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.

 

[Sadras]

Well, that's was promised in the playtest period anyway;

In my opinion it delivered.

But inquiring minds want to know: how well does 5e handle a major kitbash? We've seen Mearls' reworked initiative system in writing but how well does it play, for example?

I cannot say, but I imagine it would not be worse than how that system worked for 1e/2e.

Or, what would happen if one threw out 5e's cleric-turning-undead rules and replaced them with the 1e turn-undead table?

Sadly cannot remember it.

I have though done my own tinkering on the Abilities - ensuring odd numbers count for something, introducing ability requirements for casting, and just in general improving on them. The domino effect of tinkering is harmless in 5e - it is not like in 3.x where the multitude of splat books messed you around later or 4e where the system was so tightly crafted that it felt discouraged.

I've also changed the rest mechanic and introduced the 3.x touch attack which bypasses armour. I've even experimented with capping hp and it works.

Strangely enough, the only mechanical thing I miss to some degree from earlier editions is the quadratic wizard.

 

[pemerton]

we really don’t fully know what Hasbro is counting as sales of D&D. Mike Mearls has said before that they don’t have to put out as many splat books because they can release games like Lords of Waterdeep, etcetera as income generators since the Hasbro merger. I am wondering if things like the numerous board games and additional niche products (Dice sets), etcetera are what is making a more significant portion D&D 5E sales now

<snip>

Where I think WOTC (Hasbro) maybe harming themselves is that they are losing money on not producing splat material.

The general view seems to be that a low barrier to entry, which is achieved in part by a low supply of books, and a very low supply of rulebooks, increases uptake which generates sales (whether or books or other paraphernalia or both) which outstrip the potential sales of more splat. Plus you save on the costs of producing said splat.

 

[pemerton]

My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure. If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more. As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things. As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things.

A question: so why does a GM need rules to tell him/her how much to charge for swords and shields?

Another question: why does a GM need rules to tell him/her what affect on combat resolution results from using a sword and/or a shield? (5e has many, many such rules.)

And a comment: rules for the use of money don't need to involve price lists, and those aren't at their core. Burning Wheel has very rich rules for spending money, but no price lists. Classic Traveller has short but rather effective bribery rules, without price lists. The key to the endgame rules in classic D&D isn't "Here's the cost of a castle". It's "Now build a castle and have at it!" You could have a game with a similar endgame, that also makes collecting treasure important, but that doesn't use price lists.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, without saying anything about the designers as people (because we simply don't have access to that), let me ask this: In your own life, in an effort to please people, has that always entailed a lot of work? Or have people's wishes sometimes been so easy to fulfill that it wasn't a lot of effort at all, even if you had originally braced yourself to work a lot.

IOW, does pleasing the greatest number of people necessarily mean more work than not? Or is it possible that accomplishing the former may not require as much work as coming up with something improved?

2e, 3e, and 4e didn't just give me what I wanted...their innovations gave me something I never knew I wanted. And so, despite their flaws, I really appreciate them as systems, even if I don't play them anymore. The game was evolving...but 5e really does feel like a step back (to be popular, and it worked!), hence the "greatest hits" feel.

Not saying Mearls and all are not motivated or innovative (Iron Heroes seems to show signs of both), but it wasn't brought to the 5e table as much as I would have expected.

might be, but I really doubt that it was not a lot of work. Witnessing the playtest process, the really did a lot of work. And then tossed 90% of that into the trash bin. As a matematician, I know that things that might seem trivial often require a lot more work than seemingly difficult things.

Going back to the game: They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts. Actually just finding out what is essential for DnD was a lot of work. I really don´t want to guess how many hours they spent just going through the surveys and drawing conclusions...

So no, I don´t like that word, especially when I still have the feeling you might think that what they gave us was actually not a lot of work.
If it was, I can´t imagine it took 2 years of paytest to get it done. I don´t think wotc or hasbro said: guys, just lay back and just throw out random stuff for the playtest and for the final version of 5e just pull something out of your hat.

 

[5ekyu]

In my opinion it delivered.



I cannot say, but I imagine it would not be worse than how that system worked for 1e/2e.



Sadly cannot remember it.

I have though done my own tinkering on the Abilities - ensuring odd numbers count for something, introducing ability requirements for casting, and just in general improving on them. The domino effect of tinkering is harmless in 5e - it is not like in 3.x where the multitude of splat books messed you around later or 4e where the system was so tightly crafted that it felt discouraged.

I've also changed the rest mechanic and introduced the 3.x touch attack which bypasses armour. I've even experimented with capping hp and it works.

Strangely enough, the only mechanical thing I miss to some degree from earlier editions is the quadratic wizard.

Adding more to the 5e resiliency options.

Esper Genesis takes most of 5e adds some new subsystems and gets a pretty solid scifi game out of it.

I replaced init whole hog (choice driven no dice) - works fine in our experience.

I significantly changed the way healing HD worked and gear based healing - worked fine in our play.

I implemented a death save like race to 3 for extended skill checks that plays major in our games.

5e is incredibly simple to alter in both minor and major ways without too many hidden linkages to trip you up.

 

[5ekyu]

A question: so why does a GM need rules to tell him/her how much to charge for swords and shields?

Another question: why does a GM need rules to tell him/her what affect on combat resolution results from using a sword and/or a shield? (5e has many, many such rules.)

And a comment: rules for the use of money don't need to involve price lists, and those aren't at their core. Burning Wheel has very rich rules for spending money, but no price lists. Classic Traveller has short but rather effective bribery rules, without price lists. The key to the endgame rules in classic D&D isn't "Here's the cost of a castle". It's "Now build a castle and have at it!" You could have a game with a similar endgame, that also makes collecting treasure important, but that doesn't use price lists.

A game or setting that is different from the real world and uses a currency that is different from the real world needs to provide some form of commerce benchmark for the GM and players to use **if** spending currenct to acquire stuff is something that is within the scope of the game.

Sometimes this can be an abstract - wealth ratings and DC checks or rank and quartermaster checks - but if this is something the game wishes to have in play it helps to provide benchmarks.

If you look at 5e they provide in the PHB a fairly noticeable cross-section of basic costs they see as ones common enough.

I would expect other settings and other expansions to add more details.

As for why have rules for how swords and shields affect combat - they are combat implements and are covered as such. Their basic functions are integrated into the combat system. Could 5e have gone more abstract - sure - but it was a design choice they made to include that level of granularity - to tie specific results to specific weapons and it seems to have done well by their audience.

I won't try to divine what you call classic traveller but I seem to recall plenty of price lists in classic traveller and I started with the little black books and have played most of the systems since then too.

 

[Eric V]

might be, but I really doubt that it was not a lot of work. Witnessing the playtest process, the really did a lot of work. And then tossed 90% of that into the trash bin. As a matematician, I know that things that might seem trivial often require a lot more work than seemingly difficult things.

Going back to the game: They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts. Actually just finding out what is essential for DnD was a lot of work. I really don´t want to guess how many hours they spent just going through the surveys and drawing conclusions...

So no, I don´t like that word, especially when I still have the feeling you might think that what they gave us was actually not a lot of work.
If it was, I can´t imagine it took 2 years of paytest to get it done. I don´t think wotc or hasbro said: guys, just lay back and just throw out random stuff for the playtest and for the final version of 5e just pull something out of your hat.

So, I am referring to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph when I say 'lazy design,' with 'design' being the end product. The possible motives for such? You might have it right when you type: "They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts." I am not sure about the use of the word "had," though; did they have to work in such tight restraints? Or is that a choice? If they choose to never examine changing/eliminating x,y, and z, then that's design work that never needs get done, yes?

I am certain that going through the surveys and such, collating data, etc. was a lot of work. I've said before that I am sure the process involved a lot of work. In coming up with test packets? Design work, for sure. Going through data and noting what people liked and didn't like isn't design work though; there are companies who do data analysis. How they deal with that data in putting it into the final game is design work, and some of that seems lazy to many of us...even if the process was a long one.

 

[clearstream]

To an extent. But in a mediaeval-type economy it's a continuation of the household economy of the warleader but not really of rhe economy in total, because there is not the administrative capacity to mobilise the whole economy. The US Civl War and then most strikingly WWI mark turning points in this respect.

But anyway, that's a bit of a tangent to the main direction of the thrust.

I meant that the supposition that players can depose a King without expending a lot of coin to do so, while common in murder-hobo fantasy, doesn't chime with my game world. I've no idea whether I'm alone in that conception!

 

[pemerton]

You rarely saw concepts like "Using Cha to attack" in homebrew, just as an example, until Hexblade came out in Xanathar's Guide. Now it's pretty widely accepted.

Sounds a bit suspect to me. How does having a vibrant personality help me hit things? Why can't a charming fighter do it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, I am referring to the 3rd sentence of your first paragraph when I say 'lazy design,' with 'design' being the end product. The possible motives for such? You might have it right when you type: "They had to be creative in very tight constraints, the legacy of DnD and the assumed parts." I am not sure about the use of the word "had," though; did they have to work in such tight restraints? Or is that a choice? If they choose to never examine changing/eliminating x,y, and z, then that's design work that never needs get done, yes?

I am certain that going through the surveys and such, collating data, etc. was a lot of work. I've said before that I am sure the process involved a lot of work. In coming up with test packets? Design work, for sure. Going through data and noting what people liked and didn't like isn't design work though; there are companies who do data analysis. How they deal with that data in putting it into the final game is design work, and some of that seems lazy to many of us...even if the process was a long one.

I assume survey data showed them how their restraints were.
I think arguing any further is futile. I with 100 percebt certainty know that condenskng something to its essentials and making the underlying math as sound as 5e is in most parts is a lot of work. I am also 100 percent sure that deciding which innovative parts to throw out is a lot of work. I also know for certainity that puttingnin innovations that are subtle enough not to offend 95% of the audience is not easy. And then it is a a lot of work to make the game accessible and not overloading beginning players and dms which even might include again throwing out stuff that is nice to have but not worth the extra bulk.

So. And last but not least: if that would be easy, why wasn't it done before?

Innovative design is not always bulky and unwieldy. Sometimes it is the reduction to essentials that makes a work innovative, especially when the trend before was making things bigger and more unwieldy.