would mainly be PHBs that compile all new classes, races, and other players options. DM books would be further rules and guidelines for higher level play, monster books, etc. Shared books would be theme books that expand the D&D universe, equipment and magic item books, etc. I imagine something like 3-4 a year.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Campaign Settings – We'd probably see 5E versions of classics, but the focus would be on a a new iconic setting that acted as a kind of “loss leader” to fill out the flavor of the game; in other words, it wouldn’t have to make a huge amount of money, but what it would do is carry the flavor and community (ala Golarion). This is one area that I think weakened 4E. I imagine an initial box set or hardcover, then maybe 2-3 new products a year, plus one "Classic Campaign Setting" single hardcover per year.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mega-Adventures and Location/Sandbox sets – Two variants - one the mega-campaign arc that takes a party through a tier of play, and the other a sandbox location that a party can explore. Imagine a box set with a campaign book, an encounter book, maps, tiles, etc. Maybe 3-4 a year.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Miscellany - anything from stuff like Hammerfast and Vor Rukoth that give flavor to the default setting, to useful items like the Rules Compendium. </li> </ul>               On first blush this isn’t that different from the production plan of 4E and 3E, but it would cut down on small and more frequent splat books (no more Martial Power, Divine Power, etc), focus on quality over quantity, and relegate new crunch to first DDI and then an annual at the end of the year. Players would be encouraged to subscribe to DDI because rules would show up there first, and often up to a year before the annual was published. We'd be looking at one major new hard-copy release per month, with a few smaller items mixed in - a nice balance, I think, between the glut of the late Aughties and the barren 2011 release schedule.     OK, I'm finished. So what do you think?</blockquote>

Verification