# Mearls: The core of D&D



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2011)

I am sure some of you will have some sort of opinion on this:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Core of D&D)


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jun 21, 2011)

I just wonder where all these articles are going.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 21, 2011)

I agree completely with his point that D&D isn’t -- or wasn't -- one game but a range of games:
I have a theory that in the days of AD&D, there were a few things at work that helped shape D&D. In the AD&D days, the rules had enough leeway for DM judgment calls that a group could bend and twist the rules to fit the DM’s feel for how things should work. One DM could hand wave details, while another would do a lot of research and incorporate as much realism into the game as possible. Thus, while the design might have pointed in one direction, DMs can and did alter the game as they saw fit.

With the release of 3rd Edition, we saw a new trend that 4th Edition only strengthened. The rules became more comprehensive and easier to use. A DM was still free to modify them, but it became a lot easier to just use the rules as written. I think that’s when you started to see divisions among D&D players come to the fore. We always played the game differently, but now that we were a little more reliant on the rules those difference became more obvious.​On the other hand, I don't agree at all with his game designers' list of mechanics that are essential to D&D.  If you sally forth from the Keep on the Borderlands in search of fabulous treasure guarded by monsters in the Caves of Chaos, you're playing D&D -- in essence.  AC and hit points have very little to do with it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2011)

> The interesting thing to me is that every edition of D&D supports all of these elements in one form or another.



I think he's being a bit generous here, but then again, he's not exactly objective. 



> If you sally forth from the Keep on the Borderlands in search of fabulous treasure guarded by monsters in the Caves of Chaos, you're playing D&D -- in essence.




If you mean those places IN PARTICULAR, yeah, because they're from published D&D sources.  If you're making a generalization and just happened to use those names, though, no, I can't agree.


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 21, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I just wonder where all these articles are going.




D&D 5th Edition, of course! 

They were asking questions like this in Dragon while they were playtesting 3e. And they did the nearly the same thing right before 4e.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jun 21, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> D&D 5th Edition, of course!
> 
> They were asking questions like this in Dragon while they were playtesting 3e. And they did the nearly the same thing right before 4e.




You'll think the 3 v 4 Edition Wars were a stroll in the park 

I wonder if the Board Games and Fortune Decks are tests for new mechanics similar to Bot9S?


----------



## billd91 (Jun 21, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> On the other hand, I don't agree at all with his game designers' list of mechanics that are essential to D&D.  If you sally forth from the Keep on the Borderlands in search of fabulous treasure guarded by monsters in the Caves of Chaos, you're playing D&D -- in essence.  AC and hit points have very little to do with it.




I'm much more in agreement with Mearls' list of mechanics. AC and hp have *a lot* do to with whether I'm playing D&D or some other fantasy RPG.


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 21, 2011)

Gods be good! Mike Mearls, please help make 5th edition as much like AD&D as you possibly can. Please give us a game with simple, basic, easy to run and play mechanics that highlight the early edition of the game and then offer more complex rules as optional books that aren't required for core, basic play. Please, oh please, oh please, oh please, etc....


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 21, 2011)

Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?

I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> You'll think the 3 v 4 Edition Wars were a stroll in the park
> 
> I wonder if the Board Games and Fortune Decks are tests for new mechanics similar to Bot9S?




I think, hope, that they are just ways of making money now (and to be blunt, that the fortune cards aren't, so they just die). But ya, another radical push like that for D&D would just fragement the fragments (though it could be kind a fun to do a 4E retroclone). 

Now a 5E unification edition...nice idea, but he is going to need more then these little articles for that.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jun 21, 2011)

While not strictly mechanical, I think the four races (dwarf, elf, halfling, and human) and four core classes (cleric, fighter, thief, and wizard) are missing from the list.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?
> 
> I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.




Well, it _was_ mechanical, and its slightly higher level of detail, but not as detailed as you could get. That more detailed list will have: dwarves, elves, red dragons, magic missiles and maybe even githyanki, beholders, flaming spheres, glaives..


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 21, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?
> 
> I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.




It doesn't pass my personal "if it's missing, it doesn't feel like you're playing D&D" test. But on the other hand, it's definitely "mechanics that make you think of D&D when you see them in other games."


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 21, 2011)

The mechanics don't make the game. 

There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 21, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> Well, it _was_ mechanical, and its slightly higher level of detail, but not as detailed as you could get. That more detailed list will have: dwarves, elves, red dragons, magic missiles and maybe even githyanki, beholders, flaming spheres, glaives..




Well, that's the core of my "out of place" reaction.  A list that includes mechanical alignment I would expect to include a lot of other things.  But maybe Barastrondo has why it makes the cut and other such highly D&D-ish mechanics in the next level of detail don't.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jun 21, 2011)

The List, just in case you don't want to click the link


> The six ability scores—Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma—as the categories for measuring a character’s abilities.
> Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.
> Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe.
> Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones.
> ...




I have a hard time arguing with these items.  I will point out that 4E set out to change some of these.

1.  Magic Items:  The +X magic item stopped being treasure and started being part of the system's math.  Is it really treasure if the math demands you have it?

2.  Levels as a measure of power:  The math of the system tries really hard to remove this in favor of a "sweet spot" for d20 outcomes.  Also, there is a unwritten social rule that characters will be the same level.  The goal was that everything scaled so you stay within that "sweet spot" no matter what your level is.  This ties heavily into the +X magic item issue above.

3.  Alignment:  Saying the alignment axis system defines DnD is interesting.  Is Mearls suggesting that the 4E changes to the alignment system were a mistake?

4.  Fire and Forget:  Boy, I don't know where to start on this.  Vancian magic was suppose to be dead in 4E.  Yet, every class in PHB I and II used daily powers.  In fact, they simply expanded Fire and Forget by adding a new catagory to it, Encounter.  

Yes, I do think Vancian Magic is a core item that makes DnD DnD.  But I do question the idea that every class needs Vancian magic.  Personally, I find the Essentials Fighter and Rogue much closer to what I see as the classic DnD fighter and rogue.  By mostly ditching the Vancian elements of those two classes, they moved them in-line with my view of what a fighter or rogue should do (again, just a personal opinion and not a statement on the overall power of the Slayer, Knight, and Theif versus their old 4E counterparts).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2011)

> I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.




Partly because so many FRPGs have truncated or non-existent alignment systems.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 21, 2011)

Falstaff said:


> Gods be good! Mike Mearls, please help make 5th edition as much like AD&D as you possibly can. Please give us a game with simple, basic, easy to run and play mechanics that highlight the early edition of the game and then offer more complex rules as optional books that aren't required for core, basic play. Please, oh please, oh please, oh please, etc....




Yes, simple, easiy to run mechanics like the surprise rules, psionics, selecting what saving throw to use against a staff user sending hold person you way, etc. 

I mean, that's sarcasm, but there's no question that there were a lot of complicated mechanical elements in the core parts of AD&D. 

BECM, now that was Perfect. Base 5e on that.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Partly because so many FRPGs have truncated or non-existent alignment systems.




The nine alignments is an (A)D&D thing that no other game I can think of uses.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> The List, just in case you don't want to click the link
> 
> 
> I have a hard time arguing with these items.  I will point out that 4E set out to change some of these.
> ...




4E reduced general dependence on items but made the remaining specific dependence more transparent. A 1E 10th level fighter needs his magic items more then the 4E one does...but the 4E one is still hurt not to have them. 



> 2.  Levels as a measure of power:  The math of the system tries really hard to remove this in favor of a "sweet spot" for d20 outcomes.  Also, there is a unwritten social rule that characters will be the same level.  The goal was that everything scaled so you stay within that "sweet spot" no matter what your level is.  This ties heavily into the +X magic item issue above.




They have overcorrected. It is probably easier to have charecters of different levels...low level 4E charecters are certainly more survivable and have more stuff they can do. And of course you can mix up challenges...in many ways 4Es initial "metagame" actually diminished some of the underlying strengths of the system.  



> 3.  Alignment:  Saying the alignment axis system defines DnD is interesting.  Is Mearls suggesting that the 4E changes to the alignment system were a mistake?




My thoughts exactly



> 4.  Fire and Forget:  Boy, I don't know where to start on this.  Vancian magic was suppose to be dead in 4E.  Yet, every class in PHB I and II used daily powers.  In fact, they simply expanded Fire and Forget by adding a new catagory to it, Encounter.
> 
> Yes, I do think Vancian Magic is a core item that makes DnD DnD.  But I do question the idea that every class needs Vancian magic.  Personally, I find the Essentials Fighter and Rogue much closer to what I see as the classic DnD fighter and rogue.  By mostly ditching the Vancian elements of those two classes, they moved them in-line with my view of what a fighter or rogue should do (again, just a personal opinion and not a statement on the overall power of the Slayer, Knight, and Theif versus their old 4E counterparts).




Shh, you aren't supposed to tell anyone. 4E is a tribute to vancian magic...and I like it. Certainly like fighter and rogue dailies in play, setting aside all the theory.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jun 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> The mechanics don't make the game.
> 
> There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.




He's more crunch then fluff now.  His mind twisted and evil.   

Actually, this is one of the things I'm liking about DCC.  Goodman is attempting to harness the flavor of classic DnD sources and merge them with a modern d20 system (though modified).  It's an interesting process and has me very interested in it's outcome.  Plus, to me, it oozes flavor.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 21, 2011)

*But but but ...*

I'm having an issue with Mike's list, as it seems disingenuous.

4E added these core principles:

* decoherence of description and effect;
* reliance on a combat grid;
* reduction of effects to a simplified grammar (damage, shift, a few states);
* universal class design (all classes have at-will, encounter, and dailies);
* much modified fire-and-forget (a wizards spells are hardly the same as a daily or encounter power);
* use of healing surges as a measure of health

(The point on relying on a combat grid is true for 3E, too.)

Not meaning to pick a fight, but those are _core_ principles of 4E, and define the 4E game as much as Mike's list.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2011)

> > > I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.
> >
> >
> >
> ...




While there is no other 9-point alignment in any other FRPG I can name- and I can name lots- there are MANY with 2, 3 and 4 point alignment systems.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 21, 2011)

Delete me


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> The mechanics don't make the game.
> 
> There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.




Hmm. To some extent, but... with all the different settings that D&D has seen over the years, I'm not sure you can pin down a handful of flavor elements and point to them and say, "That's D&D. Those other approaches and flavors? Aren't."


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 21, 2011)

I didn't see cheeto-stained fingers on the list.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 21, 2011)

There are a number of rpgs that are pretty close to being "D&D" according to that list that aren't "D&D" according to their brand name, and I'd say a number of those games are more akin to a particular version of D&D than other versions of D&D.  For example, Tunnels & Trolls and OD&D are quite clearly related, and T&T is far more similar to OD&D than 4e is to OD&D.  

So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the "core" ideas for D&D are really what makes it D&D.  Really, I think the main thing that makes a game "D&D" as opposed to any other role playing game is the name on the front of the product.

As for his various core points, there are a great deal of semantic nits to pick...

Alignment - Alignment as personal ethos has not always been a part of D&D.  What alignment was began quite fuzzy, and from latter OD&D to the end of 1e seem to move from "What side of the cosmic struggle are you on?" to "general personality descriptor."  Alignment as personal ethos was solidified as a concept with 2e.

Beyond that, many, many people play D&D while ignoring alignment completely, while the game remains D&D.

Attack rolls w/ a d20 - The original attack roll in OD&D was a 2d6.  The d20 was used in the "alternate combat system" from OD&D.  

Additionally, does it really matter what dice is used to determine if an attack hits if the odds remain unchanged?  If my character has a 50% chance to hit AC X, does it really matter if I use a d20 a d4 or flip a coin?  I guess I don't get what's so magic about the d20.

Hit points - What hit points are a measure of has changed from edition to edition, from the more abstract (1e and 4e) to the more concrete (B/X and 3.x e).  The consequence for running out of hit points has also changed from edition to edition.

Rolling initiative - There's probably no rule that has changed more from edition to edition.  OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, B/X D&D, 2e, and 3e all had very different initiative rules.  I don't see how initiative is a unifying concept in D&D except to say that each edition had a method of determining who went first, a trait shared by chess, baseball, and pretty much every other game or sport ever created.

Saving throws - This is really nit-picky and semantic, but saving throws in pre-2e weren't rolls to evade danger.  They were rolls to survive a catastrophic event.  You made saving throw rolls only after your character failed to evade the danger.  Saving throws were less like "to hit" rolls and more like damage rolls.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that even these core concepts are subject to debate, and that some of the key differences between editions are obscured by the fact that some of the same terms are used very differently from edition to edition.


----------



## Shemeska (Jun 21, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Hmm. To some extent, but... with all the different settings that D&D has seen over the years, I'm not sure you can pin down a handful of flavor elements and point to them and say, "That's D&D. Those other approaches and flavors? Aren't."




That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).



That's true, but consider this... 

... OD&D & AD&D were built with the operational-level, campaign model in mind; players with multiple characters in a range of levels, multiple parties exploring/exploiting the campaign setting simultaneously, character balance across levels, management of hirelings/followers/fodder, the general timbre being swords & sorcery flavored resource acquisition (ie, money & magic).

... 2nd Edition was presented more like epic high fantasy. Adventuring parties as the Fellowship of the Ring. This, in large part, reflected a newer crop of players who were fantasy fiction fans first, and wargamers second, if at all.

But they're virtually the same game, mechanically speaking. Plus, plenty of people played AD&D in high-epic fantasy mode. 

So setting difference aside, you have a history of the same mechanical framework being put to very different uses (albeit with many similarities).


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> That's campaign settings though, which can, have, and will deviate pretty wildly from any baseline. But for core PHB/DMG/MM (A)D&D as it has been presented through the years, there are a lot of base assumptions and flavor that gets retained with slight variation (with 4e being a somewhat wild break in that chain IMO).




Sure, but I think that may be where you missed what Mearls is saying. He set out to create a list of elementswhere, "if any one of them were missing, you’d feel like you weren’t playing D&D."

You can't really focus on flavor elements in such a list, because if you do so, you are effectively saying, "Dark Sun isn't D&D" or "Spelljammer isn't D&D" or "Planescape isn't D&D". 

You say that the mechanics don't make the game. But they do - that's why Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms and Eberron are all still D&D. There is something shared among them that goes beyond basic flavor assumptions about the setting. And that's what Mearls is trying to pin down - what those common elements are. 

I think that trying to address that as some sort of point on Mearls losing sight of the core flavor of D&D is a distortion - or at least a misinterpretation - of what he is actually saying.

Edit: And just to clarify - I'm saying I necessarily even agree with his list, myself. But I think his post was about those shared mechanics themselves, and not the context in which they have been placed by different editions or different settings, and that trying to read it otherwise is not the most reasonable interpretation of his article.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2011)

rogueattorney said:


> So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the "core" ideas for D&D are really what makes it D&D.




As MrMyth noted - what Mearls listed isn't "what makes it D&D".  They are a list of mechanical elements that seem to be commonly thought to be required before it can be D&D.  They are not sufficient, but they seem to be required.

To analogize: the concrete foundation in the ground isn't what makes your house your home, but it is required for the building to stand.  And while it does not completely determine the nature of the building, it does have some impact on what is done in and with the rest of the structure.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 21, 2011)

> The six ability scores—Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma—as the categories for measuring a character’s abilities.




No.  On two grounds.

1) Unearthed Arcana introduced Comliness as a stat, and for probably 10 years I played with seven stats _using official published rules_.  I've seen house rules that broke Dexterity into Dexterity and Agility to get fine motor skill broken off from atheletic ability.  So are you saying that those that used seven or eight abilities weren't playing D&D?  If 5e added a seventh stat and had good reason for it, I wouldn't be that upset.   If 5e combined Intelligence and Wisdom into Mind, and had a good reason for it, it would still be D&D (not that I would think this a good idea).   In my opinion, 4e tried to reduce down to 3 stats, which was pushing it but would have possibly been a cleaner game with three stats of Body, Wits, and Soul.   Not my cup of tea, but still D&D abliet in a somewhat simplified more basic game.
2) Ability scores weren't the measure of a character's abilities nearly as much as level was.  Even in 3e when they started having a bigger impact, skills (which were usually a function of level) were a measurement of a character's abilities.   D&D is recognizable as a system where ability scores are almost always merely modifiers of a character's abilities, and not the measure of them.



> Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.




Well, one of them at least.  4e itself shows how overly simplified this comment is.  In a broader sense, I agree that D&D is a game system which focuses on passive rather than active defence.  



> Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe.




Agreed.  Though 4e tried to move away from this defining trope too its loss IMO.  Others disagree, and have house ruled versions of D&D that don't use alignment.  It's still D&D.



> Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones.




This was one of the central recognitions of the D20 system/3e - that D&D actually did have a core mechanic and that it was as robust as dice pools or d% based systems.



> Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.




Agreed.



> Damage rolls to determine how badly a spell or attack hurts you.




Or more precisely, ablative hit points as a measure of your ability to withstand attacks and generally speaking no wound conditions resulting from ordinary damage alone (so as to avoid death spirals).



> Gold pieces as the standard currency for treasure.




No.  Dragonlance used steel coins as currency.  My own game uses silver as standard currency.  You might as well say, "Has coins for currency.", which is almost redundant.



> Hit dice or level as the basic measure of a monster’s power.




Agreed, though in practice in every edition, the unique features of a monster have been the true determinate of how dangerous it is.  Hense, if you look at the XP tables of early basic editions they add modifiers for special abilities that indicate a creature being more dangerous than its base power would indicate.   3e tried to categorize everything by a 'challenge rating' that was focused on the net effect of these abilities as well as its basic powers, but that just demonstrated how hard it is to ball park these things.



> Hit points as a measure of your ability to absorb punishment, with more powerful characters and creatures gaining more of them.




As I said, redundant with the above.   If we move to a new system in 5e where you stopped rolling damage dice and instead had a multiple based on your margin of success in the attack roll, it would be innovate, but on the whole I think even old school types like me would agree that the mechanism for generating damage is less important than the fact hit points provide a barrier between damage and death.



> Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time.




Agreed.



> Magic items such as +1 swords as a desirable form of treasure.




Or, loot.  D&D has always been about taking stuff.



> Rolling initiative at the start of a battle to determine who acts first.




Sure.  Allow the mechanism here has involved lots of evolution, and you are getting pretty picky here.  You might as well also list 'surprise rounds'.



> Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.




Again, its better to just note that D&D has several different passive defences depending on the sort of attack you are facing.   When 4e switched around who made the roll on the passive defence vs. a spell (for example), it wasn't that big of a change (although it might feel wierd to a grognard).   If 4e had made everything opposed rolls and required declaring your defensive modes as well as your offensive actions, that would have been moving into an area that D&D doesn't usually go.



> “Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.




More generally, strategic decisions that carry over from encounter to encounter.  If you do this now, it might not be available later.  If you are sloppy and waste resources in one encounter, it will put you in danger later.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> As MrMyth noted - what Mearls listed isn't "what makes it D&D".  They are a list of mechanical elements that seem to be commonly thought to be required before it can be D&D.  They are not sufficient, but they seem to be required.
> 
> To analogize: the concrete foundation in the ground isn't what makes your house your home, but it is required for the building to stand.  And while it does not completely determine the nature of the building, it does have some impact on what is done in and with the rest of the structure.




I understand what he's saying.  He's trying to come up with a list of unifying features for all editions of D&D.  He says before formulating his list, "If people play D&D in such a variety of different ways, then what’s left to unite us?"  

What I'm saying is that his list is neither sufficient nor required.  Some games that most definitely are D&D would not have every attribute and some games that are not D&D would have every attribute.  Some who are D&D players are being excluded, some who aren't are being included.

I personally think "D&D" is now either "any fantasy role-playing game" with "fantasy" being used in the loosest sense possible, or any product published under the "D&D" brand.  I think any other attempt to classify what "D&D" is, is either too broad or too narrow.  

So, if he's really looking for something to unite "the D&D community," which he seems to believe includes those playing prior editions, he has the option of the small tent or the big tent.  The big tent option is that the "D&D community" includes everyone who shares the rpg hobby.  The small tent option is that the "D&D community" is everyone who is a customer of the D&D brand.  One excludes many of those he seems to want to include, while the other does not.

This whole topic goes back to a lot of what was said in reaction to Mearls' first article in his series:  He seems to want to bring lapsed customers who are still playing other versions of the game back into the fold.  His articles seem to be a welcome mat of sorts.  But until WotC gives lapsed customers a reason to come back into the tent, his rhetoric is nice but ultimately empty.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 21, 2011)

RA: I'll give a practical example. 

I have multiple players that skipped 3E in my 4E game (which I find a little weird, but there it is). The "supperficial" similarities have almost certainly made that transition easier. And it has actually been really easy. We still have hick ups...some confusion on negative hp in the last session, but I think the common ground has made a difference, in practice.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 21, 2011)

rogueattorney said:


> There are a number of rpgs that are pretty close to being "D&D" according to that list that aren't "D&D" according to their brand name, and I'd say a number of those games are more akin to a particular version of D&D than other versions of D&D.  For example, Tunnels & Trolls and OD&D are quite clearly related, and T&T is far more similar to OD&D than 4e is to OD&D.



Tunnels & Trolls *is* D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 21, 2011)

rogueattorney said:


> I personally think "D&D" is now either "any fantasy role-playing game" with "fantasy" being used in the loosest sense possible, or any product published under the "D&D" brand.  I think any other attempt to classify what "D&D" is, is either too broad or too narrow.



I think there's such a thing as the 'D&D Family' of rpgs. It includes all the clones, ofc, such as Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC, Castles & Crusades and Pathfinder. Tunnels & Trolls, probably Palladium Fantasy, maybe even Rifts too.

I would say that The Fantasy Trip, Fantasy HERO, Chaosium games such as RuneQuest, Pendragon and Stormbringer, and HeroQuest are not part of the D&D Family, even though they are fantasy.

And there are quite a few I'm not sure about such as Earthdawn. Blue Rose is a tricky one too. It's d20, but about a thousand light years away from D&D in terms of its philosophy. By which I mean, it's for women.


----------



## Rolflyn (Jun 21, 2011)

I think the list is too long.  I've played without Alignment, Gold Coin Standard, and Rolling for Initiative, and it still felt like D&D.

I would say that polyhedral damage dice is part of the D&D experience.  It wouldn't feel like D&D to me without those d4 daggers and d8 swords.


----------



## falcarrion (Jun 22, 2011)

Does this article hint at that we may see version generic products?
Why does the virtual table which is in beta have campaign system tab listing 4th ed down to  ad&d 1 ? 
Makes you wonder.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 22, 2011)

I just wanted to say that I've always thought that Mearls was the core of D&D. I'm glad people agree with me.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 22, 2011)

For myself, it is
1. Fantasy Game
2. Core Races: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, halfling, half elf, half orc, human
3. 6 ability scores
4. Classes, but they could give more freedom like the 3e fighter, True20 or even d20Modrern rather than prescribed features (turn undead, rage, etc.)
5. Saves.
6. Good vs evil
7. D20 to hit
8. magic items
9. orcs, gnolls, ogres, kobolds
10. IP monsters
11. Levels and exp as increase in power over time: However, I would be fine removing it actually affecting things like automatic save and BAB increases, increased spell ranges, increased damage, affecting spell DCs.

As for the following:
Armor Class:  could go or become like M&M with Defense and armor reducing damage.
Hit Points:  could either go or not increase with level
damage roll: eh, I am fine with True20 damage save.
Law vs. Chaos:  could go. I never liked the Law and Chaos spells and removed them from 3e.
Gold standard could move to silver standard
Monster Hit Die as power could go and good riddance.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2011)

tomBitonti said:


> I'm having an issue with Mike's list, as it seems disingenuous.



It isn't, see below; and "D+D" means more than just 4e.


> 4E added these core principles:
> 
> * decoherence of description and effect;
> * reliance on a combat grid;
> ...



But because they do not also define 0-1-2-3e, for this purpose they are fail.

Lan-"decoherence is what happens to me after 7 pints in the pub"-efan


----------



## rounser (Jun 22, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Hmm. To some extent, but... with all the different settings that D&D has seen over the years, I'm not sure you can pin down a handful of flavor elements and point to them and say, "That's D&D. Those other approaches and flavors? Aren't."



Yet thousands of people have done exactly that when they saw the themes and flavor of 4E.  I know I did.

This is a big detail.  The implied setting paints worlds.  Do you want to play in a world with dragonborn, eladrin, warlords and tieflings in it as a core theme, or a world with dwarves, elves, clerics and magic-users in it as a core theme?  The implied setting decides that for you, because your players will be playing those classes and races.  If you don't like it, and it's in the core PHB, you either ban it (annoying and inconvenient) or walk away from that vision of D&D.

Many people have walked away.  It's hard to rule out that this still might not be on WOTC's radar if Mearls is talking about mechanics as "the road home".


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 22, 2011)

falcarrion said:


> Does this article hint at that we may see version generic products?
> Why does the virtual table which is in beta have campaign system tab listing 4th ed down to  ad&d 1 ?
> Makes you wonder.




I have a corollary to it: It they want to unite, they need to focus on new ideas and not new systems. The fracture comes from the edition treadmill - if I spend $1000 on edition X, I will be leery of edition Y when it is introduced if I need to spend another $1000 to run essentially the same game (yes, I know I can just buy one or two books, but we are in a hobby and want to spend money). I thought 2e was a mess mechanically (others may disagree), but both 3e and 4e are very sound. Sure they have their problems, but the person paying a ton of dough for one of them is generally happy through the cycle until they get to the end - usually when the Book of Artifacts and very experimental PC crunch books roll into town. Its hard to compel someone to move on when they are not all that upset at what they got and you are literally offering the same thing with new numbers.

Unfortunately, D&D is in the position where player and GM crunch is the moneymaker. Until this cycle is broken (ie, they need to sell new content like Eberron was in 3e), they can print all the editions they want with those "D&D" elements and you will see the population continue to fracture.

Its funny, if Wizards announced 5e at GenCon half this board would erupt in fits of angst (and another half would snicker, and the third half would run out an buy it). Immediate accusations of "money grubbing" would surface in seconds after the announcement. Over at Pinnacle (Savage Worlds), people are screaming at them to allow them to give Pinnacle money for the equivalent of going from D&D 3.0 to 3.5 - mostly minor tweaks from what they have said. I have not seen a negative word yet - heck I even tried to start an edition war and it went nowhere. Why the difference? D&D update/new edition = tons of new books of regurgitated old material (PHB 1-3, DMG 1-2, MM 1-5 - update of classic modules (Expedition to...Return to...) - update the campaign settings (FR, Eberron) - you can set your watch by it). SW: One book, and it does not make all the other books useless, and people continue to make cool new settings like Day After Ragnarok, Runepunk, Agents of Oblivion, and more Deadlands.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jun 22, 2011)

I'd say that the article is a lead-up to 5e.  Either that, or WotC is going to switch to Pathfinder and Mearls is doing a REALLY slow lead up to that bombshell.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?
> 
> I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.



Well, in Basic D&D, AD&D and 3E (and maybe OD&D, but I don't know from memory and don't have my books to hand) mechanical alignment is a central mechanic: it determines teams, it provides moral legitimation to much of the conflict, and it provides a type of personality/roleplaying tool by which the GM can keep the players in line.

4e is the first edition of D&D ever (or, perhaps,since OD&D if OD&D lacks mechanical alignment) to lack mechanical alignment in this sense.

So I _wasn't_ struck by its inclusion on this list, because I see mechanical alignment as central to the feel and play of pre-4e D&D. But I _was_ struck by its inclusion on the list, because it suggests that 4e is not a version of D&D!



Mallus said:


> That's OD&D & AD&D were built with the operational-level, campaign model in mind;
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



As a stalwart disliker of 2nd ed, I really want to gloss this: it is _because_ of what you identified here that 2nd ed was stuck with mechanics so inadequate to produce the play experience that it promised, and therefore had to resort to GM force (aka "the golden rule" by its friends and "railroading" by its enemies) as its overriding action resolution mechanic.



rogueattorney said:


> Tunnels & Trolls and OD&D are quite clearly related, and T&T is far more similar to OD&D than 4e is to OD&D.





Doug McCrae said:


> Tunnels & Trolls *is* D&D.



I'm a dissenter here. I haven't played a _lot_ of Tunnels & Trolls, but both in minutiae and in overall play experience I find it pretty different from D&D. (Of course in a broader sense it's still gamist fantasy RPGing - but I find it as different from D&D as RQ or Rolemaster.)

That said, T&T may resemble OD&D more than 4e does, because 4e (in my view) really has very little in common with classic D&D other than its fantasy themes and some shared mechanical tropes that are very often used for quite different purposes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 22, 2011)

Alignment is still a mechanical element in D&D 4. It appears in stat blocks, not flavor text.

I won't argue whether that list is what is "necessary" or "sufficient" for D&D. I'd say that the list contains mechanical elements that will always make me think of D&D. For example, if your game has a "saving throw" (and no matter how it actually works, it could be throwing 32 cards up in the air and counting the cards with the face upwards), it will remind me of D&D.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jun 22, 2011)

Rolflyn said:


> I think the list is too long.  I've played without Alignment, Gold Coin Standard, and Rolling for Initiative, and it still felt like D&D.
> 
> I would say that polyhedral damage dice is part of the D&D experience.  It wouldn't feel like D&D to me without those d4 daggers and d8 swords.




... waiting for a guy to say "in early D&D, all weapons did the same damage". Happens in three, two, one... Oh, already happened.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 22, 2011)

Rolflyn said:


> I think the list is too long.



Yup, my list would have been shorter. However, as he writes the list is a result of a survey in D&D's R&D. So he probably also listed items that have not been mentioned by everyone.

My list would only include the following:


> -   Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.
> -   Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones.
> -   Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.
> -   Hit dice or level as the basic measure of a monster’s power.
> ...



And even some of these are arguable.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 22, 2011)

A laundry list of mechanics is all well and good but the D&D experience that all early editions shared (yes even AD&D) was the sense of incompleteness that invited the players to make the game what they wanted it to be.
 AD&D was supposed to be some kind of standardized platform for tournament play but in home campaigns, the variety of house rules in use was just as broad as that of the other editions still being played. 

Building a campaign from the basic rules with bits and pieces from The Dragon, other games, and the twisted imaginations of you and your friends is what made the game different from all the others and the reason it provided the kind of unpredictable fun that a standard board game could not. 

A more exhaustive tighter knit rules set may be more readily playable out of the box but then again so is monopoly. The most engaging and rewarding activities are not always the smoothest and easiest to participate in. 

Point to any item on that list and the odds are that someone, somewhere has changed or tweaked that facet of the mechanics in a home campaign at some time yet the game would most certainly feel like D&D to that group. 

So to me at least, the core of D&D involves the distinct lack of a prepackaged experience.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 22, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?
> 
> I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.




No, it belongs.  Alignment may be more mechanical in some editions or just flavor in others, but it's always there.

Usually in two-axis version, sometimes just law-chaos, and 4e has an odd 1 axis version.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 22, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> If you sally forth from the Keep on the Borderlands in search of fabulous treasure guarded by monsters in the Caves of Chaos, you're playing D&D -- in essence.  AC and hit points have very little to do with it.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you mean those places IN PARTICULAR, yeah, because they're from published D&D sources.  If you're making a generalization and just happened to use those names, though, no, I can't agree.



If, in the early 1980s, someone had handed me a character sheet that looked like a TSR product, with the D&D logo on it, but with stats for MERP or Rolemaster -- or some other D&D-esque game -- and told me it was the new version of D&D, and we then went on a classic D&D-style adventure, I would have said, _of course this is D&D_.

Not all fantasy games are D&D though, I definitely agree.  I would probably have accepted Runequest combat rules as a newer, better version of D&D at the time, but the setting wouldn't have been D&D at all, and the magic rules wouldn't have been D&D at all.

It's not a bright line separating D&D from other fantasy RPGs, but it's there -- and I don't think it depends much on AC and hp so much as on a swords & sorcery setting combining Tolkien and Howard, with lots of randomness and DM adjudication.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2011)

D&D is a fantasy game system wherein...

0) The most important rule of the D&D game system is that the rules exist to break the rules.  The rules as such are never 'complete'.  Subsystems in D&D are not built around unified mechanics.  Instead, each subsystem describes its own unique resolution mechanics.  For example, each spell involves a unique description of its effects.  Each monster can have unique abilities that break the normal rules in various ways.  Each class can have its own rules subsystems and acquire its own combination of rules breaking powers.  Magic items can be likewise unique in their effects, and published modules encourage the creation of locations with unique mechanics.  This makes D&D a very rules heavy system built around some simple base mechanics.   This works well for two reasons.  First, it means that learning to play D&D is usually simple and complexity can be gradually added.  Second, it means that the publishers of D&D can extend the crunch of the game with an almost endless array of supplemental material, ensuring the ability to continue to publish profitability long after the market is saturated by the basic rules.

1) Propositions are normally resolved by the roll of a D20; success is indicated by beating a target number.  D&D generally considers propositions to be pass/fail and is not generally concerned with degree of success.  A fairly large number of modifiers can modify the roll.

2) Most defences are passive and do not have to be declared.  Opposed rolls are generally avoided by the system.  

3) Combat in the system has low granularity and a moderate degree of abstraction.  Individual attacks and parries are not usually modelled in favor of abstracting a potentially lengthy combat sequence down to the few potentially telling blows that occur within it. 

4) Character durability is usually fairly high.  Combat has low lethality and a fairly high degree of predictability due to the hit point mechanic which allows the character to absorb usually several attacks without having his combat ability degraded.   This makes D&D a rather forgiving game, both from the standpoint of a new player and the standpoint of luck.  It's not usually expected that any one combat might be lethal.  If magical healing is used within the game, the pace of play can be quite high.  Because of the hit point mechanic and the low granularity of combat, D&D tends to play out more like a strategic resource management game than a tactical game.  The primary purpose of tactics is to ensure minimal consumption of critical limited resources like consumables, hit points, and spells.

5) D&D is generally more concerned with modeling pluasible outcome than specific mechanics, the rules system is moderately generic and can model a fairly wide range of settings, magic levels, technology levels and genera trappings like 'pulp' or 'high fantasy' with only small tweaks to the rules.   For example, the 'Vancian' magic system can be used to adequately model virtually any fantasy game where magic is rarely or sparingly used by the protagonists.  And because D&D tends to be made up of largely interrelated subsystems, a subsystem like 'Vancian magic' can easily be interchanged with a mana point system or some other system without impacting the rest of the game.  This allows a high degree of customibility.

6) D&D is a class based system with fairly low granularity in character generation, favoring strong archetypes and balanced play over full customization.  Character progression is in the form of levels which add fixed bonuses to the character.   Levels are purchased using XP.   Because the primary proposition mechanic is linear and because of the ablative hit point mechanic, D&D allows for a 'dope to demigod' power progression within the same rules system while still maintaining comparably high balance.

7) Character starting ability scores have a much smaller impact than levels.  Ability scores typically provide only one modifier to a proposition role out of many possible.   D&D typically uses a fairly small standard array of six ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) which is small enough to be manageable, while still being large enough to provide for quirkiness in the character's ability (ei strong but clumsy, clever but socially inept, smart but clueless, etc.).  

I would propose that the designers of 4e disparaged many of the traits that define D&D.  Much like the designers of 2e they thought that either everyone was playing or wanted to play the same game, or else that they ought to prefer the game that they wanted people to play to the one they were playing.  The same sense of 'if you aren't playing the game this way it's badwrong fun' that showed up in the 2e core rule books, showed up in the blog posts by the designers in the run up to 4e.   They acted like everyone was playing the same game and had the same problems with the existing rules set.  They failed to recognize that the same attribute is often both a weakness and a strength.  For example, they failed to realize that D&D's diverse sprawling rules set that provokes rules bloat is not only part of the games attraction, but also that there are reasonable reasons for wanting a diverse set of unconnected rule handling special cases.   The people that enjoy that are not just suffering from nostalgia or blindness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

"Rolling initiative to determine who acts first" -- "at the start of a battle" need not apply. 


RC


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 22, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> The most important rule of the D&D game system is that the rules exist to break the rules.



We didn't _break_ many rules -- well, not knowingly -- back in the day.  Rather, the rules covered such a narrow subset of what went on in the game that the DM had to adjudicate almost everything.

In fact, the best parts of the game were the parts the rules did not touch, and most of our problems with the game were from the rules intruding where they didn't make much sense.


Celebrim said:


> Character durability is usually fairly high.



Well, after third or fourth level, I suppose...


Celebrim said:


> D&D is generally more concerned with modeling pluasible outcome than specific mechanics, the rules system is moderately generic and can model a fairly wide range of settings, magic levels, technology levels and genera trappings like 'pulp' or 'high fantasy' with only small tweaks to the rules.



I can't agree.  The rules never matched _any_ fictional setting well.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 22, 2011)

rounser said:


> Yet thousands of people have done exactly that when they saw the themes and flavor of 4E. I know I did.
> 
> This is a big detail. The implied setting paints worlds. Do you want to play in a world with dragonborn, eladrin, warlords and tieflings in it as a core theme, or a world with dwarves, elves, clerics and magic-users in it as a core theme? The implied setting decides that for you, because your players will be playing those classes and races. If you don't like it, and it's in the core PHB, you either ban it (annoying and inconvenient) or walk away from that vision of D&D.




But again, I think this is moving away from what Mearls is actually discussing. I can accept you saying, "Hey, I don't think the core setting of 4E" - but that is a different thing from saying, "That setting means it isn't D&D." And if that _is _what you are saying - did you say the same thing about Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al'Qadim, or any number of other settings that also played around with the races and classes and environment? 

Mearls' point was that regardless of which of those you were playing in, there were some shared elements, and that is what he is trying to pinpoint. You may certainly have elements that you prefer in your D&D games, but that is very different from saying anyone using elements you don't prefer is _not playing D&D_.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

wingsandsword said:


> No, it belongs. Alignment may be more mechanical in some editions or just flavor in others, but it's always there.
> 
> Usually in two-axis version, sometimes just law-chaos, and 4e has an odd 1 axis version.




I've played and run most versions of D&D. Again, the objection is not that alignment was or was not in D&D. I know it was, and usually with some mechanical basis. Rather, the objection is that on this particular list of supposedly key mechanics, it is out of place. It is not quite as key as the rest of the list (IMO), but if the list is supposed to be more expansive, then the list is missing some things that are as key as alignment. Mechanical support for multiple races is an obvious missing one. 

I can see a list that includes such things, including alignment. And I can see a list that seeks to really get down to the truly key things, in which case you would be very selective. Of course, like any such list, the choices are somewhat subjective, and this being produced from what sounds like an internal, informal discussion, it necessarily will have some outliers.

I'm more curious, though, about the kind of thinking that led to alignment making the cut while races and other such things did not. If we did a poll of, say, most important mechanical elements of D&D, where each person ranked a large list in order, does anyone here believe that alignment would beat out all such missing elements? I don't.

It as if someone asked for the most important ice cream flavors, and got vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and toffee ripple.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> We didn't _break_ many rules -- well, not knowingly -- back in the day.




You misunderstand.  I mean that the rules break themselves.  Spells in the game work much like cards in MtG.  They do what they say that they do as a special exception to the rules.   They may work on some common ideas, but they may be as specific and esoteric as the writer likes.



> I can't agree.  The rules never matched _any_ fictional setting well.




This might be worth forking because I recognize that my claim that D&D is generic and adaptable is not a widely accepted one, but I'm fairly sure I can defend it.   The trick here is to consider what it means to support a setting.  D&D achieves support for a wide variaty of settings precisely because it makes no attempt to match any particular fictional setting well.   D&D isn't tightly coupled to setting, but it can do a passable job with any of them by leveraging its abstract combat system, its gamist spellcasting system, and its tinkerable system of subsystems.

Take the much derided 'Vancian spellcasting' system.  People complain about this all the time, specifically that the restrictions on spellcasters in the system (spell levels, spell slots, memorization, etc.) don't seem to match to any restrictions in the source material of some fantasy story X.   People are expecting some tight coupling between what they imagine the mechanics are and the game mechanics.  But that is hardly essential to modelling a story.  First off, few if any fantasy fiction novels have very tight descriptions of the limitations of their spellcasters.   It's true that Harry Potter doesn't seem to have spell slots or spell levels.   But it's equally true that Harry Potter doesn't do a very good job of explaining what Wizards can do and what their limitations are.   In fact, most magic in the story serves the simple purpose of advancing the plot.   Wizards in Harry Potter can do what they need to do to advance the plot and when they don't, they don't seem to use spells.   So the question becomes, not whether the mechanics of spells in the game are the same as the mechanics of magic in the Potter universe, but whether the mechanics of spells in the game will match a story where Wizards appear to have restrictions on how much magic they may use and use that magic fairly sparingly.   

And it will.  The PC's will use sparingly at important moments in the story, and generally not outside of it.  All that's really important about simulating the outcome of Harry Potters magic system is that magic is a limited resource.  D&D does this well.  The only thing that might have to change just a little is how we color the process of filling spell slots, and since most groups I've played with pay little attention to the in game mechanics of spell components and memorizing spells (because after a while this would be boring), that change is in fact a very very small ammendment to the rules.

Likewise, there isn't a hint of spell levels or spell slots in Tolkien's stories.  But its equally true that there is almost no description of how magic works in Tolkien's stories.   All we really know is that Gandalf seems to use magic sparingly, and that he seems to at some point become depleted of power and can't work magic again without some rest.   So once again, while the Vancian system doesn't tightly emmulate whatever the mechanics of magic are in Tolkien's universe, in terms of outcome in play we will see the same pattern of magic use that we see in the story.   Gandalf very well could be a 6th level wizard or 6th level sorcerer.   The only thing that might have to change just a little is how we color the process of filling spell slots.

To anticipate where this conversation goes so that I don't have to go there again, IME, when I make this argument, the responce to it is first to deny that people who've experienced this have experienced it.  In other words, groups have actually used D&D to model almost any sort of setting, so objecting to the notion that you can involves convicing people they didn't experience what they've experienced.   Secondly, people will concede that people have done it, but then insist that D&D doesn't do the job well according to some arbitrary measurement of well.   But I don't even have to bother to quibble with this objection (even if it is wrong).  All I have to do is note that while it may be true that a system specifically designed to model some setting or the other would do a better job than D&D, that claim does nothing to harm my own claim about D&D's generic nature.  Ultimately, the answer to that claim is, "So what?"  I don't have to insist that D&D is both generic and that it models settings better than systems specifically designed to do so.  After that, people typically respond that simulating some setting with D&D is badwrongfun because it was never intended to do that, which is not only insulting but circular logic and counterfactual.  It's quite clear that early on people did think D&D was simulating a very wide range of fantasy fiction and could be adapted to many settings.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 22, 2011)

Here's a pipe dream:

What if these articles are an attempt to ACTUALLY resolve edition wars and unify editions?


Instead of a lead up to 5e, what would be amazing to see would be for WotC to release (an) intermediate edition(s) and a beautiful and solid conversion device, so that anyone could buy a product from *ANY* edition and quickly and easily convert it to any other edition.

Then they release their full line of PDFs for sale (as part of D&Di or not) for all editions.


Suddenly, I can play 4e, buy a 1e adventure, and EVEN BETTER, IT IS AUTOCONVERTED TO 4E by the device being computerized. I guess I'm suggesting, along with manual pen and paper, that people could buy an app/component of D&Di that would do the conversion for them. 


Imagine if, as this series seems to hint, all editions truly could be unified as a "whole D&D" and anyone could play any adventure/class/kit/specialty priest/prestige class/paragon path in the edition of their choice.


If they could do THAT, I'd be back on board with WoTC big time, and I think it could do well to quiet a lot of the edition warring....and actually make new editions welcome rather than controversial. Plus, it would mean all new products they'd sell (an adventure for 5e, 6e, 7e etc) would be usable for people who play 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e.

If they could do it, I don't think it'd be easy. EDIT: But if they released "intermediate" editions that attempted to capture the focus of the editions they were bridging, I think it'd help.


EDIT TO ADD: I'm thinking that they could write new materials as they do, but with the idea that it'd be converted back to prior editons. In addition they could release multi edition conversions of classics from early editions.

One other important component. I think it'd be very helpful if they were very, very up front about the focuses they were aiming for. Perhaps clarify what the intent of each edition was and say, outright "this adventure is a dungeon/city/exploratory based adventure, and due to some unique elements, is best suited to 2e, 4e, 5e, and 7e".


But man...maybe a pipedream, maybe a dream...but if this is their direction, you could color me interested.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 22, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> D&D achieves support for a wide variaty of settings precisely because it makes no attempt to match any particular fictional setting well.   D&D isn't tightly coupled to setting, but it can do a passable job with any of them by leveraging its abstract combat system, its gamist spellcasting system, and its tinkerable system of subsystems.



The degree to which D&D can support varied settings derives from how abstract or generic its mechanics remain -- but we seem to disagree about how well D&D does that.

AD&D combat is certainly abstract -- it lacks detail and complexity -- which tends to make things generic, but even a complex, overly detailed combat can be pretty generic, because combat doesn't vary tremendously across Tolkien, Howard, etc.

In fact, the few things AD&D combat does specify -- you got hit and took _n_ points of damage -- lead to endless arguments and end up pushing a game world full of magic healing potions and spells, unlike most of the source material.

Where D&D could be much more abstract is in the magic system, which isn't at all generic.  Any one of the numerous spell-point systems or roll-to-cast systems could match any number of descriptions of what might be going on in the game world of the wizard, but spell slots?  "Forgetting" spells?  Those are quite specific and evoke a particular flavor far from most of the source material.

And, to tie the two together, more-or-less needing a cleric -- a D&D-specific archetype -- to successfully survive an adventure?  Not generic at all.

What D&D did well to support so many settings was to avoid spelling out most things.  If you leave it to the individual DM, it'll be right for his campaign.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> So to me at least, the core of D&D involves the distinct lack of a prepackaged experience.




By that logic, GURPS does D&D better then D&D!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> AD&D combat is certainly abstract -- it lacks detail and complexity -- which tends to make things generic, but even a complex, overly detailed combat can be pretty generic, because combat doesn't vary tremendously across Tolkien, Howard, etc.




I disagree.  Combat does vary tremendously in its depiction across authors.



> In fact, the few things AD&D combat does specify -- you got hit and took _n_ points of damage -- lead to endless arguments...




I don't understand what you mean unless you mean, "RPGs lead to endless arguments."  What's to understand about 'you got hit and took n points of damage'?  It's a system that's so elegant its been implemented in virtually every RPG influenced computer game that's ever been made.



> and end up pushing a game world full of magic healing potions and spells, unlike most of the source material.




Stop there.  Hit points do nothing to push a game world full of healing potions and spells.   That's a genera decision.  Most people use lots of healing magic in their games to maintain a high pace of play with few time outs where people rest and recuperate.   But that's a game decision, and nothing that the rules force on you.  You can play D&D without healing or healing potions, you just slow down the in game pace of the story with longer healing breaks between combat events. 

Moreover, I totally disagree that the source material of D&D is generally lacking in healing magic or even healing potions.   What's Miruvor in game terms if not a healing potion?  Even the orcs are shown to use a similar device of their own making.   Harry Potter is filled with healing magic.  Lucy's vial of crystal from the Narnia series is essentially a healing potion that fulfills much the same role in the story of keeping the characters up and in the story rather than recuperating as a healing potion does in D&D.  And we could go on and on.  Granted, most fiction involves protagonists that are less than 6th level and most doesn't have a Magic-Mart on the corner, but those are game setting decisions and not anything that the game forces on you.   Many people play lengthy campaigns of D&D at under 6th level and many also play without Magic-Marts.



> Where D&D could be much more abstract is in the magic system, which isn't at all generic.  Any one of the numerous spell-point systems or roll-to-cast systems...




Totally disagree.  I've played those systems and most do a worse job of simulating the way magic is seen in a story than D&D does.  Most also do a worse job of putting really big story changing effects into the hands of the players as well, and most are even more dependent on DM fiat to have NPC produce large story changing effects.   D&D beats most point buy systems hands down when it comes to creating a narrative that will resemble the narrative that you'll find in author created fiction.   

I hear this and I'm almost certain that this a totally theoretical opinion by someone who hasn't tried very often to do both.



> Forgetting" spells?  Those are quite specific and evoke a particular flavor far from most of the source material.




Not at all.  Because if you divorse yourself from the mechanics just a second and look at the narrative of play and compare it to the narrative of literature, you'll see that even if literary spell-casters aren't specified in the text as 'forgetting spells' _in the narrative they act like they do_.   That is to say, fantasy narratives generally show the spellcaster only doing as much with magic as is necessary to overcome the challenge (almost everything else they do could be summed up by something like the Prestiditation spell).   You don't in fact see literary spellcasters exercising their magic nearly as often as point buy or roll to cast allows for.  Instead they do occasional small spells, and occasional big spells, but they do something and then they stop doing it just as if they'd expended that usage.  Of course, in the story this is occuring for different reasons - repeated narrative about the same magical use would be boring - but the outcome is the same.

Even in something like Avatar the Last Airbender, the spellcasters in the story act by and large like they are Vancian spellcasters despite the fact that almost nothing in the described setting matches the mechanics of that.   They cast different sequences of discrete effects, and quite often leading up to the biggest splashiest finishing moves.   If these finishing moves don't defeat the baddy, they often stand back and simply watch them escape... just as if they'd used up all their spell slots.  

The real proof of this though is the ability of D&D to go the other way and generate the novel from the mechanics of play.  Many fantasy series from Feist's Riftwar Saga, to Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksinarrion, to the DragonLance series themselves can be read as and were often inspired by the mechanics of play.  Yet they read much like any other high fantasy novels.



> And, to tie the two together, more-or-less needing a cleric -- a D&D-specific archetype --




Not at all.   There is a much better argument that the D&D wizard is a specific archetype.   The cleric is a very good implementation of a generic fantasy spellcaster and its far more appropriate to historic magic to have it tied to invocation of spirits, dieties, and mystic powers than the D&D's Wizards almost wholly modern origins.   Clerics occurs everywhere through out literature, myth, and legend.  The Wizard is the modern origin, and its going to be very very hard to find examples of the Wizard in literature that aren't influenced by the D&D Wizard. 



> ...to successfully survive an adventure?  Not generic at all.




Again, that's based on setting and adventure design.  The rules don't force it on you.  I frequently gamed in 1e without access to a cleric, and if you change the assumptions of the setting and the assumptions of adventure pacing you can dispense with clerics entirely in any addition should you desire.   

Repeatedly you've asserted that the tropes and sterotypes of generic D&D prove that D&D can't be used for something other than generic D&D.   But the tropes and sterotypes of generic D&D are themselves based off certain particular conventions of how the game should be played.  But D&D doesn't have to have a generic setting or generic assumptions and that was recognized from almost the very beginning of the game.   If you change the assumptions of the setting design and of the adventure design (that is if you prepare for play differently) then you have a game that seems very different from generic D&D while using the same or almost the same rules.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 22, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> By that logic, GURPS does D&D better then D&D!




Heh. GURPS can do fantasy adventure great, it just isn't D&D. 

I did a GURPS/D&D mashup back in the early 90's that came close. I used GURPS building blocks to make classes, levels, alignments became disad groups, etc. 

It was called DURPS  

Dweomercraefting
Universal
Role
Playing
System


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Moreover, I totally disagree that the source material of D&D is generally lacking in healing magic or even healing potions.   What's Miruvor in game terms if not a healing potion?  Even the orcs are shown to use a similar device of their own making.   Harry Potter is filled with healing magic.  Lucy's vial of crystal from the Narnia series is essentially a healing potion that fulfills much the same role in the story of keeping the characters up and in the story rather than recuperating as a healing potion does in D&D.  And we could go on and on.




The healing salves of the green martians of Barsoom are a particular favourite.....

Lucy's cordial, the gunk the orcs smeared on wounds, the orc drink, the elf drink....Yes, these are all healing potions or salves.  Lucy's codial takes Edmund from near death to hale in a very short period, using just a few drops.  Then she goes about healing the rest of the wounded on the battlefield.  I would call that extremely effective!

Miraculous healing in fantasy is no more rare than dreams of miraculous healing are in the real world.  REH is actually unusual in not having potions of healing!


RC


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 22, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I disagree.  Combat does vary tremendously in its depiction across authors.



You think a combat system fit for Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ would not work for Robert E. Howard's Conan stories?


Celebrim said:


> What's to understand about 'you got hit and took n points of damage'?



Oh, c'mon.  Arguments about hit points are legendary.


Celebrim said:


> Hit points do nothing to push a game world full of healing potions and spells.   That's a genera decision.



No, hit points do push a game toward frequent healing.  In earlier editions, the "genre decision" was to make that healing via magic potions and spells.  In later editions, they embraced the notion that the points lost aren't really wounds, so "healing" can come via pep talks.

D&D's hit point system has hits come often, and these hits slowly wear down the target's hit points -- whatever those might be.  If the game made hits very, very rare, but very, very deadly, then you would regularly win fights without taking any damage.


Celebrim said:


> Moreover, I totally disagree that the source material of D&D is generally lacking in healing magic or even healing potions.   What's Miruvor in game terms if not a healing potion?  Even the orcs are shown to use a similar device of their own making.



So, a sip of _miruvor_ or the orc drink should have brought Boromir back from the brink?  As described, the elf-drink is more like chicken-noodle soup, and the orc-drink is more like Irish coffee.  They certainly couldn't heal mortally wounded warriors in seconds.


Celebrim said:


> The real proof of this though is the ability of D&D to go the other way and generate the novel from the mechanics of play.  Many fantasy series from Feist's Riftwar Saga, to Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksinarrion, to the DragonLance series themselves can be read as and were often inspired by the mechanics of play.  Yet they read much like any other high fantasy novels.



When I read the _Dragonlance_ novels, my first thought was, _This sounds more like GURPS than D&D_.


Celebrim said:


> Clerics occurs everywhere through out literature, myth, and legend.



Armored holy men with maces who turn undead are everywhere through out literature, myth, and legend?  Some of the tales of the saints involve spell-like miracles, but not much else matches up.


Celebrim said:


> The Wizard is the modern origin, and its going to be very very hard to find examples of the Wizard in literature that aren't influenced by the D&D Wizard.



So Merlin, Gandalf, etc. aren't Wizards?  Is that where we're going with this?


----------



## Stoat (Jun 22, 2011)

IMO, how well D&D emulates any particular genre depends on 4 or 5 factors: 

1.  What genre are we talking about?

2.  How closely do we want to emulate that genre?

2a. How important/necessary is it to emulate that genre through game mechanics, as opposed to simply making changes to the game's descriptive flavor?

3.  Do we want to emulate that genre for a one-shot adventure or for a longer campaign?

4.  At some point, does emulating that genre change the rules/playstyle so much that we really aren't playing D&D anymore?

IME, the elements of D&D that are the biggest impediment to using D&D to emulate different genres are:

1. Hitpoints, Healing, and the need for Clerics as healers.

2. The reliance on equipment to improve armor class.

3. The dramatic increases in PC power inherent in the leveling system.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 22, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> Where D&D could be much more abstract is in the magic system, which isn't at all generic.  Any one of the numerous spell-point systems or roll-to-cast systems could match any number of descriptions of what might be going on in the game world of the wizard, but spell slots?  "Forgetting" spells?  Those are quite specific and evoke a particular flavor far from most of the source material.




While this might be true, I'd also suggest that one of the huge differences between D&D spellcasters and most fictional/mythical ones is how easy spells are in D&D. They're cast quickly, most don't require anything particularly hard to find as spell components, and magic users don't worry about whether the spell might go wrong and what the consequences of that would be. Easy magic, magic without costs and risk, that's a D&Dism.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2011)

Stoat said:


> 3. The dramatic increases in PC power inherent in the leveling system.



Not jsust PCs, but anybody/anything that is levelled e.g. NPCs, monsters, etc.  Not quite such an issue in 0-1(-2?)e but still noticeable.


			
				Bluenose said:
			
		

> While this might be true, I'd also suggest that one of the huge differences between D&D spellcasters and most fictional/mythical ones is how easy spells are in D&D. They're cast quickly, most don't require anything particularly hard to find as spell components, and magic users don't worry about whether the spell might go wrong and what the consequences of that would be. Easy magic, magic without costs and risk, that's a D&Dism.



More and more so with each passing edition.

Lan-"but you see, I've got this sword of wizard-slaying"-efan


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> You think a combat system fit for Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_ would not work for RObert E. Howard's Conan stories?




I'd have to reread REH to see.  But a combat system that does Tolkien well can't necessarily do Robert Jordan, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or Terry Brooks to name a few off the top of my head.

Besides, my argument is that it fits Tolkien or REH _well enough_ despite their differences.   If you want to argue that the combat in various fantasy is generic enough that a generic system works, then you are conceding my points for free.

What's really ironic of course is that when you get around to actually objecting, it's precisely on the claim that combat systems aren't generic that you object, quote:

"If the game made hits very, very rare, but very, very deadly, then you would regularly win fights without taking any damage."

That would be one example of how two different authors approach combat narration in their story.

Nonetheless, I still consider this a very weak objection.  Not only do hit points do a good enough job of simulating that the hero rarely takes damage in systems were the narration is "hits are rare, but when they happen they are lethal", but it does a better job of simulating the plot protection enjoyed by most fantasy protagonists than directly implementing the obvious mechanic like "hits are rare, but when they happen they hurt".   The obvious mechanic results in random and unpredictable deaths of the protagonists that just doesn't match up with the source material.   The real strength of hit points is predictability.



> No, hit points do push a game toward frequent healing.  In earlier editions, the "genre decision" was to make that healing via magic potions and spells.  In later editions, they embraced the notion that the points lost aren't really wounds, so "healing" can come via pep talks.




You aren't saying anything new.  Read 'The Deed of Paksenarrion' and get back to me.  Hit points only push the game toward more frequent healing if the protagonist expects combat to come so regularly that they will have no time to recover from battle AND if he also expects that in a given battle he'll lose a large portion of his hit points.  If you pace the game diferently, such as the game time year that Paks spends campaigning in a mercenary company to go from 1st to 2nd level, then the notion that frequent magical healing is required goes away.  Natural healing is available and works just fine so long as the pacing of the game changes.



> So, a sip of _miruvor_ or the orc drink should have brought Boromir back from the brink?




Possibly.  We are engaging in a counter factual here.  Boromir wasn't given a draught nor was a master healer like Elrond on hand, so we don't know.  LotR is such a low magic campaign, that miruvor might well be a healing potion that only heals non-lethal damage, or possibly Boromir was at -9 bleeding out and no healing was available and the DM just gave him a 'Last Gasp' round to do a purely RP death scene in.  In any event, we've now moved from, "Well potions don't exist in the source material.", to "Well the potions in the source material aren't always exactly like those in D&D."  We've moved from "can't" to "can't do it well enough".  I can just as easily counter that Edmond was as badly injured as Boromir at the end of Lion Witch and Wardrobe and the potion DID bring him back from the brink.  



> When I read the _Dragonlance_ novels, my first thought was, _This sounds more like GURPS than D&D_.




Was that right about the time that Raistlin cast sleep on the goblins, or when he tried the same thing on the Draconians and whispered, "Magic resistance!".   And did you read the books before or after playing the campaign?



> Armored holy men with maces who turn undead are everywhere through out literature, myth, and legend?




Magicians, shamans, socerers, wise men, witches and priests - some armored and some not - with the power to rebuke spirits and drive them away are ubiquitous throughout literature, myth, and legend and in myth and legend in particular little distinguishment is made between them.   Moreover, in literature myth and legend the sort of spells that magicians cast are much more often of the subtle curse, hexes, and blessing sort than the flashy pyrotechnics of the D&D Wizard.   Historical conceptions of magic are almost always based on calling up and binding spirits, which the cleric does just as well and if not better than the Wizard.   Necromancers?  Clerics do it better than Wizards.  Witches?  Clerics do it better than Wizards and frequently Witches were concieved as priestesses of some deity (which hasn't changed much to the present day).  About the only sort of magic that doesn't fit the cleric better than the Wizard is D&D inspired Wizardry - ei "Fireball!".

Virtually every magic user of history or legend is better presented as a cleric than a wizard.  And the 2e notion of specialist clerics and the 3e notion of domains makes this even more true.



> So Merlin, Gandalf, etc. aren't Wizards?  Is that where we're going with this?




Merlin is a half-demon or fairy being, whose historical origins appears to have been in part a prophet (ei cleric) and who from the account of the literature would be at least as well concieved if not better as a druid (ei cleric variant) than a wizard.   His more modern depictions in child friendly modern media are typically santized of any occult references, helping to create the wholly modern conception of a Wizard that D&D has helped promote perhaps better than any other medium (with the possible exception of Disney).  However historically the practice of magic is tied to the innovacation of spirits and divine power - the very sorts of things we associate with clerical magic in D&D.  And indeed, the clerical spell list is much more closely aligned with the sort of powers that historical magicians (and their literary counterparts) claimed to have - killing with a touch, healing disease, calling down curses, exorcising evil spirits, etc.

Gandalf is an angel whose powers appear to be of divine origin and innate.  But to the extent that I agree that Gandalf can be well simulated by a D&D Wizard, that again involves you conceding my point about D&D being able to do multiple sorts of source material rather than undermining it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I'd have to reread REH to see.  But a combat system that does Tolkien well can't necessarily do Robert Jordan, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or Terry Brooks to name a few off the top of my head.




I'm not greatly familiar with Jordan, but I certainly feel a combat system can do Tolkien, Burroughs, and REH well!


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I'm not greatly familiar with Jordan, but I certainly feel a combat system can do Tolkien, Burroughs, and REH well!




Sure.  But let's keep in mind my position here.  I'm not arguing that a single combat system can't do them welll; in fact, my position requires that D&D do all three well enough.   What I'm stating is that _despite signfiicant differences in how combat is portrayed in Tolkien, Burroughs, REH, etc_., D&D can be used to simulate all of them.   Keep in mind that I'm addressing the complaint, "Of course it can do _combat _ well, because there aren't differences in how combat is portrayed in fantasy literature."

As an example, combat in Tolkien is usually over in seconds, whereas John Carter might engage a single opponent for an hour.   Combat in Tolkien is described in a very terse way usually focusing only on the lethal event that ends it, whereas combat in Jordan's books is described in cinematic detail alternating with sequences of manuevers and counter manuevers which are given evocative poetic names.   But, my argument is that by selecting the level of character appropriate to the power level presented in the story, and by appropriate narration, hit points do just fine for all of that.   Obviously certain rules subsystems make one edition or the other perhaps preferred for meeting specific goals, for example something like Tome of Battle is more appropriate to Jordan than it is to Tolkien, but its all still D&D.


----------



## rounser (Jun 22, 2011)

> But again, I think this is moving away from what Mearls is actually discussing. I can accept you saying, "Hey, I don't think the core setting of 4E" - but that is a different thing from saying, "That setting means it isn't D&D." And if that is what you are saying - did you say the same thing about Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al'Qadim, or any number of other settings that also played around with the races and classes and environment?



The distinction is that these are settings.  I really like Dark Sun, but it's a very specific world.  If Dark Sun paraphernalia were the default in the PHB to build a thousand other worlds, I'd probably skip that edition too.

Axiomatic simplifications like "crunch is better than fluff" (referring to what is or isn't D&D, based on mechanics no less) have led the direction of the game astray already, it's more complex than that IMO.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm reading REH at the moment, much of it for the first time.  (I got the collected reprints of Howard's Conan for Father's Day. Yay, kids!)

The only thing I'm seeing so far that would be a so-so fit for D&D hit points (within the parameters of Celebrim's argument) is that morale is such a huge part of who wins and who dies.  You'd have to be pretty explicit that hit points are a big part of morale, and thus why running out of it lets you get beheaded in one stroke with a broadsword.

Though the image of the red-eyed barbarian glaring at the wizard and causing him to lose hit points, and thus be so vulnerable, might push the model more than some are willing to accept.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 23, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I'm not arguing that a single combat system can't do them welll; in fact, my position requires that D&D do all three well enough.   What I'm stating is that _despite signfiicant differences in how combat is portrayed in Tolkien, Burroughs, REH, etc_., D&D can be used to simulate all of them.   Keep in mind that I'm addressing the complaint, "Of course it can do _combat _ well, because there aren't differences in how combat is portrayed in fantasy literature."



I'm arguing that it shouldn't be hard to provide a generic combat system that works for both Tolkien and Robert E. Howard, even though those two authors wrote in different styles, because adventure-fiction combat hews fairly close to real historical combat -- and where it diverges from reality is fairly consistent across authors, i.e. the hero doesn't die, but he's easily knocked out, etc.

Even though it shouldn't be hard to match Tolkien and Howard with a single, simple system, I don't think D&D does a particularly good job of it, because we need various kludges to handle Tolkien: Bard killing Smaug with one arrow, an orc-captain "killing" Frodo with one spear thrust, until Frodo reveals his mithril mail, Legolas killing a fell beast in the dark with one arrow, Boromir fighting on while mortally wounded with countless arrows, Merry and Eowyn killing the Witch-King with _two_ blows, etc.

For Howard, we need a system where Conan dispatches plenty of trained soldiers in a red haze, but he knows he can't face down a handful of archers, so he gives up, and where one good blow from behind knocks him out.

In my opinion, hit points do work as plot-protection points, which is great for PCs, but many tough opponents shouldn't necessarily have a predictable buffer of toughness -- and many weak PCs should have plenty of plot-protection.  If anything, the insignificant hobbits should have more plot-protection points than their protectors, Gimli and Legolas, or their ill-starred foes, like the Witch-King.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Alignment is still a mechanical element in D&D 4. It appears in stat blocks, not flavor text.



It appears in stat blocks, yes, but does virtually no mechanical work. It is relevant to some PC-build options - some divine classes and some paragon paths - and it figures in one paladin PP power. I'm not a DDI subscriber, so it might also appear in a handful of Dragon magazine options. But the relevance of alignment to character building is minimal and to action resolution is almost nil.

On the other hand, the ability of oozes to squeeze through small cracks, which _is_ relevant to action resolution, appears in flavour text rather than stat blocks. (Though there is an argument that the definition of the ooze subtype, by referring to oozes as "amorphous", does imply that they have this squeezing ability.)

So in my view, whether something is in a stat block or flavour text is indicative, but not ultimately determinative, of whether or not it is a mechanical matter.



Crazy Jerome said:


> the objection is not that alignment was or was not in D&D. I know it was, and usually with some mechanical basis. Rather, the objection is that on this particular list of supposedly key mechanics, it is out of place. It is not quite as key as the rest of the list (IMO), but if the list is supposed to be more expansive, then the list is missing some things that are as key as alignment. Mechanical support for multiple races is an obvious missing one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I can see the force of this. Even though I think that alignment is more central to D&D play and the D&D experience than do you (at least, this is my impression), I'd probably have to concede that races are more central.

Perhaps races weren't mentioned because they were taken to be subsumed, to an extent, in classes - as per some versions of classic D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 23, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Though the image of the red-eyed barbarian glaring at the wizard and causing him to lose hit points, and thus be so vulnerable, might push the model more than some are willing to accept.



The module that comes with the Monster Vault boxed set expressly embraces the "Intimidate check to do hp damage" approach, statting it up as a skill challenge in the final encounter.


----------



## rounser (Jun 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Mearls' point was that regardless of which of those you were playing in, there were some shared elements, and that is what he is trying to pinpoint. You may certainly have elements that you prefer in your D&D games, but that is very different from saying anyone using elements you don't prefer is _not playing D&D_.



On that point, I think Mearls may need to consider that it's about as much what he leaves out of the recipe, as what he puts into it.

Chocolate mudcakes might have flour, eggs, cocoa and sugar in them, but if you throw in anchovies and beef stock, then that chocolate mudcake you're making might no longer be a chocolate mudcake.

Likewise, identifying the core components of a "universal D&D" isn't enough.  Consider what may un-D&D a game to a large segment of players, such as through:

1) Disassociated mechanics like healing surges that break simulation and suspension of disbelief.  I gather it is rumoured that healing surges are Mearls' favorite 4E rule, so may be in for inevitable disappointment there.

2) Including in the core mundane yet fantastic equipment like gluebags, absurd dual weapons and absurdly effective spiked chains that harm D&D's ability to model a pseudomedieval setting.  Save it for the splatbooks, IMO.

3) Quirky and specific choice of core races and classes in the core PHB, and the resulting specific nature of the worlds they suggest, as I've already talked about.

I like Hackmaster, but Hackmaster isn't an "everyman fantasy" game which is a good basis to build worlds on in the same way D&D used to be.  Not every world I want to make has these specific elements that Hackmaster pushes.  4E has made that same mistake, IMO - in attempting to stay current with fantasy fashion, they've traded in the game's utility as a fantasy toolkit.  If Mearls is casting around for ideas as to supplements for 5E, maybe add a "High Fantasy Handbook" and a "Dark Fantasy Handbook" for those who want to take the game in different directions.  That way, the dragonborn spiked chain wielders and gluebags can sit in the high fantasy book, and whatever low magic people want can sit in the other.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

I once made some house rules for Fantasy Hero that were strikingly similar to healing surges.  The reason was that in default Fantasy Hero, unless you are willing to limit magic by charges, healing becomes effectively unlimited.  Things that don't kill you don't really hurt.  Hero comes at it from the other side of typical D&D hit points, but the problem is the same--you want a limit, but you want to parse it out over time for narrative pacing.  It is a very useful tool in emulation mode.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jun 23, 2011)

Reading the thread, I think there are two primary modes in which people think about D&D: First, as the rules considered specifically as a game, as well as the implications of those rules.  Second, as a (sub)genre, and how well the feel of that genre can be summoned, matched, or imitated by some set of rules.

Is D&D first a game (i.e. mechanics), or a subgenre?  As far as I can tell the answer is "yes", but for any given individual the more specific answer is something like {yes, yes}, {yes, no}, or {no, yes}.  If you like, add a ", but" after any of those.  In your view, is one usually subordinate to the other?  If this were linear algebra, they might be basis vectors and could be weighted individually.  If this were logic, one might be a premise, and the other a consequence.

If D&D is first a sack of some fixed (here unspecified) mechanics, then the flavor implications of those mechanics are what define D&D settings.  And any settings broadly compatible with those mechanics can be D&D.  It also lets people expand and flesh out settings, by allowing what the mechanics allow to become part of the setting's reality.  For optimizers, this can be quite a lot.  If this is the view, then the specific mechanics in the sack is important, hence Mearl's list.

If D&D is first its own subgenre, then the mostly fixed set of flavor requirements is more likely to restrict or define exactly what mechanics are in play, and how.  For example:


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Again, that's based on setting and adventure design. The rules don't force it on you. I frequently gamed in 1e without access to a cleric, and if you change the assumptions of the setting and the assumptions of adventure pacing you can dispense with clerics entirely in any addition should you desire.




Clearly there can be feedback, where setting informs mechanics, and mechanics informs setting, but when one of these mechanisms is much stronger than the other what counts as "D&D" can rapidly diverge depending on beholder.  These feedback mechanisms might work in surprising ways.  For example, I think it is likely that most D&D players identify most strongly with their first campaign as the image of D&D.  If that first campaign was run by someone with mechanics first tendencies, letting the mechanics define and redefine the reality of the setting, a setting first person might actually define D&D how they do because of the mechanical implications of that first campaign.  Similarly, a mechanics first person could do the same for some particular houserule in their first campaign that only exists because their setting first DM wanted to emulate some particular aspect of a non-D&D story.

As for Mearl's list, it isn't clear if it is the union of all the answers he got, the intersection (very unlikely!), a hastily agreed upon consensus in R&D, or what have you.  I think union is most likely, in which case individual lists were probably as diverse as ours.  Rather than nitpick every item, although I enjoyed reading others' thoughts about them, I asked myself this question: "If all of these things are present, am I possibly or likely playing D&D?  If none of them are, am I possibly or likely playing D&D?"  My answers are yes and no, respectively, which suggests that even if the list isn't perfect, for at least one subset of those items the answer changes.  I think it is likely there are multiple such subsets for me, so that there is a "phase change" from non-D&D to (possibly) D&D that can occur at multiple places given all possible combinations of those mechanics.  In that case "D&Dness" is an emergent property of the interaction of its parts, which I think favors the big tent philosophy Mearls is so clearly trying to pursue.  That this could be different subsets for the same person, and clearly for different people as well, is exactly the sort of thing they should be finding out.


----------



## rounser (Jun 23, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I once made some house rules for Fantasy Hero that were strikingly similar to healing surges.  The reason was that in default Fantasy Hero, unless you are willing to limit magic by charges, healing becomes effectively unlimited.  Things that don't kill you don't really hurt.  Hero comes at it from the other side of typical D&D hit points, but the problem is the same--you want a limit, but you want to parse it out over time for narrative pacing.  It is a very useful tool in emulation mode.



It's also a kludge that doesn't match anything much in reality, unless you start invoking Die Hard and marathon runners.  The giveaway is that the term "healing surge" is a nonsense term, because there's no expression in real life that describes it.  About as close as you can come is "second wind", and even that requires lots of handwaving and gesturing at the Goodyear blimp...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 23, 2011)

rounser said:


> It's also a kludge that doesn't match anything much in reality, unless you start invoking Die Hard and marathon runners.  The giveaway is that the term "healing surge" is a nonsense term, because there's no expression in real life that describes it.



Unlike the term "hit points", which is commonly used in medical schools. 

Or "hit dice", which has been used in zoological classification since the days of Linneaus.


----------



## francisca (Jun 23, 2011)

Here is the list:



> The six ability scores—Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma—as the categories for measuring a character’s abilities.
> 
> Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.
> 
> ...




When everything on that list has been re-defined and re-valued, what common ground really remains?

You know, I have this axe which has been in the family since 1750. Sure, its on its 4th head and 6th handle, but you know, its the same pre-American Revolution axe, right?  According to Mearls, it is.  

I'm not buying it.

I'm wondering what motivates a lead designer to write an article like that, actually.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 23, 2011)

@ Axe


Everything? Really? On _that_ list? They all actually are kinda the same, at least with me and my mostly pre 3E players. (we even had a good alingment argument a few sessions back). Maybe the last three, kinda. 

Do you want to give examples?

EDIT: and who said _same_. The whole point of these articles is differences. But he may be saying it is still an axe.

EDIT EDIT: I mean, besides me...mearls...still an axe


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> Sure.  But let's keep in mind my position here.  I'm not arguing that a single combat system can't do them welll; in fact, my position requires that D&D do all three well enough.




Fair enough.  I obviously differ somewhat, as I have gone out of my way to expand upon that system to make it do more things.....but the core is certainly exactly what D&D has done since Day 1.



Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm reading REH at the moment, much of it for the first time.  (I got the collected reprints of Howard's Conan for Father's Day. Yay, kids!)




Enjoy them!

If you can find The Best of Robert E. Howard, Vols 1 & 2, the collected Solomon Kanes, or the collected historical adventures (Sword Woman), I'd buy them next.  Or the collected Kull, Bran Mak Morn, or El Borak.  Or the horror stories.  

Really, I won't rest until I've collected them all!



mmadsen said:


> I don't think D&D does a particularly good job of it, because we need various kludges to handle Tolkien: Bard killing Smaug with one arrow, an orc-captain "killing" Frodo with one spear thrust, until Frodo reveals his mithril mail, Legolas killing a fell beast in the dark with one arrow, Boromir fighting on while mortally wounded with countless arrows, Merry and Eowyn killing the Witch-King with _two_ blows, etc.
> 
> For Howard, we need a system where Conan dispatches plenty of trained soldiers in a red haze, but he knows he can't face down a handful of archers, so he gives up, and where one good blow from behind knocks him out.
> 
> In my opinion, hit points do work as plot-protection points, which is great for PCs, but many tough opponents shouldn't necessarily have a predictable buffer of toughness -- and many weak PCs should have plenty of plot-protection.  If anything, the insignificant hobbits should have more plot-protection points than their protectors, Gimli and Legolas, or their ill-starred foes, like the Witch-King.




Nice list.  My hit-point based system can handle:

* Bard killing Smaug with one arrow -- Get the Drop; Magical Arrow
* an orc-captain "killing" Frodo with one spear thrust, until Frodo reveals his mithril mail -- Shake it Off, Armour as DR
* Legolas killing a fell beast in the dark with one arrow (Are we sure it died?  Did we see the body?) -- Low-light vision, critical hit, all ranks to damage, falling damage
* Boromir fighting on while mortally wounded with countless arrows -- class feature (Fighter, Second Wind I, gained at 6th level)
* Merry and Eowyn killing the Witch-King with _two_ blows -- Bane weapon for Merry; Intimidate to either increase damage or to Get the Drop for Eowyn; special circumstance modifier for prophesy (?), possibly a bonus to Eowyn's Intimidate.
* Conan dispatches plenty of trained soldiers in a red haze, but he knows he can't face down a handful of archers, so he gives up -- Class ability (Barbarian Rage at 1st level and Berseker Rage at 3rd level); using these abilities costs hit point damage, weakening him for the archers; Get the Drop mechanic.
* and where one good blow from behind knocks him out -- Sapping mechanic; attrition + damage, modified by Shake it Off.

My system considers, as does D&D, damage in two types:  hit point damage and special effects.  Special effects occur when hit points are inappropriate ("I throw sand in his eyes"), but without hit points, an all special effect system falls down under its own weight.

IMHO and IME.  YMMV.



Mallus said:


> Unlike the term "hit points", which is commonly used in medical schools.
> 
> Or "hit dice", which has been used in zoological classification since the days of Linneaus.








francisca said:


> When everything on that list has been re-defined and re-valued, what common ground really remains?
> 
> You know, I have this axe which has been in the family since 1750. Sure, its on its 4th head and 6th handle, but you know, its the same pre-American Revolution axe, right?  According to Mearls, it is.




Identity does not need to follow conservation laws.  That said, I agree that there is only so much change that can occur before I am unwilling to accept that identity itself has not changed.

I don't have any problem with 4e being D&D; I fully understand why some might reject that identity, and others embrace it.  I've pulled my pony out of that particular show, in favour of something that is *D&Dish*.



> I'm wondering what motivates a lead designer to write an article like that, actually.




5e.

I expect an announcement no later than next year's GenCon.

(But I could be wrong; Crom knows it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last.)



RC


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 23, 2011)

> I'm wondering what motivates a lead designer to write an article like that, actually.




I'm a bit befuddled by Mearls’ article, actually.  This sounds like something that R&D should have discussed BEFORE 4E came out, not as a postscript to it 3 years later. 

So, in this article he lists the “Core Needs” for D+D, that have remained consistent, and promote unity and compatibility for the brand.  And yet 4E has “reenvisioned” these terms so that they no longer bear any resemblance to his list.



> Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe.




Umm, how is this portrayed in 4E?  In fact, isn’t it noted that most are “Unaligned”, and that only “exceptional” people have taken a stand on the good;/evil axis?



> Magic items such as +1 swords as a desirable form of treasure.




Except, (IMHO) magic items have lost their sense of wonder in 4E, being essentially an extended version of a players powers'.



> Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.




Except saving throws are rendered virtually meaningless in 4E, relegated to a simple die roll to avoid ongoing damage.



> “Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.




And the biggest bone of contention amongst fans…

(As an aside, I shuold express that I'm not the biggest fan of Mearls' pre-4E work, either.  I find "The Three Faces of Evil" [from the Age of Worms AP] to be _quite_ unspectacular, and far too much of a meat-grinder for my tastes. One of the worst 3.x adventures in "Dungeon Magazine", IMO.)


----------



## billd91 (Jun 23, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> I'm a bit befuddled by Mearls’ article, actually.  This sounds like something that R&D should have discussed BEFORE 4E came out, not as a postscript to it 3 years later.




Maybe they did. We aren't exactly privy to their internal discussions. Of course internal discussions being what they are, particularly when dealing with NDAs that prevent general outside discussion, the potential for an echo chamber to develop and be diverted is significant.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 23, 2011)

rounser said:


> On that point, I think Mearls may need to consider that it's about as much what he leaves out of the recipe, as what he puts into it.




It's a good point, that the presence of these elements doesn't 'override' all else in order to ensure a game is D&D. But, again, that isn't really what Mearls is looking at. 

Mearls never says, "Anything with these elements is D&D". He is explicitly trying to find elements that, if they are _missing_, make a game feel less like D&D, and/or elements that, when they are _present_ in other games, make you think of D&D. 



rounser said:


> Likewise, identifying the core components of a "universal D&D" isn't enough. Consider what may un-D&D a game to a large segment of players, such as through:
> 
> 1) Disassociated mechanics like healing surges that break simulation and suspension of disbelief. I gather it is rumoured that healing surges are Mearls' favorite 4E rule, so may be in for inevitable disappointment there.




The problem is, at this point we're getting into much more subjective areas. For me, Healing Surges work fine... because they build on the already simulation-breaking coincept of hitpoints, which took me _years _to come to terms with. Those elements have always been abstracted (I hate the term 'disassociated', which has largely lost any real meaning in these discussions). 

I think it is also an area where many of the fundamental objections are not what is actually put forward. Healing Surges as a concept is really just a new way of formatting hitpoints. Connecting them to magical healing might jar some folks because it is a new method, but is certainly not anti-simulationism. Instead, I think the real objection is the fact that all healing surges are restored each day - characters 'healing to full' with one night's rest. 

And that might be an issue worth debating - but it also isn't tied to healing surges at all. It would be just as jarring, for the same folks, if you healed to full in 2nd Edition, without only hitpoints in play. 



rounser said:


> 2) Including in the core mundane yet fantastic equipment like gluebags, absurd dual weapons and absurdly effective spiked chains that harm D&D's ability to model a pseudomedieval setting. Save it for the splatbooks, IMO.
> 
> 3) Quirky and specific choice of core races and classes in the core PHB, and the resulting specific nature of the worlds they suggest, as I've already talked about.




This, again, is getting back to the argument about 'core elements'. D&D isn't, at its heart, about any one specific world. If it was, campaign settings just wouldn't exist. There may be a specific default setting you prefer - such as low fantasy - but there is a big difference between claiming it as a preference, and insisting everyone else who likes a different setting simply isn't playing D&D. 



rounser said:


> I like Hackmaster, but Hackmaster isn't an "everyman fantasy" game which is a good basis to build worlds on in the same way D&D used to be. Not every world I want to make has these specific elements that Hackmaster pushes. 4E has made that same mistake, IMO - in attempting to stay current with fantasy fashion, they've traded in the game's utility as a fantasy toolkit. If Mearls is casting around for ideas as to supplements for 5E, maybe add a "High Fantasy Handbook" and a "Dark Fantasy Handbook" for those who want to take the game in different directions. That way, the dragonborn spiked chain wielders and gluebags can sit in the high fantasy book, and whatever low magic people want can sit in the other.




I'm not sure it really counts as undermining the 'fantasy toolkit' just because the default has more high fantasy elements - after all, you can always take them out and run a low fantasy campaign, just as you can do the reverse in a game that starts from a low fantasy default.

Still, I do get your point about presenting both as options. And, apparently, so does WotC - have you checked out Essentials? We've got two books of player's options. Book #1 gives us humans, dwarves and elves, along with the cleric, fighter, thief and wizard. Book #2 gives us tieflings, dragonborn, and drow, and the warlock, druid, ranger and paladin. 

One for the classics, one for the more fantastic elements, making it relatively easy for a DM to tell players to only go with one or the other. Though I don't think the spiked chain got specifically targeted as 'high fantasy' for that purpose... and, honestly, I can't find it any more absurd myself than many of the other weapons D&D has seen over the years. 

One of the reason why I think some of the 'flavor elements' can't really define D&D - they are far too tied to personal preference.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Unlike the term "hit points", which is commonly used in medical schools.
> 
> Or "hit dice", which has been used in zoological classification since the days of Linneaus.




Or "disassociated" which doesn't mean what its adherents seem to want it to.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 23, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> SNIP...
> So, in this article he lists the “Core Needs” for D+D, that have remained consistent, and promote unity and compatibility for the brand.  And yet 4E has “reenvisioned” these terms so that they no longer bear any resemblance to his list.
> 
> 
> ...




Alignment: Unaligned makes it easier for charecters to play they always did...but plenty of charecters still have alignment, and fighting evil is still very much part of the game, if you want it to be. Still, that point was seen over in the 4E forum as a concesion that maybe they had gone too far.

Treasure: In terms of his actual point...a +1 sword is still just that, and magic items are very much valuable treasure (4E is actually pretty stingy otherwise). You could argue that items lost there wonder some time ago. In 4E there has also been a big push to give DMs control over magic items again (with rule changes last year) and make them feel less like a comodity. But sure, its an issue. A D&D one. 

saves Have been split into defenses and the one save mechanic, but actually making your save can still be a big deal.

fire and forget magic 4E gives it to everyone! And on this point, never the twain shall meet...though WotC has tried with their "essentials" classes.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> Clearly there can be feedback, where setting informs mechanics, and mechanics informs setting, but when one of these mechanisms is much stronger than the other what counts as "D&D" can rapidly diverge depending on beholder. These feedback mechanisms might work in surprising ways. For example, I think it is likely that most D&D players identify most strongly with their first campaign as the image of D&D...




I agree with down to that point, but disagree about the likely consequences from mechanics or settings.  I think D&D players might identify strongly with the emergent mix of mechanics and settings as it happen to emerge at those early tables.

That doesn't mean that we can't talk about the mechanics and settings separately, or tease them out, or even that said players can't separate those impressions from later ones.  It just means it is complicated.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> And yet 4E has “reenvisioned” these terms so that they no longer bear any resemblance to his list.




That seems a drastic overstatement to me.  

In such discussions, we often quickly slip to expressive, but hyperbolic, statements that tend to polarize the discussion.  Having said them, we tend to have to defend them, and that drives our positions to ever greater extremes.  A wedge gets driven between sides, so that no common ground can be found.

We might all want to reconsider use of absolutes like this, and whether they really serve our cases and causes well.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 23, 2011)

Stoat said:


> IME, the elements of D&D that are the biggest impediment to using D&D to emulate different genres are:
> 
> 1. Hitpoints, Healing, and the need for Clerics as healers.



There are multiple subtle issues that intersect here.  

First, hit points don't break suspension of disbelief too badly in the "sweet spot" around, say, fourth level, but they become jarring as hit dice increase -- unless all the low-damage enemies drift away to be replaced by higher-damage enemies, in which case we've got a bit of a Red Queen situation, where we're ramping up damage to match increasing hit points, which seems pointless.

So we get into the canonical litany of complaints against hit points:  Wait, this guy can take _nine_ sword strokes that get past his armor?  Well, they're just glancing blows, because he _almost_ dodges them.  Really?  So he should feel better after a few days?  Um, no.  It'll take him months to heal.  So we need a _cure light wounds_ spell to cure all those light wounds?  Um, no.  It'll take eight or nine cure light wounds spells to cure him.  Etc.

That's why we've moved further and further away from hit points representing physical wounds in recent editions of the game.  But a slowly ablating counter needs to be replenished if not-really-hurt characters are going to seem not-really-hurt for their next fight, whether that comes via magical healing or morale-boosting speeches.  A combat system where not-really-hurt characters simply weren't really hurt wouldn't rely on that.  (It might have other flaws, of course.)

Anyway, this need for healing, in previous editions, combined with the oddball notion of a Cleric, which is _not_ a classic archetype.  If Gygax hadn't created the armored, mace-wielding, quasi-Christian priest, the whole thing might have worked out better.  The wizard -- that is, the guy with a pointy hat, long beard, and staff -- could have applied healing magic, or the ranger or the elf could have applied healing herbs, or the warm-hearted girl in the party could have tended to the wounded with her magic healing elixir, or whatever.  It still would have made Conan or Robin Hood hard to play, but it wouldn't've shoved a strange archetype into the setting.


Stoat said:


> 2. The reliance on equipment to improve armor class.



I can't count how many characters had magical studded leather in our old games, so that they'd have a decent armor class but still look like Robin Hood or Captain Blood...


Stoat said:


> 3. The dramatic increases in PC power inherent in the leveling system.



I used to think it was the power-level that was a problem, but now I think it's more an issue of how that power manifests itself.  For instance, I wouldn't have any trouble with high-level characters wielding political power or leading armies.  I wouldn't mind the greatest samurai in the land being able to cut down merely _great_ warriors with a single stroke, or the greatest elf archer routinely shooting enemies through their eye-slits.  I wouldn't mind the master of _offencing_ and _defencing_ being untouchable with blade.  So, it's not just their incredible competence that strains credibility.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> That seems a drastic overstatement to me.




But hold hard, friend.  What if it is neither drastic, nor an overstatement, to the speaker?  What if that is not hyperbolic -- I, for one, see little reason to believe that it is so.  The speaker does not come across as angry, or ranting (to me), and provides an example of exactly what he means.

It is quite possible -- rational, even -- to see a difference that renders two things no longer the same, without assuming that everyone else must automatically see it so.

It is not "I don't believe X is Y" but rather _*and you should not either*_ or _*and you should not say it is*_ which cause problems, IMHO and IME.  And, also, IMHO and IME, there is precious little difference between _*I don't believe X is Y and you should not say it is*_ and _*I believe X is Y and you should not say it is not*_.

"I can understand how you feel that way, but I feel differently" is, AFAICT, the only real common ground that can be found.  "Common ground" that is based on simply not speaking an unpopular opinion is illusory at best.

I do agree with you that 



> We might all want to reconsider use of absolutes like this, and whether they really serve our cases and causes well.




but I think that it is statements that try to restrict expression that actually tend to polarize the discussion.  When we are concerned with what the other person's position can or cannot be, what they can or cannot believe, what they can or cannot feel, that drives a wedge between sides, so that no common ground can be found, because, until then, no actual "attack" has taken place.

YMMV, though.

And, as I am thankfully not a moderator, I am looking at it from a theoretical, rather than a practical, standpoint.  It is easier to prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed than it is to then reign in the backlash against those opinions once expressed.

But, until someone demands agreement, or makes claims of "fact", I don't see it as an edition war.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Jun 23, 2011)

Umbran said:


> That seems a drastic overstatement to me.
> 
> In such discussions, we often quickly slip to expressive, but hyperbolic, statements that tend to polarize the discussion.



Would brushing off a point of view as a "drastic overstatement" count?




> Having said them, we tend to have to defend them, and that drives our positions to ever greater extremes.  A wedge gets driven between sides, so that no common ground can be found.



It doesn't sound like you are LOOKING for common ground.  There are a significant number of people clearly dissatisfied.  Are you reaching out and looking for ways to defend an opposing point?  Or are you simply dismissing out of hand and deepening the wedge?



> We might all want to reconsider use of absolutes like this, and whether they really serve our cases and causes well.



Your comment seems much more "absolute" in that he was expressing his own subjective view and you were rejecting other people's views across the board.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jun 23, 2011)

> We might all want to reconsider use of absolutes like this, and whether they really serve our cases and causes well.




Since I seem to be the cause of this particular furor...

Though it should go without saying, I'll make it clear (I thought I had in my post; I did apply "IMHO" to quite a few of the statements), that everything in my post is all my opionion.

I didn't (and don't) intend to make this an "Edition Wars" thread, or to say my opinion is more valid than anyone elses.

That said, I do play 4E, and have played all the previous editions (including Pathfinder), and to my mind, 4E is the widest depature from the points that Mearls himself made. And THAT is the point I was trying (apparently unsucessfully?) to get across.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> My system considers, as does D&D, damage in two types:  hit point damage and special effects.  Special effects occur when hit points are inappropriate ("I throw sand in his eyes"), but without hit points, an all special effect system falls down under its own weight.



Can you explain why you think ordinary attacks and wounds should be handled with hit points instead of "special effects"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> Can you explain why you think ordinary attacks and wounds should be handled with hit points instead of "special effects"?




Probably not well enough!  

The flippant side of me wants to say "decades of experience".  As I said in the bit you quoted, "all special effect system falls down under its own weight".

For genre simulation, it is desireable that Conan not be evicerated by just any successful attack.....certainly this is not what REH describes.  Despite statements to the contrary in this thread, Howard does describe Conan as having suffered minor injuries, on multiple occasions.

You could, I suppose, have a game that says "On each successful hit, roll on the Hit Results table, and apply to the character", but unless there was a seperate chart for each creature form (biped humanoid, quadruped, centaurian, biped nonhumanoid, ooze, two-headed biped, three-headed biped, three-headed winged quadruped, etc.) the system would offer as many (or more) WTF moments as a pure hp system (without special effects), would be more cumbersome to use, and would offer what in way of amelioration for those deficiencies?

You could offer a system where each player chooses specific tactics against a matrix that determines result, with the same problems, as well as (probably) a far slower combat resolution.

You could offer a system where choice of tactic instead causes a penalty to the attack roll, and causes the special effect when successful....but then why would one not choose "Kill my opponent" (or the closest thing thereunto) every time?  Even if the PCs did not so choose, because the odds were against them in succeeding, the GM rolls far more attacks than the players.  There is a reason why my Get the Drop allows you to have a chance to make a more deadly attack, but still targets hit points.

PCs in "special effects" rich games are well advised to avoid combat, unless (as in 4e) the "special effects" themselves are on a diet (i.e., paralysis "lite")....in which case you still need another mechanic to resolve the combat.

In short, while I cannot rule out the possibility of a great non-hit point combat system, I have yet to see one that works as well.  To paraphrase another poster from upthread (and, yes, I am too lazy to check who it was), hit points are the worst system there is....except all the other ones.  

But, for my money, "hit points + special effects" is gold.  And, not surprisingly, that has been the standard for rpgs since Gary and Dave put pen to paper.


RC


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The flippant side of me wants to say "decades of experience".  As I said in the bit you quoted, "all special effect system falls down under its own weight".




I'd concur with this.

Pure status based systems tend to bog down in mind numbing complexity, particularly since they are driven by the desire to achieve 'greater realism' and typically keep finding themselves not meeting this goal in practice - which the designers typically try to address with even greater complexity.

Essentially, each wound becomes a debuff.  Buffing and debuffing is the single most complex and frustrating thing about the D&D play experience, and you would have a system were every single hit led to a debuff.

So you have the same problems with resolving buff stacking as D&D has in spades.  For example:

1) Suppose you take a minor wound to the leg, hense -1 Dex or maybe -5 to movement rate.  Now, should or should not a minor wound to the arm stack with this?  What about a second minor wound to the leg?  What about a third?  A tenth?  You end up with essentially tons of named bonuses which must be compared with each other.
2) How many minor wounds does it take before you escalate to a moderate wound?  If the answer is non zero, then you can be scratched to death by the most trivial of causes.  If the answer is zero, then you can be a mass of hundreds of cuts and bruises and still be no more wounded than the guy who has only one scratch.  
3) How do you deal with the anticlimatic death spiral, where each wound tends to make it increasingly unlikely that the fight isn't going to be completely one sided?  Aren't you in fact going to make magical healing even more important if you want a fast paced game??  

And what is combat like when everyone is walking around with 12 debuffs that they have to add to their calculations?  And if not 12 debuffs because wounds are rare, how do you deal with the fact that the player feels like he has no control over the fate of his character because he's always one unlucky roll from death.

Quite often you add lots of extra complexity to no net purpose.  Maybe you could get a computer to handle it, but I notice all or virtually all computer games use hit points rather than any of the more complex systems that sometimes show up in PnP.

I've had the same adding complexity to no effect problem with implementing called shots in my game.  It seems like there are circumstances where this would make sense that you could target a specific thing, but what you find is that its very hard to deal with two issues.  The first is that it's very hard to have a system where called shots are a reasonable option, and not yet an obviously better tactic than not making a called shot.   Typically, called shots will either be so inefficient of a tactic that they are never or almost never worth it (in which case the extra complexity probably isn't worth it), or else they are used in every attack and the net effect is exactly the same as if you reduced every ones AC and/or hit points by some amount.   The second problem with called shots is that you now have the additional complexity of dealing with what a 'miss' means.  If I call a shot on the elephants head, I could have missed it, or I could have hit another part of the body.  Without some way of tracking how I missed, I have no way of knowing.   Unless you want to implement the complexities of something like 'Aces and Eights', the system probably won't actually feel more realistic.

You could offer a system where each player chooses specific tactics against a matrix that determines result, with the same problems, as well as (probably) a far slower combat resolution.



> You could offer a system where choice of tactic instead causes a penalty to the attack roll, and causes the special effect when successful....but then why would one not choose "Kill my opponent" (or the closest thing thereunto) every time?




Answer: Because 'render my opponent helpless' is such a comparitively easy option in the system that I should chose that tactic every time.  For example, if the system makes crippling an opponent so that they can't move very easy, then the default tactic will be cutting the legs out from under the foe and then finishing them off at range.  Or if the system makes cutting off the opponent's hands so that they can't attack too easy, then the right tactic is always doing that first and then finishing them off at your leisure.



> In short, while I cannot rule out the possibility of a great non-hit point combat system, I have yet to see one that works as well.




The only alternative to hit points I've seen work well is a damage track where each wound produces the same abstract consequence.   That in my experience tends to work well for games that lie to either side of D&D's sweet spot - either grimmer and grittier or else more cartoonish.   But on the whole, I find that hit points are indeed the worst system ever except for every alternative.   Back in my naive days when I had only limited experience of systems other than D&D, I used to blast D&D's lack of 'realism' as well.  

Not so much after 25 years of gaming.


----------



## rounser (Jun 23, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Or "disassociated" which doesn't mean what its adherents seem to want it to.



Let's try and map these abstract terms to real world concepts then.

Hit points: An ability to withstand wounds or blows through physical factors, experience or luck.  An elephant will have more of these than a mouse.  An SAS officer will have more than a pastry chef.

Armor class: A combination of physical protection and nimbleness to avoid physical blows.  A nimble person wearing armor will have a better armor class than a flatfooted person in a t-shirt and jeans.

Healing surges: A second wind in battle, like those that a marathon runner gets, or having wounds heal because you're being given a pep talk.  Only now we're really stretching it and things are getting difficult to visualise and map to recognizable phenomena.

The third one, for me, is a bridge too far.


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 23, 2011)

francisca said:


> Here is the list:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe Mearls had an "axe to grind."


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 23, 2011)

rounser said:


> Let's try and map these abstract terms to real world concepts then.
> 
> Hit points: An ability to withstand wounds or blows through physical factors, experience or luck.  An elephant will have more of these than a mouse.  An SAS officer will have more than a pastry chef.




A high level human will of course have more hit points than an elephant, which since human beings are widely regarded as not being quite as hard to kill as elephants might be a bridge too far for people who aren't you.



> Armor class: A combination of physical protection and nimbleness to avoid physical blows.  A nimble person wearing armor will have a better armor class than a flatfooted person in a t-shirt and jeans.




If the purpose of wearing armour is to make it harder to hit you, the idea that it needs to be 'proofed' to show how tough it is a slightly hard one to fathom. I know, 'hit' doesn't actually mean 'hit'. 



> Healing surges: A second wind in battle, like those that a marathon runner gets, or having wounds heal because you're being given a pep talk.  Only now we're really stretching it and things are getting difficult to visualise and map to recognizable phenomena.
> 
> The third one, for me, is a bridge too far.




Some people turn out, in real life, to be able to carry on fighting despite receiving injuries that subsequently kill them. Or get knocked unconscious by injuries, and recover on their own. Or get up an carry on moving despite being badly injured. 

I don't think any one aspect of hit points is particularly more realistic or less realistic than any other. They're a measurement of how hard it is to put someone out of this fight, nothing more, and that's at least as much to do with determination and morale as physical injury. Adrenaline does strange things to a body.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I don't think any one aspect of hit points is particularly more realistic or less realistic than any other. They're a measurement of how hard it is to put someone out of this fight, nothing more, and that's at least as much to do with determination and morale as physical injury. Adrenaline does strange things to a body.




It would be an interesting hybrid hit point model for adrenaline to have hit points that accumulated over the course of the fight.  In Basic D&D, you might get one hit die per round.  Higher level guys aren't any harder to take out by surprise (well, better protected with armor and magic, but no more hit points than their lower-level counterparts).  Higher level guys just keep adding hit points over the course of the fight, and thus can last longer.  

Rolling it would be really interesting, though a royal pain to manage for monsters.  You've basically got a trade off of trying to take something down before it gets really steamed versus pacing your own moxie.  

In a lot of ways, it would be replacing regular hit points with 3E or 4E temporary hit points.  They all go away at the end of the fight anyway.  So healing isn't an issue. You just need healing to handle actual wounds.  That would have to be a separate track, either conditions or basing a bare minimum of actual "hits" off of Con, size, or such.


----------



## rounser (Jun 23, 2011)

> I don't think any one aspect of hit points is particularly more realistic or less realistic than any other. They're a measurement of how hard it is to put someone out of this fight, nothing more, and that's at least as much to do with determination and morale as physical injury. Adrenaline does strange things to a body.



It's still too difficult to conceptualise as an everyday, every-combat event.  We talk about mothers lifting cars off of their babies because it's an exceptional event.  

Healing surges and warlords make a formerly passable abstraction (hit points) which mapped to natural healing and magical healing, quite Ripley's Believe It Or Not because they've been abstracted further into the realms of the ridiculous by regaining them through being yelled at, schroedinger's damage, and other arbitrariness simply because they're a game design convenience.

In any case, I suspect the opinions in this thread are a waste of time.  Mearls' post has the air of justifying or warming people up to the idea of something already decided, like the notorious "cloud gazing" blog entry preceding 4E.  I find no sign in his words that much of what has driven people away from 4E is going to change.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 23, 2011)

Quick question - what _is _Mike Mearls doing these days? 

Do any of you seriously think that writing these half dignified forum posts on DDI _exhausts _his work output right now?

And what, for that matter, is the rest of the creative R&D 'full salary' staff at WotC D&D doing right now? Slavicsek, Cordell, Wyatt, Baker, Perkins, and co.?

By contrast, look at the author credits to the last two D&D products - _Gloomwrought _and _Threats to the Nentir Vale_. What do they have in common? Ah yes, that they are solely authored by _freelancers_, with no observable input from those 'full salaried' staff members.

Why, that so does _not _remind me of the roll out of D&D 3.5. If we're lucky, 'edition neutral' products like _Dungeon Survival Guide _will be round the corner any moment now. 

The 'happy tent to accomodate all edition' vibe in Mearls' last L&L articles certainly seem to warm up to the mood.

PS:



amerigoV said:


> but the person paying a ton of dough for one of  the [editions] is generally happy through the cycle until they get to the end [of that edition] -  usually when the Book of Artifacts and very experimental PC crunch books  roll into town.




I see what you did there. We've also hit MM IV time.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 24, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> Quick question - what _is _Mike Mearls doing these days?
> 
> Do any of you seriously think that writing these half dignified forum posts on DDI _exhausts _his work output right now?
> 
> And what, for that matter, is the rest of the creative R&D 'full salary' staff at WotC D&D doing right now? Slavicsek, Cordell, Wyatt, Baker, Perkins, and co.?





Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Until We Meet Again)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 24, 2011)

It would not be the worst thing to have a new edition soon.

As much as I like 4th edition. There are certain things I would rather have different. Something essentials could not do. Period!

(And in my opinion 4e was a courageous step forward... no failed experiment. 5e really could be the best edition of all times.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 24, 2011)

I think that is a pretty good list of D&D *mechanics*. 

I think the core of D&D goes well beyond those mechanics, into narrative and story elements, into playstyle elements, into nostalgia, into lots of other regions.

But that list is not a bad starting list for something I would consider essential to the D&D _ruleset_.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You could, I suppose, have a game that says "On each successful hit, roll on the Hit Results table, and apply to the character", but unless there was a seperate chart for each creature form (biped humanoid, quadruped, centaurian, biped nonhumanoid, ooze, two-headed biped, three-headed biped, three-headed winged quadruped, etc.) the system would offer as many (or more) WTF moments as a pure hp system (without special effects), would be more cumbersome to use, and would offer what in way of amelioration for those deficiencies?




Sigh.

As someone who uses a d% Hit Chart for combat, I'd have to strongly disagree with you here. But that's because my solution was simple, even amongst humanoids: if the chart roll doesn't apply, then it deals purely "hit point damage."

If you roll on the Hit Chart, and get "Movement Appendage damaged" and you're theoretically fighting an ooze, then you shrug and say "no effect besides damage" and move on. If you're fighting a human who's had his legs chopped off already, it's the same thing. The resolution is so simple it must be staggering.

Is the Hit Chart more cumbersome? Yes. It's not really that cumbersome, but if you add anything without offsetting it in some way, then I imagine it's more cumbersome. And as the Hit Chart is only necessary if you do real hit point damage (as I've said, I use two types of damage), then it's not necessary every hit. It's only necessary once you start to actually physically harm enemies.

So, the system I use only comes into play less than half the time, and presents no "WTF" moments that you seem to think are mandatory with an incredibly simple rule of "if it doesn't apply, then it doesn't apply."

At any rate, your description (and Celebrim's input) strike me as remarkably off in this area, as it goes against my personal experience (and I really don't want to get into a long debate on this when I know that you and Celebrim probably won't budge on it). That's not to say that your experiences are wrong; far from it, in fact. Our mileage has, very simply, varied.

My players and I have greatly enjoyed the use of such a horrible mechanic as a "Hit Chart" even if you haven't. And that's fine. Because, as always, play what you like


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jun 24, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Until We Meet Again)




I was going to post that link, too.  I don't think Mearl's post is all that theoretical any more.  I think it's very much a prelude to a new edition, or at least a *major* 4e shakeup.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> For genre simulation, it is desireable that Conan not be evicerated by just any successful attack.....certainly this is not what REH describes.  Despite statements to the contrary in this thread, Howard does describe Conan as having suffered minor injuries, on multiple occasions.



We agree that Conan should not be killed outright by any random attack.  As a protagonist (PC) he should have plot-protection points.

I don't recall anyone claiming that Conan never suffers flesh wounds.


Raven Crowking said:


> You could, I suppose, have a game that says "On each successful hit, roll on the Hit Results table, and apply to the character"...
> 
> You could offer a system where each player chooses specific tactics against a matrix that determines result...
> 
> ...





Celebrim said:


> Pure status based systems tend to bog down in mind numbing complexity, particularly since they are driven by the desire to achieve 'greater realism' and typically keep finding themselves not meeting this goal in practice - which the designers typically try to address with even greater complexity.



You two seem to be assuming that the only alternative to D&D's simple, abstract, hit-point system is a complex, detailed, non-hit-point system.  How about a simple, abstract, non-hit-point system?  (Or, rather, a simple, abstract, hit-points-optional system?)

For instance, in 3E, characters are either _able_ (they have hit points) or _disabled_ (they don't).  We don't need to track hit points for that though.    We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.

When we look at what _disabled_ means -- single actions only, move at half-speed -- we can easily come up with a short list of equally bad alternatives -- _not_ disabled, but _dying_; crippled arm, can move but can't attack; crippled leg, can't move but can attack; unconscious; etc. -- which the DM can choose from or roll against.

Plot-protection points would be available to modify to-hit rolls or to-hurt rolls.


----------



## GameDaddy (Jun 24, 2011)

Looking over the Mearls article, the only thing I would note is the way we handled initiative back in the day, in our local group, using 0D&D.

Highest Dex, starting with 18 got to act each first round... then 17's went, then 16's and so forth. In case of a tie there was a d20 roll off... With Winner getting to act first. If a tie occurred during the rolloff, the actions happened simultaneously, and both attacks/actions were effective.

GM would assign the Dex for NPC and Monsters.

On their initiative count spellcasters could _begin _casting their spell, with the spell only going off, after the designated casting time had expired... Unless otherwise noted in the spell description, it took 1 combat round/Lvl to cast a spell, so a first level spellcaster would begin a spell and then one round later the spell would go off, 2nd, two rounds ...third levels spells would go off after three rounds, and so forth.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> For instance, in 3E, characters are either _able_ (they have hit points) or _disabled_ (they don't).  We don't need to track hit points for that though.    We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.




So you've come up with a very simple wound track (with two states in this case).  I believe I mentioned that as a viable alternative.  See WEG Star Wars, WW's WoD, or M&M.  I'm familiar with the concept.



> When we look at what _disabled_ means -- single actions only, move at half-speed -- we can easily come up with a short list of equally bad alternatives -- _not_ disabled, but _dying_; crippled arm, can move but can't attack; crippled leg, can't move but can attack; unconscious; etc. -- which the DM can choose from or roll against.




And that way lies madness.  Because now rather than tracking a single state on a progressive wound track, we are tracking a potentially long list increasingly complicated and potentially overlapping problems - crippled arm + can't move but can attack for example.  So for example, how much weight can I lift in this condition, for example if I need to hold on to a rope to prevent my friend from sliding into a deep pit?  So long as you stop and say 'ok, that's enough, I'll handle most of this by fiat', you might retain your sanity.  But your simple list has lots of holes in its realism - just as the obvious example that it doesn't seem possible to carry a simple minor wound except as flavor text.  Start plugging those holes and the system quickly becomes very complex.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> magic items have lost their sense of wonder in 4E, being essentially an extended version of a players powers



I don't think that swords +1 had a lot of wonder in classic D&D either.



ShadowDenizen said:


> Except saving throws are rendered virtually meaningless in 4E, relegated to a simple die roll to avoid ongoing damage.



Saving throws in 4e apply to a lot of things besides ongoing damage - including dying. And in my experience, they are not meaningless.

Which is not to say that they are the same as saving throws in Basic or AD&D. With the odd exception (like 3.5 Hold spells, or the classic Charm Person) I think saving throw based durations are a new thing with 4e.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jun 24, 2011)

I'm amused that he includes mechanics that don't show up in D&D until 25+ years after it was first published as "core". I'm also amused that the list includes mechanics which aren't present in 4E.

Which means, if you take that list at face value, Mearls and the WotC designers believe that 3E is the only version of D&D which feels like you're playing D&D.

(I know Mearls says exactly the opposite of that. But apparently he didn't read his own list.)


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

rounser said:


> Healing surges and warlords make a formerly passable abstraction (hit points) which mapped to natural healing and magical healing, quite Ripley's Believe It Or Not because they've been abstracted further into the realms of the ridiculous by regaining them through being yelled at, schroedinger's damage, and other arbitrariness simply because they're a game design convenience.




Except for a lot of people they weren't a passable abstraction. You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant. Why? And, if you start explaining that they are good at avoiding most of the damage from a blow, how come these injuries require more time/megical healing to restore them? Either the injuries are severe and require healing, or they're minor and they require more.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Except for a lot of people they weren't a passable abstraction. You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant. Why? And, if you start explaining that they are good at avoiding most of the damage from a blow, how come these injuries require more time/megical healing to restore them? Either the injuries are severe and require healing, or they're minor and they require more.



It's an implied body point-fatigue point system all rolled up into one.

The elephant has lots of body points and maybe a very few fatigues.

The common human has a few body points and maybe a few fatigues.

The high-level adventuring human has a few body points and loads of fatigues.

And fatigue points are - or should be - easier to recover than body points.

But the system as written doesn't look at any of it that closely.  It just lumps 'em all into "hit points" and moves on, leaving us to figure out the narrative and-or reality behind it should we want to be so bothered.

Lanefan


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> It's an implied body point-fatigue point system all rolled up into one.
> 
> The elephant has lots of body points and maybe a very few fatigues.
> 
> ...




I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.


----------



## rounser (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.



Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing.  4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that swords +1 had a lot of wonder in classic D&D either.




They actually did. Even as late as second edition, due to magical items not being guaranteed, finding even a +1 dagger or a quiver with a dozen +1 arrows was a semi-major event.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

rounser said:


> Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing. 4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.




And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.




Such as surviving atmospheric reentry naked.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> They actually did. Even as late as second edition, due to magical items not being guaranteed, finding even a +1 dagger or a quiver with a dozen +1 arrows was a semi-major event.



Not in my games. For an AD&D fighter, a dagger +1 is useful only for fighting shadows, gargoyles and the like - it has worse damage than a longsword, and also in a game that uses weapon vs armour adjustments, it's has worse to-hit numbers in many cases.

And in any event the treasure type tables in the MM or Basic/Expert guaranteed a reasonable number of items across a reasonable range of weapons, scrolls, potions, miscellaneous etc, and the magic item tables in the DMG delivered a reasonable supply of +1 arrows and +1 swords. (Although in 1st ed AD&D there weren't any +1 daggers, only +1, +2 vs size S. They _were_ in Basic, and were introduced into AD&D on the expanded tables in UA.) And the NPC party tables in Appendix C also guaranteed a good supply of items.

Finding a less common item like a flametongue or a dwarven thrower was a semi-major event, or even a major one, although many of the published modules supplied these things fairly reliably.

Things may have been different for those who didn't use those tables in their games.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Things may have been different for those who didn't use those tables in their games.



That is a key point right there.

It was easy for magic items to become very ho-hum in prior editions of D&D.  But in the end it was 100% up to how the DM ran the game.
Yes, the DEFAULT was ho-hum.

The "math works" of 4E changes things.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

And the edition war is on...

Well, at least the thread had a pretty good run.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> As someone who uses a d% Hit Chart for combat, I'd have to strongly disagree with you here. But that's because my solution was simple, even amongst humanoids: if the chart roll doesn't apply, then it deals purely "hit point damage."




Please note the context.  It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work.  I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use *without a hit point component*.  

I am arguing that

Hit points + Special Effects works admirably.

Hit points alone work.

Special Effects alone are dismal.​
So, rather than saying "Our mileage has, very simply, varied", say perhaps that "Raven Crowking has, very simply, failed to communicate to me adequately."

Again, my main argument, stated another way:

Hit points systems beat beans over any system without hit points (or analogue thereunto).

Hit points + special effects beats beans over hit points alone.​


mmadsen said:


> I don't recall anyone claiming that Conan never suffers flesh wounds.




I seem to recall a claim that nothing happens in the stories that could be best described by hit point attrition.  In fact, Conan frequently suffers minor wounds that do not slow him down -- exactly what hit points model.  

I could go back upthread and find the original quote, if needed.  Or we could simply discuss the important bit:  Hit points do model what happens in a REH extremely well.



> How about a simple, abstract, non-hit-point system?  (Or, rather, a simple, abstract, hit-points-optional system?)
> 
> For instance, in 3E, characters are either _able_ (they have hit points) or _disabled_ (they don't).  We don't need to track hit points for that though.    We just need the usual roll to-hit followed by a (new) roll to-hurt -- with success disabling the target.




I'm going to direct you to a link, which you may read or may not, but it contains a lot of my own blather which is important in understanding my response.

Raven Crowking's Nest: C is for Choices, Context, and Consequence (Part I)

If all you are interested in is a "fantasy novel" type game, where either (1) the GM determines the plot or (2) the players take a large part of the GM role while playing, then I will grant that such a system can work.  However, I would still deem it inferior to hit points.

Moreover, if you are interested in a "fantasy world" type game, where the GM prepares the game setting, and the player choices drive the action in the game, then you have removed a portion of decision making from the PCs.  

The hit point mechanic allows the players to determine what physical shape the characters are in, and allows them to role-play and make decisions accordingly.  Removing that mechanic prevents the players from making decisions related to just how injured they are.  Rather than have a textured state, rich in context, you have a binary state, with context stripped away.

Now, the logical response is that you can have a track that measures penalties or bonuses to that "roll to hurt" based on how injured it already is.  But, then, that measure is really just hit points by another name.



Bluenose said:


> And in previous editions of D&D, humans beings were capable of surviving physical damage that would kill an elephant without it affecting their ability to act at all. Which affects some people's suspension of disbelief just as much.




Are we referring to 3e's immersion in lava rules here?  Because, certainly, in 1e the DM is empowered to just say, "The stone block crushes you.  You die." or "You fall in lava.  You die."

In combat, the hit point mechanic is not intended to be taken as 1 hp = 1 hp.  The amount of damage taken by an actual hit is determined by comparing damage dealt to effect.  If a 100 hp fighter and a 6 hp fighter both take 10 hp damage, the 6 hp fighter may be run through, while the 100 hp fighter has simply dodged to one side....perhaps taking the slightest of nicks from the blade as it glides past his ear.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> You see, when a human being has more hit points than an elephant, that human being is presumably harder to kill than an elephant.






Bluenose said:


> I'm aware of the rationalisations, which have been around since 1st edition. But if someone is going to complain about "talking wounds closed" then they presumably have a responsibility to accept that all hit point loss is represented by actual physical wounds rather than fatigue.




I know that this road has been walked down many times before, but....

The first quoted bit is obviously true (assuming no major difference in AC, anyway, of that saving throws don't come into play).

However, the second quoted bit assumes that any 1 hp damage is equat to any other 1 hp damage.

If I was to fight a prizefighter who was injured, even in the slightest, it would make no difference to me that he was injured.  He would clean my clock.  The prizefighter, however, would be aware that he was a little off from the injury, even if I couldn't see it.

If I had the same injury, I may well still be at my "full potential" in the same fight, because my full potential is so much less than that of the prize fighter.

Pricking your finger with a needle causes less than 1 hp damage; it is possible to have injuries below that threshold.  Full hit points =/= that there are no cuts, scrapes, or scabs anywhere on your body.  Full hit points means that you are at your best potential for avoiding/taking additional damage.

My best potential sucks.  The prizefighter's best potential is much higher.  Things that don't throw me off my best potential might reduce his.  Not because I am better than him, but because I am so much worse.  Even reduced, his best potential is much better than I am.

To get down to my best potential, he has to suffer some serious injuries, ones that will take a long time to heal.  Meanwhile, to reduce my potential, all I need is a sharp cuff to the head that'll be better by tomorrow.



pemerton said:


> And in any event the treasure type tables in the MM or Basic/Expert guaranteed a reasonable number of items across a reasonable range of weapons, scrolls, potions, miscellaneous etc, and the magic item tables in the DMG delivered a reasonable supply of +1 arrows and +1 swords.




Those tables guarantee _*placement*_.  They do not guarantee *acquisition*.  There can be a world of difference between the two.


RC


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Are we referring to 3e's immersion in lava rules here?  Because, certainly, in 1e the DM is empowered to just say, "The stone block crushes you.  You die." or "You fall in lava.  You die."
> 
> In combat, the hit point mechanic is not intended to be taken as 1 hp = 1 hp.  The amount of damage taken by an actual hit is determined by comparing damage dealt to effect.  If a 100 hp fighter and a 6 hp fighter both take 10 hp damage, the 6 hp fighter may be run through, while the 100 hp fighter has simply dodged to one side....perhaps taking the slightest of nicks from the blade as it glides past his ear.
> 
> ...




This is fine. 

Of course, then you'e got someone being brought back from the brink of death - the 6hp fighter who was run through - requiring the use of perhaps a couple of castings of _Cure Light Wounds_. If the other Fighter is restored to full health, from the blow that just nicked him, he requires the same amount of healing. The same amount of healing suffices to heal someone who has just been nicked or someone who had been run through and is near death. That's perhaps not so fine, from a logical point of view.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> This is fine.
> 
> Of course, then you'e got someone being brought back from the brink of death - the 6hp fighter who was run through - requiring the use of perhaps a couple of castings of _Cure Light Wounds_. If the other Fighter is restored to full health, from the blow that just nicked him, he requires the same amount of healing. The same amount of healing suffices to heal someone who has just been nicked or someone who had been run through and is near death. That's perhaps not so fine, from a logical point of view.




It's only "the same amount of healing" if you imagine any 1 hp = any other 1 hp, which is not the case.  Rather, the spell provides a variable amount of healing based on circumstance.

Our nicked 100 hp fighter doesn't really "need" healing.  The spell could, presumably, do more for him, but he has nothing more that needs doing.  Our 6 hp fighter is actually at death's door, and, if we follow the rules in the 1e DMG, he doesn't spring up hale and hearty after being healed -- he needs bed rest, and can only move along slowly in order to reach a place where he can get it.

So, no, the rules (in one edition, at least) have taken this into account.


RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 24, 2011)

I disagree Raven.

If you look at healing from rest versus clerical healing, I don't think that explanation flies.

I also don't fully "get" your example there.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2011)

Just thought I'd toss this in...


Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.
“Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.
Neither of these effectively exist in 4e anymore, except for the 50/50 Save vs. effect and Dailies.


----------



## Teataine (Jun 24, 2011)

rounser said:


> Except that all D&D before 4E never suggested such nonsense, because all ways to heal were magical or natural healing.  4E is the only game that walks off the suspension of disbelief cliff by implying (with it's own jargon no less) that wounds are closing due to slick oratory.




_"More 'realistic' combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure."_
p.9
_"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage."_
p.61
_"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain!"_
p.82
-Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG

PC hit points never were the same as physical damage, but luck, morale, arcane and divine protection, combat skill, sixth sense etc. D&D is an extremely abstract game when it comes to combat. It doesn't simulate actual melee any better than it simulates naval warfare. Hit points are a game mechanic, an abstraction, a pacing mechanism. 

So I don't see where the "wounds closing due to oratory" bit is coming from, since those lost HP don't represent wounds in the first place.

I don't even play 4E by the way, it's just that I find this argument rather moot. If you want swords that deal wounds instead of meta point loss there's still Runequest for example. 

In fact I'd posit the opposite than you: that "such nonsense" was always inherent in the D&D combat system and that it was an oversight on part of early D&D to have omitted methods of HP recovery other than "wound closing".


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> So you've come up with a very simple wound track (with two states in this case).



I don't know why you'd call a system where combatants are either _up_ or _down_ a wound-tracking system.  There's less to track than in a hit-point system.


Celebrim said:


> And that way lies madness.  Because now rather than tracking a single state on a progressive wound track, we are tracking a potentially long list increasingly complicated and potentially overlapping problems - crippled arm + can't move but can attack for example.



The proposed flavors of _disabled_ aren't progressive, because you're not supposed to accumulate more than one crippling injury.  Once the evil high priest of the dark gods cuts off your sword hand with his own flaming sword, you're supposed to take your chances falling off the cliff to someplace safer.

Also, perhaps the semi-colons weren't clear, but there were only a few simple _disabled_ variants proposed:

Generic _disabled_ - as in 3E, can either attack or half-move
Arm _disabled_ - can't attack, can move
Leg _disabled_ - can attack, can't move
_Dying_ - but not _disabled_
_Unconscious_ - but fine later
If you find that list far too complicated, you can stick to generic _disabled_.  If you find that list interesting, but you're attached to hit points, then you can use the _disabled_ variants at 0 hp in your regular game.


Celebrim said:


> So for example, how much weight can I lift in this condition, for example if I need to hold on to a rope to prevent my friend from sliding into a deep pit?



How much weight can you lift while _disabled_ in 3E?  Why is the alternative supposed to be more detailed and more complicated?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That is a key point right there.
> 
> It was easy for magic items to become very ho-hum in prior editions of D&D.  But in the end it was 100% up to how the DM ran the game.
> Yes, the DEFAULT was ho-hum.
> ...



I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that all magic items in AD&D were ho-hum. A flametongue wasn't, for example, and clearly is a more interesting item than 4e's flaming weapon.

There are various factors that explain this - for example, besides its inherent variability vs various sorts of opponents (+3 vs trolls, +4 vs undead, and I think +2 vs birds), a flametongue is interesting because it gives the PC a schtick that s/he didn't have before. Whereas 4e PCs get their schticks from other build elements, and items are ancilliary to that.

I personally don't think the "maths" is as big a difference as you suggest. AD&D had its maths too. If PCs don't have +1 weapons, then a good chunk of the Monster Manual isn't going to see as much use as it otherwise might. (Although the maths progression is not as steep. From memory, only Fenris Wolf requires a +4 or better weapon, and I think the gargantua from Oriental Adventures may require +5s. And demi-liches, of course.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Those tables guarantee _*placement*_.  They do not guarantee *acquisition*.  There can be a world of difference between the two.



But often there isn't. For example if, as per the advice to GM's in both AD&D and Basic, the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is _using_ the sword+1/wand of magic missiles/whatever, then when the PCs win the fight they may not have much trouble acquiring the loot. (In AD&D, the magic blades will even be evident by the light they shed.)

I've got no objection to the claim that 4e magic items play very differently from AD&D items in all sorts of ways.

But I've played a lot of Basic D&D and AD&D. And in my experience, finding a +1 sword was not, in general, a semi-major event. The first one for a campaign may have given a bit of a thrill, but then that's also true in 4e - my players were excited to get their +1 enhancement bonuses.

Others may have had players who were more easily thrilled in classic D&D, and/or more jaded in AD&D. But I know what my experiences were, and continue to be.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> But hold hard, friend.  What if it is neither drastic, nor an overstatement, to the speaker?




Then, "It seems to me..." would have been appropriate.  I know lots of folks feel that should be implied, and taken as implied, but it generally isn't, and we would do well to recognize that.



> but I think that it is statements that try to restrict expression that actually tend to polarize the discussion.




Okay, I think you misunderstand me.  This isn't about what you can or cannot feel - this is about the practical matters of communicating to other human beings.

Every communication has an intent, and an expected audience.  In phrasing a communication, you should keep those things in mind, and consider if what you are writing (and where, and when) is likely to have the results you want.  I don't claim to know all the specific desired intents around here - but a great many of what seem to be the most common ones are demonstrably not served well by stating strong opinions as absolutes on an internet forum dedicated to discussion.

This doesn't mean you can't feel a certain way, or even that you can't express yourself.  But, the Spider-Man Rule applies: with power comes responsibility.  With the right of self expression comes the burden of doing so with care.

For example: we have blogs here on EN World, and I think they are woefully underused.  Blogs and discussion forums have different designs, and different assumptions, and are good for different things.  Blogs are, in general, better for just expressing your feelings than discussion board posts.  I think if folks turned to the blogs for a lot of material that's often put on the discussion boards, those sections of the site could come alive in a really cool way that works in synergy with the discussion boards.



> It is easier to prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed than it is to then reign in the backlash against those opinions once expressed.




Thing is, I'm not actually about keeping people from expressing unpopular opinions.  I'm about helping folks find better ways of expressing their opinions, popular or otherwise.


----------



## erleni (Jun 24, 2011)

I found interesting the system used by the Kult RPG.
You have several types of wounds (but no location), minor wounds, major wounds, mortal wounds (don't remember all the categories by heart).
A certain number of wound of a lesser degree will equal a wound of higher degree and this depends on the creature being hurt. An elephant will require a lot of minor wounds to get the equal of a major wound while a human will need less. Anyway a straight mortal wound to the elephant (say a rifle-shot through its eye) will still kill it.
Some supernatural beings may have to be killed by inflicting more than one mortal wound (they can  really stand a lot of punishment).
Whenever you get to a certain wounded status you will get some penalties.

Each different attack may be able to inflict a different type of wounds. So a cat scratching you will inflict a minor wound, a normal sword attack may inflict a major wound (or more than one) and an assassin slitting your throat will inflict a mortal wound (these are just my ideas for a D&D application not actual examples from Kult).

This way you still have something like hit points (as lesser wounds accumulates and can kill a creature if enough), you have different levels with penalties (4ed introduced something similar with the bloodied condition that doesn't inflict penalties but has mechanical effects), but can still simulate deadly attacks (by inflicting higher level wounds straight away).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I disagree Raven.
> 
> If you look at healing from rest versus clerical healing, I don't think that explanation flies.
> 
> I also don't fully "get" your example there.




So, you don't fully get the argument (which is the only reason you would not "get" the example AFAICT), but you disagree with the conclusion?

Okay.

Suffice it to say that, with the hit point system as written, my "full hit points" can be less healthy than the prizefighters' "10 hit points remaining".



pemerton said:


> But often there isn't. For example if, as per the advice to GM's in both AD&D and Basic, the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is _using_ the sword+1/wand of magic missiles/whatever, then when the PCs win the fight they may not have much trouble acquiring the loot. (In AD&D, the magic blades will even be evident by the light they shed.)




Well, obviously they won't be able to acquire the potions, scrolls, and wand charges used.  And, if they do not pay attention, they may not acquire the command words necessary to using some items anyway.  There is also a chance that the NPC/orc chieftain/whatever is using a cursed blade.  Or a blade with an ego that had other ideas about what you should be doing.

Using the tables results both in potential magic, and potential problems.

But, if it helps, I agree that making every magic sword/dagger glow wasn't a good idea....I houseruled that away, myself.  Making magic items easy to locate and identify would, indeed, result in more magic items.

The tables alone, however, do not guarantee this.



Umbran said:


> Thing is, I'm not actually about keeping people from expressing unpopular opinions.  I'm about helping folks find better ways of expressing their opinions, popular or otherwise.




Then I am sure that you can see how your post might have been perceived otherwise, and appreciate my attempts to help you express better what you were hoping to get across.



RC


----------



## BryonD (Jun 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that all magic items in AD&D were ho-hum. A flametongue wasn't, for example, and clearly is a more interesting item than 4e's flaming weapon.
> 
> There are various factors that explain this - for example, besides its inherent variability vs various sorts of opponents (+3 vs trolls, +4 vs undead, and I think +2 vs birds), a flametongue is interesting because it gives the PC a schtick that s/he didn't have before. Whereas 4e PCs get their schticks from other build elements, and items are ancilliary to that.



None of that ever seemed to be the point.  Of course specifics could, and did, make huge differences.  Wasn't that part of my point?  But, really this is just a tangent anyway.



> I personally don't think the "maths" is as big a difference as you suggest. AD&D had its maths too.



Of course it "had" maths.  But a HUGE selling point for 4E was "the math works".  Ever system has had tons of math.  Only one system put "the math works" as a key tenet of both the fundamental design and also the initial marketing campaign.  The devil is in the details and there is a really big devil here.



> But I've played a lot of Basic D&D and AD&D. And in my experience, finding a +1 sword was not, in general, a semi-major event. The first one for a campaign may have given a bit of a thrill, but then that's also true in 4e - my players were excited to get their +1 enhancement bonuses.
> 
> Others may have had players who were more easily thrilled in classic D&D, and/or more jaded in AD&D.



Agreed, but that does nothing to change the point.



> But I know what my experiences were, and continue to be.



I don't doubt it.  As I have said before, I believe all prior editions did a much better job of supporting a huge range of play styles.  I find 4E to be the most narrow in what works with the grain of the system so to speak.  People who love 4E have, by and large, probably always loved that generally approach.  And for them prior editions were both good enough, and the best thing going to that point.  Because 4E is so focused on that style, those people had a windfall of gaming with 4E.  They went from good enough, to awesome.  But in being awesome in that niche, it lost the big tent.
I already assumed, I'd even say "knew", that your experiences continue to be the same.  But I'm talking about other experiences and that remains unchanged.

Edit: It appears I drifted into responding into quotes replying to RC with thinking they were still to me in mind.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Teataine;5602038[I said:
			
		

> "As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage."[/I]
> p.61




_"As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned.  Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germain to them.  While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful."_
p.61.

Quotes are so much more useful in context.  Wouldn't you agree?

Also from page 9:

_"ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.  This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted."_



> _"It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain!"_
> p.82
> -Gary Gygax, AD&D DMG




_"Why then the increase in hit points?  Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage -- as indicated by constitution bonuses -- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns individuals of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection.  Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Harkening back to the example of Rasputin, it would be safe to assume that he could withstand physical damage sufficient to have killed any four normal men, i.e. more than 14 hit points.  Therefore, let us assume that a character with an 18 constitution will eventually be able to withstand no more than 15 hit points of actual physical damage before being slain, and that perhaps as many as 23 hit points could constitute the physical makeup of a character.  The balance of accrued hit points are those which fall into the non-physical areas already detailed.  Furthermore, these actual physical hit points would be spread across a large number of levels, starting from a base score of from 3 to 4, going up to 6 to 8 at 2nd level, 9 to 11 at 3rd, 12 to 14 at 4th, 15 to 17 at 5th, 18 to 20 at 6th, and 21 to 23 at 7th level.  Note that the above assumes the character is a fighter with an average of 3 hit points per die going to physical ability to withstand punishment and only 1 point of constitution bonus being likewise assigned.  Beyond the basic physical damage sustained, hits scored upon a character do not actually do such an amount of physical damage.

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution.  This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points per level, or 95 hit points!  Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm -- the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment.  However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.  It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points."_



> PC hit points never were the same as physical damage, but luck, morale, arcane and divine protection, combat skill, sixth sense etc.




But always some physical damage, as putting those quotes back into context shows.  "Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm".....*but it does some amount of physical harm!* 



> In fact I'd posit the opposite than you: that "such nonsense" was always inherent in the D&D combat system and that it was an oversight on part of early D&D to have omitted methods of HP recovery other than "wound closing".




This is the problem of looking at a small amount of data related to a complex proposition -- it skews your results.  Gygax is quite clear -- there are factors that affect how much a strike harms you, but a strike always harms you to some degree.  Hit points are a combination of both those factors and actual ability to absorb damage.  But even the least amount of damage, on the highest level fighter, causes physical damage.

TSR-D&D actually has another mechanic to deal with morale factors.  It is called, not surprisingly, "Morale".


RC


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work.  I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use *without a hit point component*.



Why is his suggestion of (what amounts to) a critical-hit table for wounds unwieldy without hit points?  How do hit points make a look-up table easier to use?


Raven Crowking said:


> I seem to recall a claim that nothing happens in the stories that could be best described by hit point attrition.  In fact, Conan frequently suffers minor wounds that do not slow him down -- exactly what hit points model.



How are hit points the one and only way to model someone getting bruised and bloodied without being disabled?  He made his _save vs. monster claws_ repeatedly and was merely scratched.


Raven Crowking said:


> Hit points do model what happens in a REH extremely well.



But they don't.  They don't model any of the non-mooks who die from one arrow, spear thrust, or sword stroke, they don't model Conan being knocked out, etc.

Are there times when combat involves some back and forth before someone's dispatched?  Sure, but hit points aren't the only way to do that.

Do we know that _Conan_ isn't going to be killed outright by some mook?  Sure, and that's a case for why _Conan_, not everyone tough, should have some plot-protection points.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> Why is his suggestion of (what amounts to) a critical-hit table for wounds unwieldy without hit points?  How do hit points make a look-up table easier to use?




Go back and read his post.

I explained why SE-only systems do not work; he said his SE system works because he uses hit points.



> How are hit points the one and only way to model someone getting bruised and bloodied without being disabled?  He made his _save vs. monster claws_ repeatedly and was merely scratched.




Go back and read my posts.

None of my arguments stem from "the one and only way" -- this is a straw man of the first order.  The problems with SE-only systems is not that they cannot model combat, but they are cumbersome, have many of the same problems people attribute to hp systems, and remove contextual choices from players.

Hit points are king -- in tabletop and computer gaming -- not because they were first, but because they are best.  Computer games can handle to cumbersome nature of SE-only systems extremely well.  Most choose to use hit points as well in order to increase the contextual choices available to players.

"Context -> Choice -> Consequence" (which leads back into a new, changed, context) is the heart of gaming.  IMHO and IME.

"There are other ways" is a non-starter.  "There are other, *better*, ways" would make an argument.  But, like the gentleman from Missouri says, you would have to show me.  I've heard a lot of people claim such an animal exists, but every time I've paid my dime, it's always included hit points in a thin disguise......or something worse than a system which includes hit points.

I'll readily agree that an exception is theoretically possible.  I know of no instance that demonstrates that such an exception actually exists.  When I learn otherwise, I'll be happy to defend (and probably adopt) that system.  Because hit points are best today, it doesn't follow that they will remain king forever.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2011)

> Hit points are king -- in tabletop and computer gaming -- not because they were first, but because they are best.



Were Winston Churchill a gamer, he might have said it thusly:
"Hit points are the worst form of damage tracking in RPGs...except for all those others that have been tried."


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> To analogize: the concrete foundation in the ground isn't what makes your house your home, but it is required for the building to stand.  And while it does not completely determine the nature of the building, it does have some impact on what is done in and with the rest of the structure.



But what if I live in a van...?





Rolflyn said:


> I would say that polyhedral damage dice is part of the D&D experience.  It wouldn't feel like D&D to me without those d4 daggers and d8 swords.



d12 Greatswords for the win!


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's only "the same amount of healing" if you imagine any 1 hp = any other 1 hp, which is not the case.  Rather, the spell provides a variable amount of healing based on circumstance.
> 
> Our nicked 100 hp fighter doesn't really "need" healing.  The spell could, presumably, do more for him, but he has nothing more that needs doing.  Our 6 hp fighter is actually at death's door, and, if we follow the rules in the 1e DMG, he doesn't spring up hale and hearty after being healed -- he needs bed rest, and can only move along slowly in order to reach a place where he can get it.
> 
> ...




So, if the 100hp dude isn't actually capable of withstanding significantly more physical injury than the 20hp dude, but is instead good at avoiding the full force of the blow, then presumably he's not getting as physically injured. Yet it's perfectly possible that he requires a lot more healing than someone with lower hit points, after taking less actual damage. Why? What privileges one particular hit point over another particular hit point?


----------



## Greg K (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hit points are king -- in tabletop and computer gaming -- not because they were first, but because they are best.




This, of course, being subjective opinion.  Many people whom discover a damage system like M&M/True20 or Savage Worlds and find they never want to go back to hit points - especially, DND style hp, ever again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2011)

Greg K said:


> This, of course, being subjective opinion.  Many people whom discover a damage system like M&M/True20 or Savage Worlds and find they never want to go back to hit points - especially, DND style hp, ever again.




What he's saying is that, while there are games out there that do things differently, hit points have won out in the "marketplace of ideas"- more games use them than don't- because they are perceived as having so many advantages over those other damage tracking systems.

Which is why, even after trying things like M&M or True20, you see people going back to HP systems- and even _house-ruling them back in_:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...hit-points-back-into-mutants-masterminds.html
True20 Adventure Roleplaying • View topic - Hit Points for True20
http://true20.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2377


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So, if the 100hp dude isn't actually capable of withstanding significantly more physical injury than the 20hp dude, but is instead good at avoiding the full force of the blow, then presumably he's not getting as physically injured. Yet it's perfectly possible that he requires a lot more healing than someone with lower hit points, after taking less actual damage. Why? What privileges one particular hit point over another particular hit point?





You know, I am absolutely sure that I already answered that.

But, I will do so again:

My full health (in hit point terms) is not the same as the full health of the prizefighter (in hit point terms).

When I am at full health, and he is at -80 hit points, we might have exactly the same physical injuries remaining.  The only difference is that, because he is competent, those injuries hamper his ability, while they do not hamper my incompetence.  But (and this is important) even hampered, he is still more competent that I.

0 hp damage =/= completely uninjured.  Injuries can (and do) fall below the threshold of 1 hp in D&D.

If this still seems odd to you, imagine any pro athelete on his best day, and on a poor day.  Full hit points in D&D, as hit points accumulate, begin more and more to represent that best day.  Little things can throw the athelete off his performance, which you and I would hardly notice.  Not because we are better, but because we are far, far worse.  You will note that there is a real difference between that pro on his best and worst day.

Imagine, instead, that it is I on my best and worst day.  Far less difference.  In fact, you might not even notice.  Low level hit points are like that.

Yet, even at only 20% of his best, the pro is at least twice as good as I.  And, at 20% of his best, the pro might have fewer actual injuries than I do at full hit points.

Or, to (re)quote Gary:

Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5 1/2 hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm -- the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment. However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points.​



RC


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

Greg K said:


> This, of course, being subjective opinion.  Many people whom discover a damage system like M&M/True20 or Savage Worlds and find they never want to go back to hit points - especially, DND style hp, ever again.




Well, of course it is subjective.  That's not a particularly powerful observation.   Of course there are some people who prefer M&M style damage tracks to hit points, and for some genera's I feel that a damage track works better than a hit point system.   In highly gritty campaigns, you might want one hit to put you out of a fight - even if it didn't kill you - and perhaps every hit to be felt mechically.   A damage track agruably does that better than hit points do.   Likewise, in a lighter hearted campaign based on a genera where death is essentially unknown, a damage track can be a good way of measuring defeat without every getting to death.   

But the point is that of the several different sorts of wound tracking systems that have been used, hit points have proven to be the most popular and the most widely adopted.   To suggest that that is done out of ignorance on the part of the designers because they are too uncreative to think of something better, or because they are too hard headed to adopt this amazing alternative that you prefer is I think to be a bit arrogant.  God knows I was back in the day as a 17 year old kid.  I could recite chapter and verse about what was wrong with hit points.   It took me a while of actually experimenting with other ideas before I started considering (or being even able to consider) what was right about hit points.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> But the point is that of the several different sorts of wound tracking systems that have been used, hit points have proven to be the most popular and the most widely adopted.   To suggest that that is done out of ignorance on the part of the designers because they are too uncreative to think of something better, or because they are too hard headed to adopt this amazing alternative that you prefer is I think to be a bit arrogant.





Even by my standards, that's a bit arrogant.


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> They actually did. Even as late as second edition, due to magical items not being guaranteed, finding even a +1 dagger or a quiver with a dozen +1 arrows was a semi-major event.






pemerton said:


> Not in my games. For an AD&D fighter, a dagger +1 is useful only for fighting shadows, gargoyles and the like - it has worse damage than a longsword, and also in a game that uses weapon vs armour adjustments, it's has worse to-hit numbers in many cases.




Yeah - I've never, ever been particularly excited by a +1 sword.  A flamtongue, an orcbane sword, the ancestral relic of the Great [Whoever]?

Yes.

A +1 weapon?  A +2 weapon?

No.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So, if the 100hp dude isn't actually capable of withstanding significantly more physical injury than the 20hp dude, but is instead good at avoiding the full force of the blow, then presumably he's not getting as physically injured. Yet it's perfectly possible that he requires a lot more healing than someone with lower hit points, after taking less actual damage. Why? What privileges one particular hit point over another particular hit point?




Natural healing (in most editions) scales appropriately. It's only the _cure_ spells that are historically dissociated. And the reason for that basically boils down to "game balance" and "resource management".

The abstraction of the system is not "some hit points don't represent physical wounds". The abstraction of the system is "a 1 hp wound for character A might be a 6 hp wound for character B; the difference is due to character B being faster, luckier, tougher, blessed, or any number of other things". Like all abstracted systems, there are places where the abstraction breaks down. But, in general, the system works as intended.

See also Explaining Hit Points.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2011)

I have noticed that players often interpret hit points as being more physical than the explanations in the rules texts, such as those in 1e and 3e. When they are on low hit points they will sometimes 'play act' being in a bad way - moaning, etc - even though, ofc, there are no penalties to any other abilities for being on low hit points. I think the players are right, and the game text is wrong. There's a really important reason to allow the player characters a way of knowing they are on low hit points - survival. If hit points are just 'flesh wounds' until a character hits zero then how do the characters know they need healing, etc?

The other solution is to metagame it.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You know, I am absolutely sure that I already answered that.



You keep telling people that you have already answered their questions, but they clearly don't see it that way.  So, walk us through how hit points work.  

Our amazing swordsman -- with, say, 50 hit points -- cuts down numerous good-but-not-great swordsmen, taking "hits" and losing hit points to "damage" along the way.

The canonical pre-4E explanation is that he is indeed getting physically hit each time, but none of the blows lands quite true, so instead of costing him close to 100 percent of his hit points, each blow only costs him 10 percent of his hit points.  He's getting battered, bruised, scratched up, etc.

As he gets progressively tired and beat down, more and more of the blows land harder and harder, and they cost him proportionally more and more of his smaller and smaller pool of hit points.  A 5-hp hit is more physically damaging when you only have 10 hp left than when you are fresh as a daisy with 50 hp left.

That's all fine and good -- if you've accepted the subtle plot-protection and predictability built in to hit points as a good thing -- but it doesn't ring true when it comes time to recover those hit points.  This is not a new complaint.  Our master swordsman should be able to get his wind -- and thus half of his hit points? -- back in a matter of minutes.  

If he's just fatigued and bruised, a quick swig of elf wine or orc liquor should get him back in the fight.  But, by the rules, the same miraculous healing magic that could bring his victims back from near death cannot even get him his wind back?  Really?  Because even the slightest fatigue and bruising puts him at the level of his good-but-not-great foes?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Natural healing (in most editions) scales appropriately.



Well, it scales almost linearly: 1 hit point per level per day.  So the small-hit die Wizard still heals relatively faster than the big hit-die Fighter, and low-Con characters heal relatively faster than high-Con characters.

This implies that physical damage is roughly proportional to hit points lost.


Beginning of the End said:


> It's only the _cure_ spells that are historically dissociated. And the reason for that basically boils down to "game balance" and "resource management".



If healing works the way it does for game balance reasons -- and I don't disagree with you -- then we should all admit that it doesn't really make sense, but that's a sacrifice we're willing to make in order to have a more playable game.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Natural healing (in most editions) scales appropriately. It's only the _cure_ spells that are historically dissociated. And the reason for that basically boils down to "game balance" and "resource management".
> 
> The abstraction of the system is not "some hit points don't represent physical wounds". The abstraction of the system is "a 1 hp wound for character A might be a 6 hp wound for character B; the difference is due to character B being faster, luckier, tougher, blessed, or any number of other things". Like all abstracted systems, there are places where the abstraction breaks down. But, in general, the system works as intended.
> 
> See also Explaining Hit Points.




I have absolutely no objection to treating hit points that way, for purposes of damage. I've posted in this thread that I consider them a measure of how hard someone is to take out of a fight, which is a combination of a lot of things. I get it. 

It's the recovery of hit points, particularly magically, that seems to me the point where hit points stop being a sensible way to handle conbat resolution and become something rather peculiar. If you're really not taking much physical injury, instead becoming slower/unlucky/feebler/cursed, then what does magical healing restore? Well, apparently it's "dissociated".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> You keep telling people that you have already answered their questions, but they clearly don't see it that way.




Yes; I generally prefer not to have to cut & paste responses from upthread that clearly were not read (or ignored) by the person asking the question.

There is a thing on the InterWeb that goes like this:

Poster 1:  If A then B, if not-A then C.

Poster 2:  Ah, but what if D?

Poster 1:  If D is not A, then C.

Poster 2:  Ah, but what if A?

Poster 1:  If A then B.

Poster 2:  Ah, but what if not-A?

Poster 3:  Since you are arguing that X is Y.....

etc.​
Some days, it seems that there is scant little else being posted in a thread.



> So, walk us through how hit points work.
> 
> Our amazing swordsman -- with, say, 50 hit points -- cuts down numerous good-but-not-great swordsmen, taking "hits" and losing hit points to "damage" along the way.
> 
> The canonical pre-4E explanation is that he is indeed getting physically hit each time, but none of the blows lands quite true, so instead of costing him close to 100 percent of his hit points, each blow only costs him 10 percent of his hit points.  He's getting battered, bruised, scratched up, etc.




So far, so good.  You will note that the canonical pre-4e hit points are not, in fact, the hit points of 4e.

Also note that there is nothing in the canonical pre-4e hit point description that says a character is not wounded, should not role-play being wounded, whatever.



> As he gets progressively tired and beat down, more and more of the blows land harder and harder, and they cost him proportionally more and more of his smaller and smaller pool of hit points.  A 5-hp hit is more physically damaging when you only have 10 hp left than when you are fresh as a daisy with 50 hp left.
> 
> That's all fine and good -- if you've accepted the subtle plot-protection and predictability built in to hit points as a good thing -- but it doesn't ring true when it comes time to recover those hit points.




So you say.



> This is not a new complaint.




That it is not a new complaint does not make it a good complaint.



> Our master swordsman should be able to get his wind -- and thus half of his hit points? -- back in a matter of minutes.




Um.....*Why* should this be so?

Does a bruised and battered top athelete regain his top form with a quick swig of gin and a second to breathe?  He gets better than I am, sure, but the system as written already accounts for that.



> If he's just fatigued and bruised, a quick swig of elf wine or orc liquor should get him back in the fight.  But, by the rules, the same miraculous healing magic that could bring his victims back from near death cannot even get him his wind back?




Considering that "his wind" is back when he has 10% of his hit points, in comparison to any ordinary person, this is clearly untrue.



> Really?




No.  Really not accurate at all.



> Because even the slightest fatigue and bruising puts him at the level of his good-but-not-great foes?




"Even the slightest"?  

Does 2 hp damage put our 100 hp hero at the level of his 25 hp foes?  No.

Does 75 hp damage put our 100 hp hero at the level of his 25 hp foes?  In terms of hp, yes (although probably not in terms of chance to hit, saving throws, or other things).

Does 95 hp damage put our 100 hp hero in dire straits against his 25 hp foes?  Yes.

In real life, people who are great at what they do are noticably less good from minor things that wouldn't change how good I am.  That hit points actually can and do reflect this is not a deficiency in the system.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Please note the context.  It is a response to question askin why I believe that Special Effects systems, which do not use hit points, do not work.  I am not saying that such a chart cannot be used -- I am saying that such a chart is unwieldy to use *without a hit point component*.
> 
> I am arguing that
> 
> ...




Except I disagree with you that the same Hit Chart can't be applied to something like Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition damage system. Fail your Toughness save, get a -1 on all Toughness saves until you heal. Fail by enough, stunned. Fail by even more, incapacitated. Fail by quite a bit, dying.

You can definitely augment this along the way with the same Hit Chart. And, you'd apply the same idea: if it doesn't apply, then it doesn't apply. If the chart says "Movement Appendage damaged" and you're fighting an ooze, then nothing happens other than the results of its Toughness save.

Why hit points are magical in this way I have no idea. I prefer hit points, personally. But they are by no means unique. The Toughness save system from M&M 2e would work just as well with my Hit Chart as hit points do (even if I wouldn't prefer it).

Are there systems out there that wouldn't work with my Hit Chart? Absolutely. However, saying that a hit point system is better than all others when dealing with "Special Effects" is, I believe, blatantly false, or just plain subjective preference, in which case, there's no real in debating it (as I prefer hit points as well).

So, it looks like our mileage has indeed varied.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> ...The canonical pre-4E explanation is that he is indeed getting physically hit each time, but none of the blows lands quite true, so instead of costing him close to 100 percent of his hit points, each blow only costs him 10 percent of his hit points.  He's getting battered, bruised, scratched up, etc...




Ok, so far so good.



> That's all fine and good -- if you've accepted the subtle plot-protection and predictability built in to hit points as a good thing -- but it doesn't ring true when it comes time to recover those hit points.  This is not a new complaint.  Our master swordsman should be able to get his wind -- and thus half of his hit points? -- back in a matter of minutes.




Why? This is only true if you've accepted the 4e trope that the non-physical part of his hits points than have been whittled down amount to no more than fatigue.   If its just that he's getting tired out, then sure, once he gets his wind back he should get back perhaps 80% of his hit points.  But until 4e came along it was not accepted that the metaphysical damage taken when hit points were reduced was merely being winded, but a loss of such intangible (but possibly real in a fantasy world) things as luck, divine favor, and so forth.   He's bruised yes, but there is assumed to be more to it than that.  Read Gygax's full explanation.



> If he's just fatigued and bruised, a quick swig of elf wine or orc liquor should get him back in the fight.  But, by the rules, the same miraculous healing magic that could bring his victims back from near death cannot even get him his wind back?  Really?  Because even the slightest fatigue and bruising puts him at the level of his good-but-not-great foes?




If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled.  Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.   This would parallel the existing assumption that the rate of natural healing depends on the level of the caster (a seriously wounded 4th level fighter and a seriously wounded 12th level fighter close their wounds at the same natural rate).  Some changes might be required regarding the power and availablity of such spells and to the balance expectations of your game world, but if your principle problem is only that you don't think it fair that a cure light wounds heals most ills for a low level character but literally only light wounds for a high level one that change can be easily made.   Besides which, if you only remaining complaint is that the magic doesn't make logical sense, I'm not sure you have a particularly strong remaining complaint.  It's magic.

I don't think anyone here is going to try to defend the ideal that hit points are realistic.   If I was go to design a hyper-realistic system, it probably wouldn't involve hit points in a traditional sense.   However, the problems with them are not as great as all that.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled. Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.




Yep.  Then once you've got your basic math for that mechanic, abstract it a bit, and smooth of the rough edges for handling time.  You'll end up with something very much like healing surges.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> In real life, people who are great at what they do are noticably less good from minor things that wouldn't change how good I am.  That hit points actually can and do reflect this is not a deficiency in the system.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> ...




Really? People have ridden the Tour de France with a broken collar bone, including winning a stage. Boxers have won fights with broken fingers, cheeks, jaws. Rugby players have lost teeth and broken noses and carried on playing perfectly happily. I can point to medical articles describing the generally superior recovery powers and pain tolerance of 'elite athletes' (and/or elite military personnel). What you are arguing is not self-evident. It requires evidence.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled.  Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.




Scaling it to the hit points rather than level of the recipient would seem to make the most sense. Which is what 4e does, as every healing surge or equivalent restores 1/4 of the hit points of the target.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Really? People have ridden the Tour de France with a broken collar bone, including winning a stage. Boxers have won fights with broken fingers, cheeks, jaws. Rugby players have lost teeth and broken noses and carried on playing perfectly happily. I can point to medical articles describing the generally superior recovery powers and pain tolerance of 'elite athletes' (and/or elite military personnel).




So what you are saying is that when you lose hit points, you don't necessarily suffer a penalty to your abilities?


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> So what you are saying is that when you lose hit points, you don't necessarily suffer a penalty to your abilities?



I can't speak for Bluenose, but I'm certainly willing to say that flesh wounds shouldn't force penalties.  Does that surprise you?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> This is only true if you've accepted the 4e trope that the non-physical part of his hits points than have been whittled down amount to no more than fatigue.   If its just that he's getting tired out, then sure, once he gets his wind back he should get back perhaps 80% of his hit points.  But until 4e came along it was not accepted that the metaphysical damage taken when hit points were reduced was merely being winded, but a loss of such intangible (but possibly real in a fantasy world) things as luck, divine favor, and so forth.   He's bruised yes, but there is assumed to be more to it than that.  Read Gygax's full explanation.



This is an interesting concept, one I'd not considered before, that there are greatly different varieties of non-physical hit points. And that some recover quickly and some slowly. 3e is similar to 1e in its interpretation, "For some characters hit points may represent divine favor or inner power", though in 3e they recover at a much faster rate, at level/day as opposed to 1hp/day plus Con bonus per week in 1e.

But does this not make hit points pre-4e less representative, less simulationist? Skill, a "sixth sense", sheer luck, "the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection", divine favor, inner power. What are these things? In rules terms it would seem more appropriate to regard them as static bonuses to armour class and all saves. But no, they are sloughed off. They can be lost. How quickly do they recover? It seems to me that they could recover at any rate at all. Immediately after the fight a la 4e, a day, a week, a month, a year. They are not real, so who's to say? At least fatigue is something real, something measurable in our world.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, you don't fully get the argument (which is the only reason you would not "get" the example AFAICT), but you disagree with the conclusion?
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Suffice it to say that, with the hit point system as written, my "full hit points" can be less healthy than the prizefighters' "10 hit points remaining".




No I got the point you were trying to make, but I didn't get the example. 

This example makes it MUCH more clear:


Raven Crowking said:


> My full health (in hit point terms) is not the same as the full health of the prizefighter (in hit point terms).




That example also addresses my concern about sleeping giving back disproportionate amounts to two different level characters.


Immediately after running a marathon, I'd imagine a marathoner could still beat out-of-shape-me in a mile long race. It'd be a lot closer, though, than if they hadn't run the marathon...and the next day (after they rested), it wouldn't be close at all.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Scaling it to the hit points rather than level of the recipient would seem to make the most sense. Which is what 4e does, as every healing surge or equivalent restores _1/4 of the hit points of the target_.




Which is where I begin to have problems even more so than I have problems with the notion of a 'healing surge'.   I think its a bit spurious to pretend that the justification for that lay in a desire for greater realism or out of critique of the hit point model.

Healing surges go way way too far the other way, essentially stating that not only is some of the damage of hit points abstract, but that it all is.  The Healing surge mechanic gives a character such extraordinary powers of recovery that we must assume that they are never actually injured.  But this of course presents us with far greater cognitive problems than the straight hit point system that they replaced.   

When I suggested healing scale with the level of the target I was thinking something like the following (in 3e terms):

Cure Light Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had had a night's sleep.
Cure Moderate Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had two night's sleep.
Cure Serious Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had three night's sleep.
....

And, "With 8 hours of sleep, a character can restore hit points equal to 1/2 of its level adjusted HD, rounded up."

A healing surge in such a game system might be, "Once per day, you can gain temporary hit points equal to your base Fortitude save.  After 10 rounds, these hit points go away, however, at that time you can make a Will save (DC 15) to heal a like amount of damage.  However, this healing can never restore you above 1/2 your maximum hit points.  Temporary hit points from multiple healing surges do not stack."

Then you can imagine various class abilities that might interact with that:

"Rally Your Forces":  Once per day, make a DC 15 leadership check, to allow all allies within 30' to use a healing surge.  This does not count against the target's normal limit of healing surges per day.

Or

Indomitable Will [General]
Prequisite: Base Will save +2
Benefit: Your healing save depends on your base Will save bonus.
Normal: Your healing save depends on your base Fortitude save bonus.

Healing Surges are ridiculous by every standard that Hit Points are ridiculous, multiplied by about 20.  I can tolerate a certain amount of gamism and unreality in hit points.  Healing Surges as implemented are a mechanic too far.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 24, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> So what you are saying is that when you lose hit points, you don't necessarily suffer a penalty to your abilities?




The only penalty you suffer from losing hit points, in D&D, is that you're that little bit closer to being put out of the fight. In many ways that's realistic. The adrenaline that kept you on your feet runs out (medically it is more complex than that, but...), and you collapse after the situation is over. You can see it in all sorts of things, from sporting events to firefighters and the military. Often people keep going till an injury stops them entirely, or the situation is over, and then they realise how hurt/tired they are.

Does anyone else think this hit point tangent really belongs in another thread? Not that they've ever resolved the dispute permanently before. 



Celebrim said:


> When I suggested healing scale with the level of  the target I was thinking something like the following (in 3e terms):
> 
> Cure Light Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had had a night's sleep.
> Cure Moderate Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had two night's sleep.
> ...




That's 1 hit point, for a first level character, for Cure Light Wounds. 5, at 10th level. That seems a little low. Though frankly it's the concept rather than the exact amount that I like the idea of.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Does anyone else think this hit point tangent really belongs in another thread? Not that they've ever resolved the dispute permanently before.



It is a tradition, a sacred cow if you will, of ENWorld that we must never create a thread about hit points, but discuss them in all other threads. Forever!


----------



## BlackMoria (Jun 24, 2011)

Steering back from a lengthy discussion of 'hit points', I don't believe a 'Unification theory' or 'Theory of Everything' is even possible to apply to D&D.

Ask 10 people what the essentials of D&D are to them and you will get 10 different answers.  Until the answers to the question can be distilled to points most can agree on, the search for the 'soul' of what makes D&D 'D&D' is like the quest for the holy grail.  Many take up the quest but no one finds it (Indiana Jones not withstanding).

If Mearls is looking for 'common ground' to to unify the editions, he is going to fail.  Sure, he could try but the real question is not one of 'Could we?'.  The real question is 'Should we?' and therein lies the rub.  People have stayed with their favorite edition for a reason and that being principally it 'works for them' and it is how they quantify 'what is D&D' to them.

Regardless how philosphical Mearls gets and how much navel gazing goes on in the hallowed halls of WOTC, most people stay with what they know and like and few bail to embrace the new shiny unless the new shiny provides the tools and means for the user to 'tell their stories' and appeal to their inner muse.

Which means, despite the best efforts, if and when 5E comes, it is going to leave people behind to become the latest generation of 'old D&D grognard'.  As it has for every version of the game.

Frankly, I am amused by the ideal that some people in WOTC believe that common ground can be found and it will lead to the Mecca of the best version of D&D ever and that the 'infidels and apostates' for the past versions will set aside their tools of heresy and flock to the promised land offered by 5E or the DDI or whatever form the next version of D&D takes.

What Mearls fails to appreciate is that to many, that ship sailed some time ago and there is no going back - because unless 5E is somewhat like 'their' favorite version of the game they play right now, they are NOT interested,  else they would have adopted the current version of the game.  

And given the differences between versions, most notably the 3.x and 4, getting to some common ground that both the 3.x fans and 4.x fans can get together and sing kum ba yah about is never likely to happen.

Leave unification theory to the scientists trying to explain the universe because that is more likely to happen that for D&D fans to agree on what D&D is.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> That's 1 hit point, for a first level character, for Cure Light Wounds. 5, at 10th level. That seems a little low.




You mean in gamist terms or simulationist terms?

If you just don't like small numbers, you could go to something like:

Cure Light Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had two night's sleep.
Cure Moderate Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had three night's sleep.
Cure Serious Wounds: The target recovers hit points as if it had four night's sleep.
...

Prior to starting my current campaign (now ongoing more than a year) I experimented with adjusting my house rules on 'cure' spells to almost exactly the above.  I didn't like the way it played.  The biggest problem I foresaw with the system was that the game purpose of 'cure light wounds' is to ensure that the whole party is not experiencing down time just because one character got a bad break.   The revised 'cure light', while it matched the intuitive description of 'cure light wounds' better than the cannonical mechanics did, simply couldn't do its in game job at the time it needed to do it.  

So if the real problem is that the flavor of 'cure light wounds' doesn't suggest the mechanics you see, replace the name with something like 'Ordinary Blessing of Healing' that doesn't imply something as concrete to you.



> Though frankly it's the concept rather than the exact amount that I like the idea of.




Lots of people like the concept of replacing hit points with something else.  It's not the concept that is the problem.  It's the implementation.   All things involve tradeoffs.  It's easy to be critical of something in a vacuum, but when you actually experience the alternatives you tend to see more clearly the pros and the cons.  If you have this great abstract concept, chances are its not actually an improvement over the flawed concrete thing.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 24, 2011)

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't like the "Legend & Lore" articles from Mearls that much.

On the one hand, I'm really glad that WotC has initiated a column which at least somewhat gives off the vibe that they care about customer input.

On the other, I get no real sense that the input is worked with, at all. Whether that's Mearls & Co. browsing forums like these, or them consulting the poll results at the end of each column - either way, I'd be more happy if they chose to have more direct interactions in forums, like Paizo designers do. 

The other thing I'm missing from Mearls' columns is that, once some feedback is taken in, that we see him do something more concrete than handle vague concepts (or sometimes, even just questions) at a significant level of abstraction.

I'm aware though that he's in a 'damned if you, damned if you don't' position. When Heinsoo & Co. went off the wall in late 2007/early 2008 telling everyone else how to think about D&D, I felt talked down to. Now that Mearls is (appears) utterly open about everything, it still feels not right. 

Hope the column finds a better way going forward. And I say that with half an eye on Mearls' old blog entries on skill resolution and monster/dungeon design. I liked his contributions way more when they were of the 'here's something I cooked up for my home campaign - what do you think?' variety. I think he might even get as much (if not more) mileage out of reactions to such posts than to these super broad and vague articles.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2011)

Mike Mearls' work in the Legends & Lairs series for Fantasy Flight Games is high up on my "recommended" list for those interested in 3.x/d20 System gaming.  I would be quite interested in his work, divorced from WotC's current philosophy of what D&D should be.

IOW, if he wrote a fantasy heartbreaker on his own, I would pay attention.


RC


----------



## Ainamacar (Jun 25, 2011)

This is not quite as timely a response as it could have been.  Real life and all.



Crazy Jerome said:


> I agree with down to that point, but disagree about the likely consequences from mechanics or settings.  I think D&D players might identify strongly with the emergent mix of mechanics and settings as it happen to emerge at those early tables.
> 
> That doesn't mean that we can't talk about the mechanics and settings separately, or tease them out, or even that said players can't separate those impressions from later ones.  It just means it is complicated.




I think your second paragraph is exactly what I was trying to do, namely tease out some of the underlying processes in a complicated system.  I'm not quite sure why my example gave you a different impression.  (OK, that's not true.  Among other possibilities, I may simply have written incredibly poorly. )  In analyzing interacting systems one of the most basic tools is  to consider how all the parts work independently, and then slowly add in  the most important details of the interaction until there is a  description that works well enough for many cases of interest.  In physics (e.g. various correlated electron systems) the first step is often to replace interactions with fluctuations about their collective mean.  Here I'm trying to do it in a loose, qualitative fashion.

Thus, the example of a person's first campaign setting was specifically to point out one possible mode of interaction and its possible result, not to suggest it was immune to further feedback in the general case or that it had ever occurred in such stark terms, much less typically.  I thought writing "but when one of these mechanisms is much stronger than the other" was indicative of just that restricted case, where other effects could be temporarily ignored in order to identify this one.  The only thing I expressed as "likely" was  that a person most strongly associates the essence of D&D with their  first campaign.  Given the other restrictions, this was so the example wouldn't be too obscure if the interaction exists, since everyone who plays D&D necessarily has a first campaign or equivalent.

Thanks for the cordial remark.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> ...So neither of these exist...except for where they exist?




The point being, they went from being damn near ubiquitous in earlier editions to being mere footnotes in the current one.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The point being, they went from being damn near ubiquitous in earlier editions to being mere footnotes in the current one.




One of the hardest things in message board conversations seems to be matters of degree.

Proving "it exists" is easy...comparing _how much_ it is present requires judgment and, moreso, volumes of information that are either too unwieldy or too much effort to make a simple point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> If Mearls is looking for 'common ground' to to unify the editions, he is going to fail. Sure, he could try but the real question is not one of 'Could we?'. The real question is 'Should we?' and therein lies the rub. People have stayed with their favorite edition for a reason and that being principally it 'works for them' and it is how they quantify 'what is D&D' to them.




I agree with much of what you wrote, but have a slightly different conclusion.

I don't particularly care for all that much in 4Ed, but I do think it got some things dead on correct.  3.X remains my D&D of choice.

But while I may not agree with Mearls' or RC's or diaglo's vision of what makes D&D D&D, I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good.  IOW, while I'm absolutely positive that there is no Grand Unified D&D possible, I don't think the search for such is a bad idea.  If nothing else, such introspection will help the designers figure out what it is that the most players care about the most deeply.

So, while a kum bah yah moment is highly unlikely, we may be able to reach a Kissengerian point in game design where everybody is equally unhappy enough with the results to be equally satisfied...with the Edition Wars quieting down to the odd grumblefest.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2011)

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 25, 2011)

Ainamacar said:


> I think your second paragraph is exactly what I was trying to do, namely tease out some of the underlying processes in a complicated system...




Oh, and you were doing a good job of it, too.  I was basically just coming in and saying that I think the teasing out is a worthwhile activity, but that I disagree with the likelihood of the particular emergent properties you were suggesting.  Then rather than writing a huge post on what I thought it would be, acknowledging that is difficult to say.

That is, I was registering disagreement but copping out on my answer.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 25, 2011)

There is no single perfect version of D&D.  There are some versions that will sell better than others--maybe even some that are a bit more imperfect than what could be done, but are more profitable.

Microsoft 7 ain't the best possible operating system.  But it ain't the worst, either, by a long shot.  And it is easy to envision ways that it could be worse than it is, but still sell.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> antithesis



I had an Aunt Ithesis.  We didn't get along very well.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jun 25, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Oh, and you were doing a good job of it, too.  I was basically just coming in and saying that I think the teasing out is a worthwhile activity, but that I disagree with the likelihood of the particular emergent properties you were suggesting.  Then rather than writing a huge post on what I thought it would be, acknowledging that is difficult to say.
> 
> That is, I was registering disagreement but copping out on my answer.




Fair enough!  In the meantime, I'll just have to stand by my example.

Besides...<skims entire Internet>...sometimes copping out is the wiser choice.  You never know who might be Crazy.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Using the tables results both in potential magic, and potential problems.



Sure. This doesn't prove, though, that getting a +1 sword or quiver of +1 arrows is a semi-major event. I don't even think it provides any evidence in favour of that claim - which was the claim I was responding to in my first post about magic items in classic D&D.



BryonD said:


> None of that ever seemed to be the point.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Agreed, but that does nothing to change the point.



Well, my point was pretty simple, namely, that finding a +1 dagger or +1 arrows, even in classic D&D, was in my experience not generally a semi-major event. So it's quite relevant to my point to indicate that finding a flametongue is different - different from finding a +1 weapon, and different in classic D&D from in 4e.



BryonD said:


> I already assumed, I'd even say "knew", that your experiences continue to be the same.



I've never said that my experiences with classic D&D and 4e were, overall or even on the whole or to a significant extent the same.

They're very different games. As I explained in the post to which you replied, magic items play quite a different role in each edition, for example, and a flametongue in classic is almost guaranteed to be more interesting than a flaming weapon in 4e, because of the very different contributions to PC abilities and flavour made by items in each edition.

But one respect in which they don't particularly differ, in my experience, is that for mid-to-high level PCs discovering a +1 dagger or sword is not terribly exciting.



BlackMoria said:


> People have stayed with their favorite edition for a reason and that being principally it 'works for them' and it is how they quantify 'what is D&D' to them.



Maybe I'm an outlier, but the reason I play 4e is because it gives a fantasy RPG experience that is quite different from what I think of as "classic D&D".

Or to put it another way, I'm not driven by some emotional attachment to D&D, or to my preferred edition. I'm looking for a system that will give my group the play experience we want. 4e delivers (despite - in fact, in part because, its items tend to be under- rather than overwhelming!).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2011)

mmadsen said:


> Well, it scales almost linearly: 1 hit point per level per day.



Not in Basic/Expert or AD&D. In those systems it's one or two hp per day (with a CON bonus per week, I think, in AD&D).



Celebrim said:


> If this is your strongest remaining objection, then it can be easily handled.  Simply make the hit points restored by healing magic be dependent on the level of the target rather than the level of the caster.   This would parallel the existing assumption that the rate of natural healing depends on the level of the caster (a seriously wounded 4th level fighter and a seriously wounded 12th level fighter close their wounds at the same natural rate).  Some changes might be required regarding the power and availablity of such spells and to the balance expectations of your game world, but if your principle problem is only that you don't think it fair that a cure light wounds heals most ills for a low level character but literally only light wounds for a high level one that change can be easily made.



Easiness is, to a signficant extent, in the eye of the beholder. I would regard a solution to healing magic that requires rewriting and rebalancing the core ability of the cleric class - namely, magical healing - as not all that easy.



Crazy Jerome said:


> Yep.  Then once you've got your basic math for that mechanic, abstract it a bit, and smooth of the rough edges for handling time.  You'll end up with something very much like healing surges.



I like the way you think!



Celebrim said:


> Healing surges go way way too far the other way, essentially stating that not only is some of the damage of hit points abstract, but that it all is.  The Healing surge mechanic gives a character such extraordinary powers of recovery that we must assume that they are never actually injured.



Are you referring to healing surges as a mechanism for regulating hit point regain from spells etc, heaing surges as a _limit_ on the amount of healing that my be received in a given time period, or the extended-restr-recovery aspect of healing surges?

Each of these is a distinct feature of the mechanic, and only the last seems to me clearly vulnerable to your criticism. (And it's also the part of the system that is trivially easy to change - just reduce the healilg surge recovery rate, to reflect realism and/or adventure pacing as suits your group.)


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Well, my point was pretty simple, namely, that finding a +1 dagger or +1 arrows, even in classic D&D, was in my experience not generally a semi-major event. So it's quite relevant to my point to indicate that finding a flametongue is different - different from finding a +1 weapon, and different in classic D&D from in 4e.
> 
> I've never said that my experiences with classic D&D and 4e were, overall or even on the whole or to a significant extent the same.



Sorry.  I understood those details, but presumed they were just tangents to the point.  I did not assume they were the point as you see it.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 25, 2011)

I think all the points have been hit on this thread's sub-subject.

Har! Har!


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 25, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Incidentally, 4e is entirely playable without +x weapons and with only super rare magic items, and is in fact the first edition to openly support it with inherent bonuses.




"Inherent bonuses" are just magic weapon and item benefits relocated and dressed up differently. The +x equipment is still there it is just invisible and can not be removed.

It is also possible to run pre-3.X editions of D&D magic item free without having to hide where the bonus are coming from. In some editions it is quite possible for a fighting-man in the mid-teens to reliably kill a red wyrm while naked.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jun 25, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Scaling it to the hit points rather than level  of the recipient would seem to make the most sense. Which is what 4e  does, as every healing surge or equivalent restores 1/4 of the hit  points of the target.




Well... Not really. Some hit points -- the ones based on larger HD and Con bonuses -- DO represent the ability to withstand or endure greater injury (which will then take longer to heal).



Bluenose said:


> It's the recovery of hit points, particularly magically, that seems to me the point where hit points stop being a sensible way to handle conbat resolution and become something rather peculiar. If you're really not taking much physical injury, instead becoming slower/unlucky/feebler/cursed, then what does magical healing restore? Well, apparently it's "dissociated".




Well, to play devil's advocate, one could say that the spells heal a number of _specific_ wounds -- paper cut or gaping gash in your side, the spell doesn't care. (Magic is finicky that way.) And since those with more hit points have, in fact, suffered a larger number of less severe wounds (by turning each blow that lands into a less severe wound), it requires progressively more powerful magic to close up the progressively larger number of wounds.

But, yeah. I generally agree that the _cure_ spells are not tightly associated with the game world.

However, _cure_ spells are still more associated than healing surges (which have all the same problems of abstraction, but also tack on a strange limit on the amount of healing you can receive in a day) and abilities that allow you to physical wounds by yelling at people (only slight hyperbole there).

They're also, IMO, better game design than the hard limits of healing surges. I'm not a big fan of the 15-minute adventuring day, and it completely baffles me that the designers of 4E included a mechanic which, for the first time ever, _mandates_ a short adventuring day.

But here we begin to go a bit further afield than the original topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> They're also, IMO, better game design than the hard limits of healing surges. I'm not a big fan of the 15-minute adventuring day, and it completely baffles me that the designers of 4E included a mechanic which, for the first time ever, mandates a short adventuring day.




Man, I wish you had posted this a while ago, because I could have pointed it out to those insisting that 4Ed had been set up to avoid just that issue.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 25, 2011)

Nineball said:


> ...What.
> 
> Yes, exactly.  It's the boring benefits of "+1 to attack and damage" without sucking up the magical item space.  It's the math without the boring magical items.




A +1 to hit and damage or +1 to AC is not inherently boring. They become boring when players start assuming that they and their opponents will have them. 



> _That's the point_.  The +x equipment is not still there, because you aren't wielding any +x equipment.  You could in fact, play a game with no magical equipment whatsoever with inherent bonuses.




_My_ point is that using inherent bonuses is not in fact removing the bonuses received; it is covering them with a cloth and saying let's pretend they are not there. With both inherent bonuses and magic items you still receive a +1 bonus per 5 levels to hit, damage and the 4 defenses. 

Two 4e characters of the same level, one using inherent bonuses and one using 'normal' magic items, are equally effective. Play style does not change and they will face similar opponents.



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you flat out need magical weapons to harm many types of monsters?




Yes, there are monster that require +x weapons to harm, but those monster tend to be on the supernatural side of things (undead and other worldly beings) and a DM does not have use those monsters in every campaign.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 25, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> A +1 to hit and damage or +1 to AC is not inherently boring. They become boring when players start assuming that they and their opponents will have them.




Or the DM. "Now most of my players have +1 to hit, so I must raise monster AC by one to ensure future fights don't become to easy..."


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 25, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> They're also, IMO, better game design than the hard limits of healing surges. I'm not a big fan of the 15-minute adventuring day, and it completely baffles me that the designers of 4E included a mechanic which, for the first time ever, _mandates_ a short adventuring day.




I don't think it's easy to spend all your healing surges in one or even two encounters. A second wind, and if the party has one leader they can trigger two more, and perhaps one in a short rest. That would restore 100% of your hit points, and a little extra, and uses four surges. The only class with less than that is the vampire, and that's got some sort of replenishment mechanic - don't ask me how it works, I haven't got the book. Most characters I'd expect to run out of dailies before they run out of healing surges.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

I almost never run out of *either*, FWIW.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 25, 2011)

BlackMoria said:


> Ask 10 people what the essentials of D&D are to them and you will get 10 different answers.



Not only will people give you different answers, but they don't actually _know_, before they see a new edition, what really matters to them -- and the people playing the current version aren't necessarily the only people who might play a new version.  For instance, 3E was a pretty significant change from 2E, but it brought many old players back into the game.

Also, people will tend to list specific, concrete game-elements rather than intangibles -- and even if they list intangibles, those things might not make sense to anyone else.  So, players say they want AC and hp, because that's what they know, when what we really want is a combat system that isn't an accounting exercise, that doesn't get them killed for no "good" reason, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> a +1 weapon was boring




That really depends upon the campaign and the players.

I ran a high-fantasy, low-magic campaign a few years ago in which it took a while to find magical items.  There simply were not that many in the world.

So, when the party came across the 1st item- a flaming longsword- when the party was about 4th level- it was a huge deal.  That was followed by the first piece of magical armor a few adventures later- a +1 Shield- and a magical +2 dagger.  The party Paladin never wore anything better than her masterwork plate (made of starmetal).

And my players were quite happy in that game.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 25, 2011)

Yep, until 3e with it's super high acs, magical weapons were never necessary.  Useful, surely, but hardly required.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

That campaign I described WAS 3.5Ed, FWIW.



> magical weapons were never necessary




Not strictly true.  As pointed out above by others, there were creatures that could only be hit or harmed by magic weapons, even in 1Ed.

So, if you as the DM used them, you had best put magic weapon into the game for your PCs to use, or provide them with some other way to accomplish their goals.

(Of course, if one point of the adventure in question is that they NOT kill creature X, making it unhittable/undamageable would be one way to safeguard it...)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 25, 2011)

Yes, but there are other ways.  You can capture them, and summoned or charmed creatures can harm them.  Perhaps these are not the easiest of ways, but if we wanted the easy way out, we wouldn't be adventurers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not strictly true.  As pointed out above by others, there were creatures that could only be hit or harmed by magic weapons, even in 1Ed.
> 
> So, if you as the DM used them, you had best put magic weapon into the game for your PCs to use, or provide them with some other way to accomplish their goals.
> 
> (Of course, if one point of the adventure in question is that they NOT kill creature X, making it unhittable/undamageable would be one way to safeguard it...)




According the the DMG, p. 75, a creature of 4+1 HD or more can affect a creature which normally needs +1 or better weapons to hit.  A creature with 6+2 HD or more can affect a creature which normally needs +2 or better weapons to hit.  Etc.

This does not apply to characters, but it is certainly possible for characters to gain control of creatures to which it does apply.

So, clever players may well defeat these creatures, by using other creatures and/or magic.  Of course, it is also possible to make use of spells like _spiritual hammer_ (cleric 2), _shillelagh_ (druid 1), or _enchanted weapon_ (magic-user 4).  Mind you, it is much better to have a divine caster here than a magic-user!


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

> According the the DMG, p. 75, a creature of 4+1 HD or more can affect a creature which normally needs +1 or better weapons to hit. A creature with 6+2 HD or more can affect a creature which normally needs +2 or better weapons to hit. Etc.




Right, but as I recall- not having my DMG in front of me at the mo- that only deals with the basic "+1 or better to hit" issue, not things like incorporeality.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right, but as I recall- not having my DMG in front of me at the mo- that only deals with the basic "+1 or better to hit" issue, not things like incorporeality.




It does since there is no such thing as incorporeality in 1e.  Creatures that 3e would consider incorporeal like the Groaning Spirit and Spectre require +1 or better weapons to hit.  There are no other modifiers.  So an ogre can engage either in combat directly.

The Ghost is a bit of an exception since it exists on the ethereal plane and can be seen by and affect the Material Plane.  Fighting one is easiest if you shift the ethereal plane, but if it is trying to attack you directly, it can be hit by silver (50% damage) or magical weaponry (full damage).  So an ogre can fight back if a ghost attacks it too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

But he can't fight back _well_ without magical weaponry.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But he can't fight back _well_ without magical weaponry.




The ogre would fight as well as the ogre could fight if the ogre fought a creature requiring +1 or better weapons to hit.

So the same base chance to strike and the same base damage as if the other creature did not have those defenses.  Since the ogre is 4 + 1 HD its attacks do full damage to the ghost, groaning spirit, and spectre.

Certainly getting its hands on a magic weapon increases its combat capability a little from the increase chance to strike and extra pip of damage, but compare to the poor 5th level Fighter for whom the magic item is a binary switch can't affect/can affect.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 25, 2011)

Not so- a ghost cannot be struck by the ogre unless it becomes semi-material to use it's touch attack*.  Meanwhile, the ghost could simply magic jar the ogre while fully ethereal.  Assuming, of course, the ogre is young enough or rolls well enough to avoid the aging & fear effect the creature induces by it's mere appearance.

And if the magic jar is destroyed while the ghost is in command of the body, the ogre dies.

But all of this is _*ahem*_ immaterial to the point being made. As was pointed out, the HD subbing for magic weapons usage doesn't apply to PCs _at all_.  If you are a PC without magic weapons encountering something only hit by magic weapons, your best chance of survival is *running*.


* BTW, the ghost is described as being "non-corporeal (ethereal)"- so the concept of incorporeal beings is present even in 1Ed, though it's mechanics are slightly different.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you are a PC without magic weapons encountering something only hit by magic weapons, your best chance of survival is *running*.




Or, as noted, casting spells.


RC


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 26, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but even in 2e, a +1 weapon was boring.  Now, my current character's bane bow that's only +1 to living creatures...and that I can choose to drain 3 of my own HP to give it another +1 towards everything, that's interesting.




Sure, your "bane bow" is interesting to you right now, but that is mostly from the fact that it is unusual. If every weapon did that or something similar you would consider it boring as well.

The problem of +1 magic weapons being boring comes from +1 magic weapons being the norm. If non-magical/non-special weapons are the norm seeing a +1 weapon becomes exciting.

The best way I've seen this illustrated is from a letter in Dragon talking about what happened in a 2e Darksun game. In the letter, the writer talks about what happened when his party found a steel dagger for sale in a bazaar. A long story short, the party hatched a crazy scheme to steal the dagger, almost succeeded but ultimately failed after some poor dice rolls. 



> I feel as if you are too fixated on the bonuses and not the "Wow!" factor.




I've actually spent a lot of time trying to figure out where the "Wow!" factor of items come from, and let me give you a hint: the "Wow!" factor always comes from making the item stand out.



> Yes, two 4e characters of the same level, one using inherent bonuses and one using 'normal' magic items, are equally effective.  However, by using inherent bonuses and divorcing the math from the items, you open up the "Wow!" options.  The non-inherent bonuses has a +2 sword and +2 armor that he stole or bought or found, and in a few levels he's going to throw both of those away to replace it with new items.  The inherent bonuses has the sword of his grandfather, and the armor his father smelt for him before he left on his adventures.
> 
> I think the second guy wins out in the "cool item" contest.




Inherent bonuses did not open "Wow!" options like a character wielding family heirlooms up. They already existed, and there were a dozens of different ways to do them already. The first character could have just as easily started with 'the sword of his grandfather, and the armor his father smelt for him before he left on his adventures' and had them enchanted progressively better as he gained more and more money.


----------



## GreyLord (Jun 26, 2011)

You know, in AD&D (as opposed to D20 D&D types like 3e and 4e), regardless of whether I had a magic weapon or not, if I saw a Vampire, I'd probably run (the chance of losing two levels from a hit is just too RISKY)!!!!


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had an Aunt Ithesis.  We didn't get along very well.




I had her too.  Yeah, I can agree.  She was too disagreeable.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> /snip
> 
> They're also, IMO, better game design than the hard limits of healing surges. I'm not a big fan of the 15-minute adventuring day, and it completely baffles me that the designers of 4E included a mechanic which, for the first time ever, _mandates_ a short adventuring day.
> 
> But here we begin to go a bit further afield than the original topic.




Umm what?  You do realize that there are NUMEROUS mechanics even in the PHB 1 which grant healing without using healing surges.  Clerics, for and example off the top of my head, can grant healing with dailies without buringing surges.  Numerous classes have regeneration powers as well.

I'm not a huge mechanic head when it comes to 4e, but, even a casual perusal of the rules shows that your point is groundless.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but even in 2e, a +1 weapon was boring.  Now, my current character's bane bow that's only +1 to living creatures...and that I can choose to drain 3 of my own HP to give it another +1 towards everything, that's interesting./snip




I can't be the only one to recall more than a few Dragon Magazine articles over the years, going all the way back to the early 80's lamenting how boring +1 weapons are.

It's not like this is something new.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or, as noted, casting spells.
> 
> 
> RC




Fighters can make their fingers wiggle and make funny sounds, but they still won't be able to cast a lightning bolt like the mage does!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Umm what?  You do realize that there are NUMEROUS mechanics even in the PHB 1 which grant healing without using healing surges.  Clerics, for and example off the top of my head, can grant healing with dailies without buringing surges.  Numerous classes have regeneration powers as well.
> 
> I'm not a huge mechanic head when it comes to 4e, but, even a casual perusal of the rules shows that your point is groundless.




Oh, Hussar. Your willingness to reduce complex mechanical issues down to over-simplified absurdities in order to find something that you think contradicts them never ceases to amuse me.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fighters can make their fingers wiggle and make funny sounds, but they still won't be able to cast a lightning bolt like the mage does!




You make it sound like there is only one person, a fighter, in this adventuring party. I thought the standard was to expect a fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user? If we go with that, the fighter goes into meat shield mode and protects the cleric and magic user who proceed to turn the weapon immune creature into a corpse.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 26, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> You make it sound like there is only one person, a fighter, in this adventuring party. I thought the standard was to expect a fighter, thief, cleric and magic-user? If we go with that, the fighter goes into meat shield mode and protects the cleric and magic user who proceed to turn the weapon immune creature into a corpse.




If the fighter can't harm the creature, how does he stop it wandering past him to get at the people who can? (And probably coming back to finish him off later).


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If the fighter can't harm the creature, how does he stop it wandering past him to get at the people who can? (And probably coming back to finish him off later).




In a world of 5' wide doorways and 10' wide corridors standing in the way usually does it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Oh, Hussar. Your willingness to reduce complex mechanical issues down to over-simplified absurdities in order to find something that you think contradicts them never ceases to amuse me.




Snort.

I read your blog post.  You are claiming that because PC's in 4e have a limited number of surges per day (or extended rest period to be exact) then the 15 minute adventuring day is hard coded into the rules.  That the existence of things like Cure Light Wounds wands in 3e mean that it's a "soft" limit on how long the adventuring party can continue during the day.

This is ludicrous.

1.  Virtually every class can generate temporary hit points during combat, generally as either an encounter or even at will ability.  There are also numerous magic items which do the same.  

2.  There is at least one ritual I know of that allows PC's to give unspent surges to other PC's.  

3.  Pretty much every leader class gives bonuses to healing on surges, thus even further extending the day.

4.  Several classes gain abilities to heal that do not expend surges.  Clerics gain Cure X dailies, fighters have stances that grant regeneration just to name two.

That's just off the top of my head.  Yup, you're right.  Classes have a hard limit of how many surges they get per day.  That's true.  But, as far as healing goes, that's just the tip of the iceburg. 

Pointing to the limit of healing surges per day and then claiming that 4e failed to achieve design goals is laughable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> In a world of 5' wide doorways and 10' wide corridors standing in the way usually does it.




1) Even in 1Ed, ghosts could pass through solid matter due to being ethereal- he could walk right at the Wizard through the Fighter...or juke to the side and disappear, coming at the Mage from behind, below, above, etc.

2) Even if they couldn't, the ghost could just magic jar the Fighter and use him to attack the Mage.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I read your blog post.  You are claiming that because PC's in 4e have a limited number of surges per day (or extended rest period to be exact) then the 15 minute adventuring day is hard coded into the rules.  That the existence of things like Cure Light Wounds wands in 3e mean that it's a "soft" limit on how long the adventuring party can continue during the day.
> 
> This is ludicrous.
> 
> ...




A few dailies here and there compared to functionally unlimited healing? Yeah, I've got to go with the Alexandrian blog on that one. And he's not the only one who made that observation. It's come up here from players on a number of occasions.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) Even in 1Ed, ghosts could pass through solid matter due to being ethereal- he could walk right at the Wizard through the Fighter...or juke to the side and disappear, coming at the Mage from behind, below, above, etc.
> 
> 2) Even if they couldn't, the ghost could just magic jar the Fighter and use him to attack the Mage.




Would a Fighter having a +1 weapon change these tactics? Not really.

This whole sub-argument about the tactics to use against weapon immune monsters is really missing the point I was making pages ago. The point was that it is easier to run a magic-itemless game in pre-3.X than 4th. The DM just needs to not use those monsters that require +x or greater weapons to harm.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Would a Fighter having a +1 weapon change these tactics? Not really.




Probably not, but my point was that even in 1Ed, there were creatures that any melee-only damaging PC required magic items to combat.



> The point was that it is easier to run a magic-itemless game in pre-3.X than 4th. The DM just needs to not use those monsters that require +x or greater weapons to harm.




Nonsense- in ANY edition, all the DM has to do is not use creatures the PCs can't hit without magic weapons.  The games did not excise DM's discretion.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 26, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> The point was that it is easier to run a magic-itemless game in pre-3.X than 4th.



I would have to question that. Magic items are a big part of the game, pre-3e. It would almost be like playing the game without monsters, or spells, or dungeons. Sure, it can be done, but the loss will be felt strongly.

Magic items serve a number of significant functions in OD&D, B/X and 1e. They are a separate, and probably equally important, play driver and reward mechanism, the others being gold and xp. Equipment, particularly magic equipment, is one of the few mechanical means for differentiating between characters of the same class. In the form of potions, wands and other limited use items they are an important type of resource management.

In 2e and in many of the classic modules, magic items frequently perform the role of macguffin.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Probably not, but my point was that even in 1Ed, there were creatures that any melee-only damaging PC required magic items to combat.



I never argued with that. I was just disagreeing with you that having magic items or running away were the only ways for a group of adventures to deal with the those threats.



> Nonsense- in ANY edition, all the DM has to do is not use creatures the PCs can't hit without magic weapons.  The games did not excise DM's discretion.




I never said the games did that. I said that pre-3.X editions of D&D were easier to run magic-itemless than 4th edition.

In pre-3.X all you have to do to run a magic-itemless game is not hand out magic items and not use weapon immune creatures as opponents. Fairly simple. 

In 4th edition you have to either recalculate the HP, attack bonuses and defenses of every creature you use or use magic-items and call them something else. The former is incredibly time consuming and the later kind of misses the point of a magic-itemless game.



Doug McCrae said:


> I would have to question that. Magic items are a big part of the game, pre-3e. It would almost be like playing the game without monsters, or spells, or dungeons. Sure, it can be done, but the loss will be felt strongly.
> 
> Magic items serve a number of significant functions in OD&D, B/X and 1e. They are a separate, and probably equally important, play driver and reward mechanism, the others being gold and xp. Equipment, particularly magic equipment, is one of the few mechanical means for differentiating between characters of the same class. In the form of potions, wands and other limited use items they are an important type of resource management.
> 
> In 2e and in many of the classic modules, magic items frequently perform the role of macguffin.




I will not argue that magic items are not a big part of them game, but I will argue that they are not a necessary part of the game. Think about this: Are magic items more important that the two icons listed in the title of Dungeons and Dragons? Dungeons and dragons are both major parts of the game, but it is entirely possible to play through an adventure or even an entire campaign with out entering a dungeon or encountering a dragon.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right, but as I recall- not having my DMG in front of me at the mo- that only deals with the basic "+1 or better to hit" issue, not things like incorporeality.



Fair point - a Wraith needs +1 to hit, which a 4+1 HD creature can trump - once.  Then the Wraith hits back and the 4+1 HD critter is now a 3+1 HD critter that is soon destined to become a second Wraith...

(this assumes, as I always have, that level-drainers take HD from monsters just like they take levels from characters - YMMV on this)

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

billd91 said:


> A few dailies here and there compared to functionally unlimited healing? Yeah, I've got to go with the Alexandrian blog on that one. And he's not the only one who made that observation. It's come up here from players on a number of occasions.




Oh come on.  Sigh.  Well, let's look at the PHB 1 shall we?  We'll just look at Heroic Tier

Cleric - Sacred Flame - At Will, gain Cha+1/2 level temp hp; Beacon of Hope - Daily, Everyone gains 5 hp; Cure Light Wounds (lvl 2) Daily - Gain hp without spending a surge; Cure Serious Wounds (lvl 6) Daily - Gain double healing surge value, Divine Power (lvl 9) Daily - Gain Regeneration 5

Fighter - Boundless Endurance (lvl 2 Stance) - Daily Gain Regen 2+Con while bloodied; Victorous Surge (Lvl 9 Daily) - Gain hp as if you had spent a surge

Paladin - Lay on Hands - Several times per day - give a healing surge to someone else; Bolstering Strike lvl 1 At will - Gain Wis Temp hp; Invigorating Smite  Lvl 3 Encounter - if bloodied gain hp =5+Wis, also affects all bloodied allies within 5; 

Y'know, I've got to go to work, so, I'm not going to bother going on here.  I've proven my point.  In a group, there is absolutely no reason why you aren't gaining bonus hit points every single encounter.

As far as "unlimited healing" goes, well, for a lot of people that was part of the problem, not the solution.  Never minding the fact that it only applies to 3e, thus making the Alexandrian article somewhat suspect when claiming that 4e is the only edition to have "hard" limits on healing.

In any case, if your group is having trouble with getting more hit points and the only way their hp are coming back is by using surges, then they have deliberately chosen that as a strategy.  That is not required by the rules.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 27, 2011)

> In pre-3.X all you have to do to run a magic-itemless game is not hand out magic items and not use weapon immune creatures as opponents. Fairly simple.
> 
> In 4th edition you have to either recalculate the HP, attack bonuses and defenses of every creature you use or use magic-items and call them something else. The former is incredibly time consuming and the later kind of misses the point of a magic-itemless game.




To my eyes, avoiding problematic creatures is no more difficult in 4Ed than in previous editions.  Using larger numbers of lesser creatures (not necessarily minions (), either) is no more difficult than before.  Tweaks like boosting weapons from a mundane shortsword to a mundane 2handers is no more difficult than before.


----------



## Starglyte (Jun 27, 2011)

If it helps any,  Dungeon Master's Guide 2 and the Dark Sun Campaign guide both have options for magic item rare settings. It gives bonuses to the players based on their levels.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 27, 2011)

Starglyte said:


> If it helps any,  Dungeon Master's Guide 2 and the Dark Sun Campaign guide both have options for magic item rare settings. It gives bonuses to the players based on their levels.




Yes, The "Inherent Bonuses" system. Which I have already stated my dislike of.


----------



## Thanael (Jun 27, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> The mechanics don't make the game.
> 
> There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.




And it shed the sparse core flavor of 3e, which was a watered-down hodge-podge of 2E flavor.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Thanael said:


> And it shed the sparse core flavor of 3e, which was a watered-down hodge-podge of 2E flavor.




Y'know, there's a point.

What core flavour?  Basic/Expert?  Which had pretty much zero core flavor in the books.  It certainly wasn't Mystara by any stretch of the imagination until years later.  3e core flavor?  Didn't people endlessly bitch about how 3e didn't really HAVE any core flavor?  Maybe 1e core flavor.  Which there was quite a lot of, but, unfortunately was pretty mangled and hodgepodge.  Was 1e a low magic game a la Conan or high fantasy a la Dragonlance?  Depends on who you ask.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> That has nothing to do with the fifteen minute day.
> 
> The fifteen minute day was born of Vancian magic and the full on nova.  The wizard would cast almost _all_ of his high level spells, decimating a single encounter - no matter how hard! - with ease, and then shimmy into his magical invisible undetectable summonable house to rest for a bit, before going off and doing it again.
> 
> It never had anything to do with healing.




Sure it does.  It has everything to do with the ability to recharge without consequences.  So long as it is possible to meet every challenge at full strength, and there is no loss for so doing, it is foolish to do anything else.

The exact nature of the resources, and the exact means by which consequences are mitigated, are immaterial.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> The fifteen minute day was a 3e - and a 3e _only_ phenomenon - due to three things.



To be fair, 15-minute daying the 1e module Tomb of Horrors was recommended as a tactic in a recent thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> No.  It isn't.




Sure, it is.

If you can face each challenge with all your resources, then it makes sense to do so.  The strength of the "nova" -- how much extra bang you get -- makes a difference, sure.  The more finely "balanced" encounters are to an expected level of PC strength, the more useful it is to have any additional strength you can.

Nor is it simply that "3e of all editions removed all threat of resting in a dangerous area due to various spells', but that it was during the 3e era that DMs were first encouraged to cut any "unimportant" non-plot encounters.

This last is a direct result of "bang per buck":  In 3e, esp. as you level, combats take so long that a wandering monster can eat up significant play time.

So (1) knife-edge balance + (2) no penalty for resting = 15-minute adventuring day.



> Besides that, aren't you precisely the person that has claimed the fifteen minute working day never existed?




Nah, I'm the person that has claimed that the fifteen minute working day never _*had to*_ exist.  In any edition, you can include penalties for resting that remove the problem.  If you couple these penalties with a broader range of combats (so that the PCs don't always seem to be walking the knife's edge), the problem pretty well disappears.

(And that removing those factors pretty easily removes the problem is strong evidence, IMHO, that those factors are the real culprit.)


RC


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> No.  It isn't.
> 
> The fifteen minute day was a 3e - and a 3e _only_ phenomenon - due to three things.
> 
> ...




There were styles of play for which the 15-minute day became a pronounced phenomenon in 3e, but it's incorrect to conclude that there weren't elements of a 15-minute day in earlier editions that could appear. In those editions, it was running out of hit points (and the means to heal them) that tended to trigger the effect. If the first fight or two of the day ground out too many hit points and the party healers couldn't compensate, the day could be pretty short. 

You identify some factors that contributed to a 15-minute day style of play, but those were never the only factors involved. The primary issue is finite resources and how the players evaluate those resources (a major issue with casters going nova on the 'worthwhile' spells in 3e and calling it a day). In 1e/2e, the most limiting resources were hit points and healing spells. 3e alleviated some of that with easy access to healing wands and potions, leaving the issue mainly to high DC, encounter ending spells. 4e healing surges and the relative difficulty of bringing in external healing puts the game back in the realm of healing/hit points being the major factor in 15-minute day play styles.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Then by your own admission, 4e does not have a fifteen minute workday, as your number of healing surges has nothing to do with your level of strength, nor do they allow for any sort of nova.  A fighter with one surge and a fighter with ten surges fight the same.  A wizard with one level 9 spell slot and a wizard with ten do not fight the same.




Sorry, but that doesn't logically follow.

In AD&D 1e, a 10th level fighter with 100 hp, and the same fellow with 1 hp, both hit with the same frequency, and both do the same damage, but they are not the same.  Nor, to be quite honest, do they fight the same, for it is unlikely (at best) that the player will make the same choices in each of these instances.

A fighter with 10 surges can afford to be reckless.  A fighter with 0 surges cannot.

If the fighter's player knows that his DM is likely to be taking his healing surges into account when planning encounters, then he has a rational reason to face each encounter with as many healing surges as possible.  Indeed, this can become a vicious spiral:

(1)  DM creates tough encounter that the fighter barely has enough surges left to survive through.

(2)  Fighter begins trying to maintain more surges; has more extended rests.

(3)  This makes other encounters too easy (according to the DM), so he dials them up to 11.

(4)  This makes the fighter more prone to want full surges before encounters.

etc.

EDIT:  If it helps, I will agree without reservation that the 15-minute adventuring day need be no more a part of 4e play than of 3e.  And I believe that it need be no part of 3e play, at all.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Then The Alexandrian remains wrong nonetheless, because everything said here could be said the same of the 3e wand of healing.




Beats the heck out of me; I neither wrote nor read that piece.  My only concern here is the cause of the 15-minute adventuring day....what contributes to it, what does not.  What claim is The Alexandrian making?  I'll be glad to throw my $.02 in.  I might even agree with you!  EDIT:  See next post.



> Nor for that matter does the fifteen minute game not exist for _any game ever_ save for those that automatically replenish everything at the end of each fight.




Back up, there.  You just took another leap.

The 15-minute adventuring day can exist without "automatically replenish[ing] everything at the end of each fight."  It exists because of factors, as described above, which make replenishing automatically the smart move after each fight.  It is not necessary that everything be replenished; nor does it need to be after each fight.  You could have a 15-minute adventuring day, for example, by resting after every two fights.  Or by replenishing only spells, only healing surges, only hit points, or whatever.

The key points are (1) something to replenish which makes winning more certain (or, at the very least, mitigates against losing), (2) no consequences for replenishing this thing (which means that all the consequences fall on the "not replenishing" side) and (3) that the first two factors be clear enough that the players understand them.



> You seem to hold the position that the fifteen minute day is either omnipresent or non-existent.  That isn't true at all.




I'm puzzled as to where this comes from.  Whatever makes you think I hold this position?  

It should be painfully obvious that, when raiding an active location, factors can prevent resting that would not be present in, say, the Tomb of Eternal Traps Without Wandering Monsters.  

Since the factors I site can be present in some cases, but not others, then it makes no sense at all to assume that the consequence of those factors is "either omnipresent or non-existent".



> Furthermore, your example rests solely on the DM, not the player.  The fifteen minute work day describes player action, whereas you describe DM action.




Huh.

Are you actually saying that you don't see the relationship between what the GM offers, in terms of context and consequence, and what the players choose to do?

Everyone at the table has an equal stake in making the game fun.  Everyone has to contribute.  

But the GM sets the conditions under which the players operate; his decisions largely determine what sort of choices will be rewarded in the game setting.  The GM's decisions also largely determine what sort of choices will be punished.  The range between these two -- between automatically knowing that X will work or Y will fail -- is the range of interesting/meaningful choices in the game.

This is no different than putting on a heavy coat in the winter.  You may say that there is a world of difference between the coat-wearer's choice and the action of the sub-zero weather....but I say that one is a direct and obvious result of the other.

And, before someone feels the need to point out the obvious....yes, player input has a direct impact on the conditions set by the GM.  But, that doesn't have any bearing on the fundamental point:  The GM sets the context, the GM sets the consequences, and the players make choices within that paradigm.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

OK; I went back and read The Alexandrian.

As I understand it, the argument boils down to:

IF there is a limited resource to needed successfully handle encounters, and
IF that resource can only be restored after a given period Y,
THEN scenario design should only include X encounters before Y period of time, where X is the amount of resource available.​
That's rational.

A reply that would demonstrate The Alexandrian wrong about 4e would have to answer one or both of the two IFs.  

Is there is a limited resource to needed successfully handle encounters?  And is that resource only restored after a given period Y?

Note that this doesn't mandate a "15 minute adventuring day"....it could, for example, be a "four encounter week".


RC


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 27, 2011)

The threat of the party to go nova, and then get away with it for metagaming reasons, has been in every edition of D&D, albeit to varying degrees.  The DM has always had the ability to combat it, with time-sensitive threats, and other such in-game levers.

What has changed over editions are the tools built into the game to make this easy on the DM and/or encourage the party to play along.  Since the tools have varied on how they appeal (i.e. sim reasons, narrative reasons, metagaming reasons, etc.), naturally, different DMs and players have found some of the tools more or less useful and appealing.

Accordingly, I think it is nigh-useless to talk about handling nova issues, unless one is also willing to determine which tools a particular group will find acceptable.  And for which campaigns--some options are more appealing to certain styles of a campaign, such that a given group might like that tool only part of the time.

For example, you can easily put in a sim/gamist limit on novas by limiting healing to relatively expensive magic and time-sensitive magic (that scales with level), and then sharply regulating funds.   There--you can nova, but it will cost you a lot of treasure.  Or you can go slower, and let threats mounts.  Or you can be more strategic, and spend when speed is important.  This will work in any edition, with minimal house rules.  It just might not feel right for a lot of games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> For example, you can easily put in a sim/gamist limit on novas by limiting healing to relatively expensive magic and time-sensitive magic (that scales with level), and then sharply regulating funds.   There--you can nova, but it will cost you a lot of treasure.  Or you can go slower, and let threats mounts.  Or you can be more strategic, and spend when speed is important.  This will work in any edition, with minimal house rules.  It just might not feel right for a lot of games.




Good post, CJ.

The important thing is that to nova should not be the obvious right choice, and to not nova should not be the obvious wrong choice.  The decision should be within that middle ground of interesting/meaningful choices.


RC


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 27, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Yes, The "Inherent Bonuses" system. Which I have already stated my dislike of.




An interesting system might be to cross Inherent Bonuses with magic items. Whenever a player gains a level, she "improves" one of her items. You can say that the improvement has to be tied to elements of the adventures that happened. For example, if the player just spent a lot of time in the North, maybe the inherent bonus is that her sword now does extra cold damage.

Add in a few restrictions, like magic items cannot be specifically created by other means, or you can't improve the same item two levels in a row.

So you get the bonuses so the math works, you get the fun of magic items, and you get this heirloom mini-game as well.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 27, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> An interesting system might be to cross Inherent Bonuses with magic items. Whenever a player gains a level, she "improves" one of her items. You can say that the improvement has to be tied to elements of the adventures that happened. For example, if the player just spent a lot of time in the North, maybe the inherent bonus is that her sword now does extra cold damage.
> 
> Add in a few restrictions, like magic items cannot be specifically created by other means, or you can't improve the same item two levels in a row.
> 
> So you get the bonuses so the math works, you get the fun of magic items, and you get this heirloom mini-game as well.




Still does the same thing as WbL magic items and Inherent bonuses without adding any new play space.

I'd rather magic items not be required for the basic math of the game to work. I'd like the majority of opponents to be designed based around the values of a PC using mundane equipment while other more thematically powerful opponents such as dragons and demons would be designed with superior equipment in mind.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Still does the same thing as WbL magic items and Inherent bonuses without adding any new play space.
> 
> I'd rather magic items not be required for the basic math of the game to work. I'd like the majority of opponents to be designed based around the values of a PC using mundane equipment while other more thematically powerful opponents such as dragons and demons would be designed with superior equipment in mind.




But, that's very, very limiting on what you can do for most of the monsters.  Funnily enough, dragons don't need superior equipment to deal with and never have.  Demons and devils did have some fairly specific weaknesses, although the rules were rather lacking on exactly what a cold iron weapon was and how that affected the weapon.

But, what you're outlining here is a style of game where D&D becomes a low magic game - a goal that people have tried to achieve with every edition and mostly failed.  If you limit magic weapons in earlier editions, you have to throw out a large swath of monsters and you're left with humanoids and giants for the most part.

Rare magic has never really been true in any edition.  There's a reason paladin's in 1e and 2e were limited to 10 magic items, there was an expectation that the rest of the PC's would actually have more than 10 items.  Most treasure types had somewhere between a 10-20% chance of multiple magic items, meaning that you were pretty much guaranteed to find multiple magic items per level considering how many lairs you actually had to loot to gain levels in 1e and 2e.

I totally agree that the whole +1 Lumpy Metal Item is boring as all hell.  I7ll give 4e one prop - you almost never have just a +1 item.  Almost all items have additional abilities.  I just wish they had more flavorful abilities than they do.  I think they should have gone farther.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Sure, your "bane bow" is interesting to you right now, but that is mostly from the fact that it is unusual.



My own guess is that it's interesting because it interacts with the fictional environment, and forces gameplay decisions.



Ultimatecalibur said:


> If every weapon did that or something similar you would consider it boring as well.



I think it can become tedious to track too many tactical and fictinal considerations all at once, but in my experience as long as the information-handling is kept at a reasonable level, it won't be boring.



Ultimatecalibur said:


> The problem of +1 magic weapons being boring comes from +1 magic weapons being the norm. If non-magical/non-special weapons are the norm seeing a +1 weapon becomes exciting.



Only in the way that finding a magic fountain of improving stats is exciting - it's a buff!

Wheras the bane bow, or a flametongue, or an item that lets its wielder sacrifice hp to do more damage, or whatever, is more than a buff - it's flavour, it interacts with the fictional environment (a flametongue is stronger against skeletons than orcs, for example) and it actually feeds into player decision-making in an interesting and sometimes quite sophisticated fashion.



Ultimatecalibur said:


> I've actually spent a lot of time trying to figure out where the "Wow!" factor of items come from, and let me give you a hint: the "Wow!" factor always comes from making the item stand out.



This depends a lot on what your players are looking for. My players don't particularly care for exploration for its own sake (although one of them is more inclined in that direction than the others). They care about engaging the gameworld via the choices they make for their PCs. And they like items that encourage this.

An example of this comes from my recent sessions:

The PCs found a shortsword that, about 100 years ago, had been recovered from the Shadowfell by a wizard, andchristened "Truth" by him, with the intention of presenting it as a powerful gift to the wizard's king. As is so often the case for purely backstory NPCs, the wizard never got to give the kind the gift, the king died, the kingdom fell, and the item lingered undiscovered until the PCs looted it.

The PC wizard, who is also an invoker of Erathis, Ioun and Vecna, used Arcana skill to investigate the sword. He suffered a severe psychic backlash and feelings of great animosity from the sword. He passed the sword to the party ranger, who in turn passed it to the tiefling paladin. The player of the wizard worked out that the sword must be the Sword of Kas, but wasn't sure about bringing that metagame conclusion into play. But with a +18 or so bonus in History, he didn't have much trouble with the check to have his PC work out what it was, and recollect various salient facts about it.

So the PCs now know that it is a Vecna-hating sword that once belonged to a feared vampire lord. And the paladin is busy trying to persuade the sword that its goals would be better served if it were reforged as a khopesh (the PC has Turathi Weapon Training, but has been using the shortsword rather than his khopesh for the past couple of fights).​
This item has the "wow" factor because it is situated in the game's fiction, and opens up a space for the players to make choices that matter within the fiction.



Ultimatecalibur said:


> The best way I've seen this illustrated is from a letter in Dragon talking about what happened in a 2e Darksun game. In the letter, the writer talks about what happened when his party found a steel dagger for sale in a bazaar. A long story short, the party hatched a crazy scheme to steal the dagger, almost succeeded but ultimately failed after some poor dice rolls.



This is a story about a party doing crazy stuff to get good items. I've had players do this sort of thing too. The gameplay can be exciting when the stuff they're trying to steal is something other than a +1 dagger.



Hussar said:


> There's a reason paladin's in 1e and 2e were limited to 10 magic items, there was an expectation that the rest of the PC's would actually have more than 10 items.



This is a good point, that reinforces my view that, by the book, items are not that uncommon in classic D&D play, and finding +1 items isn't that spectacular an occurence.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, that's very, very limiting on what you can do for most of the monsters.




Much less so than either 3.X or 4th edition. In 4th edition, due to how the math is done, monsters follow a fairly narrow progression in power growth a levels increase. Monsters level 1-5 assume +1 equipment, 5-10:+2 , 11-12:+3 and so on.

Using 4th edition's 1 to 30 level span and +0 to +6 equipment variance, what I'm suggesting is that their can be monsters of all level's than expect +0 to +6 equipment. That's 7 times as much monster design space as 4th edition.



> Funnily enough, dragons don't need superior equipment to deal with and never have.




Higher level dragons in 3rd edition had Damage Reduction that required +X weapons to bypass.

Folklore made a big deal about being properly kitted out when facing dragons. Beowulf had an iron shield made especially for his battle with the dragon. The Lambton Worm required special bladed armor to kill.



> But, what you're outlining here is a style of game where D&D becomes a low magic game - a goal that people have tried to achieve with every edition and mostly failed. If you limit magic weapons in earlier editions, you have to throw out a large swath of monsters and you're left with humanoids and giants for the most part.




What I'm suggesting isn't inherently low magic. Just that it is easier to appreciate magical equipment when it has a noticeable effect.



> Rare magic has never really been true in any edition.  There's a reason paladin's in 1e and 2e were limited to 10 magic items, there was an expectation that the rest of the PC's would actually have more than 10 items.  Most treasure types had somewhere between a 10-20% chance of multiple magic items, meaning that you were pretty much guaranteed to find multiple magic items per level considering how many lairs you actually had to loot to gain levels in 1e and 2e.




True, you would get a large number of magic items, but most of them will be potions, scroll, or various miscellaneous magic items and fewer pieces of equipment. 

My perspective on the paladin magic item limit is that it was a munchkin/monty haul limiter, i.e. those campaigns where paladins, the supposedly most powerful class, were more likely to appear tended to hand out magic items a lot more making the class less abuse-able.



> I totally agree that the whole +1 Lumpy Metal Item is boring as all hell.  I7ll give 4e one prop - you almost never have just a +1 item.  Almost all items have additional abilities.  I just wish they had more flavorful abilities than they do.  I think they should have gone farther.




When everything is special, nothing is.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2011)

RC, some thoughts on a couple of things you said.



Raven Crowking said:


> According the the DMG, p. 75, a creature of 4+1 HD or more can affect a creature which normally needs +1 or better weapons to hit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Raven Crowking said:


> Or, as noted, casting spells.



From memory, the biggest creature Charm Person can affect, in AD&D, is an Ogre - which is able to attack as a +1 weapon. To get something bigger than that we're talking about 4th level spells (Charm Monster, Enchant Weapon), and I can't imagine there have been that many AD&D campaigns where (i) the GM was using monsters which require magic to hit, and (ii) 7th level PCs didn't have access to sufficient magic weapons to hit them.

So if we focus on the ogre example - I can see there is a certain sort of puzzle-solving wit in a low-level party working out "OK, how can we get the loot from the gargoyle in Room 4? I know, by Charming the ogre in Room 3 and having it fight the gargoyle for us!" But, a bit like the Tomb of Horrors as discussed in another recent thread, this is an approach to play that doesn't grip everyone - and certainly it doesn't grip me all that much, and after the first time I think I'd just find it tedious!

The alternative option of the wizard blowing up the gargoyle with magic missiles is, I think, more exciting (Lewis Pulsipher made this same observation in an early discussion of the merits of Charm Monster vs Lightning Bolt). But both strategies also have a sort-of "wizards trump" flavour that I'm also not a big fan of.

My preferred solution to this issue in AD&D - and one which I implemented in Rolemaster, which also has a "magical weapons to hit incorporeal and some non-fleshy monsters" rule - would be to have a first level spell (a cleric spell would be a good fit for D&D, I think) that grants no bonus but enables a weapon to count as magic. Then the cleric could bless the fighter's sword (which is what clerics do) and the fighter could beat up the gargoyle (which is what fighters do).



Raven Crowking said:


> In AD&D 1e, a 10th level fighter with 100 hp, and the same fellow with 1 hp, both hit with the same frequency, and both do the same damage, but they are not the same.  Nor, to be quite honest, do they fight the same, for it is unlikely (at best) that the player will make the same choices in each of these instances.
> 
> A fighter with 10 surges can afford to be reckless.  A fighter with 0 surges cannot.



While I can see the force of the comparison, I also think there are some significant ways in which hit points and healing surges differ in the sort of effects that they have on play.

The key difference is that a player does not have to do anything to access his or her PCs' hit points, whereas s/he does have to do something to access his/her PC's healing surges. So no matter how many healing surges a fighter PC has, if the player can't access them then they won't do any good.

The upshot of this, at least in my experience, is that whether the fighter has few or many surges remaining, many of the tactical considerations with regard to accessing surges in the course of the combat are likely to be similar.

A fighter with 0 surges available is, perhaps, a special case - having _only_ your hit points to rely on in a 4e fight is a tricky proposition, especially for a fighter. In this particular case, my experience suggests that play will more closely resemble that which you would get in AD&D if the fighter has significantly less than full hit points remaining.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> When everything is special, nothing is.



What's the evidence in favour of this claim?

I reckon a game in which the only magic items were artefacts wouldn't therefore be boring.

I _know_ that a game in which every PC has a special role or destiny isn't boring.

Heck, all the people that I'm emotionally close to in some fashion are special in some respect or another, and that doesn't undermine my affection for them.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Jun 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What's the evidence in favour of this claim?



Its a modified version of a quote from _The Incredibles_.

"And when everyone's super, no-one will be." ~ Syndrome 

Special/interesting is relative to what is considered normal.



> I reckon a game in which the only magic items were artefacts wouldn't therefore be boring.
> 
> I _know_ that a game in which every PC has a special role or destiny isn't boring.




In both those cases, after the first few times, when that becomes the norm, those artefacts will start to lose their glitz and the fact that the characters have an "epic destiny" will become cliche.



> Heck, all the people that I'm emotionally close to in some fashion are special in some respect or another, and that doesn't undermine my affection for them.




Because the norm in that case is the average person on the street. The fact that you are emotional close to them makes them special.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> As I understand it, the argument boils down to:
> 
> IF there is a limited resource to needed successfully handle encounters, and
> IF that resource can only be restored after a given period Y,
> ...




It seems like it, at first glance.

But, if your scenarios never include enough encounters for them to run out of the resource, then the resource never runs out (I know, that's trivial).  A resource that never runs out is not really a resource, is it?

It then follows that for the resource to have meaning, scenarios must at least occasionally include enough encounters that they might have to face some without.  For good game-play, whether they run out of the resource should be determined by player choices, not the scenario design.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2011)

Umbran said:


> It seems like it, at first glance.
> 
> But, if your scenarios never include enough encounters for them to run out of the resource, then the resource never runs out (I know, that's trivial).  A resource that never runs out is not really a resource, is it?
> 
> It then follows that for the resource to have meaning, scenarios must at least occasionally include enough encounters that they might have to face some without.  For good game-play, whether they run out of the resource should be determined by player choices, not the scenario design.




Sorry, Umbran, but that last line seems pretty wonky to me.....unless you assume that the players are making this choice because doing so is smart.  I.e., there is some factor in the scenario design that makes them believe that it is better to tackle the scenario without the resource than to wait until the resource recharges.

Or, as described upthread, mitigation of the key points that lead to the 15-minute adventuring day/auto-recharge:

The key points are (1) something to replenish which makes winning more certain (or, at the very least, mitigates against losing), (2) no consequences for replenishing this thing (which means that all the consequences fall on the "not replenishing" side) and (3) that the first two factors be clear enough that the players understand them.​
Unless, of course, your point is that, for good game-play, players ought to make choices that they know are unwise.  And, if that is your point, I reject it utterly.


RC


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2011)

Mearls has another one...not to divert from the many exciting discussion here, I have started a new thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2011)

> Its a modified version of a quote from The Incredibles.
> 
> "And when everyone's super, no-one will be." ~ Syndrome




Just as a point of fact, the _original_ was:

"If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from _Atlas Shrugged_)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just as a point of fact, the _original_ was:
> 
> "If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from _Atlas Shrugged_)




And, even in _*The Incredibles*_, it wasn't Syndrome who said it first -- it was Dash.  And, by the end of the film, it is okay to be Incredible again.


RC


----------



## tuxgeo (Jun 28, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just as a point of fact, the _original_ was:
> 
> "If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from _Atlas Shrugged_)




And even before that, a parallel sentiment from _The Gondoliers_ by Gilbert and Sullivan: "If everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody." (1889) 

There were probably earlier expressions along similar lines. It's a popular observation.

Edit: Found the actual lyrics at Boise State, in a rich-text file: 
"When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2011)

Good catch!  And (Aynd?) you're probably right- almost all the big, important meta-ideas keep popping up repeatedly with various sources through history.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 28, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's surprising how infrequently Gilbert & Sullivan are referenced on ENWorld




That's because Gilbert & Sullivan  were traditionally Warhammer players.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 28, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That's because Gilbert & Sullivan were traditionally Warhammer players.




Thanks to you, I now have a totally new image of the typical Warhammer session.  And it involves players singing ...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 28, 2011)

Shouldn't it have been obvious based upon their most famous opera _The Space Marines of Penzance_?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, Umbran, but that last line seems pretty wonky to me.....unless you assume that the players are making this choice because doing so is smart.




No.  I assume players make their choices for their own reasons.  Maybe they make it because it is smart.  Maybe they make it because they decide character is driven by anger, or fear.  Maybe there's some other reason.  

I am assuming, however, that there's generally significant uncertainty of what's ahead.  The 15 minute workday is dependent upon two things: that the PCs can bring all their resources to bear in a short time period, and that they feel it is safe for them to do so.



> Unless, of course, your point is that, for good game-play, players ought to make choices that they know are unwise.




No.  My point is that good game play requires the possibility of bad choices, and that there be some decision point regarding spending resources.  If you cannot run out, that removes a point of decision - you can't screw up by spending it too soon, or keeping it in reserve too long.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2011)

Umbran said:


> No.  I assume players make their choices for their own reasons.  Maybe they make it because it is smart.  Maybe they make it because they decide character is driven by anger, or fear.  Maybe there's some other reason.




Making a move you know to be unwise, because you "decide [the] character is driven by anger, or fear" is still making a move you know to be unwise.



> The 15 minute workday is dependent upon two things: that the PCs can bring all their resources to bear in a short time period, and that they feel it is safe for them to do so.




This is true.  I worded it somewhat differently, but the difference in words doesn't make a difference in intent.



> My point is that good game play requires the possibility of bad choices, and that there be some decision point regarding spending resources.




Agreed.  But, I would not simply say "the possibility of bad choices"; I would mandate "the possibility of bad choices with the intent to make good choices."  IOW, the possibility of error.

Good game play in chess is not sacrificing you queen just, 'cause, you know, it's a bad choice.  The player must be striving to deal with, as you way, unknowns, and must be able to make errors in so doing.  In a really good game, most (but not all) errors should be recoverable with additional effort.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.  But, I would not simply say "the possibility of bad choices"; I would mandate "the possibility of bad choices with the intent to make good choices."  IOW, the possibility of error.




For my point, that's over-specifying 

Good game play requires choice, period - some will be good and some will be bad.   If the scenario is specifically designed to remove the choice, well, they can't have good (or bad) game play, about it, now can they?  And they can't have a reason/intent behind a choice if there's no choice.  So, choice comes first.



> Good game play in chess is not sacrificing you queen just, 'cause, you know, it's a bad choice.




Yeah, well, I wanted to avoid the suggestion that good game play in RPGs is purely a question of tactical or strategic value.  I was being intentionally broad.

Goading the BBEG into attacking you may not be a good choice in the typical tactical sense, but if you do it because there's a budding romance between your character and another potential target, it may make for darned great RPG game play.  IMHO, at least.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2011)

So, you were just agreeing with me, then.  Funny, I didn't get that from your earlier post.

(Shrug)

All good then, I guess.


----------



## Gryph (Jun 28, 2011)

billd91 said:


> There were styles of play for which the 15-minute day became a pronounced phenomenon in 3e, but it's incorrect to conclude that there weren't elements of a 15-minute day in earlier editions that could appear. In those editions, it was running out of hit points (and the means to heal them) that tended to trigger the effect. If the first fight or two of the day ground out too many hit points and the party healers couldn't compensate, the day could be pretty short.
> 
> You identify some factors that contributed to a 15-minute day style of play, but those were never the only factors involved. The primary issue is finite resources and how the players evaluate those resources (a major issue with casters going nova on the 'worthwhile' spells in 3e and calling it a day). In 1e/2e, the most limiting resources were hit points and healing spells. 3e alleviated some of that with easy access to healing wands and potions, leaving the issue mainly to high DC, encounter ending spells. 4e healing surges and the relative difficulty of bringing in external healing puts the game back in the realm of healing/hit points being the major factor in 15-minute day play styles.




My D&D group in the early 80s called it the 5 minute day. It was a reference to how fast we could burn through the healer's cure spells. Our pronounced preference for multi-class clerics and druids was a player attempt to extend the adventuring day.

3e having a 15 minute work day was an improvement, barely.


----------



## SabreCat (Jun 28, 2011)

Coming up with a list of necessary and sufficient qualities for anything is hard--ponder the essentialist question, "What makes a tiger a tiger?" It's going to be even muddier when you try to do so with something that's a human invention, abstract, and different across time (/editions) and social groups. Anything you add to the list will have a counterexample. Many things you leave off the list will leave your audience wondering where they went.

The best Mearls can hope for in an endeavor like this is statistical, methinks. If you polled not WotC R&D, but as many self-described D&D players as you can find, and picked out the most common themes of their responses, you might come up with a list of stuff that _tends _to be important to people's concept of D&D. And I don't know if even that would prove to be useful for design--marketing, maybe.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 29, 2011)

pemerton said:


> My preferred solution to this issue in AD&D would be to have a first level spell (a cleric spell would be a good fit for D&D, I think) that grants no bonus but enables a weapon to count as magic. Then the cleric could bless the fighter's sword (which is what clerics do) and the fighter could beat up the gargoyle (which is what fighters do).



A minor tweak to _Shillelagh_ (Druid-1) takes care of this, and has a nice benefit-drawback built in: benefit = fighter gets a magic weapon thus can hit the gargoyle, drawback = that weapon is a club with which said fighter may or may not be proficient...

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Its a modified version of a quote from _The Incredibles_.
> 
> "And when everyone's super, no-one will be." ~ Syndrome
> 
> Special/interesting is relative to what is considered normal.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just as a point of fact, the _original_ was:
> 
> "If everyone's special, no-one will be." ~ Ayn Rand (as I recall, from _Atlas Shrugged_)





tuxgeo said:


> a parallel sentiment from _The Gondoliers_ by Gilbert and Sullivan: "If everybody is somebody, then nobody is anybody." (1889)



I knew that you got the quote from the Incredibles. I didn't know that it has been endorsed by Ayn Rand, although that's hardly surprising. In Glibert and Sullivan I _assume_ that it's intended as a gentle mockery of Victorian social mores, but I could be wrong about that - G&S isn't really my thing.

But this doesn't actually answer my question, what is the evidence in favour of it? For example, its crucial to some variants of Buddhism that a life free of suffering, and involving only pleasurable experiences, it not only conceivable but attainable. Why should I prefer Ayn Rand over the Buddha as a theorist of valuation?



Ultimatecalibur said:


> Because the norm in that case is the average person on the street. The fact that you are emotional close to them makes them special.



Well, there are some moral traditions that take the view that every person on the street is special, and that it's an error (of lust, or pride, or moral imagination, perhaps) not to treat everyone as one treats one's friends and family - eg Socrates, perhaps Plato, most mainstream religions, many consequentialists.

Are they obviously wrong? I don't think so.



Ultimatecalibur said:


> In both those cases, after the first few times, when that becomes the norm, those artefacts will start to lose their glitz and the fact that the characters have an "epic destiny" will become cliche.



Again, what's your evidence for this?

For example, would I cease to enjoy Graham Greene's novels if everyone wrote as well as Greene? Would I cease to enjoy Tolkien's fantasy if all fantasy novels were as readable and engaging? I don't think so - in fact, I make a point of reading almost no fantasy, because most of it is in my view not very well written, and I try to avoid reading mainstream novels that aren't at least in the ballpark, as far as quality is concerned, of Greene's lesser works.

When I have the chance to visit great galleries, I don't make sure to also study up on bad paintings and sculptures so that my tastes won't become jaded by seeing mostly quality works.

Of course, the value of _positional_ goods depends upon the contrast that exists between my {car, house, suit, tie, whatever} and yours - but not all goods are positional goods. Not even all consumer goods are, or need be, positional goods. And I would hope that for many people, their relationships with their fellow humans aren't merely or primarily positional goods. And you haven't given me any reason to think that magic items or epic destinies in D&D are (typically, or always) positional goods. Nor have you given me any reason to think that they are the sort of good which will cause jading of taste with excessive exposure.

In my experience, the value of magic items and epic destinies in fantasy RPGing is a factor of (i) their contribution to buffing the PC, and (ii) their contribution to enabling the player of the PC to engage the gameworld. The first of these is typically the immediate source of pleasure. The second is what gives an item or a destiny staying power as an element of the game. And it seems to me that the 4e designers have a goal of making sure that both these sources of value are present in epic destinies and at least some magic items.

But even if one thinks that the designers have failed at this goal, it wouldn't follow that the value of items or destinies comes from the contrast players draw between them and other fictional elements.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2011)

> I didn't know that it has been endorsed by Ayn Rand, although that's hardly surprising.



How do you mean that?



> what is the evidence in favour of it?




It is a statement of the importance of contrast: like, how can you tell what brightness is if there is no darkness.  Or the concept that the concept of good presupposes the existence of evil.

Very old idea.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How do you mean that?



Well, without wanting to push further against board rules, I'll put it this way: Ayn Rand is not known for her anti-elitisim.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is a statement of the importance of contrast: like, how can you tell what brightness is if there is no darkness.  Or the concept that the concept of good presupposes the existence of evil.
> 
> Very old idea.



I understand that it is a statement about the importance to value of contrast. I am asking what the evidence is in favour of it. It is not self-evidently true. There are many repsectable theories of value that deny it. And the most practically influential of contemporary theories of value - namely, economics - does not claim that all goods are positional goods.

It's against board rules to explore the implications of the truth or falsity of this claim for politics and society more broadly. But my point is (i) that it is not self-evidently true (being rejected, after all, by many reputable theorists of value), and (ii) that no evidence has been adduced that it is true of the value, to participants in RPGs, or magic items and/or epic destinies. Personally, I think the reason that such evidence hasn't been adduced is because it doesn't exist. As I explained upthread, I think the value of these things to game participants comes from elsewhere.

And why does this matter? Well, in my view the slogan encourages designers to incorporate unnecessary and unhelpful suckage into their PC build rules. It's fine to have as an explicit goal of a game that players can "win" or "lose" when it comes to building a PC - as 3E apparently did - although personally I have little interest in playing that game. My claim, though, is that it is perfectly possible to have valuable and valued build choices which are not positional goods in this fashion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 29, 2011)

I think we are confusing ethics with game preferences here. In real life i agree with the statement that everyone is special (which is probably about as far as we can go on that subject here) but at the game table i prefer the possibility of making better or worse characters. These are two very different things. One is a statement about a person's inherent value, the other is a matter of preference and is a statement about characters ability to kill make believe monsters. For me i think 4e addressed a legit problem (the mega brokeness of certain builds in 3e and some balance issues between classes) by going too far in the other direction.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 29, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I understand that it is a statement about the importance to value of contrast. I am asking what the evidence is in favour of it. There are many repsectable theories of value that deny it.




The concept of democracy, for one, rejects the idea of any citizen being anyone special. All people are equal.

Also, there's this: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz4hPbHIZ6Y]YouTube - ‪Malcolm Gladwell Outliers‬‏[/ame]

Anyway, kings are just commoners born luckier, and pithy quotes from corpses mistake didactic points for enlightenment, and magic items could probably use a boost in the "Why do I want to use this?" category.

My idea was to make them all bonuses rather than requirements -- you MIGHT find a +1 sword, and it MIGHT give you +1 to attacks with swords, but this is a bonus for excellent performance, not an entitlement.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 29, 2011)

Note that "everyone is special" has a mutable meaning, and people aren't always clear in context which one they mean.  In a lot of religious or philosophical traditions, it boils down to:  "Worthy of respect as a human being," or something very similar.  That is, by virtue of being human and not, say, a rock or a turnip, you classify in the "special" category.

Then there is the more modern conception of, "everyone has some special, super, stupdendous thing that they contribute that is unique to their personality in its own special way."  I've tried to make a neutral rendering of that version, but am not sure that I quite succeeded. This one is very much in dispute, with the counter-point being something like, "Most people are 'just folk' -- worthy of that inherent respect thereof, that being all that is needed to get it, but not likely to be heroic or any other 'special' quality that you care to name."

Two of the more common tropes explaining player character powers *both* side with the idea that everyone isn't special in that latter sense, albeit for different reasons:

1. PCs are called out as specifically special is usually saying that they have something beyond that inherent dignity that marks them--fate, favored by the gods, whatever.

2. PCs are like everyone else, but eventually are special by what they learn, do, and become.  Other people *might* have been special, but aren't.


----------



## Stoat (Jun 29, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My idea was to make them all bonuses rather than requirements -- you MIGHT find a +1 sword, and it MIGHT give you +1 to attacks with swords, but this is a bonus for excellent performance, not an entitlement.




IMO, the +X whatever item should be taken to a nice farm and left to live there with the nice farmer.  I don't think there's anything exciting, interesting or mystical about a +1 sword, a +2 shield, a doodad that gives you a +3 to all your saves, etc., etc., etc.  It's just a naked mechanical bonus.

I like 4E's idea that every item has some special property in addition to its bonus.  The implementation of that idea was pretty uneven, but I'd rather see WotC develop the game in that direction.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not a big fan of the 15-minute adventuring day, and it completely baffles me that the designers of 4E included a mechanic which, for the first time ever, _mandates_ a short adventuring day.




I just thought of the alternative that you seem to advocate, and would give it a playtest, except the outcome is obvious.

The alternative to having healing surges, of course, being not having healing surges. My theoretical playtest with each character having 0 healing surges would inevitably lead to 1 encounter and then an extended rest (assuming they survived the encounter and the only non-magical way to restore HP is by taking extended rests).

In fact, it seems your statement is the exact opposite of what healing surges actually do, which is to allow the adventurers to participate in many more encounters (i.e. a full adventuring day).

Edit: Sorry, meant for [MENTION=55271]Beginning of the End[/MENTION]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2011)

OK, good we got _that_ cleared up!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 30, 2011)

> MO, the +X whatever item should be taken to a nice farm and left to live there with the nice farmer. I don't think there's anything exciting, interesting or mystical about a +1 sword, a +2 shield, a doodad that gives you a +3 to all your saves, etc., etc., etc. It's just a naked mechanical bonus.
> 
> I like 4E's idea that every item has some special property in addition to its bonus. The implementation of that idea was pretty uneven, but I'd rather see WotC develop the game in that direction.




It's not a bad idea, but it's largely unnecessary in a world where you don't automatically get +1 swords just to keep up with the math. Because the choice then isn't between a +1 sword and a flametongue sword, but between a +1 sword, and NO +1 SWORD. 

That said, I'm a fan of weapon quirks. The last magic weapons I rolled for the party included an evil, magic-hating longsword, an oversized morningstar that was sacred to a goblin god, and a brace of anti-magical darts.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> at the game table i prefer the possibility of making better or worse characters.



I've got nothing against that as a preference - although, like I said in my previous post, I personally don't have much interest in playing that game.

What I object to is the claim that this is an _inherent_ requirement - that I can't have a game in which PCs are valuable, or worth playing, _without_ the possibility of building a crappy PC.



Crazy Jerome said:


> Two of the more common tropes explaining player character powers *both* side with the idea that everyone isn't special in that latter sense



Sure. And this is especially true for fantasy RPGs, I think, because of the pre-modern tropes associated with Tolkienesque fantasy fiction, and the particular variety of modernism associated with Howard-esque fantasy fiction.

But I think this is tangential to the point about epic destinies and magic items - which isn't about value within the fiction, and the reliance of that value on contrast, but about value to the players in the real world, and the reliance of _that_ value on contrast.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> evil, magic-hating longsword



Does that mean it was also self-hating? After all, the sword itself must've been magic. I think that's a great idea.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 30, 2011)

As long as design is framed in terms of divisions (which they create) and formulas (which they cannot recreate), there will be problems.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I've got nothing against that as a preference - although, like I said in my previous post, I personally don't have much interest in playing that game.
> 
> What I object to is the claim that this is an _inherent_ requirement - that I can't have a game in which PCs are valuable, or worth playing, _without_ the possibility of building a crappy PC.
> .




I agree this is all a matter of personal taste. I recall the division when 3e was at its height between my pro build players and players who wanted more balance. Oddly enough at the time i tended to share the concerns of the balance crowd, but when 4e came out i realized that level of balance wasn't what i was really looking for--i still think 3e had brokenness tgat needed some fixing but 4 e just went too far in tge other direction for my taste.

That said you should play the game/edition that brings you the most satisfaction. I dont believe my tastes reflect some kind of objective standard. Nor do i think your characters are any less enjoyable or meaningful for you because you like a balance when it comes to character options. 

I think d&d is especially in an akward spot because they need to appeal to the broadest possible audience with each edition. But you saw this enormous split develop over balance and builds ( not to mention magic) during 3e ( it looked almost 50-50 on the wizards forum). I don't see how they can appeal to both groups....and with pathfinder firmly established now it may not be worth their effort.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 30, 2011)

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I agree that it's about taste. I also agree that D&D is in an awkward spot, and that they may not be able to appeal to both groups.

According to Lisa Stevens on the Paizo forums Pathfinder is now outselling D&D. (I'm pretty sure this is not taking into account DDI subscriptions, but I also think it's not taking into account Pathfinder subscriptions - I don't know how the two of these balance out.) If this is right, WotC would seem to have very little chance of regaining the 3E market.

My intuition is that WotC should therefore be trying to do a better job of promoting 4e at what it is good for - something different from 3E-ish play - but I don't know that my intuition on these things is worth very much!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2011)

pemerton said:


> @Bedrockgames , I agree that it's about taste. I also agree that D&D is in an awkward spot, and that they may not be able to appeal to both groups.
> 
> According to Lisa Stevens on the Paizo forums Pathfinder is now outselling D&D. (I'm pretty sure this is not taking into account DDI subscriptions, but I also think it's not taking into account Pathfinder subscriptions - I don't know how the two of these balance out.) If this is right, WotC would seem to have very little chance of regaining the 3E market.
> 
> My intuition is that WotC should therefore be trying to do a better job of promoting 4e at what it is good for - something different from 3E-ish play - but I don't know that my intuition on these things is worth very much!





I think the problem for them is they can't go back, but how can they grow the game going forward. If the 3E folk have largely migrated over to pathfinder, it is almost like the market has been divided in two. Great for Paizo because they grew as a result. But bad for wizards because they shrank as a result. 

In a way this is a positive trend for gamers. It has been a while since D&D had serious competition. Both publishers will now be working that much harder to win over readers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the problem for them is they can't go back, but how can they grow the game going forward. If the 3E folk have largely migrated over to pathfinder, it is almost like the market has been divided in two. Great for Paizo because they grew as a result. But bad for wizards because they shrank as a result.
> 
> In a way this is a positive trend for gamers. It has been a while since D&D had serious competition. Both publishers will now be working that much harder to win over readers.




Agreed.

One of the biggest problems with 4e, from my perspective, is the GSL.

With 3e, they tried "Welcome to our house!  Come in and play!" with the OGL and it really, really worked.  Every "competing" game supplied options for their core game, as well as a reference back to it.  But....now, that is not their core game.  The OGL effectively supplies options for Pathfinder, and all but references back to it.

With 4e, they tried "You just gotta trust us, this is gonna be the most fun you've ever had, but you can't play around with any of the parts."  They tried to take their ball and go home, hoping that we'd all be willing to agree with the designers' idea of what "fun" is.  This plan lost market share.

But.....I suspect that a return to the OGL would gain 4e market share.  With 3pp able to publish varients that cater to more people, using a license that WotC cannot simply pull, there would be motive for more people to make 4e-compatable products that hailed back to the original game.  I had been looking forward to Necromancer Games' take before the GSL fiasco.

Were some 3pp suppliments better received than WotC's take on the same topic?  Sure!  But that is an opportunity to find out what the market wants that you aren't providing.  It isn't an excuse to stick your head in the sand and demand that people play the way you want them to.

And the original hard line of "You can support the OGL with a product (line), or you can support 4e, but not both" really, _*really*_ backfired....IMHO, at least.

Several changes in 4e seem to switch terms simply as an estoppal to the OGL.  The idea that you can't change what terms mean?  That's way too "One True Way to Play" for my tastes.

IMHO, WotC should ditch the GSL, and publish an SRD for 4e under the OGL.  Then WotC should pay really close attention to the formats successful 3pp 4e adventures use.....and ditch the delve format (except in special cases, where using it actually makes sense).

If you want to charge for electronic tools -- especially on a subscription basis -- they should be tools that are simply too cool to pass up (like the VTT should have been), not tools that are necessary to handle the increasing complexity of character/monster/encounter creation.

Bring back pdfs of earlier editions in a big way.  You can't control access anyway; you might as well get some goodwill or money for providing access.  I would include not only past edition modules, but rulesets, sourcebooks, and even past issues of Dragon and Dungeon as modestly-priced pdfs.  If that means you have to cut Paizo in, then do so.  In terms of goodwill, it would mean a lot, and you'd stop coming across as "My Way of the Highway" One-True-Wayists.

That last point is important, btw.  _*I know people who like the game, but don't want to support the attitude.*_  I'm betting that I'm not alone.

WotC can choose to be inclusive, as Paizo has done, and as WotC did in a big way with the enormously successful 3e, or it can continue down the road of "We'll tell you what's fun/how to play" that has cost it market share.

That's the way I see it.  I hope they choose wisely.


RC


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One of the biggest problems with 4e, from my perspective, is the GSL.
> 
> With 3e, they tried "Welcome to our house!  Come in and play!" with the OGL and it really, really worked.  Every "competing" game supplied options for their core game, as well as a reference back to it.  But....now, that is not their core game.  The OGL effectively supplies options for Pathfinder, and all but references back to it.




For which we should be immensely grateful to the 3E design team because they deliberately set up the OGL to ensure that it would not be possible for a company to do exactly what WoTC tried to do, and that's take the game away from the fans.  There was a serious risk that if TSR died that the game would end up in limbo with no one who owned the game publishing, and no one who didn't own the game able to support it.   The OGL made D&D essentially irrevocably a possession of the fans, ensuring it could never die and would (IMO) never lose its preeminance among RPGs because it doesn't matter now how the property is mismanaged or not - we can still keep the game alive.   Even if Pazio dies because they decide to produce a million one legged dwarven minatures and it kills the company, D&D in some form can't die now.

The house is open, we can all play.

WotC tried to get out of that commitment, and they paid for it.  It isn't just that they gave up on the OGL and went to the GSL, it's that they deliberately tried to make a game that wouldn't be compatible with the game the OGL provided for and per force also abandoned the most popular game on the market and the dominate game over the last 30+ years.  



> But.....I suspect that a return to the OGL would gain 4e market share.




I don't think so.  Some people jumped on the 4e bandwagon and some people have legitimate reasons for likeing it better.   But for the most part, I think what 4e taught most people is that they really liked the old game of D&D better than they thought that they did.  More groups and more players in my area seem to be going back to 3e (or switching to Pathfinder) than I see 3e players switching to 4e.  



> It isn't an excuse to stick your head in the sand and demand that people play the way you want them to.




Early 2e was like that too, and turned me away from adopting it as a system for the same reasons.  Second edition made me feel like the designers didn't want me to play the game I was playing, and were openly mocking me for doing so.  It was like they were calling their previous enormously popular edition 'badwrongfun' and telling you that you'd have more fun playing there way instead of yours.

My relationship to the games designers and publishers has always felt to me like it ought to be peer to peer.  I don't like being dictated to by what is essentially some other DM.  If you do the hard work to provide me with content, I'll probably send money your way.  But don't tell me how to run my table or try to take the game I'm playing away from me.  Don't act like your game is a lot better than mine just because you are published or hold an official position, because TSR and WotC have published alot of embarassing crap over the years and even good published designers who have products I own have at times printed things I'd have been embarassed to put my name to.  Act like I'm a respected and valued customer, and maybe I'll be one.   Talk to me like a fellow gamer, and stop running down the game I bought from you just to get me to buy something new.

I mean ultimately it comes down to this: why the heck should I care more about what Mearls thinks the core of D&D is than what I think the core of D&D is?  

The reason that the OGL was so ingenious and so successful is that it recognized the actual state of the game.  The OGL didn't create the diversity of play and rules.  It merely validated the existing divesity of tables and approaches to the game that had existed almost since the beginning (and maybe before the beginning, as Arneson's approach always appeared to me to be distinct from Gygax's).  It said, "Not only do we like that you all play the game in your own ways, but we are going to help you do that and help you help each other make the game we are mutually invested in more fun."   It validated and encouraged the community of DM's that are at the core of D&D's success.  No DM's; no game.  That's the core of D&D and any one who wants to make money off of the game better never forget it.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 30, 2011)

Heh, I was pretty turned off by a subset of the 3E guys that took the attitude that the OGL was so that "professionals" could deliver content to us plebians, and save us from our own stinky house rules. 

Actually, one of the many good reasons for having a very simple, basic version of the game as a base is that you could then make that base OGL, while preserving the vast volume of the more complicated options as proprietary. You wouldn't do it merely for that reason, but it is certainly a good secondary reason.

Take monsters as just one example. Let's say this theoretical basic version has the proverbial 2-line monster stat block that we all know and love from our early days. There is no flavor there, short of whatever image "ogre" conjures up in your mind. Then in the monster manual, you have a page or three on ogres, complete with options for the varying complexity of the game.

A third party wants to use this ogre. He can put those two lines in his product, no problem. He can put a section at the beginning of the product saying that it was built with the expectation that you would use optional monster rules A, H, and L. You still put the two lines in your adventure, and the DM knows to go look in the monster manual. You say that you also use your own optional rule MyHouseRule X. That is detailed in the product. You can list it after the two lines if you want.

Then WotC sells customization options in the DDI, both to the third party and the users. The third party either pays a fee, or goes for a percentage. If they pay the fee, then WotC just allows their customization options in, and any user that subs for that in their subscription contributes directly to the third party. WotC gets the fee *and* the heightened interest in their monster manual. Maybe the third party is small. They go for percentage. They enter the data. WotC is out nothing. If it sells, they get a cut and that heightened interest. If it doesn't, well--customization is easy to ignore, if you code it right.

OTOH, say that the third party decides to go with only the base version, no options from WotC or their product? WotC doesn't get anything, right, same as the problem when people reprinted the SRD? Nope, at that point, by definition, the third party is making content and selling it, which helps move the game. It might be adventures. It might be source material. But it is content. And in this model, the DDI is a content movement product, not a particular game.

When the base system is the complicated version, none of this works. It isn't even an option to try to make it work. You've got weird intersections of their version of your complicated options, and it is difficult to track what counts or what doesn't.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 30, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Heh, I was pretty turned off by a subset of the 3E guys that took the attitude that the OGL was so that "professionals" could deliver content to us plebians, and save us from our own stinky house rules.




Granted, there are a lot of stinky house rules out there and some people might feel that way about mine (in fact, some on the board I think do), but I take your point.

For me, there have been times when I have felt that TSR/WotC's official position on your rights to the game as a DM were such that it was illegal to make house rules.  Not merely that they discouraged it, or that they stated in the rule book that these were the official rules and that if you caught someone departing from them with so called 'house rules' that you should by all means shun them but that taken literally, that they'd take you to court for having house rules.   That is to say, there were times when I felt like TSR/WotC's official stance was that you could buy the game, but that it was illegal for you to play the game.

That is, they seemed to suggest that if I wrote my own modules, or made up my own rules, or adapted any of their material in some derivitive manner that depended on there IP that I was infringing on their IP.  Now I can understand where they are coming from at times, but at other times it felt like the very act of playing the game was supposed to be in some fashion breaking copyright laws because I was distributing copyrighted content to my players!  And heaven help you if you made something up, like rules for sailing ships or whatever, then photocopied it and gave it to another DM!  I mean, I often felt like my own gaming notes were contraband of some sort, which had to be passed around in secret despite the fact that I wasn't quoting anything they'd published but just playing the game described by what they'd published.

The OGL to me felt like a big step toward legitimizing and welcoming how the game was actually played, and encouraging DMs to go ahead and form communities - like at EnWorld here - where it was safe to just make crap up without fear of bringing down a 'Cease and Desist' notice because you know, technically, at some point in the future they might want to make money off their own sailing rules and this talk about sailing house rules was infringing on the future viability of that product.  That it allowed a few enterprising and hard working DMs to make a bit of money or even go professional with their house rules was just frosting.  I wasn't one of those; I just wanted to feel like the freedom the game books seemed to offer was something I actually had in fact and not just theory.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 30, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> The OGL to me felt like a big step toward legitimizing and welcoming how the game was actually played, and encouraging DMs to go ahead and form communities - like at EnWorld here - where it was safe to just make crap up without fear of bringing down a 'Cease and Desist' notice because you know, technically, at some point in the future they might want to make money off their own sailing rules and this talk about sailing house rules was infringing on the future viability of that product.  That it allowed a few enterprising and hard working DMs to make a bit of money or even go professional with their house rules was just frosting.  I wasn't one of those; I just wanted to feel like the freedom the game books seemed to offer was something I actually had in fact and not just theory.




I am not sure that WoTC intended this as much as you think they did. Here is an alternate construction of the events of the past few years.

1. WotC released the OGL with the intent of allowing people to make modifications on top of the rules. The hobby would have a common rules base, but third parties would be free to make adventures and settings and other minor modifications.

2. Instead of following this path, most third parties started altering the rules themselves. Instead of a common rules base, the game was evolving into several incompatible rule systems that descended from the common OGL.

3. Fearing fragmentation of the playerbase, WotC tried to pull back from the full OGL, and come up with a more limited structure that preserved a common ruleset.

4. Unfortunately, they were too late. The alternate rules had enough mind-share to survive. Additionally, the creation of 4e accelerated the fragmentation of the community into two camps. But this fragmentation would have happened anyways under the OGL as the modified rules grew farther and farther apart.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 30, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I am not sure that WoTC intended this as much as you think they did. Here is an alternate construction of the events of the past few years.
> 
> 1. WotC released the OGL with the intent of allowing people to make modifications on top of the rules. The hobby would have a common rules base, but third parties would be free to make adventures and settings and other minor modifications.
> 
> ...




Well one thing I think needs to be kept in perspective is that Peter Adkinson/Ryan Dancey WotC was/is not Hasbro WotC. Even though it was the same company, WotC, I can guarantee that "WotC" looked at the business differently depending upon what time period one is speaking of.


----------



## 13garth13 (Jun 30, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I am not sure that WoTC intended this as much as you think they did. Here is an alternate construction of the events of the past few years.
> 
> 1. WotC released the OGL with the intent of allowing people to make modifications on top of the rules. The hobby would have a common rules base, but third parties would be free to make adventures and settings and other minor modifications.
> 
> ...





While I suspect that indeed the latter points on your list are an accurate portrayal of the general thinking within WOTC in the later years of the grand OGL experiment, I also seem to recall (quite strongly, i.e. I'm bloody positive I haven't misremembered it) that Ryan Dancey in particular was quite explicit about his intentions regarding the OGL, and that one of them was to put D&D into the hands of the gaming public so that it (or at least the 3rd edition) could always remain open and available no matter what happened next.

In other words, while cynicism and fear of the OGL may well indeed have been the mindset among some/many at WOTC towards the end of 3.X, in the beginning of the OGL the mindset (at least officially...no doubt there were dissenters) was more in line with the feelings evoked within Celebrim.

I know that I certainly saw it as a huge step forward in public relations, and a wonderful opening of the game that delivered it into the hands of all who played it, rather than the way it felt in those not-so-wonderful days of 2e and TSR's initial web presence (ask poor Sean Reynolds what it was like being the internet enforcer.....sheesh.....).

Cheers,
Colin

P.S.  Yes, I'm also aware that the OGL was intended to sort of virally take D&D/d20 into the market place, driving further dollars towards WOTC's coffers.  One can accept cynical, economic gamesmanship and pie-in-the-sky, isn't-it-great-that-we-can-all-get-along-and-share-our-game-without-lawsuits optimism too


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> I am not sure that WoTC intended this as much as you think they did.




"I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners. I know just how close that came to happening. In 1997, TSR had pledged most of the copyright interests in D&D as collateral for loans it could not repay, and had Wizards of the Coast not rescued it I'm certain that it would have all gone into a lenghty bankruptcy struggle with a very real chance that D&D couldn't be published until the suits, appeals, countersuits, etc. had all been settled (i.e. maybe never). The OGL enabled that as a positive side effect." - Ryan Dancey

While I don't intend to go to the work to dig up all the similar quotes by former WotC employees, I've seen that sentiment echoed by a lot of the people who were part of creating 3e D&D and the OGL.  I believe it was a labor of love by fellow gamers who were close enough to product to know just how close it came to dying.  Sure, they also wanted to make money, but there is nothing wrong with that either.  Everyone has to eat.



> WotC released the OGL with the intent of allowing people to make modifications on top of the rules. The hobby would have a common rules base, but third parties would be free to make adventures and settings and other minor modifications.
> 
> Instead of following this path, most third parties started altering the rules themselves. Instead of a common rules base, the game was evolving into several incompatible rule systems that descended from the common OGL.




Let me state that the majority of companies and publishers that thought the way to make money off the OGL was primarily to sell rule books are now either out of business or entirely or almost entirely out of the RPG business.  It's not entirely impossible that WotC will soon be one of them.

The companies that stayed healthy used the OGL to make adventures, settings, and apply the very basics of the rules set to completely different generas.  So even to the extent that it is true that WotC didn't foresee exactly what sort of products would be created, I totally disagree that the third party rule books ever represented a threat to WotC.  They were almost always supplemental, and the ones that weren't (mostly offered by Monte Cook) never seemed to gain wide following.  

What really represented a threat to WotC was modules, and WotC in no period ever really recognized that.  WotC thought modules had poor profitability and that the could use the OGL to outsource them.  And to a certain extent they were right.  Paizo and Goodman games created probably stronger adventure lines than WotC did.  

The problem with that thinking is that its adventures that in my opinion ultimately drive a game system because its adventures that create and sustain new RPG groups more than rules do, and which IMO have ultimately led to D&D's dominant position (and which will eventually lead to Paizo's dominate position if it hasn't already) because its adventures that create the most valueable thing that any gaming company really owns - original intellectual property.  The most valueable aspect of D&D isn't the iconic rules set, it's the iconic intellectual property - Strahd and Ravenloft, Acererak and the Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, Drow Elves, Beholders, Mind Flayers, The Temple of Elemental Evil, and on and on and on.  Rules are important, but if you want to talk about the core of D&D in terms of what WotC has to sell, that's the core right there.

Paizo is busy creating the IP that will sell games for the next two decades, and WotC is busy creating rule sets.  Paizo has a line up of the best most exciting story tellers and artists in the business, and WotC has a bunch of guys that have survived the corporate culture.

I hate to tell you this Mearls, but alot of the core of D&D you are searching for has done walked out of the building.



> Unfortunately, they were too late. The alternate rules had enough mind-share to survive. Additionally, the creation of 4e accelerated the fragmentation of the community into two camps. But this fragmentation would have happened anyways under the OGL as the modified rules grew farther and farther apart.




The basic problem with this is that the stuff that it is published as FantasyCraft and Pathfinder and Conan D20 and so forth is readily compatible with not only the core 3e rules set, but my own esoteric take on the rules set.  To the extent that I can buy Pathfinder material and either mine it for ideas or incorporate it outright in the game I'm playing, the community hasn't actually fractured.  It will be a very long time before that's not true, and frankly it might never be true.  Conceivably I could not change my game system at all, and yet 20 years from now I could still be adopting material from Pathfinder into my game.  Afterall, the reverse is also true.  My game system is markedly different from 1e AD&D, but I still incorporate material from that game almost directly in to my 3e inspired game.

4e is so far removed from what I'm doing though, that mine it though I may, I just can't come up with enough from it to justify the purchase.  And since I don't want to leave my game behind, I'm not moving on to 4e.  It's its own beast; it's own branch on the D&D family tree.  And frankly it looks to me like a shoot rather than the trunk.

I want to again restress that the OGL didn't create the diversity of rules and play that was out there.  The OGL only recognized and legitimized it.  Play diversity under 1e was so high that there were probably no two tables playing with the same rules.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> One of the biggest problems with 4e, from my perspective, is the GSL.
> 
> With 3e, they tried "Welcome to our house!  Come in and play!" with the OGL and it really, really worked.
> 
> ...



I don't really agree with this.

Paizo doesn't _choose_ to be inclusive, for a start. Because Paizo is publishing its material under the OGL - because the material is derivative of the OGL-licensed SRD - it has _no option_ but to come up with strategies that make that open-ness a strength, rather than a weakness.

And this also illustrates, to me at least, why from WotC's point of view the OGL was not a success - namely, how is it a success for WotC that its tabletop RPG business is being lost to Paizo/Pathfinder, which wouldn't exist but for the OGL, and the SRD licensed pursuant to it?

What puzzles me - and I'd be surprised if WotC doesn't wonder about it from time to time also - is how it has come about that Paizo can make a success out of an SRD-based game when WotC couldn't? For example, it must have occurred to WotC that they had the option, in 2008-9, of doing what Paizo has done, namely doing a 3.5-style reboot by launching 3.75. Presumably, though, the projections for this looked bad. Did WotC miscalculate on those projections? Or does Paizo have some ability to spin gold out of (perceived) straw that WotC lacks? (What for WotC might have been slammed as "edition churn" is, in Paizo's hands, "saving D&D".)

Likewise on the issue of whether releasing a 4e SRD under the OGL would boost sales of 4e - WotC, assuming that it is complying with its legal obligations, must have reached the conclusion that in fact its interests are better served by not doing this. (It's not as if the option will never have occurred to it!) Whether that is because it doubts such a move would boost sales, or whether it believes that the gains from the increased sales that might accompany such a move would be offset by losses of value elsewhere (eg dilution of a valuable brand identity), I don't know. And perhaps its data is wrong - maybe it is miscalculating on its sales projections, or maybe it is overvaluing its undiluted brand.

But I don't think one can simply point to Paizo and say "Look, that shows that an OGL can help!" Because not only is Paizo in a completely different position with respect both to its relationship to the OGL, and its brand, but also, if WotC had reason to think that it could do what Paizo is doing, then it would already have done so in 2008-9!

Which brings us back to the question that I find most interesting - what exactly is this difference between WotC and Paizo?



Celebrim said:


> For which we should be immensely grateful to the 3E design team because they deliberately set up the OGL to ensure that it would not be possible for a company to do exactly what WoTC tried to do, and that's take the game away from the fans.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> WotC tried to get out of that commitment, and they paid for it.



I personally don't find this a very persuasive analysis of the legal or (narrowly) commercial character of the OGL. Apart from anything else, it seems to ignore that, in becoming a party to the OGL, a person (via clause 7) acknowledges product identity rights on the part of WotC that go beyond - arguably well beyond - what it would enjoy under copyright and trademark law. So the same licence that "opens up" the mechanics of the game also "closes down" use of many fictional elements that otherwise might be able to be lawfully used by third party publishers.

I personally see the release of the SRD under the OGL as doing two things. First, it creates a stable licensing relationship between WotC, on the one hand, and producers of adventures and new campaign settings, on the other, without the need for a fee to be paid, or licensing terms to be negotiated each time. The 3PP can be confident that the stat blocks in its products won't lead to a suit for breach of copyright or infringement of trademarks, and WotC can be confident that if the fictional elements it wants to retain control of are used, it has a clear legal recourse under the law of contract, rather than an ambiguous (at best) legal recourse under IP law.

Second, it permits the printing of (retro- or non-retro) clones. Dancey was explicit about this at the time, but expressed the view that WotC would always be able to corner that market, due to its ability to print higher-quality books at a viable cost due to its ability to finance and distribute large print runs. I think that it's turned out that Dancey was wrong about this. And because this was wrong, it seems to me that the first thing the OGL does isn't such a clear-cut win for WotC either, because the OGL is allowing 3PPs to build those stable relationships with its clone-printing competitors.



Celebrim said:


> The reason that the OGL was so ingenious and so successful is that it recognized the actual state of the game.  The OGL didn't create the diversity of play and rules.  It merely validated the existing divesity of tables and approaches to the game that had existed almost since the beginning
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It validated and encouraged the community of DM's that are at the core of D&D's success.



I don't think that this is true of the OGL from a legal or (narrowly) commercial point of view. It may be true of the OGL from an emotional/marketing/branding point of view.



Celebrim said:


> For me, there have been times when I have felt that TSR/WotC's official position on your rights to the game as a DM were such that it was illegal to make house rules.  Not merely that they discouraged it, or that they stated in the rule book that these were the official rules and that if you caught someone departing from them with so called 'house rules' that you should by all means shun them but that taken literally, that they'd take you to court for having house rules.



Can you give particular examples? I didn't get this feeling from any 1st ed AD&D materials - and Dragon magazine, at least through the early 90s, was a handbook of house rules (both in the articles and in The Forum) being published by TSR.

The 4e DMG has a page discussing how to design, implement, and correct house rules.

I can't remember the 3E DMG as well, but I think it addressed the issue of house rules design too.

Was this a 2nd ed thing?



Celebrim said:


> That is to say, there were times when I felt like TSR/WotC's official stance was that you could buy the game, but that it was illegal for you to play the game.
> 
> That is, they seemed to suggest that if I wrote my own modules, or made up my own rules, or adapted any of their material in some derivitive manner that depended on there IP that I was infringing on their IP.



Given that the typical GM is not trading, trademark law can I think be set to one side. (There might be complications for a convention, but we'll pass over them - and those complications would still arise in the OGL-era if a convention game featured a mind flayer or beholder.) I think the key issue here, then, is the use of copyrighted material.

Given that products like PHBs, MMs and DMGs are sold in order to play a game, I don't think there is a very strong argument that using the material therein to play the game in question is a use that breaches copyright. There could be different ways to reach that conclusion - for example, it is arguable that preparing a scenario, and then GMing it, is not an adaption (for the purposes of Australian law) or a derivative work (for the purposes of US law). Or that, even if it is, there is an implied licence to do so inherent in selling the work for the purpose of creating such adaptations/derivations. And I think there are other analyses possible also.



Celebrim said:


> at other times it felt like the very act of playing the game was supposed to be in some fashion breaking copyright laws because I was distributing copyrighted content to my players!



If you are photocopying parts of their rulebooks and distributing them (and they're not the bits that have the fine print at the bottom saying that it's OK to do so) then yes, you are.

If you're distributing notes that you wrote yourself, then on balance I think not.



Celebrim said:


> And heaven help you if you made something up, like rules for sailing ships or whatever, then photocopied it and gave it to another DM!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The OGL to me felt like a big step toward legitimizing and welcoming how the game was actually played, and encouraging DMs to go ahead and form communities - like at EnWorld here - where it was safe to just make crap up without fear of bringing down a 'Cease and Desist' notice because you know, technically, at some point in the future they might want to make money off their own sailing rules and this talk about sailing house rules was infringing on the future viability of that product.



Given that most material published on these boards is not licensed under the OGL, this seems to me to some extent an illusion.

My intuition is that material published on these boards is in fact more suspect than material prepared and distributed the old-fashioned way, if only because it is being distributed far more widely.



Celebrim said:


> I just wanted to feel like the freedom the game books seemed to offer was something I actually had in fact and not just theory.



Which reinforces my view that this is an emotional, rather than a legal or narrowly commercial, consequence of the OGL.

To the extent that the OGL had/has this emotional effect, and that this emotional effect in turn has implications for the sale of products, then WotC seem to me to have been caught between a rock and a hard place when they formed the view that (i) they couldn't make money by rebooting 3.5, and (ii) they couldn't successfully go into the future with a core product hostage to competition by others who might be capable of outflanking them in just the way that Paizo has managed to do.

EDITED TO ADD:



Celebrim said:


> its adventures that in my opinion ultimately drive a game system because its adventures that create and sustain new RPG groups more than rules do, and which IMO have ultimately led to D&D's dominant position (and which will eventually lead to Paizo's dominate position if it hasn't already) because its adventures that create the most valueable thing that any gaming company really owns - original intellectual property.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Now this may well be true. Which takes me back to the question that puzzles me - why is WotC unable to do what Paizo can?

It also suggests that the key to growing/resuscitating 4e is not the OGL, but better adventures. As I posted upthread, my intuition is that WotC should try to write adventures that bring out the strengths of 4e. But that intuition is probably not worth all that much.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 1, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Paizo doesn't _choose_ to be inclusive, for a start. Because Paizo is publishing its material under the OGL - because the material is derivative of the OGL-licensed SRD - it has _no option_ but to come up with strategies that make that open-ness a strength, rather than a weakness.




I do not believe this is completely true. Paizo doesn't need to be as open as it has been, particularly now that they're multiple rule supplements past the core rules that incorporate the OGL material. Just how much open content did WotC produce after the core rules were in shape? Not much. The splat books weren't included in the SRD. They had already come to the conclusion that openness wasn't the route they wanted to take. Paizo may be working on the strategy that openness is a strength but I think it's more because they believe it than they really have to follow it with the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic (and Ultimate Combat and a few other books to come).



pemerton said:


> And this also illustrates, to me at least, why from WotC's point of view the OGL was not a success - namely, how is it a success for WotC that its tabletop RPG business is being lost to Paizo/Pathfinder, which wouldn't exist but for the OGL, and the SRD licensed pursuant to it?




This conclusion that the OGL wasn't a success is dependent on one important thing: that WotC moved away from the OGL in both message and method. Could WotC have continued to have success with the OGL? I think they probably could have. Since Paizo has been successful with it with their strategy, I think it's certainly possible.



pemerton said:


> What puzzles me - and I'd be surprised if WotC doesn't wonder about it from time to time also - is how it has come about that Paizo can make a success out of an SRD-based game when WotC couldn't? For example, it must have occurred to WotC that they had the option, in 2008-9, of doing what Paizo has done, namely doing a 3.5-style reboot by launching 3.75. Presumably, though, the projections for this looked bad. Did WotC miscalculate on those projections? Or does Paizo have some ability to spin gold out of (perceived) straw that WotC lacks? (What for WotC might have been slammed as "edition churn" is, in Paizo's hands, "saving D&D".)




Now you get into the territory where individual characteristics really matter. Why did WotC look at the D&D market and make one decision while Paizo looked at it and reached another? Because they're run by different people with different perceptions and experiences with different goals. It's as simple (yet complex) as that. It's the same reason that two people, experiencing the same economy and political situation, will vote for opposing candidates at election time. They're different people and they weigh what they witness around them in different ways and reach different conclusions. 



pemerton said:


> But I don't think one can simply point to Paizo and say "Look, that shows that an OGL can help!" Because not only is Paizo in a completely different position with respect both to its relationship to the OGL, and its brand, but also, if WotC had reason to think that it could do what Paizo is doing, then it would already have done so in 2008-9!




And, looking at my paragraph above, that's why your last sentence here is wrong. It doesn't follow that that WotC *would* have pursued more OGL if they thought they could have done so successfully like Paizo is doing now. They may have thought they could have had success with 4e on the OGL, but concluded that another strategy was better for some variety of reasons that made sense to them (even if it doesn't make sense to other some others). In many cases, A + B = C for one person, but A + B = D for another. 



pemerton said:


> Which brings us back to the question that I find most interesting - what exactly is this difference between WotC and Paizo?




I can't speak for other people but one thing Paizo has going for it, in my opinion, that WotC does not is: they *get* me. They seem to be able to reach into my brain, distill what I generally want out of D&D, and give it to me. It's uncanny. Maybe it's because enough of the people in charge at WotC come from the same upper-midwest gaming culture as I do. Maybe they've got the mind-control lasers pointed at me and I don't wear my foil hat enough.

I could also speculate on the differences in corporate culture, including differences between being part of a massive publicly held vs privately held smaller company. The view can certainly look different from either perspective.

Ultimately, I'm not exactly sure what specific differences in the companies were the deciding factors in why they have chosen the strategies they've chosen. I'm content that Paizo has proven sufficiently different because my preferences have been far better served as a result.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2011)

Billd91, thanks for the reply. There's only one bit that I wanted to respond to:



billd91 said:


> I do not believe this is completely true. Paizo doesn't need to be as open as it has been, particularly now that they're multiple rule supplements past the core rules that incorporate the OGL material. Just how much open content did WotC produce after the core rules were in shape? Not much. The splat books weren't included in the SRD. They had already come to the conclusion that openness wasn't the route they wanted to take. Paizo may be working on the strategy that openness is a strength but I think it's more because they believe it than they really have to follow it with the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic (and Ultimate Combat and a few other books to come).



Copyright law is not my field (neither Australian nor US) - but my intuition here is that you're wrong, and that those other books (APG, UM) _are_ derivative works of OGC, and therefore Paizo is obliged to release them under the OGL.

This is why I say that Paizo has no choice.

If I'm wrong in my legal analysis, I'm happy to be corrected!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 1, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't really agree with this.




Oddly enough, I'm not surprised.



> Paizo doesn't _choose_ to be inclusive, for a start. Because Paizo is publishing its material under the OGL - because the material is derivative of the OGL-licensed SRD - it has _no option_ but to come up with strategies that make that open-ness a strength, rather than a weakness.




And, yet, Paizo consistently _*chooses*_ to go beyond what the OGL mandates.



> And this also illustrates, to me at least, why from WotC's point of view the OGL was not a success - namely, how is it a success for WotC that its tabletop RPG business is being lost to Paizo/Pathfinder, which wouldn't exist but for the OGL, and the SRD licensed pursuant to it?




You're right; WotC saw into the future, and decided to pull their game from the OGL because they knew that, if they did that, Paizo would make a better selling game.  Sheer genius.

Or, perhaps, Paizo is only in this position because 4e is not OGL?

I know what seems most likely to me.  I remember how many publishers were eager to jump into 4e with both feet, until the GSL cooled their ardour.  There is no doubt in my mind that 4e with an OGL would have rendered Pathfinder moot.  For one thing, Pathfinder was a direct response to the GSL!



> What puzzles me - and I'd be surprised if WotC doesn't wonder about it from time to time also - is how it has come about that Paizo can make a success out of an SRD-based game when WotC couldn't?




Strong fluff, a desire to make the mechanics match the fluff (rather than the other way around) and listening to what the customers want (rather than telling them what they will want).

3e was a rousing success -- WotC, as a point of fact, could and did make a success out of an SRD-based game -- but a combination of a few substandard follow-up products late in the cycle, a revision designed to promote their mini line, sucky adventures, and (IMHO) a failure to understand the elements of the original game, drove enough people away from official products and to better 3pp products.  

Some of which were written by the same folks!  No one wants to be told how to play.  No one wants to be told that what they enjoy is wrongbadfun.  No one wants the producers of D&D to speak to them "from on high".

4e continued this same trend.



> For example, it must have occurred to WotC that they had the option, in 2008-9, of doing what Paizo has done, namely doing a 3.5-style reboot by launching 3.75. Presumably, though, the projections for this looked bad. Did WotC miscalculate on those projections?




Obviously so.  Or, perhaps, better to say that the D&D WotC wanted to produce was not what enough people wanted, and the D&D Paizo produced was based on what people wanted first and foremost. 



> Or does Paizo have some ability to spin gold out of (perceived) straw that WotC lacks?




I play fantasy games; I do not believe in Rumplestiltskin.



> Likewise on the issue of whether releasing a 4e SRD under the OGL would boost sales of 4e - WotC, assuming that it is complying with its legal obligations, must have reached the conclusion that in fact its interests are better served by not doing this.




And look where it got them.  The 800-lb gorilla has left the building.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> You can talk about WotC being "corporate culture" as much as you want - Pathfinder only exists because WotC did all the work for them.




Huh.

WotC wrote their adventures?  WotC wrote the interesting fluff?  WotC wrote that campaign setting?  WotC garnered that goodwill?

I don't play Pathfinder, but I do buy lots of Pathfinder materials.  I can tell you as a fact that I am not buying them for the rules taken from the SRD.  Nor would I need the SRD to create the game I am running as a home system.

Frankly, if people were paying Paizo simply because of WotC's work.....well, the SRD is free.

Of course, WotC can then be said to have simply built off of Gygax, right?  No credit is therefore due, save that of the pocketbook, right?  And like the Ship of Theseus, one wonders how many planks the Ship of Wizards still has in common with those who designed and promoted 3e.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> WotC wrote the system that _all of this was built in_, so yes.




If you want to see it so, I suppose that's fine.  Be aware that others disagree.  Moreover, whatever WotC built its house from weren't simply new ideas pulled out of the air.  At all.  There's nothing AFAICT in 3e that didn't appear somewhere else first.

Kettle, meet pot.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> WotC wrote the system that _all of this was built in_, so yes.




Which you can get from the internet without paying anyone so I guess Paizo is just so good that they could sell ice to Eskimos.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> I agree, but not in the way you want me to.
> 
> WotC is spending the big bucks making and developing rule systems.




You are making the same mistakes that WotC is making.  Namely, you think rules systems are really valuable.   Now, I grant you that rules systems are not trivially easy to make, and I've seen a lot of bad ones.   But, as far as rules systems go, I think of them about like Neil Gaimen or Monte Cook think of ideas.  Ideas aren't really valueable.  A good idea talent can generate novel ideas by the ton - more than not only he could use but more than a dozen people could ever use.  Most peoples thoughts aren't even worth a penny because creativity in and of itself is so cheap.   Likewise, I'm a rules smith.  if I wanted to, I could probably generate a new core rules system a week for the next 6-10 weeks.  (Heck, I created a new system - SIPS - on the spur of the moment for my personal use just a few weeks ago.)  Rules systems aren't valuable.  You could publish a good rules system which you'd put a lot of work into, and chances are 99 times out of 100 it would be ignored in the market and your product would die.  For one thing, there are probably already a dozen or more good rules systems out there.   Who even needs a new rules system?   FATE, D20, HERO, GURPS, BRP, D6, Storyteller, Savage Worlds, etc. etc.   If you are spending big bucks creating rules systems, you are WASTING YOUR FREAKING TIME.  License out a system that does what you need, tweak it to fit your setting, and get to the hard work of producing a game.   



> Paizo is using someone else's rules to profit on their own.
> 
> You can talk about WotC being "corporate culture" as much as you want - Pathfinder only exists because WotC did all the work for them.




Wrong!  Paizo was doing the hard work.  Towards the end, Paizo might have been more responcible for D&D's ongoing success than WotC was.  How many D&D players have as their defining moments of 3e things like the 'Age of Worms' adventure path?   D&D isn't just a rules set, it's a game and a RPG is as much or more defined by how you prepare for it than the rules system that you use*.  D&D's success in the market has always been tied more to how it encouraged and helped DM's to prepare for the game, than it was to its own often bumpy sometimes exasperating rules.   When I was getting into the game and young, what drove play as much as anything else is some friend bought a new module and wanted to run it.   I'd get into pick up games not because someone had a useless Player's Handbook in their lugage or backpack, but because they had a module stuffed in there.   We didn't need the rule books.  That was easy.  It wasn't the hot new rule books that drove the game or made us love the game, it was adventures.  

Granted, you can make your own adventures and I do, but that's hard.   My current campaign has about 300 hours of preparation time in it so far and would seriously benefit by me having put triple that time into but I don't have time.  And I'm taking short cuts by incorporating some published adventures into the game!  I have a very very good idea of how much hard work goes into creating a good story or a good adventure path.  Don't tell me how Paizo only exists because WotC "did all the hard work".   There speaks either a player who doesn't run games, because I can't imagine a GM saying that. 

*Celebrim's Second Law of Gaming


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> if people were paying Paizo simply because of WotC's work.....well, the SRD is free.




I'm always annoyed by the fact that I can't spread XP where I want it.

Yes, exactly, RC.


----------



## Stoat (Jul 1, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Can you give particular examples? I didn't get this feeling from any 1st ed AD&D materials - and Dragon magazine, at least through the early 90s, was a handbook of house rules (both in the articles and in The Forum) being published by TSR.
> 
> The 4e DMG has a page discussing how to design, implement, and correct house rules.
> 
> ...




I won't attempt to speak for Celebrim, but it sounded to me like he was referring to TSR's internet policies circa the early to mid 1990's.  Somewhat like Palladium, TSR took an aggressive stance toward "protecting" it's online IP through the use of C&D letters and other threats of litigation brought against folks online.  IIRC, TSR took a strong stance against folks posting their houserules online.

Time was, you could google "T$R" and get  a flavor for the tenor of the times.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Now, Paizo's APs are great, yes.




If you like Paizo's style, and you like APs, then I'm sure they are.  If you don't like either of those, not so much.  If you don't like both of those, then Paizo's AP and resulting "cred" are this strange infection that means you seldom get published adventures that you like, and thus you might as well roll your own or go with cheap alternatives, since you'll have to rework the whole thing anyway.  

How many people fall into that category is subject to debate, of course.  But admiration for the greatness of Paizo's products is hardly universal.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> If you like Paizo's style, and you like APs, then I'm sure they are.  If you don't like either of those, not so much.  If you don't like both of those, then Paizo's AP and resulting "cred" are this strange infection that means you seldom get published adventures that you like, and thus you might as well roll your own or go with cheap alternatives, since you'll have to rework the whole thing anyway.




Well, I've never ran a module that I didn't rework at least a little, and in most cases I rework them right down to the level of changing the map, the names, and most of the descriptions.   This happens because I'm super critical and have very definite opinions on things, and not necessarily because the module is bad.   

However, it is true that I seldom get published adventures that I like.  In general I blame this on the very poor state of existing adventure writing art; the better story tellers in the business tend to produce adventures with poor gamability, and the ones that are better at gamability tend not to have compelling motivations.  Others have interesting ideas in there head, but do very poor jobs of communicating how the adventure should be run.  Paizo on the whole tends to be as good as any and better than most IMO, although I could make a ton of specific objections to most of what they do, there usually isn't a fatal flaw in their design or presentation.

But, what I'm really interested in when I hear you say this is what you would count as a well designed adventure.  What are you looking for when you flip through a module?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 1, 2011)

I never run modules ( or do so rarely) but imlove having them out there so i can cannibalize them for ideas, encounters, maps etc. This is why i bought dungeon in the past and why i think its so helpful for companies to release Adventures for their games.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 1, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> But, what I'm really interested in when I hear you say this is what you would count as a well designed adventure. What are you looking for when you flip through a module?




First, and this is a must for even getting to "decent" in my book, I want *meaningful* information, well organized. "Meaningful" is naturally going to be one of those eye of the beholder type things, and I'll grant that my tastes probably make me hard to please here. But generally, I want something that I can use to make the adventure better--more lifelike, more fantastical, more interesting, more challenging, etc. A lot of times, I get the impression that the text is trying to give me that, from some idea the author had, and probably used well in his home game, but it got lost some where in the flavor text.

Example: You have an orc tribe faction, the "bezerk beaters." I want to know their motives, their means, their methods, their mistakes, etc. If you've got a little bit about their odd cooking habits, sure, throw it in. And I want those useful bits to be at least somewhat easily applicable to the adventure at hand. OTOH, I don't want a long dissertation on their place in society, which is not likely to come up. And I sure don't want little off-beat flavor text items (hair color, voice tone, etc. ) to take up a lot of key mind space. I find that a little bit of flavor goes a long way, and that one really good piece of flavor is a lot better than lots of half-hearted flavor sprinkled throughout. 

I especially find this when the author has apparently gone out of his way to be "edgy" or push some cause or any number of other such bad habits that adventure writers seem to learn readily from bad novelists. Or maybe their editors learn not to clean this stuff up properly from their counterparts in novels. It might be unfair to blame the writers here. 

I want information that helps me run the game, not that shows me how cool the writer thinks his story or characters are. If the author gets too caught up in the flavor text, he can obscure the meaningful adventure running bits, make them harder to find, and in some cases, manage to leave them out altogether.

I could write forever on organization. Suffice it to say for now that I think column and a half stat blocks for a single wizard automatically fail on organization. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I thought Monte Cook's work in Ptolus was as good as a 3E-ish product could be organized, given the limits of the mechanics. It was very good, but Monte cheated a bit, and a product that big has its own advantages and disadvantages. 

Then beyond that base requirement, which is so seldom met to my satisfaction, I want source material that meets my preferences (naturally). Since I don't like horror, anything smacking of trenchcoats, tieflings, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, DragonLance, Planescape, and a bunch of other stuff, I'm probably forgetting--the universe of adventure writers that sometimes cater to my tastes is somewhat limited. When such a writer manages to satisfy the base requirement, I can appreciate his good work, but I'm not likely to run it, and thus don't benefit from it.

I think there are some critical, err, "literary" objections to much of the work referenced in that preceding paragraph, that goes beyond mere preference. But I'm sure that is a huge discussion that should be done separately, if at all. Suffice here to say that I find much of the hard work put into making everything "gray" rather banal and shallow, with a strong dash of faux sophistication which I find amusing, if not useful. I find that the Pazio products generally favor sophistication over depth. When they are praised for depth, it is usually, IMHO, because the reader has mistaken the former for the latter. A not unusual thing, nowadays. 

If that sounds a lot like, "flavor I don't like is bad," I'm not being that silly.  I'm saying flavor I don't like is flavor I don't like, and sometimes I have strong reasons for it.  And I'm mostly convinced that most of the praise for the flavor in the above products for being "good" by people is really, "flavor that I do like," and not nearly so convinced that the reasons are much considered beyond that.


----------



## Celebrim (Jul 1, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> First, and this is a must for even getting to "decent" in my book, I want *meaningful* information, well organized. "Meaningful" is naturally going to be one of those eye of the beholder type things, and I'll grant that my tastes probably make me hard to please here. But generally, I want something that I can use to make the adventure better--more lifelike, more fantastical, more interesting, more challenging, etc. A lot of times, I get the impression that the text is trying to give me that, from some idea the author had, and probably used well in his home game, but it got lost some where in the flavor text.
> 
> Example: You have an orc tribe faction, the "bezerk beaters." I want to know their motives, their means, their methods, their mistakes, etc. If you've got a little bit about their odd cooking habits, sure, throw it in.




I think the basic problem here, and the basic problem I have with a lot of modern adventure writing, is that realistically a module has to be either in a 32, 48 or 64 page format in order.   If you've tried to write in the frame work, you know how challenging it can be.  In order to have a price point that is close to the entertainment value the module is going to provide, there is very little room in such a format for wasted space (on that I think we can agree).  So the odd cooking habits probably just need to go, and the critical motives, methods, and mistakes have to be confined to a paragraph or two at most.  In my opinion, the biggest problem of modern modules is that they have too much fluff in them, and not enough crunch.  The author spends too much time trying to tell the DM how to run the module, which I think is a reactionary result from the fact early modules often told too little.



> I could write forever on organization. Suffice it to say for now that I think column and a half stat blocks for a single wizard automatically fail on organization.




I partially agree with you here.  A column and a half for a monster can be justified, if its intended to be an introductory module that is instructive to the DM.  Inexperienced DM's can't just read a stat block and figure out how to run the monster.  So Paizo does a good job of using a stat block to provide the sort of crunchy bits of information about running the encounter that a novice needs.  But yes, I agree that often times more space is given to stat blocks than is needed.  I prefer a 1e style condensed stat block, with 3-7 lines of text.



> I thought Monte Cook's work in Ptolus was as good as a 3E-ish product could be organized...




Honestly, I'm not fond of Monte's organization.  In particular, I detest moving all the stat blocks to a key'd list at the end of the module.  I want as much information as necessary for running an encounter on that page, and if there is any space saving to be had it should be by referencing something in the core rule book.  For example, it's perfectly fine organization to write: 1st level orc warrior, and bold it.  I'll know what that means and where to look it up.   If its a 3rd level orc warrior, then I'd like a 5 line condensed stat block where if you write out 'Initiative', 'Armor Class' or 'Attack' you've failed.  Where it can get tricky is complex monsters with lots of special powers, especially if they are in an obscure book.   You can probably expect any DM to have the MM or at least access to the SRD.  It's a bit much to expect them to have MMIII or a third party book.  Then you need a fuller stat block.

I continue to use organization inspired by Tracy Hickman's best work.  I think that's fairly definitive and has been unsurpassed. 



> I want source material that meets my preferences (naturally). Since I don't like horror, anything smacking of trenchcoats, tieflings, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, DragonLance, Planescape, and a bunch of other stuff, I'm probably forgetting--the universe of adventure writers that sometimes cater to my tastes is somewhat limited.




This I can partially agree with depending on what you mean.  I don't like adventures where critical plot elements depend on highly specific elements of a particular campaign world.  However, things like trenchcoats, tieflings, horror, psionics, and so forth are often little more than window dressing that has no real impact on the plot and which can be suitably and easily switched out for something that suits you better: cloaks, hobgoblins, pulp adventure, and necromancy if you like.   I did this with PiCat's otherwise excellent module, 'Of Sound Mind'.  It's a module about Psionics, but really nothing about the module depends on psionics and the whole thing can be dressed as black magic without harming the core of the module.  A few reworkings of the map, some changes in a few of the descriptions, and me and PiCat were on the same page - which is a pretty remarkable thing if you think about it.

I think complaining of a trench coat is a very small thing.  Call it a great coat or a buff coat and you get back at least 300-400 years; the 16th century may well be appropriate to some settings.  Change it to a cloak, and you've gone back as far as you may like.



> Suffice here to say that I find much of the hard work put into making everything "gray" rather banal and shallow, with a strong dash of faux sophistication which I find amusing, if not useful. I find that the Pazio products generally favor sophistication over depth. When they are praised for depth, it is usually, IMHO, because the reader has mistaken the former for the latter. A not unusual thing, nowadays.




I think you are mistaking the marketting for the substance.  Try as the author might to cast things as a edgy, simplistic, all shades of gray world, in the hands of a mature GM the story can I think gain more depth provided that the underlying conflicts provide actual oppurtunity for depth.   And besides which, I generally incorporate a module not to provide a source for the deep intellectual concepts of the campaign, but to provide a source for the specific locations of the action and, if you would, some of the stories action scenes.  When Kevin wrote, 'Of Sound Mind', I'm fairly certain one of the things on his mind wasn't whether or not the gods are worthy of worship, or to what extent the ends justify the means.  'Of Sound Mind' does not directly illuminate such questions, and you won't get that directly from the text.  Nonetheless, thats the sort of uses to which the interludes therein were being employed by me.   What you do get from 'Of Sound Mind' is a dungeon interlude with a challenges from the full spectrum of RPG challenges - combat, social, problem solving, investigation, dungeoneering, evasion etc. tied up in a package and exportable with a little work.   It has its problems, but I wouldn't put among them that it has flavors I don't like - although in fairness, it was probably the psionic flavors that kept the module from recieving the success it was due.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> As a GM, I find it way easier to, well, _GM_, then it is to fully write a new rules system.



Speak for yourself.

Part of a DM's job, to me, is to (re-)write the rules to suit the game she wants to run.

And yes, it's a lot of work - which is why I stick to the rules I've already (re-)written from 1e rather than jump to a newer edition and rewrite that instead.


> You are missing the oh so important detail, which is that none of those adventure paths, none of those modules, _none of it_ would have existed without the rules system.



They wouldn't have existed without *a* rules system.  But if Paizo hadn't developed 3.75 they could just as easily have written the same adventures to suit any other system out there - like 1e (hint, hint) - and as adventures seem to be what they do best I'm sure the results would have been quite successful.


> But Pathfinder - *the system, Pathfinder* - _is_ 3.5 repackaged and sold with a few modifications.  _This is by design_.  It is inherently taking someone else's created rules system and re-selling it.



Which is why I pretty much ignore it - it's a re-do of a rules set I'm not interested in in the first place.  But the adventures are generally still worthwhile.

Lan-"if Pathfinder comes out with a new edition will it be called 3.9e?"-efan


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 1, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I think complaining of a trench coat is a very small thing. Call it a great coat or a buff coat and you get back at least 300-400 years; the 16th century may well be appropriate to some settings. Change it to a cloak, and you've gone back as far as you may like.




It is a small thing, by itself.  OTOH, I rarely find that it shows up by itself.  It's a symptom of a larger, more substantial and pervasive irritant.  Though I admit that sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes, it is just a coat.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 1, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I just thought of the alternative that you seem to advocate, and would give it a playtest, except the outcome is obvious.
> 
> The alternative to having healing surges, of course, being not having healing surges. My theoretical playtest with each character having 0 healing surges would inevitably lead to 1 encounter and then an extended rest (assuming they survived the encounter and the only non-magical way to restore HP is by taking extended rests).




What you've actually done here is demonstrate the problem with healing surges in D&D4: Whatever arbitrary value you set the number of healing surges per day at, you've created a hard limit beyond which adventuring is not possible because healing is no longer possible*. You've set the value at 0. D&D4 sets the value slightly higher.

(*Hussar's Literalist Disclaimer: Some alternatives do not exist, but not  enough to sustain the adventuring day in most circumstances.)

The actual alternative, of course, is to remove the hard limit. Rather than giving each character "0 healing surges", you give each character "infinite healing surges". The mandated length of the adventuring day is now basically removed from the system.

Basically, there are two motivations for the 15-minute adventuring day: The carrot and the stick.

The carrot is stuff like the "nova strategy" where you burn through your most powerful abilities in an encounter and then immediately rest so that you can use those powerful abilities again in the next encounter. This existed in pre-4E. And, of course, it still exists in 4E in the form of daily powers and daily uses.

The stick is generally "you have to stop and rest or you'll die". 4E arguably weakened the stick by including encounter powers so that groups never "run out of spells". But the hard limits on the number of healing surges each character has essentially rendered that irrelevant by introducing a bigger stick than any pre-4E version of the game.

(Pre-4E versions, of course, had the same "0 hp and no healing left" threshold. But the amount of healing a party had access to was incredibly variable and completely trivial to adjust on-the-fly by DMs and, in many cases, the players.)



GSHamster said:


> But this fragmentation would have happened  anyways under the OGL as the modified rules grew farther and farther  apart.




Possibly. But I would point out that _Pathfinder_ wasn't the first time somebody published "alternative PHBs" or "alternative PHBs with a handful of minor rules fixes". It had been tried several times -- including by major publishers like Malhavoc and Mongoose -- and it didn't significantly fracture the playing base any more than the 20+ years of non-D&D core rulebooks pre-OGL had fractured the playing base.

Did _Pathfinder_ succeed where the others had failed because Paizo did such a great job on it?

Maybe.

But it's far more likely that _Pathfinder_ succeeded because WotC left a big, gaping vacuum of traditional D&D gameplay that Paizo was able to fill.

Notably, the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition didn't leave that kind of vacuum. (There was at least one non-WotC 3.0-compatible PHBs on the market when that transition happened. Their sales did not explode. Instead, they collapsed.)

It was only when WotC abandoned traditional D&D gameplay entirely in order to market a different fantasy roleplaying game under the same trademark that someone could do what Paizo did. Up until that point, the entire gravity of the OGL movement was drawn to the D&D core rulebooks. Oh, sure, some people successfully set up some orbiting space stations. In time there might have been some small moons. But it all funneled straight back to D&D.



Celebrim said:


> > I thought Monte Cook's work in Ptolus was as good as a 3E-ish product could be organized...
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm not fond of Monte's organization.   In particular, I detest moving all the stat blocks to a key'd list at  the end of the module.




I think you're ascribing something to Cook which isn't Cook's.

AFAICT, no Malhavoc product ever moved all the stat blocks to the back of the book. _Ptolus_, _Banewarrens_, and _Night of Dissolution_ all have stat blocks incorporated into the main text. This also applies to the _Arcana Unearthed_ modules I own and _Demon God's Fane_.

So when Cook was actually in complete control of how his manuscripts were being written and formatted, he never used that format. It was only when he was working for other companies that you see the "stick 'em in an appendix" method.

And _Ptolus_ really is the best organized RPG product ever published.


----------



## rounser (Jul 1, 2011)

Didn't the d20 license thing clog gaming store shelves with immovable dreck after the initial surge?  An potentially harm the D&D brand, if you think in such terms?  And lead to competing PHBs rather than just supplements?  Why then is it a success from the D&D IP holder's standpoint?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 1, 2011)

rounser said:


> Didn't the d20 license thing clog gaming store shelves with immovable dreck after the initial surge?





Nope, retailers made good money the initial surge and the subsequent years, and the amount of stuff that was difficult to move was not unlike any other boom and bust period or trend in tabletop gaming.




rounser said:


> An potentially harm the D&D brand, if you think in such terms?





The brand was strengthened, the retailers made tons of money, the system was innovated, customers had unprecendented amounts of choice and options.  Everyone won from what I could tell.




rounser said:


> And lead to competing PHBs rather than just supplements?





Competing?  Hardly.  Certainly not by any realisitic standard.  Sales of core official books were orders of magnitude beyond anything else by WotC or 3rd parties, from everything I read and heard.  What you suggest is a fiction.




rounser said:


> Why then is it a success from the D&D IP holder's standpoint?





The brand's place in the market was never higher, by all accounts I have heard and read.


Links?  Nope.  Not going to do the leg work but if you do it yourself and find anything to the contrary of what I posted, feel free to shoot my position right on down.  I'll read what you come up with, consider the sources, and adjust what I believe accordingly.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> That's, uh, not how debate works.
> 
> Alternately the drudge of the OGL harmed the bran name horribly, a scar that will last for many years.  Proof?  Pff, naw.  That's for you to fine.





Welcome to EN World.  You're certainly entitled to your opinion and to decide how best to try and frame any debate in which you wish to engage.  I will take your position into account as I continually re-assess my own position going forward.  I remain, however, unconvinced by your current argument.


----------



## rounser (Jul 2, 2011)

> Nope, retailers made good money the initial surge and the subsequent years, and the amount of stuff that was difficult to move was not unlike any other boom and bust period or trend in tabletop gaming.



Okay.  I got the impression that distributors lost interest in all but a few companies, that there were extensive quality control issues,  and that large numbers of books were going for a buck or given away in later years.  Maybe 3.5 white elephanted them, but surely WOTC knew what would happen to the d20 publishers by pulling 3.5 on them, and therefore might have already been reconsidering whether they were something to encourage, or (as the 4E era approach suggests) try to put down as some kind of threat or competitor.  Otherwise, why the outflanking maneuvers represented by 3.5 and 4E towards d20 publishers?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 2, 2011)

rounser said:


> Okay.  I got the impression that distributors lost interest in all but a few companies, that there were extensive quality control issues,  and that large numbers of books were going for a buck or given away in later years.





In later years I don't doubt that was true, and that would be and has been true for the tail end of any trend period.  Our positions seem to be in sync in this regard.

*edit* I should add that I don't think there were "extensive quality control issues" that necessarily caused the situation, in fact many of the companies that jumped in early and had distributor support all through had "quality control issues" and seemed to weather all of the changes.  However, there certainly was plenty of leftovers as the boom subsided.




rounser said:


> Maybe 3.5 white elephanted them, but surely WOTC knew what would happen to the d20 publishers by pulling 3.5 on them, and therefore might have already been reconsidering whether they were something to encourage, or (as 4E suggests) try to put down.





What "WotC knew" is a potentially broad subject that I am not sure leads to all of the same places you or I could easily imagine.  The 3.5 adjustment definitely seemed like something the contemporary heads of WotC felt was warranted (for the system and probably for financial reasons), and their support of the OGL at that stage was still very strong (relative to the support during 3.0).  There may have been a mini-bust for some 3rd party interests at that stage but the resurgence of boomishness among most 3rd parties soon after 3.5 seemed to overshadow it.

I point to the naming conventions of 4E and the GSL debacle (the slow ratification, the lack of sufficient 3rd party support as expressed by most potential 3rd party pubs, etc.) as a sign that WotC heads felt reclamation of IP was in their best interest.  It's hard to imagine anyone could look at the current market just three years after the release of 4E and think the brand is currently as vibrant as it was during the previous edition's boom period.  Again, I'm open to be swayed by indicators to the contrary but I am not seeing them online, in stores, by the actions of the limited 3rd party supporters, etc.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 2, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that swords +1 had a lot of wonder in classic D&D either.




I distinctly remember when I first started playing (over 20 years ago), the moment my characters acquired their first magical weapons were incredible, awe-inspiring moments.  And tossing away (if I was carrying too much) or selling my normal weapon for a few coins, and sheathing that +1 whatever, that just felt powerful.

Now, the game played much differently back then--magic was very rare in our campaigns, with high lethality at low levels--and I was just a young lad back then and new to the hobby, so maybe everything was a little awe-inspiring to me, but yeah, +1 weapons did hold a sense of wonder.  

Kinda miss that, actually.


p.s.  As to the article, I agree with the suggestions to add "funny shaped dice" and "a variety of races".  And I would add "a variety of settings" as well--is there another RPG that had or has anything similar to all of the completely different, totally fun settings D&D has had over the years?


----------



## Redbadge (Jul 3, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> What you've actually done here is demonstrate the problem with healing surges in D&D4: Whatever arbitrary value you set the number of healing surges per day at, you've created a hard limit beyond which adventuring is not possible because healing is no longer possible*. You've set the value at 0. D&D4 sets the value slightly higher.
> 
> (*Hussar's Literalist Disclaimer: Some alternatives do not exist, but not enough to sustain the adventuring day in most circumstances.)
> 
> ...




Let me clarify my point. Let's say you take 3.5 exactly as it is with regards to the healing system. Now add one additional healing mechanic -- healing surges. In addition to regular 3.5 healing, characters can spend their healing surges, of which they have a limited number, to regain 1/4 their 3.5 hit points. They primarily spend these surges as a Second Wind and the end of short rests, which we would also add under this hypothetical change to 3.5. Say we didn't want this expansion to the healing system to be infinite, so we make it that the only way to restore "healing surges" are to take an extended rest. As an added benefit, instead of really slow healing each day, we'll go ahead and allow the character to restore all its hitpoints in addition to regaining back all its healing surges. Finally, as a bonus, we give all 3.5 healing classes an extra spell that they can use multiple times per encounter to allow these healing surges to be further used in combat. These spellcasters would retain their other, non-surge healing spells, which you must remember, have an arbitrary hard limit on the number of times they can be used per day.

Not only have you given the 3.5 character a way to extend the adventuring day, with surges, but you also reduce the variability and need for DM adjustment. And of course, both this version of 3.5 and 4e both have access to other non-surge healing such as daily spells of Cure Light Wounds. And nothing precludes a charged wand of Cure Light Wounds in either system.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jul 3, 2011)

Longsword, +1 Now it _is_ epic.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 4, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Not only have you given the 3.5 character a way to extend the adventuring day, with surges, but you also reduce the variability and need for DM adjustment.




Good point. If we hypothesize some arbitrary system that has essentially nothing in common with 4E's healing surges except that its uses similar terminology, we'll have demonstrated... umm... 

Well, I guess we'll have demonstrated absolutely nothing of relevance.

I mean, I can sit here all day hypothesizing a huge variety of systems which just happen to use the terms "healing surge" and "second wind". But it will all be completely irrelevant in a discussion about how the healing surge mechanics in 4E work.

Just like your post.


----------



## MoxieFu (Jul 4, 2011)

And if you didn't want to have your 3.x as heavily influenced by 4 you could call it a Second Wind to avoid the magical mechanic of Healing and you could have the player spend a hero point to do it. 

This is a more conservative approach and possibly more palatable. Since it only heals part of a character's hit points you can define it in terms of not healing physical hit points, just the intangible stuff.


----------



## Traveller From Afar (Jul 4, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I distinctly remember when I first started playing (over 20 years ago), the moment my characters acquired their first magical weapons were incredible, awe-inspiring moments.  And tossing away (if I was carrying too much) or selling my normal weapon for a few coins, and sheathing that +1 whatever, that just felt powerful.



Ah yeah, the memories! Still, therre are a few options if you want to cut down a bit on the magic level in AD&D games.


----------



## Redbadge (Jul 4, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Good point. If we hypothesize some arbitrary system that has essentially nothing in common with 4E's healing surges except that its uses similar terminology, we'll have demonstrated... umm...
> 
> Well, I guess we'll have demonstrated absolutely nothing of relevance.
> 
> ...




But I defined Healing Surges and Second Winds exactly as they are used in 4e. Hey, I've admitted elsewhere that I am uneasy with the concept of healing surges. You just made an inexplicable claim that they somehow lead to a _shorter_ adventuring day. I literally could not believe it.

I mean if it has been your experience that players spend all their healing surges in one encounter, or that the amount of healing possible is capped at some unreasonably low number, fine. But you are the only one I have _ever_ heard experience this.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Hey, I've admitted elsewhere that I am uneasy with the concept of healing surges.




Conceptually, I am not, but I do not like the way HS was actualized in 4e.



> You just made an inexplicable claim that they somehow lead to a _shorter_ adventuring day. I literally could not believe it.




Begs the question, "shorter than *what*?"

If you have resource X, and you require 1X per encounter, in the case XY (where Y indicates the amount of X you have per game day), Y determines the number of encounters you can successfully engage in per game day.

But Y could be as low as 0 or as high as infinity.  The actual value of Y would then determine what sort of encounter limitations were built into the system.

(And, obviously, the usage of X is an average, so there will be some variance as to how much Y corresponds to encounters/day.)  Make it possible to replenish X faster, and you can eliminate the limitation (i.e., treasure that grants a healing surge, etc.).



RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 4, 2011)

As far as I'm aware, 4e expects four encounters in an adventuring day and the number of healing surges available are set to reflect that. It's not an arbitrary value. In fact 4e expects the same number of encounters per day as 3e.

I believe the designers of 3e did not take wands of cure light wounds into consideration in their calculations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> As far as I'm aware, 4e expects four encounters in an adventuring day and the number of healing surges available are set to reflect that. It's not an arbitrary value.




I agree with your first sentence, but question how you got from there to your second sentence.  Unless there is some non-arbitrary reason to expect four encounters in an adventuring day, how is selecting that particular number anything other than arbitrary?

(I would say it was arbitrary in 3e, too.)


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 4, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree with your first sentence, but question how you got from there to your second sentence.  Unless there is some non-arbitrary reason to expect four encounters in an adventuring day, how is selecting that particular number anything other than arbitrary?



Well the number of healing surges wouldn't be arbitrary but the number of encounters expected per day, that that value depends upon, might be.

However I would've thought that for both d20 editions WotC would've done some market research into typical session length. If they also know roughly how long a fight takes to resolve (for 3e's assumed single monster, or 4e's five), and the typical amount of time taken up with non-combat stuff, then it's possible to calculate the number of encounters that can fit into a session. Assume one day in the game equals one session, and you have a, not exact, but at least non-arbitrary value for number of encounters per day.

To assume one adventure = one session = one day is, I think, very old school. I get the impression that in OD&D, a session would typically be a single trip into the dungeon, with no spell recovery inside. I don't think players had even considered the 15MD back in the very early days of the hobby. Tournament games seemed to be the same then, one adventure = one session = one day.


----------



## Redbadge (Jul 4, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Conceptually, I am not, but I do not like the way HS was actualized in 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And thus, the more healing surges that you add to a character (or give a character access to, as you suggest), the more encounters that character can participate in. The 4e designers expected 4 encounters per day, but my group expects 6 - 12 encounters per day, so we use healing surges to meet that expectation (ways to replenish HS such as magical fonts, items and other features that provide surgeless healing, boons that grant the Durable feat, etc.).

In fact, if you also provide access to a bit of surgeless healing (but not quite as much as 3e had, because it didn't have the benefit of HS), my players can go as long as the situation or enviroment might need them to (but not forever).

If you want to have longer adventuring days but still have resource management (just like HP, daily spells, and Action Points provide), one good option is to add more healing surges to the game, not eliminate all of them or provide infinite, as suggested before.

This is one of the good ways that 4e started to eliminate 15-minute adventuring days. They took the vast number of daily resources (specifically with regards to spellcasters) and divided them into daily, encounter, and at-will. So instead of 6 spells per day, a wizard might of 2 spells per day, 2 spells per encounter, and 2 spells at-will (although the six spells likely share the same names as before, but are altered in power according to how often they can be cast, i.e. Magic Missile vs. Sleep). If someone wanted to go the rest of the way into eliminating the 15-min day, they might convert the remaining daily powers into at-will and encounter powers.

As far as healing surges go, I think they are basically 3e HP pools, but multiplied by 2 to 4 (depending on role). A party without surgeless healing (surgeless healing in fact, being all that was available to 3e characters, in the form of magical healing), might be able to do 1 or 2 fights in 3e, but would be able to do many more in 4e.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a question.  Where is the presumption of 4 encounters per day in 4e?  I hadn't come across that.  In 3e it was fairly explicit since a Par EL encounter should use about 20-25% of party reasources, thus, 4 Par EL encounters per day was pretty much the standard assumption.

If you wanted more encounters, you could start dropping the EL per encounter, or, for less, simply raise the EL.

But, I was unaware of that baseline in 4e.  Is it stated somewhere?


----------



## Greg K (Jul 5, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Just a question.  Where is the presumption of 4 encounters per day in 4e?  I hadn't come across that.  In 3e it was fairly explicit since a Par EL encounter should use about 20-25% of party reasources, thus, 4 Par EL encounters per day was pretty much the standard assumption.
> 
> If you wanted more encounters, you could start dropping the EL per encounter, or, for less, simply raise the EL.?




Are we back to this? There is no presumption of 4 encounters per day in 3e.  All they state  in the DMG is how much of the party resources 4 encounters of ECL= party level would be expected to use.  It is merely a guide to help the DM in pacing how much resources are used when designing an adventure. 

The section on adventure design recommended that half of an adventure's are a combination of encounters above and below the party's level.

The section on encounter design discusses mixing status quo (no consideration of party level) with tailored (consideration of party level).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Are we back to this? There is no presumption of 4 encounters per day in 3e.  All they state  in the DMG is how much of the party resources 4 encounters of ECL= party level would be expected to use.  It is merely a guide to help the DM in pacing how much resources are used when designing an adventure.
> 
> The section on adventure design recommended that half of an adventure's are a combination of encounters above and below the party's level.
> 
> The section on encounter design discusses mixing status quo (no consideration of party level) with tailored (consideration of party level).




Thus the second line of what you quoted.  If you want more encounters - use a lower EL.  If you want less, go higher.  I wasn't really saying that 3e was locked into 4 encounters per day.  Most of the design figures along those lines as a baseline though.  If you want 6 encounters per day, don't use 6 EL Par encounters because it's too much for the party.  If you want 10 encounters per day, you're going to have to dip pretty far down in the EL range to achieve that.

Not a problem, the EL guidelines are just that - guidelines.  I actually LIKE the CR/EL system in 3e despite the warts.  I found that the CR/EL system in 3e works fairly well, so long as you don't get too caught up in it.  And, when I moved into systems like Savage Worlds which don't have CR at all, I found it very difficult to design scenarios since my inexperience with the system led to me to overwhelming the PC's way too easily.

No, my question is where is the baseline assumptions in 4e found.  I'm not even questioning their existence.  I just want to know where to look.


----------



## Yesway Jose (Jul 8, 2011)

Popping a bit late into the conversation, but Mearls identified "Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time" as part of D&D core.

I think that can be expanded slightly to state that "hit points, attack bonuses and saves must increase in parallel with level increases". That's a bit of a sacred cow, in the sense that a fighter cannot become a better fighter without becoming significantly tougher, or a wizard cannot become a better wizard without also getting better wielding a dagger even if she never uses a mundane weapon in her entire adventuring career. Usually that's not a disadvantage, but it is a D&Dism. You can't really model a veteran expert soldier with moderate hit points, or a master wizard that's incompetent with a staff, regardless of whether this makes sense or not to roleplay, I'm not defending it per se, I'm just stating the obvious about D&D.

To have a contrast, are there other systems where levels and/or hit dice are not systemically tied with better combat, and does it work?


----------



## Bluenose (Jul 8, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> To have a contrast, are there other systems where levels and/or hit dice are not systemically tied with better combat, and does it work?




Rolemaster was the earliest that I'm aware of. It was class and level based, but rather than giving fixed abilities it gave you a certain number of points each level to spend on your 'skills'. Which might mean getting better at swinging an axe, improving your skill in one field of magic, learning another type of magic, picking up a language, etc. Different classes would learn different skills more or less easily, so warriors weren't going to pick up magic easily and magicians probably wouldn't be great swordsmen too - but they could be. Anima does something similar more recently, and there are probably other.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jul 8, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> To have a contrast, are there other systems where levels and/or hit dice are not systemically tied with better combat, and does it work?




Dragon Quest split the difference. Some of the things you bought were essentially skills based, including weapons and spells. However, the DQ "professions", like Merchant or Beastmaster were collections of abilities that got better with each "rank", and you couldn't pick and choose within a profession. If you got a rank in "Ranger", you got better at all the ranger stuff. The closest equivalent to a "Fighter" class was the "Military Specialist" profession, that was pretty critical for anyone that wanted to be a good warrior/leader. But strictly speaking, if you wanted to be great with a 2 handed sword and not otherwise be a great warrior, you could. Or you could be a cunning leader that wasn't personally that hot with his main weapon.

A D&D designer that had the guts to do something that radical might get away with a similar idea, but he or she would need to be careful that "Fighter" and "Wizard" still meant something, after you took all the combat weapons and spells and put them into skills. (It would be easier with the Cleric, and trivial with the Rogue.) 

I actually think one of the earlier versions would be a better place to start with something like this, though, as much as I prefer the later versions when playing D&D right now. You need a system where "Fighters" can have followers, be parts of orders, have stongholds, etc. with *some* mechanics to go into this new "Fighter" class that isn't about being good with weapons anymore. Likewise, the "Wizard" class has to have some mechanics for rituals or lore or whatever you want to tie to it. See Dausuul's topic about a BECMI clone using some of the 4E design principles for an idea of how this might look.

Of course, you could drop "Fighter" and "Wizard", rather than come up with something for them to do.  But I think if you do that, you probably lost sight of the "I'm still D&D" border, whether you were still in up to that point or not.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 10, 2011)

Yesway Jose said:


> are there other systems where levels and/or hit dice are not systemically tied with better combat, and does it work?





Bluenose said:


> Rolemaster was the earliest that I'm aware of.



I GMed Rolemaster for nearly 20 years.

The main challenge a RM GM faces is encounter design - because the PCs can have very varied abilities across the range of standard adventuring activities (climbing, social, fighting, crafting etc), it can be hard to design an encounter that will engage all the PCs, and thereby all the players.

RM has some features that mitigate against this, though - such as open-ended rolls, and a critical hit system - that mean that even weak foes can still be meaningful against a PC with strong combat bonuses, in a way that is not the case for D&D.

Runequest and Classic Traveller are other games that separate PC progression from combat prowess. Both give rise to comparable issues as does Rolemaster, and both have some comparable mitigation features.

Overall, though, I would expect combat to play a less prominent role in a RM, RQ or Traveller game than it does in a typical D&D game. In that respect, they're less gonzo and a bit more gritty.


----------



## Bluenose (Jul 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I GMed Rolemaster for nearly 20 years.
> 
> The main challenge a RM GM faces is encounter design - because the PCs can have very varied abilities across the range of standard adventuring activities (climbing, social, fighting, crafting etc), it can be hard to design an encounter that will engage all the PCs, and thereby all the players.
> 
> ...




On the other hand, RQ and Traveller don't really have levels, and the lack of significant hit point advancement means you'll face a different sort of risk in any combat situation to the one you would in Rolemaster, let alone in D&D. Still true, frankly. I think it helps with that grittiness that resurrection is extremely hard to come by in RQ and not exactly likely in Traveller. Frankly, I can't remember many times we had fights in Traveller, given the types of game we played. In RQ they were more common, but rarely as 'to the death' as I see routinely in D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 11, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> On the other hand, RQ and Traveller don't really have levels, and the lack of significant hit point advancement means you'll face a different sort of risk in any combat situation to the one you would in Rolemaster



Bluenose, I basically agree with your post, and just wanted to pick out this comment - because RM combat turns mainly on crits rather than hits, and crit reduction is very hard to come by, RM also doesn't have significant hit point advancement in the D&D sense (and most non-combat-oriented PCs won't be able to afford much Body Development in any event). It is escalating DBs (with improved skill, spells and items), plus better self-healing magic, that allow combat to become less risky as PCs gain levels.


----------

