Mearls is the new manager of D&D

[mudbunny]

Since you might be looking at this, Mr. Mearls, could you please set about to fixing the typo in the 4e PHB intro, and stop* converting AD&D modules over to encounter format modules with screwed up maps?

Thanks.

*=WotC. I don't think you yourself are doing it. But since you now have all the pull...

If you don't mind me asking, what is it about the conversions you don't like? Are they not converting them in a way which you feel properly conveys the feel that the original AD&D modules presented, is it the fact that they are being converted in the first place that is the problem, or is there something else that I am not seeing, having not played anything prior to 3.5?

 

[catsclaw227]

Congrats Mike!

Thanks for the synopsis of your gaming history, it helps put the mindset of teh members of the D&D team into some perspective.

I'd love it if each of your group came online and told us about how they got into D&D, how they got into the business and their thoughts on the current gaming culture. I want to see more personality put to the names and faces.

Since you might be looking at this, Mr. Mearls, could you please set about to fixing the typo in the 4e PHB intro, and stop* converting AD&D modules over to encounter format modules with screwed up maps?

Thanks.

*=WotC. I don't think you yourself are doing it. But since you now have all the pull...

If you don't mind me asking, what is it about the conversions you don't like? Are they not converting them in a way which you feel properly conveys the feel that the original AD&D modules presented, is it the fact that they are being converted in the first place that is the problem, or is there something else that I am not seeing, having not played anything prior to 3.5?

I am genuinely curious about this as well. I don't always like remakes or sequels (if done poorly) of other media, but adventure modules are a special case: The experience of DMing/playing the adventure module is much more unique per gaming group than the reading of a novel or watching a movie. The encounters play out differently, power NPCs and groups are dealth with differently and the seque into the next adventure/game session/plot point/sandboxy-place-to-go is different with each group.

Which conversions irked you most?

 

[avin]

Ok, enough congratulations, can you give me my poney, er, Modron now?

 

[malraux]

I am genuinely curious about this as well. I don't always like remakes or sequels (if done poorly) of other media, but adventure modules are a special case: The experience of DMing/playing the adventure module is much more unique per gaming group than the reading of a novel or watching a movie. The encounters play out differently, power NPCs and groups are dealth with differently and the seque into the next adventure/game session/plot point/sandboxy-place-to-go is different with each group.

Which conversions irked you most?

IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward. It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).

 

[TheYeti1775]

Fair enough.

But the point I was making is that the adventures make the game come alive, whether those adventures are homebrewed or packaged. The packaged adventures should make people eager to write their own.

I think that putting more energy into that direction would reap rewards. It would also potentially give me something from WotC to spend my money on.


RC

I can agree with that. I would have just exp'd ya, but I have to spread it around some more.

I guess I'm not really sure why we're talking about conversions here at all, though I must echo Fifth_Element in that I'm doubly unsure why someone wouldn't want classic modules converted to 4E (unless it was to the total exclusion of new, original 4E modules, I suppose).

I misread the initial talk of the conversions and thought it was was the Version Conversion vice Module ones. Hence my arguement that way.

Ultimately, I just wanna see more adventures! New ones! Old ones remade for 4E! Put 'em in boxes! Put 'em in folios! Give 'em numbers instead of names! I said more or less the same thing on the WotC forums back in early 2007, IIRC, and I guess enough other people must've been saying the same thing, because WotC has gradually started doing just that. Keep it up, Mike!

I have no problem with remakes of old modules to new versions. In fact I would encourage it from both a player & DM standpoint. Most of the very brand new players coming to D&D nowadays weren't even alive when ToEE came out. They only know it as the heavily patched computer game.

Remember that the jump from 2E to 3E was a mechanical one. Suddenly, D&D worked differently, but it still looked the same on top.

OTOH, the jump from 3.5E to 4E included a lot more superficial and flavour changes. This is what most irritated a lot of "haters". The mechanical aspect of that change was fairly subtle, especially for players who had been up-to-date with the incremental changes in 3.5E over its production lifespan. This gradual change is the "hidden edition" between 3.5E and 4E. If you used (for example) Complete Mage's Reserve feats, Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, and Player's Handbook II, the 3.5E you were playing was a lot more like 4E than core 3.5E ever was*, and as explained up-thread, Mike Mearls was a part of this. (*It's said SWSE was yet more similar to 4E even than these products.)

That probably is what threw me off more than anything on 4E. But the Reserve Feats didn't throw me off much either. I liked them as they gave me a better format for some things I had created custom feats for from old 1E/2E characters.

Is that Mike's new title, "Brand Manager"? I heard something about being "Manager" of D&D R&D, but are you sure you've got his new job description correct? I'm confused.

I'm probably confused to. I took it as Brand Manager when he said he was the manager of D&D. I didn't read R&D.

You mentioned that you were a "4e hater" earlier. Is it possible that your negative attitude towards it is due to attitudes that you learned from the people who taught you to play 4E?

Nope actually the ones teaching me to play it I meet only recently.
My dislike of it came from seeing the books and just not liking them in general.

I'll be less rhetorical: having studied some social psychology, I know that science says it's definitely possible that you did. Have you considered picking up the books? If you approach it with a fresh mind, you might find a new appreciation for Mike's work.

Pick up the books, don't think so. Refuse to play in a game just because of 4E, nope. I'm proving right now (5th session of it this Friday openminded enough for ya ) that you don't need a book to play it. The DM helped me create the originial character on the Character Builder he has, and helped me level him up after the last session.

I'm excited about the way D&D is going these past few years! I think Mike is the right guy for the job today. And personally, as a 4E fan who is aware of Mr Mearls' strong influence on the recent direction of D&D, I'm growing interested in checking out this "Iron Heroes" thing he worked on previously. Since I like 4E, maybe I'll like Iron Heroes too.

I would say pick it up than.
After we finish this module, the group is going back to my comfort zone of prior editions. While I agree with you, I think the changes are good for D&D some things still leave a bitter taste in my mouth with WotC.

IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward. It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).

I assume it's the T1 Moathouse? If not forgive me.
In prior editions I've had to run that both as individual and as a single encounter. I can see why '4E encounter power' wise it could become much harder as a single one though.


But really I'm just happy playing D&D of some sort. And really that is what matters most to a believe everyone of us. Enjoyment of a game/hobby that we all share.

 

[Jack99]

Isn't Mike the one who said something like, "I find World of Warcraft about as fun and exciting as banging my head against the wall" in an early 4E interview?

Indeed

 

[nedjer]

If you don't mind me asking, what is it about the conversions you don't like? Are they not converting them in a way which you feel properly conveys the feel that the original AD&D modules presented, is it the fact that they are being converted in the first place that is the problem, or is there something else that I am not seeing, having not played anything prior to 3.5?

Wheat from chaff comes to mind. These threads are more entertaining when they look at where RPGs and the brand are going/ can go instead of revisiting edition wars and various legitimate but relatively minor concerns.

Generally I'd kind of take the view that what's done is done and it's, seriously, time to shake hands over that dumb argument with good mates over 4e's pitiful lack of a Dishwasher subclass. So you can't hurl plates like you used to - get over it

Perhaps we could suggest more than tinkering - without bickering. Maybe we could throw up some ideas and have them shot down with constructive criticism. Maybe I'm getting carried along away by the wave of coalition politics sweeping the UK . . . ?

 

[Harlekin]

IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward. It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).

Yeah, I recently reread it. it's a really nifty gift for players, it also makes a lot more sense than the 3.5 version of the Moathouse, where you had to assume that all the monsters were deaf and dumb, otherwise the PCs would be overrun in no time (happened in our game).

So I would love to see more conversions like that.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

If mearls does anything, I hope he gets monster tokens published.

I've been playing the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the past three weeks and Fantasy Flight Games has made Wizards of the Coast look completely inept with regards to PC, NPC, and monster representation on the battlefield.

Of course, WotC's position is because of Hasbro and profit margin considerations and a failure of a strategy. But still...

 

[Klaus]

If mearls does anything, I hope he gets monster tokens published.

I've been playing the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the past three weeks and Fantasy Flight Games has made Wizards of the Coast look completely inept with regards to PC, NPC, and monster representation on the battlefield.

Of course, WotC's position is because of Hasbro and profit margin considerations and a failure of a strategy. But still...

The D&D Essentials Monster Vault comes with tokens.