Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No one ever pointed out that you were in a forum, devoted to a game you didn't, play, just complaining about that game? I remember the edition war. H4ters were told that every day. It didn't dissuade you, did it?

Abdul isn't doing anything as counter-productive or intellectually dishonest as what was going on in the edition wars. It's hypocritical of you to try to take some sort of high ground and tell him he's out of line.

insert chuckle

Insert actual quote.

 

[BryonD]

Insert actual quote.

Note failure to catch the point.
Increase volume of chuckle.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah using the term "H4ters" to describe people who didn't like 4th edition and said so is a volatile description. It's certainly not the high ground.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Note failure to catch the point.
Increase volume of chuckle.

Laugh it up. *plonk*

 

[Celtavian]

Abdul isn't doing anything as counter-productive or intellectually dishonest as what was going on in the edition wars. It's hypocritical of you to try to take some sort of high ground and tell him he's out of line.

High ground? I don't even consider such things. There is no moral high ground as far as I'm concerned. I'm advising him not to waste his time because only economics will decide change in the long run. I do not engage in emotion-based arguments. They are pointless.

Maybe the internet just magnified it, that time. But, 3.x did get some grognard backlash, including talking points, like 'grid dependence' that were recycled for the edition war. And, there was a split, back in the 70s, between 0e fans who took up Arduin, and those who adopted or started with Basic or AD&D. You just couldn't get a good flame-war going in Out on a Limb.

Didn't notice it at all. Then again ENWorld started with 3E. I wasn't cruising internet forums at that time. ENWorld was the first gaming forum I joined.

Besides, Abdul, you, & I /are/ grognards. We're the old guard who have been with D&D since the fad years, if not a few years before.

True enough. That's why I advised Abdul not to waste his time. It didn't work back then, it won't work now. The game is as it will be until the economics decide change is needed as it did with 4E.

You don't remember the various spells in AD&D that required concentration throughout, nor the concentration needed to cast spells, or the way either sort was broken by any damage, and impossible when prone, riding a mount, or walking at a normal pace?

None that I can recall. What I recall from the old days was not being able to cast in melee range if your spell didn't have a faster casting time than the opponent's weapon. If you were attacked, your spell was automatically disrupted. Spells like stoneskin which lasted all day and could take quite a few hits mitigated that often times. The best defense was definitely staying out of battle. What spells had concentration? You usually fire and forget for spells. Defensive buffs lasted even if you were hit. You could stack spells quite easily like fly and invisibility.

Ever play 3.5 in E6 mode? And, yes many games have much less dramatic character advancement. Though both are much more profound than Bounded Accuracy. The main difference between BA and 3.5 or classic D&D is not the size of the numbers (which, sure, or smaller, but that's little more than cosmetic), but the fact that those ability bonus and proficiency numbers are the same scale for everyone. Putting ability bonuses on the same scale was an early-90s innovation found in TRS Gamma World, and adopted by D&D with 3.0, as was putting all classes on the same experience/level table. Taking BAB, save DCs, skills &c, and putting them all on the same level-based scale regardless of class (which is what 5e Bounded Accuracy's proficiency bonus /is/), was, of course, a 4e innovation. 4e just did it with bigger numbers over more levels.

4E did not use Bounded Accuracy. The rest of the stuff I'm not talking about. Bounded Accuracy had to do with flattening ACs within a very tight range and changing the advancement mechanic to one based on damage. I found that interesting and haven't seen that mechanic chosen for a game I've played.

In 3.x, defenses rose rapidly with level, mostly via huge 'Natural Armor' bonuses for monsters, and magic items for PCs. In classic, while PC AC could get very high (at any level) if festooned with magic items, Monty-Haul style, there was no level progression for AC, either among monster or PCs. In 5e, that progression is just small. And 3.x already made orcs a legitimate enemy for high-level characters - by letting orcs level.

A leveled orc is the class it is. I meant generic orcs. I have not seen that in D&D, though it was extremely common in other games like GURPS.

Nod. It was nice when RuneQuest came up with it 35 years ago, too. Though the big problem was that the Christmas tree effect was needed in most editions, to keeps certain classes relevant at higher levels. 5e did step back from that, in theory, in not 'baking in' magic item bonuses. Some sub-classes would still need magic items to keep up in other areas, though.

Didn't play Runequest. Still a unique method of implementation in D&D to answer multiple attempts to eliminate the magic item Christmas Tree.

You may not have noticed them in prior editions (or other games) but they were always out there.

I don't care about other games. It wasn't in prior editions of D&D. I don't consider any game not produced by a dominant company like Paizo or WotC in that consideration.

Well, if by 'previous editions' you mean 3.x/Pathfinder - and discount B/X (which you've already mentioned, so I'm guessing you don't discount it), not to mentions the many variations under which classic D&D tended to be played.

5e looks rules-lite compared to 3.x/Pathfinder. If you only compared the core 3 books, though the difference would seem a lot less pronounced. And it's not anymore elegant in design than 3.0 was.

It is rules-lite compared to 2E as well. There were lots of strange little stacking things and odd rules in 2E. Obviously not compared to Basic D&D.

5e gets away with repeating some the mistakes of the past, because it's been lucky enough to avoid that particular mistake, thanks to the way it evangelizes for DM Empowerment. A determined DM can make up for a lot.

As it has been in every edition I've played. Game designers always throw something in the mix that can be exploited. It is the DM that counteracts it.

Speaking of unique times in D&D history that will probably never be repeated.... hopefully the RAW thing doesn't become a pendulum. But, it so seems like the kind of thing that could be...

I disagree. Putting something together in a unique fashion still makes something unique even if it pulls a rule from another source here and there. That would be like saying "There are no unique stories." I see every story as unique, not necessarily good, but unique, unless it is completely plagiarized. I imagine a cynical person might think something depleted of originality. I don't need to share that opinion.

 

[AlphaDean]

What's funny about this is that D&D was my gate way drug into gaming. I've loved D&D for close to 30 years. I wasn't a fan of $E and left it after I purchased the core books. I played one session with my long time group. We've been meeting for 15 years now maybe more. I tell you though, they refuse to play anything else. D&D to the last.

Personally I like several genres of gaming and have to have a side group or pick up to play. Again I go back to the fact that D&D is a recognized staple of the nerd/geek culture. Just check out Ice T talking about D&D when he had to do an audio book. Those outside the game are clueless and many inside are clueless as well

 

[Tony Vargas]

Didn't notice it at all. Then again ENWorld started with 3E. I wasn't cruising internet forums at that time. ENWorld was the first gaming forum I joined.

The roll v role thing played out on UseNet. Forums became big later, after mailing lists.

True enough. That's why I advised Abdul not to waste his time. It didn't work back then, it won't work now. The game is as it will be until the economics decide change is needed

It's hard to argue with the appearance of success. Sure, maybe 5e is primarily a response to the failure to grow the market. It's a lower investment, lower-cost, familiar product: a classic sustaining model. But, it can't help but be perceived as nerdrage working. H4ters got what they wanted. It may be a coincidence, because what they wanted was cheaper to produce, but they still got it.

None that I can recall. What I recall from the old days was not being able to cast in melee range if your spell didn't have a faster casting time than the opponent's weapon. If you were attacked, your spell was automatically disrupted. Spells like stoneskin which lasted all day and could take quite a few hits mitigated that often times. The best defense was definitely staying out of battle. What spells had concentration?

Conjure Elemental and Wall of Fire were two that I still remember.

4E did not use Bounded Accuracy. The rest of the stuff I'm not talking about. Bounded Accuracy had to do with flattening ACs within a very tight range and changing the advancement mechanic to one based on damage. I found that interesting and haven't seen that mechanic chosen for a game I've played.

Damage advancement had always been part of D&D: you gained hps as you leveled, your spells did more damage, you got more attacks/round, you accumulated items that boosted damage. And, while AC theoretically went from 10 to -10 in AD&D, most monster ACs were in a much tighter range - and PC ACs only advanced significantly with level. It was messy compared to 5e's implementation, but it's not a new idea to have a tight range. Nor was it a new idea to have even advancement like that which proficiency provides.

A leveled orc is the class it is. I meant generic orcs. I have not seen that in D&D,

Orcs with levels? 3.x was ideal for that sort of thing. Dial up any moster just by adding levels to it. OK 'just' isn't quite the right word, but it was a very real option. And the 1e MM (1977!) had notes about large groups of orcs having leaders, lieutenants, and bodyguard - maybe a witch doctor - that were essentially leveled up.

Didn't play Runequest.

You and most people in the world, yeah. Heck, I didn't get to play it for /years/ after discovering it.

Still a unique method of implementation in D&D. I don't care about other games. It wasn't in prior editions of D&D.

:shrug: "New to D&D" really doesn't mean that much. I guess, for D&D, adopting something another game did 30+ years ago can pass for 'innovation.'

It is rules-lite compared to 2E as well. There were lots of strange little stacking things and odd rules in 2E. Obviously not compared to Basic D&D.

True. It's funny, because 'rules lite' was being tossed around like it was something D&D had 'always been' prior to 3.x. But 5e's lite-ness is mostly achieved by being new, with only the core 3 books - and even then, it has 12 classes, each with their own mechanical takes on magic. I don't think any prior ed has packed quite that much class complexity into a PH1.

I disagree. Putting something together in a unique fashion still makes something unique even if it pulls a rule from another source here and there.

Oh, sure, the end result of 5e is distinct even from the prior eds it most closely resembles - yet, and this is one of it's big successes, it really has the 'feel' of those classic editions of the game.

But, not the claim of 'unique' I was alluding to. Further up, you said something about the edition war being a 'unique' time in D&D's history. I don't think it was, though it was an extreme example of the kinds of friction you get with each rev-roll. But, what I was expressing was hope that the 3.x RAW-obession ends up being an unique period in D&D history, and that it stays with the DM empowerment that 5e has fought for so hard, and that pre-3.x editions had going more or less by default.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, if you're not interested in "pencil, not ink" rules,
...
Really, its not about filling the game with splat and bloat, but if UA is all we're getting, it'd be nice if it was more "inkish" than "pencilish".

I admit it's not a hierarchy I fully appreciate. There's a trade-off: the pencil rules are asking for your opinion on them, and are a little less polished (so might require a bit of DM investment), the pen rules are more polished, but still not perfect (else there'd be no need for errata!) and so are a little more set-in-stone. At any rate, both seem to be able to offer me content that I can use in my games tomorrow - what's it matter if it's fully playtested when what I want is content?

I mean, how many of even the "inked" rules have you used in your games? How badly do the games you actually play in need more content?

Yeah, more than enough for one campaign, but what about in a year? two years? When are those other UAs going into ink mode? What about filling some of those other areas where the game is weaker (high level monsters, summoning spells, subclasses for those "two in the PHB" classes).

In a year or two we might need some of those things. I'd probably be more sympathetic to complaints then. But people are complaining about anemic content today, and the fact of the matter is that we have more content than we are using without even taking into account the 3rd party stuff.

It's like folks are complaining because they don't have enough to play with, but they can't play with all they have now.

 

[Remathilis]

I admit it's not a hierarchy I fully appreciate. There's a trade-off: the pencil rules are asking for your opinion on them, and are a little less polished (so might require a bit of DM investment), the pen rules are more polished, but still not perfect (else there'd be no need for errata!) and so are a little more set-in-stone. At any rate, both seem to be able to offer me content that I can use in my games tomorrow - what's it matter if it's fully playtested when what I want is content?

I mean, how many of even the "inked" rules have you used in your games? How badly do the games you actually play in need more content?

See, even my players looked at the Eberron stuff and knew it wasn't up to snuff. They didn't think the races matched the PHB races, and the artificer didn't capture the 3.5 artificer (lets not rehash that debate; suffice to say it didn't fit the bill for our group). In the end, we opted for a classic D&D game rather than Eberron due solely on the fact that nobody wanted to use the Eberron stuff.

Sure, I gave feedback, but it didn't get us any closer to an Eberron game. A more polished set of rules would have.

As for the latter; I don't see that as a barrier. I mean, if I never use mind flayers in my campaign, I'm forbidden to ask for new monsters until I do? Can I not ask for psionics (for example) until I play all 12 PHB classes first? There are lots of things I'd like to see and I want WotC to handle (psionics is a good example) because I'm a busy man and don't have time to make my own system from scratch. I don't think its unfair to ask for such options.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, even my players looked at the Eberron stuff and knew it wasn't up to snuff. They didn't think the races matched the PHB races, and the artificer didn't capture the 3.5 artificer (lets not rehash that debate; suffice to say it didn't fit the bill for our group). In the end, we opted for a classic D&D game rather than Eberron due solely on the fact that nobody wanted to use the Eberron stuff.

Sure, I gave feedback, but it didn't get us any closer to an Eberron game. A more polished set of rules would have.

But did they play with them or just read about them?

As for the latter; I don't see that as a barrier. I mean, if I never use mind flayers in my campaign, I'm forbidden to ask for new monsters until I do? Can I not ask for psionics (for example) until I play all 12 PHB classes first? There are lots of things I'd like to see and I want WotC to handle (psionics is a good example) because I'm a busy man and don't have time to make my own system from scratch. I don't think its unfair to ask for such options.

It only matters in that if you're arguing that WotC isn't producing enough content, and you haven't even used most of the content they have produced, it seems like your issue isn't actually a quantity of content, and "more content!" isn't going to actually fix any problem your game is actually having at the moment.

This matters from an "industry" perspective because if what you want is for people to use the material you develop in their games (you want your audience to get a lot out of the development dollars you spend), and you know that the people complaining about a lack of content aren't actually using content more intensively, you know that just making more content isn't going to get you what you want. If your audience is ignoring the content you're producing, the issue isn't quantity, it's relevance. If you want people to use the material you develop, you're going to need to be relevant more than you are going to need to be prolific.

Which means surveys. Market research. Even things like the most recent polls point in that direction: tell us what you're looking for. Tell us where your campaign is now. Tell us what you're playing, what level you are, if you've restarted your campaign. They need to ask that question in a thousand different ways to find out what need people actually have.

Because if no one is using the free content they provided, then nobody really needs more.