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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was more referring to the specific subset of the topic I was responding to in that section of text, but yeah, that too. Although, I think most folks just aren't willing to directly engage, for whatever reason, with the fact that you are just saying that it would be great to have the option to play a version of a class that makes some kind of choice at most or all levels.
If we break every class into a Warlock style structure, with a combination of features to be chosen from that include passive features, feature upgrades, and new distinct abilities (spells, manuevers, etc), and a new choice made every few levels, on levels where you don't gain a feat, or a new subclass ability, or spell, so that most levels have a choice to be made, I imagine you'd be happy?

Yes, absolutely! That is, in fact, the exact reason the Warlock is my favorite class this edition.

The Battlemaster has a suite of distinct powers. What are you talking about? Those powers are expressed in a way that fits the system, but they're not actually different from 4e powers, or spells.

You’re right, I undersold the Battlemaster there. What I was trying to get at was that all of the Battlemaster’s maneuvers hang on the same core mechanic of “spend a superiority die, roll the die, add the result to something, usually damage.” So they get a little one-note. But in general, it is the kind of thing I would like to see more of.

 

[robus]

If I’m trying to go before you, and you’re trying to go before me, then by trying to move more quickly than you I’m opposing your effort to go before me, and by trying to move more quickly than me you’re opposing my effort to go before you.

I dunno, do we think of races as having opponents? Tennis? Sure. But the 100m? They’re competitors, but not opponents?

 

[pemerton]

as a roleplaying game, D&D should provide the opportunity for expression both through roleplaying and through game mechanics

I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.

I just flat-out do not agree that which skills you have Proficiency in is a meaningful difference in the way a character plays. Ultimately it’s still just roll a d20, add some numbers, compare to a target result. Changing what numbers I add does not change the fundamental game mechanic.

We disagree a bit on this point, I think, at least in principle. I tend to prefer a game in which mechanical differences are expressed as modifications to the base action resolution system (eg bonuses to checks, perhaps allowing a check to do something it normally wouldn't permit eg affect supernatural as well as mortal beings). Complex rules changes located in individual packets (some 4e feats would fit this description; BW has a similar element in PC build, though often less dramatic in its scope) can more easily lead to breakage.

But bonuses can certainly distinguish between PCs, at least in my experience: a character becomes known for being the one who can do XYZ when others struggle with it. (I can see that d20 and bounded accuracy might blunt the force of this: I'm becoming an increasing fan of non-linear resolution systems, like Classic Traveller's 2d6 or dice pool systems; 4e approximates towards a non-linear system because of the multiple rolls required for both combat and sklll challenges, and because it has quite a bit of re-roll and similar player-side options.)

EDIT: I saw this, which is relevant to the previous couple of paragraphs of my post:

Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to.

<snip>

Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.

When it comes to differences within combat, I agree that changing a bit of defence for a bit of offence, with little else different, isn't very interesting difference.

Whereas a high bonus in Intimidate compared to a high bonus in Diplomacy/Persuasion will (in my experience) produce differences in the play of the fiction, the different fight builds less so.

I'm not sure I agree that the ranged character doesn't mark a difference, as fighting with different positioning is a difference in the fiction and not just a difference in mechanical process used to generate the fiction. (From my 4e game, some interesting differences in weapony-fighting - in the sense of generating different fiction and not just different dice rolls to get to the same fiction - include close burst-er vs solo target lockdown specialist; archer vs melee; skirmisher vs stand-and-fighter).

 

[pemerton]

Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less?

I think the answer to that question is "yes", at least for some players. 5e's design profile is part of its branding (at least to a modest but disproportinately signficant portion of the market).

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.

I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.

 

[pemerton]

there's no way to produce a book like this, which will increase options and increase character power, and still have them play well with other products like the AP's. It cannot be done.

To be honest I think this is implausible.

Let's just take a simple example: splitting feats into two, and allowing a choice every 2nd level for a +1 ASI or "small" feat.

That will make some "advanced" PCs stronger than their non-advanced equivalents, partly because they have a two level head start for some power up, partially because they can synergise and optimise a bit better. But this is meant to be a system that can handle significant differences in degree of +1 weapons handed out, so how is what I've just described going to break it?

I'm sure if someone actually tackled this sort of project in a serious way, they could find more ways to ensure that complexification didn't produce an excess of breakification.

That said, I do agree they won't produce the book, but for branding/marketing reasons, not the design ones that you suggest.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would go one step further, at least as far as personal preference is concerned: in a RPG these should be the same thing.

Sure, let’s go there. I would define roleplaying as imagining yourself as someone else and/or in a different situation, and making decisions as you think you or the imagined person would in the imagined situation. If you are saying that, in an RPG, the game mechanics and the roleplaying should be the same thing, then you are saying the game mechanics should be an expression of that decision making process. And I agree with that. That’s why I want mechanics that facilitate decision making, and to do that, they need to provide options.

We disagree a bit on this point, I think, at least in principle. I tend to prefer a game in which mechanical differences are expressed as modifications to the base action resolution system (eg bonuses to checks, perhaps allowing a check to do something it normally wouldn't permit eg affect supernatural as well as mortal beings).

Allowung you to do something you normally couldn’t with a check is what I would call a meaningful distinction. If gives you an option you would not otherwise have, rather than simply altering your chances of success at options you would still otherwise have. It changes what you can do, and in that way it creates more opportunity for making decisions.

Complex rules changes located in individual packets (some 4e feats would fit this description; BW has a similar element in PC build, though often less dramatic in its scope) can more easily lead to breakage.

Ok.

But bonuses can certainly distinguish between PCs, at least in my experience: a character becomes known for being the one who can do XYZ when others struggle with it. (I can see that d20 and bounded accuracy might blunt the force of this: I'm becoming an increasing fan of non-linear resolution systems, like Classic Traveller's 2d6 or dice pool systems; 4e approximates towards a non-linear system because of the multiple rolls required for both combat and sklll challenges, and because it has quite a bit of re-roll and similar player-side options.)

They are not what I consider meaningful distinctions between characters. This is not something you are going to be able to change my mind about. If it doesn’t change what my character can do, then it’s not a meaningful distinction.

EDIT: I saw this, which is relevant to the previous couple of paragraphs of my post:

When it comes to differences within combat, I agree that changing a bit of defence for a bit of offence, with little else different, isn't very interesting difference.

Whereas a high bonus in Intimidate compared to a high bonus in Diplomacy/Persuasion will (in my experience) produce differences in the play of the fiction, the different fight builds less so.

I disagree that it is any different. The only difference that makes in likelihood of success at actions available to both characters. It does not change what options are available to either character, and therefore is not the sort of distinction that I find interesting.

I'm not sure I agree that the ranged character doesn't mark a difference, as fighting with different positioning is a difference in the fiction and not just a difference in mechanical process used to generate the fiction. (From my 4e game, some interesting differences in weapony-fighting - in the sense of generating different fiction and not just different dice rolls to get to the same fiction - include close burst-er vs solo target lockdown specialist; archer vs melee; skirmisher vs stand-and-fighter).

Ranged combat is meaningfully different than melee combat. A Fighter who puts their ability points into Dexterity and uses a bow is not meaningfully different than a fighter who puts their ability points into Strength and mostly uses a sword. Because those characters have the same options available to them. Either can use a sword or a bow, and the only difference will be their likelihood of hitting and expected damage. I don’t consider different numbers an interesting difference. Now, if the ranged fighter had a special technique they could use with the bow that the melee fighter could not, that would be a meaningful difference to me. Different available options means a different decision making process, i.e. different roleplaying considerations.

 

[pemerton]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.

I think I might already have quoted Chrisotpher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit in this thread, but I'll do so again, because it expresses where I'm coming from fairly well:

The tales of a story entertainment [his term for a RPG] are based not on the success of actions, but on the choice of actions; not the manipulation of rules, but the manipulation of narrative tools.

The primary tool is Character. Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake character for characterization.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By "seeing" how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action.​

I would depart from his contrast between "rules" and "narrative tools" - "narrative tools" are a form of RPG mechanic, though they may not always take the more-or-less-sim form that Kubasik has in mind in dismissing "rules". But the idea that the character reveals him-/herself through action - which in a RPG means action declaration - is something I agree with.

I would generally not expect to spend time at the RPG table listening to conversation for the sake of it. Even experienced fiction authors and film makers don't always pull this off, and no one at my table fits those descriptions! If a PC was getting to know someone by way of romantic dialogue, I would expect a reasonably brief description of what the conversation or flirting or whatever consists in, and would then resolve the situation (perhaps "say 'yes'", or alternatively calling for a check to see how the NPC responds).

Two concrete examples that illustrate how I would normally expect this to be handled: in one of my RM campaigns, the PCs rescued a NPC sorcerer from captivity by a demon. One of the PCs wanted to woo this rescued person. He already had Amiability developed to a reasonable degree, but was worried about them becoming "just friends", and so developed Seduction skill - the nearest skill on the skill list we were using to a wooing skill. The actual resolution I think mostly took the form of "saying 'yes"' - it's 10+ years ago now and so details are hazy in my memory - given that it made sense for what the character was attempting and how things were unfolding. The wooing was not played out in much detail, but what was important was that they were able to found a dynasty that was to be responsible for guarding a gate against otherworldly intrusion - this was narrated as part of the endgame, but consolidated a campaign-long established contrast between this PC and his cousin, who was more valiant and capable in immediate action, but had less of a long term stalwart character to him.

A recent example is in my Prince Valiant game, where two PCs are competing for the attention and affection of Violette, the daughter of a noblewoman whom they helped avoid (what would have been) an unhappy forced marriage following the death of her husband (Violette's father). In this context, I've taken it for granted that Violette might be attracted to either, and have been framing mostly as competitions between the two PCs (which so far have all been tied, indicating that Violette has declined to make a choice, and that neither PC has agreed to yield to the other). But one PC (played by the same player as in the previous anecdote) just developed Courtesie skill to give him a better chance at wooing Violette - it hasn't yet come into play, though, as they are out on deeds of errantry.

Those are examples within the context of PC/NPC romance where I see mechanics and RP as the same thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

There are plenty of places where roleplaying happens with no mechanical impact; interactions between characters as they get to know someone, dialog for a romantic scene with an npc that is done without dice rolls (just as a way to enjoy experiencing the conversation) as a couple of example. There are lots of situations where you just interact by roleplaying that have no stakes, and have no need for a mechanic widget tied to it.

In D&D 5th Edition, however, that is still interacting with the game’s mechanics. The core mechanic of 5e is that the player describes what their character does, the DM determines the results of the described action, possibly calling for dice to be rolled to resolve any uncertainty in the outcome, and then describes the results. Even if the DM determines that a dice roll is not necessary to determine the results, describing what you do and having the DM describe the results is still interacting with D&D 5e’s core mechanic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] fascinating stuff, for sure.

I dont enjoy skipping past the “playing out” of scenes, so much, for anything that’s going to have any narrative weight.

A lot of the best moments I’ve had in TTRPGS was roleplaying those scenes out, inhabiting the character.

By those scenes, I mean ones that can b resolved in character, without dice rolling. Seduction gets a fade to black resolution.