Article: Game Design: Foundational Layers for 4e

[Matt James]

You can view the page at http://www.loremaster.org/content.ph...-Layers-for-4e

[jonathanjacobs]

Matt -- this mechanic of "layers" is required by 4E because it is a class-based game system. Many other games simply get around this "nuanced" game design feature of character creation simply by ditching classes altogether and have a free-style system entirely. Then, mainly to help foster the themes of a particular setting, those same game systems often present "Archtypes" to the players. i.e. example characters that are your typical "wizard", "fighter", "archonian track feeler", etc... as a means to show and tell how to use a classless system to create "classes". And yes.. as you might guess... this is another reason why Savage Worlds took my old 4E D&D group by storm and we have not looked back.

So - in short - I think what you are trying to get at here with your "layers" is perhaps a way to retrofit a classless system onto a class/rigid system. This is typical and not a new thing for D&D. In 3E we had prestige classes, multiclasses, specialty classes, and "adept/apprentice" systems as ways of "blending" classes together. 2E and 1E also had similar mechanics layered on top and optional.

[Matt James]

Agreed. I believe this sort of correction would have been more appropriate than the Essentials line of products where the system was adapted to fix issues.

[Nai_Calus]

CORELLON. ONE R. TWO LS. RAGE.

Otherwise, I am intrigued and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (Themes would certainly be better than what I wound up doing with my Paladin, which was just plain homebrewing a half-eladrin race.

[jonathanjacobs]

Well.. its not a "correction" I don't think. SW and D&D have fundamentally different design strategies. D&D (all editions) has used a class system first, and then presented countless options to blend/fix/powerup/mashup those classes to player tastes. That's teh D&D way of doing things. The Tao of D&D if you will - Restrict First, Blend Later. Nothing wrong with it either. Essentials I think was aimed at simplifying those options though - and then presenting options for those simplifications (which could be thought of as creating a new layer of complexity on a simplified set of options, thereby _maybe_ making the matters worse... I dunno... what do you think?)

[Matt James]

I should have clarified. Essentials (and the associated errata) served to help correct many issues to the overall 4e game system.

[JeffGupton]

I was just wondering (sudden amount of time on my hands) do the people who complain about Essentials also complain when they buy a new PS3 game and have to wait while they download the 1.02.03.2469 patch that came out right after the product was made? Nothing is ever perfect when it hits the shelves, it's as perfect as can be done with the tools at hand. Sometimes, a larger than errata patch is needed, which gave birth to Essentials.

[Matt James]

I tend to agree. The RPG gaming community is a fickle bunch and with the advent of the Internet, it seems it is way easier to be disgruntled. Either way, I still tend to gravitate towards games I enjoy. 4e has been quite enjoyable for several years now.

[JeffGupton]

I tend to agree. The RPG gaming community is a fickle bunch and with the advent of the Internet, it seems it is way easier to be disgruntled. Either way, I still tend to gravitate towards games I enjoy. 4e has been quite enjoyable for several years now.

I agree, I spent a lot of time and money on 3E/3.5 and have had more success with DMing and teaching new players with 4E. And, for some reason, when playing 4E there is a STRONG sense of nostalgia for when I first began with D&D in 1981.

[TheGreatZomboni]

Excellent article. I love the themes and would love to see more of them. I agree that the vampire would have been better served as a theme.

This is kind of material and options that I think would be a great addition to the game. I would love to contribute, playtest, and of most importantly buy a product like this.