Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D (3/4/2013)

Legends & Lore
This Week in D&D
By Mike Mearls

It might be strange for the guy in charge of D&D R&D to say thisbut here it goes: After the core rules for the game are donewe really want to stop adding so much stuff to the mechanics of the game and shift our emphasis to story. D&D is a shared language. The rules serve to make it easier to talk about the game and make stuff happen. They take abstract concepts and give them clear meaning. When we say "5th-level wizard" we know what you can do and how you do it. We know that because we play D&D. Someone who never played the game would be utterly lost.

Talk about this column here.

This Week in D&D  

EDIT Clarification From Mike Mearl's Twitter:

@Matt_Sheridan Hey, did you hear your L&L article for next week somehow went up today? And it's apparently not the whole article? Hopefully?
@mikemearls no, that's it. Full week = short column. If it's not clear, I'm talking about feats and stuff, not rules modules.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Um, happy March 4 everyone?

This article seems a bit shorter and less organized than usual... I wonder if Mike published it accidentally, given that it's three days early.

Anyway, more focus on story and less on mechanics: good, I guess? 
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.  But, umm, was there more to the article?

Seems like half an article.
More like a diary entry than an article post.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

So ... how does this affect their plans for standard and advanced rules? I'm assuming those are still on the table, but maybe not?
So, they aren't going to develop the Advanced modules?

Or we aren't going to playtest them?

Either way, odd way to approach modular design.
 
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I find the article puzzling on many levels

1 its the 1st not the 4th.  

2 this article is incredibly short and incredibly vauge and doesn't really explain his statements or what it means for the rules being released or the advanced modules and stuff

coupling this article with the beholder malfunction earlier today I'm wondering if someone screwed up with deployment dates of prewritten content, and if Mike had yet to finish writing this article before it was pulled from the server and deployed to the page.  Not faulting them if it did happen, I work with computers sometimes **** happens.

Frankly the only thing I am really looking for in these L&L articles is them telling us when the next packet is being released.  We have tested the current content and provided our feedback.  I understand if it isn't quite ready yet, but at least give us an update on the matter because I know my whole group is itching for the next pack and I think a lot of us on the forum are as well.  If I had to give my estimation though I am betting the next packet isn't coming out till around the time of PAX East.

 
I'm pretty confident this is both not finished and an accident.
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 
I'm pretty confident this is both not finished and an accident.




obviously seconded
Everytime something unnusual happens at the website (like a late, or, in this case, very early, L&L), it gets me thinkin "Ooooh! New playtest packet!"

When is the next one coming, Wizards? I want to try new classes! :'(
Well, sounds like chargen is going to be boring as dirt. Also, what does this mean for modularity and advanced rules?
...whatever
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 
...whatever
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 



The core is just the inner workings. The basic rules are probably solid enough to allow everything you have in mind. it's just that once we all "speak the same language" we will be able to get into a lot more, including the modules that you would like added to the game
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Well, sounds like chargen is going to be boring as dirt. Also, what does this mean for modularity and advanced rules?


it means that we are about to get into it for real.

getting the "core" right is the first thing to do: that allows the rest to have something to stand on
getting the feel or flavor seems to be next
getting the modularity of the advanced rules will be on the table soon enough 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 



The core is just the inner workings. The basic rules are probably solid enough to allow everything you have in mind. it's just that once we all "speak the same language" we will be able to get into a lot more, including the modules that you would like added to the game



If the foundation the game is based on stinks, modules won't fix it.
...whatever
Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 



The core is just the inner workings. The basic rules are probably solid enough to allow everything you have in mind. it's just that once we all "speak the same language" we will be able to get into a lot more, including the modules that you would like added to the game



If the foundation the game is based on stinks, modules won't fix it.


Well, I can't fix pesimism Frown
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.


The way I read it, it was more like he was saying, "We want to make archery a specialty, but we only want to do it once that way we all know what conglomeration of feats/abilities an archer is."  Which makes sense to an extent, but the problem is that you have to get it right or else you wont have an option for a more fitting archer specialty that isn't homebrew (or 3pp, provided they can work out the licensing better than 4e did).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.



Its almost like he's saying "we're not going to bother fleshing out this system, just roleplay it".
...whatever
The way I read it, it was more like he was saying, "We want to make archery a specialty, but we only want to do it once that way we all know what conglomeration of feats/abilities an archer is."

That is also how I read it. They want to avoid making four different archery trees, where one will inevitably obviate the others. If you know what your character is in out-of-game terms, then the path to represent that with in-game mechanics is supposed to be really obvious.

The metagame is not the game.
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.


I think what he's saying is closer to "we all know what an archer is, that's why it has a specialty named after it. in choosing that specialty, your character becomes an archer, thus removing the need to adress the character as "the fighter with (inster the name of 3-4 feats)" making discussion easier on newbie ears" 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
The way I read it, it was more like he was saying, "We want to make archery a specialty, but we only want to do it once that way we all know what conglomeration of feats/abilities an archer is."

That is also how I read it. They want to avoid making four different archery trees, where one will inevitably obviate the others. If you know what your character is in out-of-game terms, then the path to represent that with in-game mechanics is supposed to be really obvious.




The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options
...whatever
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.


The way I read it, it was more like he was saying, "We want to make archery a specialty, but we only want to do it once that way we all know what conglomeration of feats/abilities an archer is."  Which makes sense to an extent, but the problem is that you have to get it right or else you wont have an option for a more fitting archer specialty that isn't homebrew (or 3pp, provided they can work out the licensing better than 4e did).




I also think this may have been what he was meaning to say as well.

though I do think there can be some granualization...for instance in out of game terms I may also want to be a zen archer though given an archer specialty i could still carry that off I suppose.

Though to reiterate like others I think this was an unfinished article that got erroneously released. 
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.


I think what he's saying is closer to "we all know what an archer is, that's why it has a specialty named after it. in choosing that specialty, your character becomes an archer, thus removing the need to adress the character as "the fighter with (inster the name of 3-4 feats)" making discussion easier on newbie ears" 



also a credible take away making it easier for newbies to know what is going on simply by saying okay you want to be an archer here we go take the archer specialty
The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options

Agreed on the first point. Nobody wants all archers to be terrible, because that really limits the kinds of stories that can be told.

Point two seems to be a deliberate shift of focus away from character-building as a game in itself. It says to me that the game starts only after you meet each other at the tavern (or whatever), and nobody should be punished for making a "wrong" decision during char-gen. I can't say I object to that, though I understand why others might.

The metagame is not the game.
The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options

Agreed on the first point. Nobody wants all archers to be terrible, because that really limits the kinds of stories that can be told.

Point two seems to be a deliberate shift of focus away from character-building as a game in itself. It says to me that the game starts only after you meet each other at the tavern (or whatever), and nobody should be punished for making a "wrong" decision during char-gen. I can't say I object to that, though I understand why others might.




The removal of character-building as a game in itself will be missed.
...whatever
The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options

Agreed on the first point. Nobody wants all archers to be terrible, because that really limits the kinds of stories that can be told.

Point two seems to be a deliberate shift of focus away from character-building as a game in itself. It says to me that the game starts only after you meet each other at the tavern (or whatever), and nobody should be punished for making a "wrong" decision during char-gen. I can't say I object to that, though I understand why others might.




The removal of character-building as a game in itself will be missed.


Maybe.  Not by anyone that I have played with, but still, maybe.  For most of the people that I've played with, a wealth of options is only good for trying to get as close as possible to one's character concept.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options

Agreed on the first point. Nobody wants all archers to be terrible, because that really limits the kinds of stories that can be told.

Point two seems to be a deliberate shift of focus away from character-building as a game in itself. It says to me that the game starts only after you meet each other at the tavern (or whatever), and nobody should be punished for making a "wrong" decision during char-gen. I can't say I object to that, though I understand why others might.




The removal of character-building as a game in itself will be missed.




AH but it isn't removed for us advanced players...there will still be all those feats.  once you get more advanced you can play the character building game we all love.

like many have said this is obviously an erroneuously released unfinished article. 
The dangers in that would be:

1. having to make sure if there's only going to be one archer option, it overwhelmingly needs to not suck

2. Avoiding making character generation boring due to a lack of options

Agreed on the first point. Nobody wants all archers to be terrible, because that really limits the kinds of stories that can be told.

Point two seems to be a deliberate shift of focus away from character-building as a game in itself. It says to me that the game starts only after you meet each other at the tavern (or whatever), and nobody should be punished for making a "wrong" decision during char-gen. I can't say I object to that, though I understand why others might.




The removal of character-building as a game in itself will be missed.




AH but it isn't removed for us advanced players...there will still be all those feats.  once you get more advanced you can play the character building game we all love.

like many have said this is obviously an erroneuously released unfinished article. 



What if it isn't? What they've said about advanced rules hasn't sounded much like piles of new feats and whatnot.
...whatever
#1: Plaguescarred - for the love of cupcakes, you need to change the titles of these. There's 3 or 4 "This Week in D&D" threads on the front page.

#2: I agree that the L&L explains their thinking in regards to why they've gone with Specialties (and arguably Fighting Styles, Rogue Schemes, Wizard Schools, Domains, etc.) and the like for Standard. What it doesn't make clear is their philosophy for Advanced.

"much-reduced emphasis on turning out new rules mechanics" doesn't really track with with the "Advanced" concept discussed in this L&L. My guess is that they're talking about avoiding bloat in future splatbooks, but I'm not sure either if that's the case or if it is, how D&D plans to make money going forward.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Wow, this had better be an unfinshed article as should be entitled to expect more from someone who's job is communication, the quality of writing in this article is terrible. Any student of mine would be lucky to get a C for writing this impenetrable and opaque. If this is really a finished article I strongly expect some of the higher up marketing folks from Hasbro/WOTC to be knocking on Mikes door on Monday for a crash course in PR and basic writing principles.
#1: Plaguescarred - for the love of cupcakes, you need to change the titles of these. There's 3 or 4 "This Week in D&D" threads on the front page.


Unfortunatly thats how the article are named and discussion thread i create are named after them normally.

I can put date in the thread title in the future and ask CM to put date in titles of existing thread already created. I'll see what i can do.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

#1: Plaguescarred - for the love of cupcakes, you need to change the titles of these. There's 3 or 4 "This Week in D&D" threads on the front page.


I can put date in the thread title in the future and ask CM to put date in titles of existing thread already created. I'll see what i can do.



Thank you! Very much appreciated.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Hang on.

Did Mike Mearls, designer of DnD Next, say that instead of an archer to have feats and rules to help him play an archer...to just roleplay it instead?  Or is he saying, "Hey feat bloat sucks, you know it, we know it, so we're going to curb it."

It's rather a confusing article.



Its almost like he's saying "we're not going to bother fleshing out this system, just roleplay it".



Mmmm....I'm getting a different feeling (Given as others have observed the article is probably just a rough draft,  especially since earlier today they had another early release gaffe with beholders floating over the site,  obviously meant for some other day).

I suspect that where he was going with this is that he wants to focus on making language accessible,  and attractive,  to new players.  If a new player wants to play an Archer,  having an Archer defined in some way is much more accessible than asking him to identify Rapid Shot as a component of a D&D Archer. 

I am concerned though,  because it could signal the intent to start using archtypes for classes instead of something like Prestige Classes or Kits.

One interesting takeaway:  His comment about the " After the core rules for the game are done...",  hadn't they already said Core was set in stone?  This indicates there may be some significant rework happening?   
#1: Plaguescarred - for the love of cupcakes, you need to change the titles of these. There's 3 or 4 "This Week in D&D" threads on the front page.


Unfortunatly thats how the article are named and discussion thread i create are named after them normally.

I can put date in the thread title in the future and ask CM to put date in titles of existing thread already created. I'll see what i can do.


Yeah it is the protocol that we have been following.

For the date, the year might be worth including:

“L&L: This week in D&D, 2013 03/04”

The year preceding the month and day helps sorting, and is how URL has it. The Playtests also do it this way.

Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 



The core is just the inner workings. The basic rules are probably solid enough to allow everything you have in mind. it's just that once we all "speak the same language" we will be able to get into a lot more, including the modules that you would like added to the game



I don't feel all that clear on some very core things....  I don't really know what constitutes a move.... I would say that is some pretty basic stuff that I can't seem to figure out.

Specifically....  there are abilities that talk about "when you move" or "when you start a move".  But a "move" isn't defined as its own thing.  The rules talk about how far you can move, and splitting up movement. They discuss movement in combat.  Is using the Hustle action a different move?  Or is it  the same move?  Charge?  Is that a move?  Is it separate?  What about a push or pull?  You move.  It is considered movement under the Opportunity Attacks entry (though it doesn't provoke).  Does that count as a move though? 
Yeah it is the protocol that we have been following.

Funny i was just PMing you about it :P

I asked CM for their help to change the 3 last L&L floating on Page 1 of the D&D GD to include date so they are better differentiated. Ex;

Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D  (03/04)
Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D  (02/25)
Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D  (02/18)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Sounds good, I totally agree, once the rules are in place stop screwing with them.


Which is an inherently weird idea coming from the designers of a game whose battle-cry is modularity.


Well, when you think about it, it actualy makes a lot of sense: I think he's more or less talking about the "core" of the game: mostly basic and maybe standard.
once those are well defined, they will be able to move on to crafting campaign worlds, settings and adventures. 
Advanced can cover the modularity part, but it will not show up in "fluff" releases as every game will be different. Fluff and modules can be released on paralell courses, but as soon as the core is clear, they can start churning out both.
Like he said, as long as we all speak the same language, the rest will flow easily




Given that I gree with many that this is not finished and an accidental release I'm hoping we will get more.  However I think this is along the lines of what he meant

I think they are getting to that point where the core is solidified and they can branch out to setting up all the options and everything. 



If the core is solidified, its solidified into something I likely will never play. The core as we've seen isn't good enough. 



The core is just the inner workings. The basic rules are probably solid enough to allow everything you have in mind. it's just that once we all "speak the same language" we will be able to get into a lot more, including the modules that you would like added to the game



I don't feel all that clear on some very core things....  I don't really know what constitutes a move.... I would say that is some pretty basic stuff that I can't seem to figure out.

Specifically....  there are abilities that talk about "when you move" or "when you start a move".  But a "move" isn't defined as its own thing.  The rules talk about how far you can move, and splitting up movement. They discuss movement in combat.  Is using the Hustle action a different move?  Or is it  the same move?  Charge?  Is that a move?  Is it separate?  What about a push or pull?  You move.  It is considered movement under the Opportunity Attacks entry (though it doesn't provoke).  Does that count as a move though? 



Ok, one at a time
a move is not defined in the rules because it's actualy simpler than you think: it's self-explanatory: a move is to move
each round, you can both MOVE and take an ACTION
Hustle is an ACTION 
it is not the same
Charge is an ACTION, it is not a move (although it allows you to move)
it IS separate
as for pushing and pulling, it does move you...so it counts as a move, but being pushed or pull doesn't change the fact that you can move on your turn 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com