D&D 5th Edition EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next


What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Gaming Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indian Trail, NC
    Posts
    144
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    PathfinderD&D

    Ignore Gaming Tonic

    EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next

    In December I attended the D&D Summit and was made aware that Wizards of the Coast were working on a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Mike Mearls, the D&D Next design team lead, ran a session of the game and then spent an hour talking with me, answering my questions, and allowing me to pick his brain on D&D Next and role-playing games in general. It was a great experience, and I shared it with the readers in January, when the announcement of the next iteration of D&D was finally made to the public.

    Well now, six months later I was given the opportunity to interview Mike Mearls again, this time without NDA restrictions. I have had six months of personal play experience with the playtest materials and would be allowed to ask pretty much anything I wanted. I am a hardcore gamer, so of course I took this opportunity to talk about the one area that the NDA had prevented anybody from talking about specifically: mechanics! I would like to thank Wizards of the Coast and Mike Mearls for allowing this to happen and taking time out of their insane schedules with the open playtest just three days away.

    I only have one question about the Monte Cook departure - and I am sure you are exhausted of being asked about it, so I thank you in advance. On which areas of D&D Next will the departure of Monte from the design team have the most immediate effect?

    The core concept and direction remains the same, so really nothing has changed in terms of our big picture ideas. As weve come down to the final stretch of prepping for the public playtest, weve been working short one person, but our team has done an incredible job of making sure that we have materials ready to go out the door. We wish Monte well in his endeavors but right now we are just looking forward to seeing what kind of feedback fans have for the open playtest.

    I know the game has evolved a lot already. The game I played in December differed greatly to the game I played last week. I have heard rumors of multiple rule sets being used during the "Friends and Family" playtest. Were there different sets of rules sent to playtesters, and was the feedback from the different playtest rules narrowed down to the rule set that will be released in the open playtest on May 24th?

    Yes, weve already gone through a number of iterations. The next wave represents some of the biggest changes. In most cases, were streamlining things and making sure that the classes have the basic functions and match what people want from them.

    The fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric and the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling have already been announced as the classes and races of the first open playtest. What classes and races do you think you will focus on after those core classes and races have been polished?

    I think almost every class has undergone at least a basic concept pass. The next wave of material will depend on how the first one goes. For instance, if people think that the fighter is in good shape, that means we can move on to the ranger or paladin. Classes that share a similar place in the game will likely rely on feedback for earlier classes to help shape their initial form.

    I am glad to see themes being integrated into D&D Next in the core of the new edition. Are there plans to perhaps collapse some of the older classes into themes that would just expand the powers and tone of another class? For example what if the warlock was a theme that would allow any class to sell their soul?

    Weve actually talked about it, but havent yet made any final decisions on things. The key will be keeping an eye on how themes play out and what people like about them. If people like themes as bundles of big, interesting abilities, then that paves the way for some classes to migrate into themes. The key is that we need to accept that if something becomes a theme, were OK with almost any class entering it.

    The fighter in D&D Next feels like a fighter of old, but with more tricks up his sleeve than before. In my opinion the fighter feels like the one class that seamlessly melds the feeling of all editions into one class (surge power from 4E, hit point dominance from 1E, specialization from 2E and 3E). Is thought put into the classes so that each class has aspects which represent it in each edition, or was it just a perfect storm in the case of the fighter?

    I think that youve captured the basics of our approach though, interestingly enough, the fighter changed a bit from that initial draft. Ill explain some of the mechanics for folks:

    The surge mechanic was a fighter-only ability that let fighters heal. Based on closed playtest feedback, we added a mechanic that lets all characters heal by resting.

    Like the basic D&D and AD&D fighter, the current fighter design has the best hit points, weapons, and armor class.

    Weapon specialization has moved into themes. Again, based on feedback, we moved the fighter away from picking one type of weapon to be good at.

    In any case, I think that every class has drawn from each edition. The interesting part to me is how much 2nd edition has influenced things, primarily from the idea that characters can be customized primarily according to how they fit into the world. Rogues pick a scheme, inspired in part by the 2e mechanic that let thieves allocate points to their skills so that they could focus on one ability or another. Our new take on domains moves a little closer to spheres in intent, while our focus on themes as bundles of feats that are tied to organizations, training, or some other element expressed in the setting is another nod to keeping characters grounded in the campaign world, rather than only in the mechanics.

    I really love what you did with the familiar in 4E, and again so far in D&D Next. One of my players played a wizard with a witch theme and had a pair of ravens - which were useful, but not overwhelming. There is also no reason to attack the familiar and ignore the wizard to metagame an advantage (like CON loss or XP loss). Do you think we will see this sort of mechanic used for other companions such as a ranger beast companion, druid animal companion, or the paladins warhorse?

    Its a tricky line to walk. A familiar has a clear tie to arcane magic, so we have some flexibility in how we present them. I think well look at how people react to the familiar mechanic to get a sense of how much flexibility we have here. Some people really like the feeling that a companion animal is a flesh and blood creature, but there are a lot of advantages to presenting it as a spirit companion or something similar.

    I saw some elements of 4E represented in some of the defensive spells - such as mirror image being set as interrupts (works well by the way). One of the complaints that I and lots of fans have with 4E is that the proliferation of interrupts for offense slowed the pace of each turn to a crawl. I know in December we spoke about the pace of the game being very important to you. With that in mind will we be seeing the interrupt mechanic more in an offensive way or just defensively?

    Id like interrupts to serve either two purposes. First, I think quick, simple interrupts that boost a defense are OK. For instance, an interrupt that boosts your AC or reduces damage you take. You resolve it quickly and it doesnt slow the pace too much.

    For more complex interrupts, like those that require die rolls or decisions, Id prefer the interrupt to take away part of your next turn. That way, the total time it takes to go around the table remains relatively constant. In essence, youre taking your action ahead of time rather than getting two actions during a round.

    Wizards have long been considered by some to dominate the game, especially as they begin to climb in level. You recently mentioned this in your Legends & Lore article. You definitely did a great job with fixing this by having spells memorized at higher levels (as far as combat spells are concerned). In regards to utility magic, as you move forward with the game will this be something that you give extra special attention to with the open playtest feedback?

    Yes, definitely. Ideally, the wizard feels like a good fit in any campaign, regardless of the focus on combat, exploration, or interaction. The trickiest thing with the wizard is that since that class has to expend spells, it makes sense for those spells to be really good. You need to make sure that the class that is a steady contributor, like a fighter, isnt constantly overshadowed by the wizard. Ideally, in a party of the four core classes each one has the same amount of spotlight time and the same chance to play a big role in the adventure.

    Domains were mentioned in the playtest material I had. There were no rules yet establishing what those domains were going to be or how they would look. What do you have in mind for domains and will they be included with the base cleric class, or something modular added to the core rules?

    We decided to include them in the base cleric, of course playtest feedback will help determine the final form. We really like the idea of clerics looking really different based on the gods they worship. The key is to let clerics embrace a lot of different abilities based on the various gods in D&D without letting them become overpowered.

    Lots of themes in the playtest material had feats that were much more related to the other two pillars that we have heard mentioned besides combat: exploration and role-playing (the friendship feat of the diplomat and the Explorers Explore Guild Member feat for example). Is this by design? If so, is it a design element that you plan to use on a majority of the themes?

    When we looked at race, class, theme, and background, we decided to make background 100% focused on exploration and interaction. That means that every class has something to contribute in those situations. It also freed us up to focus on using a more organic approach to designing classes and races.

    The key is that classes provide you with all the baseline combat abilities you need, so if you take a class and a background youre covered in the three pillars. Classes can also have non-combat abilities as needed.

    Themes are a place where people can find their own specialization. Most themes offer a mix of abilities, but you can choose to focus on one part of the game if you want to. Still, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere.

    While themes are by no means complete, Id love it if you could play the game without them and need only minimal or no modifications by the DM. That would be a good option for groups that want a slimmed down experience or who simply dont want feat-style abilities in the game. For instance, our assumption for now is that if you want to build NPCs using classes, you dont have to give the NPC a theme or background. That speeds things up considerably, while pointing us in a direction where PCs could also do that.

    The design of having each one of the abilities represent a potential defense for something in the game gives each ability arguably equal importance. I noticed a henchman chart next to the Charisma score and a player in my group loves the idea of henchman. Is this something we will see supported right out of the gate? If so would you look at building henchman with some sort of minion mechanic, swarm mechanic, something closer to the henchman of earlier editions, or something else?

    We decided to remove the henchmen rule from the game for the time being, primarily because we felt it wasnt something that we could assume all groups would need in the core. I anticipate it will be a rules module, and well likely take an approach similar to AD&D where followers were divided between servants, men-at-arms, and one or a small number of adventurer-quality henchmen.

    Specialization has done a lot for spreading out the weapons that a player would choose to use, especially since multiple classes offer specialization. Did you think it important that one weapon have a different feel from another weapon, especially in the hands of an expert? Do you think we will see something for weapon speed, perhaps in a modular addition? (I miss it and always enjoyed this little bit of simulation).

    Weapon speed is definitely the kind of thing we could address in a module, though wed have to get a sense of how many people want to use it.

    I think that weapons should feel different if thats what a player is interested in exploring. Right now, were planning on moving weapon specialization into a theme so that any class can take it. People like building unique characters, and having a signature weapon or fighting style is definitely one way that you can make a character different. That provides a good template for our philosophy. For instance, we might have very simple rules for weapons in the core game, and then themes open up much more complex options. A DM running an encounter with orcs armed with spears, axes, and swords doesnt need to know more than the damage those weapons do. A player who wants more detail can opt into that. We can keep the system simple for the DM and players who dont care, and create more layers for the player who wants that sort of thing.

    Id be remised if I didnt throw out one last thing: Were really looking forward to having people try out the playtest materials and wed encourage you to start on May 24th and see how player feedback starts shaping the different updates to the playtest. This is your chance to play a role in the development of the rules.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DD-Next-Image-1-e1337547013373.jpg  
    Last edited by Gaming Tonic; Thursday, 13th September, 2012 at 04:59 PM.

 

  • #2
    Registered User


    am181d's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,115
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore am181d
    Great interview. Looking forward to the playtest! You should include a byline at the top of articles so people know who's writing what.
    Drew Melbourne,
    DrewMelbourne.com

  • #3
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    howandwhy99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    4,955
    Reviews
    Read 3 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    101

    Ignore howandwhy99
    I think there is another question by Gaming Tonic that's gone unhighlighted within the second response. I could be wrong.

    >>"What classes and races do you think you will focus on after those core classes and races have been polished?"
    Playing a game is a study. Storytelling is personal composition.

  • #4
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Kzach's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ringwood
    Posts
    4,222
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Kzach
    Not the question I would've asked about Monte, but otherwise, neat.

  • #5
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,174
    Reviews
    Read 4 Reviews

    Ignore Johnny3D3D
    My communities:

    I'm not so sure I like the cut of his jib this time around.

  • #6
    Registered User
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    8,910
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    GM's DayCMG

    Ignore Mark CMG
    My communities:

    When we looked at race, class, theme, and background, we decided to make background 100% focused on exploration and interaction. That means that every class has something to contribute in those situations. It also freed us up to focus on using a more organic approach to designing classes and races.

    The key is that classes provide you with all the baseline combat abilities you need, so if you take a class and a background youre covered in the three pillars. Classes can also have non-combat abilities as needed.

    Themes are a place where people can find their own specialization. Most themes offer a mix of abilities, but you can choose to focus on one part of the game if you want to. Still, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere.

    While themes are by no means complete, Id love it if you could play the game without them and need only minimal or no modifications by the DM. That would be a good option for groups that want a slimmed down experience or who simply dont want feat-style abilities in the game. For instance, our assumption for now is that if you want to build NPCs using classes, you dont have to give the NPC a theme or background. That speeds things up considerably, while pointing us in a direction where PCs could also do that.

    I'm not sure what to make of this. The separation of the pillars into nonintegrated areas seems problematic. Class seems to be tied to combat role still, which is something I've not liked in the past. The assumption that the game is combat focused seems to pervade the design such that in the area of theme he talks of "a guy who takes a combat-based [theme] is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere" which suggests the design belief that characters geared toward non-combat themes are less the focus of the game by default. Between the lauding of 4E mechanics which are being carried over into the initial design and the continued assertions that somehow spellcasting classes need to be restricted in overall power but given piecemeal combat abilities so they can be useful in combat while not overshadowing noncasting classes seems to be an approach that leads to homgenization of classes that has been tried and not found full support in the wider player-base WotC states they wish to draw on board for fifth edition.
    Fighting Fire - Ernie Gygax Relief Fund

    Please, help boost the signal!

    http://tinyurl.com/gygaxrelief

    As always,
    Mark CMG
    CreativeMountainGames.com

  • #7
    Member
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    Kzach's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ringwood
    Posts
    4,222
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Kzach
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark CMG View Post
    I'm not sure what to make of this. The separation of the pillars into nonintegrated areas seems problematic. Class seems to be tied to combat role still, which is something I've not liked in the past. The assumption that the game is combat focused seems to pervade the design such that in the area of theme he talks of "a guy who takes a combat-based [theme] is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere" which suggests the design belief that characters geared toward non-combat themes are less the focus of the game by default.
    Umm... how are you getting that out of that?

    All he's saying is that things are more balanced between the pillars, not less. If things are more equal then there ISN'T a focus bias.

  • #8
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)



    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    336
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Zireael
    I liked the interview, learned quite a bit.
    A fan of D&D (especially the Fair Folk) from Poland.

  • #9
    Now we ARE talking mechanics now, right?
    So my question to ENWorld is this: Do high level games play fluently and as fast- paced as low level ones? We were promised short and fast combat turns and general task resolution, and I wanted to know if this premise still holds at the higher levels of the game. Almost all feedback we will give will be of the game portions they provide, and to my understanding, most of it will be for Heroic (low) level games. How much of the open playtest will be for post- 10th level characters?
    I do like what I've read so far, and an answer to sooth my concerns would be very much obliged.
    Me doesn't kno inglish much good, pleez tray too ignor my mistackes.
    Seriously, English isn't my native tongue (Hebrew is), so forgive my grammer and spelling.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    A good friend will help you move.
    A great friend will help you move a body.

  • #10
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Gaming Tonic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indian Trail, NC
    Posts
    144
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    PathfinderD&D

    Ignore Gaming Tonic
    Habaal if you are around this evening after six p.m. est I will answer a few of those questions for you. I would love to share the actual playtest feel with gamers. I have to go do the whole real world thing but if a thread is on the forums I will hop in and answer everything I can. My NDA has been lifted so that I can share my experience with you. I think that says a lot about how WotC wants to include the fans in the process. They did not have to release my NDA. Those who are around this evening I would love to talk. Thanks for the feedback.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 101
      Last Post: Friday, 1st June, 2012, 02:42 PM
    2. Interview with PATHFINDER lead designer Jason Bulmahn
      By Aberzanzorax in forum Pathfinder RPG Discussion, Rules, Houserules, & Homebrews
      Replies: 80
      Last Post: Sunday, 10th May, 2009, 04:24 PM
    3. Interview with Mike Mearls
      By LostSoul in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 114
      Last Post: Wednesday, 17th September, 2008, 09:09 AM
    4. Mike Mearls is now Full-Time Malhavoc Designer!
      By Henry in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 21
      Last Post: Monday, 15th December, 2003, 05:29 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •