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

Vyvyan Basterd · May 22, 2012

Old_Skool said:
Magical healing has been the standard healing method of D&D, and all fantasy RPGs, for decades. If you want to play a low-magic (or no-magic) game setting, you should be able to...but such settings will be the exception and not the rule.

Earthdawn is a fantasy RPG that was fairly successful and takes issue with your "all fanatsy RPGs." Earthdawn has very little magical healing, the main form of healing is a surge-like mechanic. And it has nothing to do with being low-magic. Earthdawn is a high-magic setting. The high levels of magic are part and parcel to the premise of the entire campaign world.

I understand yours and others concerns, that "pep talks" and "cheerleading" and "catching one's breath" should not be allowed to heal wounds. That's why I think 5E needs to define what Hit Points represent in the next edition. This week's blog starts to tackle it.

I believe if the definition falls something like this:

Vyvyan Basterd said:
Full HP = Healthy
Less than full, more than half = Winded
Half or less, but positive = Wounded
Negative = Dying (or Unconscious)

A Winded character can spend an action to catch his breath and regain a Hit Die (new 5E lingo) worth of Hit Points.

A Wounded character can bind his wounds and rest 10 minutes to regain a Hit Die worth of Hit Points.

A Dying character must either receive magical healing to become Unconscious (or conscious if the healing is enough to bring him positive) or mundane healing to stabilize him to Unconscious.

An Unconscious character must rest 12 hours attended or 24 hours unattended to regain a Hit Die worth of Hit Points.

All limited by the number of Hit Dice a character has, except for magical healing, which when available always restores Hit Points.

then people might be more willing to accept it. Would this be acceptable to those who dislike non-magical healing?

Vyvyan Basterd · May 22, 2012

Mark CMG said:
Rejecting the terminology while agreeing with the definition of the terminology seems like an argument in semantics.

That phrase does not mean what you think it means.

If we were talking mathematics, then there's no negative meaning to the phrase:

thefreedictionary.com said:
low·est common denominator (lst)
n.
1. See least common denominator.
2.
a. The most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people.

It's the more common usage of the phrase out side of mathematics (which most commonly uses 'least' instead of 'lowest') that would rankle people when you refer to Combat as the "lowest common denominator."

Ichneumon · May 22, 2012

Gaming Tonic, not to treat you like a knowledge-soaked sponge to be repeatedly squeezed out, but - do your PC's background features (skills, traits) stay fixed as you level up? If so, are there other ways to develop your character's exploration/interaction abilities after first level?

I'm wondering whether the exploration/interaction pillars are effectively "done" after background is selected at level 1. I hope not.

nedjer · May 22, 2012

infax said:
What was it that you found scary in the interview?

For me it looked mostly like a rehash of other tidbits released so far. Gilsdorf asked something that hadn't been touched at up to this point, but didn't get straight answers to those.

And I liked the bit about schemes. They had been mentioned, but Mike Mearls offered some specifics in that interview. It sounded stimulating. I may just try a rogue friday evening now!What was it that you found scary in the interview?

For me it looked mostly like a rehash of other tidbits released so far. Gilsdorf asked something that hadn't been touched at up to this point, but didn't get straight answers to those.

And I liked the bit about schemes. They had been mentioned, but Mike Mearls offered some specifics in that interview. It sounded stimulating. I may just try a rogue friday evening now!

Wouldn't pay much attention to me I'm seeing double

My reading of the early talk was of a straightforward core based around a shared language common to all editions. The mechanics mentioned were stuff like AC, HP, Abilities, i.e. very much a shared, flexible all-edition platform for building the worlds of themes, schemes and lots more mechanical categories on top.

So,while not surprised to see something as well established as feats coming along, the recent interviews look quite busy with the language/ mechanical categories of later editions/ 4e. If, and it remains an if for now, that means a core underpinned by a full float of 4e mechanisms - plus new ones - imo Next could be offering a 'Bare Essentials', an Essentials and a 5e.

Stating that it's all about the nuts and bolts rather than any big idea/ sea change is maybe consistent with that, as is focusing consultation on looking inwards.

If this is how it pans out, and there's still lots of if there, 4e players may be glad/ even rush to go to Next - which is entirely cool. However, it seems relatively unlikely to appeal to OSR, Pathfinder and novices.

Perhaps some sort of all-embracing unity just isn't practical - but I'd like to have seen it given a real good go - and though a bit doubtful may yet

infax · May 22, 2012

Okay. I understand.

At some point I had gotten the impression that the core game would be just what you described. But that the core book would come of a lot of modules so that most of the feeling of editions beyond OD&D could be captured in play from the start. I was fine with that goal. I admit that it is not what it is looking like right now. Or maybe, it is still like that, but the core rules won't be presented as a coherent game in a segregated section, but rather appear underlining the rules of the game as presented in the core book.

As I am one of those who has no interest at all in playing anything that resembles early editions of D&D I may be more flexible to the new approach.

And, after this, I'm done derailing the thread.

nedjer · May 22, 2012

infax said:
Okay. I understand.

At some point I had gotten the impression that the core game would be just what you described. But that the core book would come of a lot of modules so that most of the feeling of editions beyond OD&D could be captured in play from the start. I was fine with that goal. I admit that it is not what it is looking like right now. Or maybe, it is still like that, but the core rules won't be presented as a coherent game in a segregated section, but rather appear underlining the rules of the game as presented in the core book.

As I am one of those who has no interest at all in playing anything that resembles early editions of D&D I may be more flexible to the new approach.

And, after this, I'm done derailing the thread.

Yeah, my speculation, (and that's all it is), is that all versions have some cool stuff, so you want the most liked among feats, themes, schemes, . . . well in there. However, if you're going for 'unity' it overall makes very little difference to 3e or 4e fans to have AC, HP, levels clearly sorted-out before feats, schemes, themes, . . . start to arrive.

imo the more a design front-loads those trickier, more abstract categories the more the design forms a self-knitting Gordian Knot. Which novices may well cut by switching on the XBox.

Jiggawatts · May 23, 2012

Old_Skool said:
1. Basic D&D = 10
2. 1E = 9
2. 2E = 2
3. 3E = 8
4. 4E = 1
5. 5E = ?

5E will be an "odd-numbered" edition, so it's destined for greatness.

You gave 1E a 9 and 2E a 2?! This doesn't make any sense, they are practically the same game mechanically, barring some minor tweaks (which includes things like better initiative rules), I just dont see how lack of half orc and assassin makes an almost identical game lose 7 points?

My list

Basic D&D = 7
1E = 8
2E = 9
3E = 7
4E = 2
5E = ?

To be completely fair, when we play AD&D it is usually a 1E/2E hybrid, using mostly the rules from 2E with anything 1E thrown in as desired (such as 1E rangers, paladins, and assassins).

Dark Mistress · May 23, 2012

Since all the kewl kids are doing it.

My list

Basic D&D = 5
1E = 7
2E = 6
3E = 8
4E = 4
5E = ?

Gaming Tonic · May 23, 2012

Bran Mak Morn said:
It refers to a scale going from 1 to 5, right? Or shall we assume that no edition was ever worth a solid 8?

You are correct. Blame it on my tired brain, lack of reading comprehension, or fear of counting on two hands. Several of these editions would have been solid eights if I was paying closer attention to the question. My bad, not the first, nor the last.

Balesir · May 23, 2012

Dark Mistress said:
Since all the kewl kids are doing it.

My list

Basic D&D = 5
1E = 7
2E = 6
3E = 8
4E = 4
5E = ?

Well, I'll join in, but I think this is a bit of a one-dimensional view on what is/should be a two dimensional question. My list would be:

Basic D&D = 6
1E = 4
2E = 5
3E = 7
4E = 9
5E = ?

...but there is a hidden complication. AD&D was a "4", but it's a "4" at several different foci or styles of play; 4e is a "9" (for me) at just one. For 5e I wonder not just what "number" I will give it, but for what style(s) and focus/foci of play it will be at its best (i.e. at that rated number).

The real problem 5e will have, I think, is that things have moved on since I was happy with that "4 at everything" AD&D. Now there are systems out there that are "8" or "9" at most styles that I can think I'd like to play. Since I find it very jarring and confusing to play with more than one main focus at a time, if 5e doesn't manage at least a "9" in something, I'm not sure I'm ever going to see a use for it.

P.S. [MENTION=6679316]Gaming Tonic[/MENTION]: is it after 6 p.m., yet?