|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 9:16PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2006
|
Legends and Lore
Combat and Other Forms of Violenceby Mike Mearls While combat has remained constant, it (like almost everything in the game) has changed over the years. Talk about this column here. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 9:19PM
#2
|
|
|
I'll repeat what I said on the article comments itself, since I think it'll get more notice here.
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 9:55PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2010
|
I'll repeat what I said on the article comments itself, since I think it'll get more notice here.
Well Said, but beware the flames, they be a comin
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:11PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Speedier combat would be a welcome option at my table. I would love to run a couple of quick encounters and then be able to introduce a complex tactical encounter as the conclusion of an adventuring chapter.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:12PM
#5
|
|
|
Oh, I'm aware. I've learned to ignore the flames, mostly. There's a lot of worries there, and I know it's in WotC's best interest to try to dampen them somewhat, get them from burning everything. But Mearls' articles are finally starting to take shape here. I agree with those who said that there should be a compilation, or these are better read all alongside one another. He's going somewhere with this: he's taking us towards this idea that D&D should be many different things for many different people, because ultimately, it's a roleplaying game, and how do you sell imagination? You can't. But you can sell structure, and different structures provide for different ways of playing the game. When I RP, I'm always frustrated by people who write their characters as being too powerful, making character-on-character duels somewhat pointless and coming down to when one RPer decides to concede to the other for whatever reason (usually because the other was able to write a more convincing ploy). The reason this happens is because there's no structure in a free-form RP. But structure in an RPG allows us to judge and weigh the powers of characters, so we can play what we want, but also be balanced against each other and with each other. That's why I love RPGs like D&D.
But creating that structure is difficult. How do we decided what format that structure will be in? What are our goals for making it? Mearls had now clearly identified their goals: they want to provide us all with the most fun game for each and every player and/or group. And some groups are going to want more structure, and others less. Some are going to want one type of structure, and others, another. Just because one type of structure is sitting on the fence right now because it has a lot of support while another form of structure is being built up, a lot of people are worried the second structure is going to be the be-all and end-all. But both are equally valid and equally desirable by WotC, who want to sell us the structures that will allow us to play the game we want to play.
The only way I can see a downpoint in all this is for people who actually felt that strict adherence to AEDU was the only way to keep the game balanced and fun for everyone. I disagree with this statement, but I have more than one friend who believes this and is extremely dissatisfied with WotC ever since they revived the Power Point mechanic in Player's Handbook 3. I don't know how one would go about pleasing this sort of player/DM, besides saying, "in the games I play with you, we'll just not use any player rule-sources published from PH3 on" or some variant of that. I don't think there's much I can do otherwise, and this frustrates me, because I want to play with this friend, but I also want to play with the new toys. Guess I just need to start another group that I play in, and toggle between multiple different games.
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:13PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Don't worry, Marandhir is a Tiefling. He's resistant to fire.  I said as much on Wrecan's thread. Combat should go quick or be drawn out if the DM should choose to do so. Right now, combat is great as drawn out. Short? It's okay, but it really isn't a challenge. Maybe we can get creatures who have special templates that allow them to challenge players in a short period. As "Elite" creatures are a special template, perhaps "Quick" creatures can be a template for fast but meaningful play.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:16PM
#7
|
|
|
^ Alter_Boy makes a good point.  Also, Mearls name-dropped Kara-Tur. Where else have I heard that setting recently? Could this be 2012's, to tie into Elemental Heroes?
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:33PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
I'm excited to see this Combat Velocity article. We just had a discussion about this very topic yesterday at our game when an encounter unexpectedly took 2 1/2 hours.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 30, 2011 - 10:36PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
I will say this is probably my favourite of Mearls' articles. He covered things in a good manor, and didn't make it sound like he was buying into nastalgia. He also took a good amount of time to reference 4e in there too!
I understand that essentials wants to provide something simple for the simple crowd. However, it creates issues in three key few areas.
1) Ok, so there's people wanting a simple fighter. You make a simple fighter. Why produce a second, just as complex if not more, wizard? What if you want to play a simple spellcaster.
2) Why do you continue to support these? Now, I can understand some new simple classes to give a bit more variety, but why publish more options for the simple classes? It just bloats them back up to the old ones. Thus defeating your point of keeping them simple.
3) The "complex" crowd losing out on new stuff, that instead the simple crowd gets. While many powers...mostly arcane and divine...are transferable back to the parent classes, it isnt the same as a new build or class like we used to get. Right now this is mostly HoS's problem. You have a bunch of powers, but no new builds unless you have DDI, or bought the simple books that you wouldnt want to buy otherwise. The original assassin, one of the few pure shadow classes, and desperately hurting for support, gets a new "build" that has nothing to do with it, with some utilitiy powers you can poach. In the end for us complex folks, HoS is like paying 30 bucks for a few dragon articles of powers.
That said, while simpler classes can help reduce combat length, they definitely don't have a garunteed effect. The Thief in my party takes noticibly longer than the mage.
Note: I would like to clerify by calling a crowd "simple" i do not mean it in a way insulting their mental capacity. They merely enjoy simple characters. I'm cool with that, and have some in the party. I am also not calling complex people any better than simple. I am merely saying making simple things complex again is likely to hurt the simple crowd, while not helping the complex crowd.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 31, 2011 - 12:01AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2009
|
Making combat simpler, or faster, doesn't make out-of-combat more prevalent or detailed. If, Mr Mearls, you want to encourage courtly intrigues and other activities of this kind, this is by produce rules, or at least guidelines for them, not by making another aspect of the game simpler.
Simpler combat is just simpler combat.
I agree on the interest of being able to "modulate" the complexity of the rules according to the campaign you want to play. but the reasoning that simple combat encourages other activities is a fallacy.
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
|
|
|
I think I understand, then, why they're putting so much investment into simpler-more-streamlined gameplay right now. It's not a replacement for more complexity, or saying that "Martial Characters should be simple while Arcane Characters should be complex." It's more saying that, "many people who play Fighter want to play a more simple character. Let's give them that option, while MAINTAINING THE OPTION of a more complex Fighter." The game is moving forward to support both directions, and that makes me very happy.