|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 9:05PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2006
|
Legends and Lore
The Core of D&Dby Mike Mearls Not too long ago, I decided to send out a short survey to the members of D&D R&D. I asked them to make a list of the most important mechanical elements of D&D. The basic idea was to make a list of mechanics that, if any one of them were missing, you’d feel like you weren’t playing D&D. From the opposite perspective, these are mechanics that make you think of D&D when you see them in other games. Here’s the list: Talk about this column here. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 9:54PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2009
|
I liked this column; but I think that some things either aren't Core now or won't be Core in the future.
Alignment: I think this will slowly fall out. I've already seen groups disregard alignment. I usually make myself a code instead of having an alignment. Usually its 3 or 4 general goals.
Experience: Again, I've seen some DMs ignore experience and level up characters when it fits the story.
Classes: Many people have envisioned a classless system. It's certainly not impossible and other games have a classless system, though that's more true of computer games.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 10:32PM
#3
|
|
|
Only three things on the list strike me as core to D&D: Ability scores, classes, and level (even if actual XP is hand-waved). The rest (hit points, saving throws, AC, initiative rolls, +X magic items) are certainly D&D but I wouldn't call it core. I mean consider how saving throws have evolved from say 2e (save vs. breath weapon or rod/staff/wand) to 4e (a single d20 roll). At it's most basic, D&D is about strong warriors, nimble rogues, and powerful wizards. All the rest is just jazz  .
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 10:33PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I liked this column; but I think that some things either aren't Core now or won't be Core in the future.
Alignment: I think this will slowly fall out.
I hope you're mistaken - they've butchered alignment so badly in 4E that I hope they dump it completely in the next version. Either that or adopt the alignment system from World of Darkness, Rifts, Tales of the Floating Vagabond, AD&D to D&D3E (the best of the lot, though WoD is nearly as good), or pretty much anything except D&D4E. (Oh, the one saving grace of 4E alignment - the one thing they did get right - was to give it no mechanical effect. Keep that.)
Unfortunately, you're probably right - they'll phase it out slowly, probably making it even worse along the way.
Experience: Again, I've seen some DMs ignore experience and level up characters when it fits the story.
Classes: Many people have envisioned a classless system. It's certainly not impossible and other games have a classless system, though that's more true of computer games.
On these two, I believe you're wrong. They will not be exactly what they are now, but they'll be recognizably similar in at least the next four editions of D&D.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 11:35PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
I think the one aspect of 4th edition D&D that is very un-D&D like is the magic system. I really despise the similarities between magic spells and martial attack powers and ... any other kind of powers. Magic is neither special, unique or interesting in 4th edition and its no mainly because they didn't make any effort to make it special in the design, they simply took the core mechanic powers mechanic alreadly used by everything else in the game, changed some words and effects and called it magic. Thats not a magic system, thats a power system masked with fluff pretending to be a magic system.
Im glad to see that he at least reckognized on the list that magic is different in 4th edition than any other edition and while I know the mathmaticians will disagree, balanced or not the old way was and is better by such a wide margin, they aren't even in the same planet.
Really 4th edition doesn't have a magic system of any kind.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 11:46PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I'm somewhat surprised by the number of things on that list that I don't relly care for (whether anymore, or ever).
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 11:51PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2011
|
I think the one aspect of 4th edition D&D that is very un-D&D like is the magic system. I really despise the similarities between magic spells and martial attack powers and ... any other kind of powers. Magic is neither special, unique or interesting in 4th edition and its no mainly because they didn't make any effort to make it special in the design, they simply took the core mechanic powers mechanic alreadly used by everything else in the game, changed some words and effects and called it magic. Thats not a magic system, thats a power system masked with fluff pretending to be a magic system.
Im glad to see that he at least reckognized on the list that magic is different in 4th edition than any other edition and while I know the mathmaticians will disagree, balanced or not the old way was and is better by such a wide margin, they aren't even in the same planet.
Really 4th edition doesn't have a magic system of any kind.
This has been my largest gripe with 4E. Wizards lack the power and unique potential that once made them a dynamic class.
There are some elements of 4E that I can accept without complaint, there are some elements that I enjoy--mostly due to their brevity and universal appeal---but the magic system is the one element that I cannot stomach.
Despite Mearls' comment, wizard daily powers are not suitable replacements for the original, Vancian magic system.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 20, 2011 - 11:52PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
I think the one aspect of 4th edition D&D that is very un-D&D like is the magic system. I really despise the similarities between magic spells and martial attack powers and ... any other kind of powers. Magic is neither special, unique or interesting in 4th edition and its no mainly because they didn't make any effort to make it special in the design, they simply took the core mechanic powers mechanic alreadly used by everything else in the game, changed some words and effects and called it magic. Thats not a magic system, thats a power system masked with fluff pretending to be a magic system.
Im glad to see that he at least reckognized on the list that magic is different in 4th edition than any other edition and while I know the mathmaticians will disagree, balanced or not the old way was and is better by such a wide margin, they aren't even in the same planet.
Really 4th edition doesn't have a magic system of any kind.
I like 4e just for the reasons you stated. The game revolves around all the PCs, not just around magic. You're right, a power is a power regardless of your power source, and that's by design and that's why I like it. There is no magic system - there's a power system. Martial prowess is just as special as arcane prowess, as is divine, as is primal, psionic, shadow etc. imo. Having magic be something special can result it magic being something "better" and then you have 3.5/Pathfinder aka Revenge of The Spellcasters Edition. Or it could result in having magic end up being a worse choice. Same for any other aspect of character capabilities.
Whether the old way or the new way is better is purely a matter of opinion. I think the new way is better.
What I do find interesting though is that even though there's a great stress on balance between classes, each class is different enough with their own strengths and weaknesses that no one can go it solo. You have to have a team and synergize your powers. However, the strengths and weaknesses of each class is determined when designed by what their role is, not their power source. I like that. And there are so many options that you can build with a strong secondary role too.
And that may be one of the biggest things different about this edition. The emphasis, or even requirement for teamwork and synergy between characters is something that's never been around to this extent before. Players had to work builds to make that happen before, and now it's kind of baked in. In that sense, this concept was never the "core" of DnD, but I'm glad it's here now.
I never liked the part of previous versions of the game where you were punished for playing anything other than a spellcaster. Fighters are people too.  Now the wizards can play the support role, or not, as they party chooses, instead of having everyone be bodyguards for the spellcasters.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2011 - 12:06AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
And as for the main discussion, I thought that list was beautiful. The only thing I could see going away would be experience points, like others mentioned. Right now, if you want to just level up whenever appropriate that works great. But then in the current version of the game you would need to modify the encounter budget system to not use target XP anymore and instead base it purely on level and number of PCs. With the XP system you can get a little more granular in determining difficulty for encounters, though as we all know, the amount of XP an encounter is worth doesn't always tell the whole story about how truly difficult it will be.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 21, 2011 - 12:08AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
4e not putting magic on a pedestal is one reason I and my friends like it. You're still doing magical crap, but you don't get a chapter or two devoted to 'special snowflake' rules.
Of course, we still have rituals, which are definitely a type of magic with their own set of rules. At least they're not the core of any class, and anyone can use them.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
