Will the real Mike Mearls please stand up?

[Libramarian]

Mike Mearls' Keep on the Borderlands-bashing RPGnet review was recently brought up in another thread. That was odd, but I was willing to give him a pass on it because it's 12 years old and it's supposed to be a comedy review.

But now I've learned that Mike Mearls invented the phrase "Mother May I" (as it pertains to RPG design) here.

I know this is 7 years old, but still -- it's completely serious and he seems to have arrived at this position after a good deal of thought on the subject.

This bit in particular I find frankly disturbingly cynical, in addition to being the complete opposite of what he's saying nowadays:

As far as an issue of trust, it's more an issue of power. Trust is only a byproduct of an inequity of power. If someone doesn't have power over you, you don't have to worry about trusting them. There isn't anything they can do to you, so why worry about them?

He's talking about D&D here...

What do you think? Is it weirding you out that the guy who despises Keep on the Borderlands and coined the term "Mother May I?" is now singing the praises of old school D&D and "rulings not rules"?

I would like to see him talk a bit about how dramatically his opinions about RPGs have apparently changed. Until then I think I'm going to have to take everything he says as DDN team lead with a pinch of salt from now on.

 

[variant]

Why does it matter?

 

[TarionzCousin]

Obviously he's been replaced by a clone, doppleganger, or the original Paul McCartney.

 

[Abstruse]

Very much so. The most recent of those quotes (I'm going by your word here) was 7 years ago. That means it was 2005 and long before 4th Edition came out. Up until 4th Edition came out, the style of gameplay where players said "I want to try this" and the DM/GM/ST/whatever said whether they could or couldn't was pretty much universal. I tried to think of another RPG system which has as rigid a structure as that but I never could. This was also around the time that MMORPGs and console multiplayer were hitting their peak or really picking up. Game balance became the rallying call for that style of game design, and it bled over a lot into RPG design.

It's now seven years later. He's been working on the 4th Edition of D&D since the beginning (or pretty damn close to it). He's been working on the nuts and bolts of that system for a few years now, and in doing so he's seen what happens when you go too far in the other direction. This culminates IMO with the board games. They're so close in tone and feel to 4e without a DM that it really makes you wonder why you'd want one in the first place? Which, of course, rips out any chance of storytelling or exploration.

Right now, what WotC seems to be trying to do is streamlining D&D. They're wanting to take a lot of the complex rules out of it for the core game. They want something simple and easy to understand at the base of the game. Then after that is when they're going to start adding back in all the complexities as modules. They're doing this after what seems like about a year of research around the company, playing through every edition of the game as they went. Mearls's change of heart isn't surprising at all.

 

[Oni]

Meh, go back a handful of years to my posts on this site and I'm sure you'll find huge changes of opinion. Views evolve. Besides the proof is in the pudding, just look at the playtest, if that's the sort of game we're getting I'm not too worried.

 

[Abstruse]

Why does it matter?

Ad hominem attack. Make Mearls look stupid or like he's just following the party line from WotC and it's easier to dismiss him. Whether the original poster wanted to dismiss 4e or Next, I don't know.

 

[DogBackward]

Gee, it's almost as if, over the course of seven years, a person's viewpoint on a given subject might be able to change. Especially on subjects that aren't inherently important; the mechanics and dynamics of a hobby game as opposed to, say, deeply held political views.

I myself used to dislike a lot of the "old school" stuff. After looking into it, playing various games and editions a lot more, and so on... my views on the matter have changed rather drastically. With a new-school approach to presentation and cohesion, combined with an old-school approach to giving the DM tools as opposed to rules, and giving a DM more leeway to run the game that they want, as opposed to the game that the designers want... I think this is a very good step forward.

Ask me seven years ago?
I'd probably be railing against "taking a huge step backward" in game design.

 

[IanB]

Show me someone who never changes their opinion on anything and you're showing me someone who is close-minded and inflexible, and that's exactly who I don't want designing a new edition of D&D.

 

[darjr]

I think there has been a lot of learning about old school at WotC in the last few years. I have read that Mearls was pointedly running an OD&D campaign and reading the old school tutorial (the exact name slips my mind today) and figuring out what is so compelling about old school play.

 

[mkill]

He did criticize THE BOOK. Being the obscure, ostracized cult D&D gamers are, we should act like any obscure, ostracized, inbreeding cult handles traitors. Organize a sit in in front of his office. Come in LARP gear. Bring your old school modules and play them right in front of his eyes. Bring sharp d4 in case we need to defend ourselves against the police. Bring books with Mearls' name in them and burn them. Summon your inner Shatner and scream from the top of your lungs:

MMMEEEAAARRRLLLSSS!!!!