But the problem is that isn't the game many of us want to play.
Which is why, in the post you quoted, I said this:
I think it is obvious to everyone that D&Dnext is going to be very different from 4e. But it is equally natural for those who are playing a version of D&D that offers a mechanical solution to the problem Mearls is talking about to be somewhat dissapointed by his failure to acknowledge that he is already publishing a version of the game that solves the problem. And his failure to canvass the range of other solutions that might be available, such as some of the milestone variants that have been mentioned in this and other threads.
There are non-4e ways to deal with the issue. What about a milestone mechanic for unlocking wizard spells, for example?
It does strike me they are genuinely struggling to understand the different groups that play D&D while also working to unite them somehow.
this L&L is not meant to persuade 4e players. 4e players should already be aboard.
I personally haven't seen anything in L&L for a long time that demonstrates understanding of what is attractrive and powerful in 4e's design. And I'm not sure why I should be on board an approach that lacks the tools I currently have.
there will be absolutely nothing preventing you from DM your games just as you do in 4e. The only difference is that rather than design encounters in a vacuum, you have an added reference -- for a party this size, at this XP level, they'll probably need a rest after X rounds of combat. You don't have to plan anything in advance. It's just an extra tool.
Except that he defines deviating from his X rounds of combat per day scenario as throwing balance out the window and letting casters dominate.
As thecasualoblivion says, the difference is that if I depart from the expected XP budget, I will upset the balance between classes in the party.
I disagree that that is what Mearls is saying. He says, "The important thing from an R&D perspective is that both extremes, and all the points in between, are options for DMs." The point is that, just as monster roles and Encounter XP budgets gave the DM finer control over adventure design, so will the adventure day rules give DMs finer control over pacing.
Mearls says expressly that departing from the XP budget will upset intraparty balance. Here are the relevant words (I've bolded some for emphasis):
DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger.
I think that's pretty unambigous.
In reality, a 4e DM wouldn't (generally) skew the game in such a way because 4e gives these tools for game design.
<snip>
The adventure day budget is just in that line. It's taking something awesome in 4e and improving on it so that folks who don't care for a game where everyone has the same options to nova can play with it, too.
The comparison that you and KM are making to 4e is inapt, in my view.
In 4e, I can design an encounter at a given XP budget with 1 monster or 20 or more, or anything in between (by mixing solos, elites, standards, and minions of various levels). I can vary their roles so as to change the dynamics of the combat. And I can boost or lower the XP budget while holding the balance of monsters (near-enough to) constant.
So it's no doubt true that I can design encounters, at a given budget, that will favour controllers over melee strikers over ranged strikers, etc. But nothing in the game dictates that I use a certain XP budget to maintain intraparty balance.
So, suppose I'm running a game in which there is one EL+5 encounter per day (maybe the PCs are doing a series of hits on prison cells in Carceri). I can design different encounters, that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget that I'm using is irrelevant to that.
Suppose that I'm running a game in which there are 7 EL or EL+1 enconters per day (maybe the PCs are fighting their way through a series of outposts on Carceri). I can design encounter that will have different dynamics and let different PCs shine. The XP budget I'm using is irrelevant to that.
Nothing in the (pre-Essentials) 4e PC rules makes the use of any particular XP budget relevant to intraparty balance.
Mearls himself, in the bit I quote above, states that D&Dnext is going to be different in that respect. Increase your daily XP budget, fighters and rogues will shine. Decrease it, and casters will shine. For me,
that is a problem. It's a backwards step from what I've got, because it requires me to use a particular XP budget (presumably a level-dependent one) in order to preserve intraparty balance.
I have other concerns also - given the current trajectory, I don't really trust the designers to refrain from giving wizards and clerics spells that let
them set the daily XP budget (via teleport, rope trick etc). Whereas (i) 4e doesnt have so many of those spells, and (ii) if the players rather than the GM start setting the XP budget, it doesn't affect intraparty balance (though it can perhaps give rise to other play issues more tangential to this thread).
But even before I get to this further concern, there is the basic fact - stated by Mearls - that intrparty balance of effectiveness is tethered to a particular XP budget.
It doesn't solve the entire issue. The other half of the imbalance problem is that daily powered classes are unbalanced against the encounters themselves if you deviate from the guidelines. If there is only one encounter, they just nuke it with daily powers. You could just have an epic encounter that requires going nova, but maybe you don't want to for story reasons or that it would take longer to resolve than you want.
Daily powers balanced around attrition force that attrition
I agree that this is an issue, but with proper power design I think it is more easily worked around. In Rolemaster, for example, even if the nova-PCs are going to nuke the single weak encounter with their spells, their can still be interesting play in making choices about which spells, and how, etc. I've seen similar play in 4e, where an encounter is foregone but the way it unfolds is still interesting and worth resolving.
But I'll happily concede there is a fine line between what I'm describing, and needless grind. And it does depend on details of the design of action resolution. If the nova just takes the form of "We fireball them", it's quick and non-grindy, but hardly very interesting or satifying to play out.
I'm hesitant to completely buy into your generalisation - there are a lot of different approaches out there! But I do share your frustration at this repeated insistence that what is needed to fix the 15 minute adventuring day, for those who don't like it or its effect on intraparty balance, is better education of the player base.