Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[pemerton]

I find this to be odd in a person who runs a game for very proactive players who decide and set the goals for their PCs. Why expect them to be proactive in one aspect of the game, but fail to be proactive about spending the treasure they find?

Most of the games I play evince a fairly clear connection between the what and the why of play. Two of those games - 4e and Classic Traveller - place emphasis on gear and treausre, and it's clear in both games what that stuff is for.

 

[pemerton]

Its a check with your Attack stat, usually strength or dex for a weapon attack, against a DC set by a calculation. You add proficiency if you are proficient in the weapon being used.

Seriously, it’s the same mechanic as determining the outcome of declaring “I run up the wall halfway, jump off the window ledge opposite, and then hike up to get my feet on the ledge and jump across again to the edge of the roof, parkour style”.

DC = AC of the orc. The ability checked is strength, dex, int, wis, etc., depending on the class and attack type. Heck, adding strength or dex to your to hit and damage rolls is even listed under ability checks for those abilities. That one was easy.

The mechanical process is identical, though. Roll d20, add modifiers, beat the DC to succeed at the check, have success or failure narrated by the DM afterwards. That an attack ability check often leads to another mechanical roll doesn't make the resolution system for the attack roll any different than a skill check of another sort.

So what is the analogue of rolling damage and tracking a hit point total in the case of the parkour jump?

I don't think there is one. Which is my point. The core 5e combat rules are not "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you kill the orc". They're "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you get to engage in this other mechanical process about ablating hit points."

I mean, by the same logic I could assert that combat and non-combat are resolved the same way in 4e. But it's obvious that they're not, because in 4e combat successful checks trigger hit point attrition and status effects - which is one sort of mechanical subsystem - and in 4e non-combat successful checks either trigger an immediate change in the fiction (if the situation is resolved by a simple check) or trigger a move in the tallying of successes and failures (if it's a skill challenge).

This can be contrasted with systems that actually do have uniform resolution systems - HeroQuest revised is one example.

unless you kill the orc outright, in which case you may get to cut its head off.

And this on its own is enough to show that 5e does not have a resolution system like the one I described upthread.

A system in which, if you succeed at a check, your stated goal may come true if some other downstream mechanical process yields a certain resolut is obviously not the same as this:

The player states what his/her PC is doing and what s/he hopes to achieve thereby. The GM indicates what ability or skill is to be tested, and sets a DC. The player makes the check (d20 + appropriate modifiers) and if it equals or exceeds the DC the PC succeeds at what s/he is doing and thereby achieves what s/he hoped to. Otherwise the GM explains what went wrong in conception, execution, or intervening factors.​

 

[Jhaelen]

TL;DR;: Mearls says "current edition good, older editions bad".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

TL;DR;: Mearls says "current edition good, older editions bad".

Exactly like that, but completely different.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you’re nitpicking wording to force a conclusion at this point. DnD doesn’t allow “killing the orc” to be an action, but als doesn’t let “gain an army” be an action. DnD breaks things into single actions, or close enough to best abstracted like it’s a single action. Each action is resolved using the same system.

“Win the fight” is an action in some games, in other games it isn’t. Some fights will be won with one action, most won’t. That doesn’t change that actions are resolved in the same way either way. Some puzzles will be resolved in one action, others won’t.

Its the same shstem of resolution regardless.

 

[clearstream]

The additional player's handbooks, dungeon masters guides, and monster manuals were all part of the core rules of 4e, it says so right on the cover.

Supplements were things like the books focusing on arcane or martial power.

Reflecting on the question of which books to count in determining the relative weight of the editions. I think even in 4th edition, three books formed the baseline assumption of what a group would use. There was a boxed set of them at launch, and it reflected a norm for D&D that was, and is ongoing. Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual are the essentials of play. It seems misleading to argue otherwise. I doubt WotC would have said of 4th edition that a group can't play D&D successfully with just those three. In any case, that debate doesn't need settling: I am going with an assumption that the core constitutive rules of D&D 3rd edition and 5th edition are found in three books.

Looking at those books, I think it is true that 5th edition has a lighter or more streamlined approach than 3rd edition, and yet this doesn't really come through in play for me. I think part of it is that my groups seldom made use of Prestige classes, which in 3rd edition were optional (in the core books, the only prestige classes appeared in the DMG I believe). We did not use much from supplements. In play, each of the 5th edition classes feels to me significantly more laden with options in core than the 3rd edition classes. Fighters are the obvious case, but I don't think any class in 3rd edition core has more rules than its equivalent in 5th edition! 3rd edition may tackle some things that 5th is silent on, but in play I don't notice that, because the biggest burden on me as DM is what my players' characters are capable of.

If all rules in every supplement is counted, then 3rd edition has more, but that's not what this discussion is about. It's rules at the table - in play for the group - that impact on weight. And it is the mechanical detail of those rules. I am positing that there is more detail in what characters can do, in core, in 5th edition. That produces burden that didn't exist in 3rd core. This putative lightness of running 5th seems like a figment as I don't find either version easier or harder to DM. That makes me look for a more compelling account of exactly how 5th edition is "lighter" than 3rd?

 

[clearstream]

@ad_hoc

Regards the point you mooted about gateway games. I think the thing in RPG, and especially D&D, is that the DM masters the rules so that new players don't need to. All the player is exposed to is the complexity of generating a level 1 character. I think 5th edition is better organised for that than 3rd edition, but I wouldn't say the one is more taxing than the other.

Anyway, the DM is crucial to why a complicated game like D&D can be easy to get into.

 

[Lanefan]

Boy did this ever blow up over the last 24-36 hours.

A few quick hits on some random things read over the last 15-ish pages...

Initiative ties: why break 'em at all? Let things happen simultaneously - way more realistic, and doesn't break the game in any way.

What to spend accumulated treasure on: someone already mentioned training, which I highly recommend adding in if you're not already using it. There's also tithes (for Clerics, Paladins and maybe Druids) and guild fees (for Wizards, Rogues, and various others), which never seem to get enough attention. The realm might levy special taxes on rich adventuring types. There's strongholds, castles and fortresses; though why parties don't more often pool their resources and build just one castle as a home base for everyone baffles me. And all this doesn't even get to buying magic items.

Character sheet in the PHB: why? Hasn't anyone ever heard of a blank sheet of paper? Have some printable character sheet examples online, sure, but don't waste PHB space with one.

Adding pages to the PHB: adding means adding, not replacing. Adding 16 pages to a 320-page book thus gives a 336-page book, and as the original suggestion/request was to ADD pages with info relating to <I forget what, now> there's no reason to worry about what the new info would be bumping.

Lazy writing and-or design: for my own part, if someone were to call my writing 'lazy' I would take it as explicitly saying - not just implying, but outright saying - that I hadn't put enough effort into it. Fair enough if true, but valid cause to be offended if untrue. Far better to call it 'derivative' or 'unoriginal' if the intent is to mean that there's not enough new content and-or the content comes across as a rehash of something done before.

Lanefan

 

[ClaytonCross]

The designers asked themselves 'are we designing narrative/story first, or strategy game first?' One must drive the design goals.

Then there is limiting design because of powergamers, which is a fool's errand. Some people enjoy finding ways to exploit or abuse rules, and that's fine, they can have their fun...but the game shouldn't be limited because of them. And they don't. This statement of design philosophy spells out why.

I think your mistaken your saying designing good narrative and strategy are in ANY WAY mutually exclusive. They can ignore each other or support each other. Their is Zero reason why even choosing to make narrative your starting point or priority would damage your strategic your design. In fact the only real rule here is that both need to be functional and they are only strengthened when they support each other. In other words if I want the story of an epic Fire based sorcerer known for burning his enemies to ache having the ability to build that sorcerer brass dragon an ancestor giving him firebolt and burning hands means at level one I can be a fire based sorcerer, the dragon ancestry origin then informs that story some more allowing placing you on a path for background improvement... for example... I could have also have red dragon ancestry how does that inform my design? Do I have evil tendencies an have to restrain my self or strong desire to burn out corruption from brass dragon ancestry? Also, "Additionally, parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales. When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier." I have scales!! Mechanically the AC bonus is nice... story how visible are they if they are red do the look like a rash? Do people who notice think I am sick and avoid me? If they are noticed to they fear my red dragon origins thinking I might call forth a red dragon ancestor to destroy them or perhaps revere me as if royal blood because they serve Bahamut and feel I am some how closer than they are too this great power? I mean look at the entry itself... its not just some bland strategic statement and its not just fluff ether... its both. D&D is at its best when they grow on each other not when people impose personal conflicting beliefs on "how it should be" on each other.

Sure some people only like the fluff... and others only like the strategy.... I have never found anything in the fluff you couldn't fixed by adding the right other fluff... and good strategy has only ever served make the fluff stronger while good story gives strategy purpose! Want to be a Nature cleric with a few levels of Arch Demon Warlock.... sure ...IF ... you can tell me why in a great story. Perhaps you lost your way in search of power and now your fighting to suppress the taint of your demonic warlock powers and gain redemption in your order through penance and that is why your questing... you have to perform 10 selfless deeds that protect the creatures of the forest that no one else could do or remain banished forever!!! To that end you have joined a party to actively drive you into harms way, into places of evil where the meek an innocent are tormented because their is no hope for salvation that does not have you coming face to face with evils as dark as the taint you invited into your soul.

Is the Warlock popular?

While the following is not the most reliable sample, and is a little dated, it is one we have.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

Warlock comes in at 8th of 12 classes for popularity. 4th-8th are all very close so it essentially ties in the middle.

There are 12-15 million players in NA alone. Unless you have a source that I'm not familiar with your experience is far too small to make declarations of character popularity.

Actually it is....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cak3ojSuJaM at the 13:21 mark they talk about how it shocked everyone because its now the 3rd most played class in D&D Beyond beating all predictions and and the wizard class in third, the cleric in 4th.

 

[5ekyu]

The "you" in my post was being used in the impersonal sense (ie one doesn't answer the question of what money is for in the context of gameplay by producing a mediaeval price guide, which in any event the game includes.) A price list isn't advice on gameplay.

You are correct that I can import advice on gameplay from other games into 5e - but that's not a super-strong defence of 5e's design, I don't think, especially as some advice will probably contradict how 5e is meant to play.

This doesn't speak to my point, which is what is the gameplay purpose of imagining my PC spending money on those things?

If the answer is just because it's fun to imagine it - ie the expenditure is colour and nothing more - then maybe the book could come out and say so: the goal of playing a game in which you must succeed at wargame-like challenges to have your PC collect gold from a dungeon is to then imagine your PC spending that gold on whatever you want to.

As I've already said, in this post and an earlier one, a price list is not advice on gameplay.

But what is the gameplay purpose of that expenditure? It's not unclear in classic D&D (building a stronghold attracts followers and allows an army for engaging in military campaigning, which was an assumed part of the game back in the 70s). It's not unclear in Classic Traveller (buying a starship let's you engage the intersteller travel system, which is a core part of Traveller gameplay). It's not unclear in 3E or 4e (buying magic items expands the list of character attributes and capabilities).

My own view is that if a game is going to make an in-fiction goal, like acquiring treasure, an assumed focus of play, and is going to treat that in somewhat tedious detail (keeping track of all those gold pieces, having all those detailed price lists, etc), then it might address the question of why?

Well so should the effects of praying to a god, or the costs of buying a sword or a suit of mail, but 5e is happy to get pretty precise about those things.

I'm not sure why it's OK to tell me that a + such-and-such-amount to my damage pool, or my defence number, costs this much gp; why being able to repel a vampire with a prayer requires such-and-such details of PC building; but doing something of this sort for social skills is out of bounds.

In my experience, if making a move in the game ("I spend 100 gp buying a nice shirt") doesn't generate consequences for action resolution mechanics, then players can't make that sort of move as part of engaging the game and its fiction so as to change it.

D&D has never taken the view that "I carry a longsword rather than a dagger" is mere colour (at least since OD&D, and even back then I think that daggers might have been an exception to the d6-for-damage rule, although maybe I'm getting confused with EPT). It's never taken that view about "I wear plate and mail rather than just a loincloth". But presumably you don't think it's tumbled down the slippery slope you're worried about as a result.

I'm not sure why rules that relate finery to certain social interactions would cause the problem when the combat gear rules don't. I can't say I've noticed it, or any hint of it, in my Prince Valiant game. (And more complex games can use other devices also to manage this - eg Burning Wheel has an advancement system which means that a player has a reason not to always want to use as big a dice pool as s/he might want to.)

So it's powergaming to improve social skills, but it's not to just ask the GM for favours? Or arw those allies and glyphs and whatnot just for colour?

But putting that to one side, you can write what you're describing into a rulebook as well: eg "You can spend the money your PC has taken out of the dungeon on various social projects, which your GM might then have regard to in setting the DC for interactions with the NPCs who benefit from those projects, or perhaps in deciding that no check is required to have them help you."

A couple quick notes...

The mechanical benefits of praying to a God ordonating to z temple are not defined. What does my sorcerer gain from those. Obviously you were conflating class abilities of clerics with more broadly accessible aspects like gold.

Secondly, oddly enough these guys did a video today on what yo spend gold on. Not pushing them, I often disagree, but they did address some good points.

One of their points expressed was that this is a role playing game and so it's ok to have non-mechsnical boosting elements you do for impact in the game that are fun - in a role playing game.

https://youtu.be/PYOypkdvyg8

 

[Oofta]

But saying that someone's words are false is not calling them a liar.

No one in this thread has said that the designers are lazy. Some have said that their design is lazy. I don't have a strong view on that, except when it comes to the role of money in the game: the game maintains the conceit of earlier versions of D&D that a significant goal of play is for the PCs to collect money, but unlike those earlier versions the rules don't provide anything much for that money to be spent on.

I think much D&D writing is lazy - Moldvay Basic is a noticable exception. Original 4e made it fairly easy to avoid the bad writing because I could generally work out how the game plays by reading the mechanical elements, which were often helpfully boxed. Essentials has the same overblown writing problem as I see in 5e material.

It is calling someone a liar if the implication is that they know they are telling falsehoods.

The implication with calling the rules lazy is that the devs just threw up their hands and said "meh, we haven't really tried that hard or put the effort into thinking of many options so **** it. We'll publish **** and hope people are gullible enough to buy it."

We see this attitude in one response after another. Anyone who likes the current set of rules is implicated as a gullible fool who believes that 5E is perfect. I can't count the number of times people have told me that simply because I think the design decision taken was the correct one. I see the term as a dog whistle, short-hand for "these rules are crap and anyone who believes differently is an idiot for not knowing better."

I'm sure some people don't mean it that way, but after being accused of believing that the rules are perfect for the umpteenth time (with the implied "you're a fool for believing that") I've started to see the pattern.