Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

clearstream · Sep 23, 2018

pemerton said:
This feature of a system pretty strongly contradicts the idea that it is "naturalistic" or "free flowing" or not mechanically complex. You can't really know what your PC can or can't do until you know the full spectrum of class features.

Which in D&D includes spells: for instance, we can't know how to adjudicate an attempt by a tough fighter to scare an opponent witless without thinking about how it balances with the limited-resource Cause Fear spell.

I could be taking this out of context, but I agree with your observations here. It's part of what I mean about the 5e system being sophisticated and woven across all the rules. I do a lot of tinkering and one of the things that makes mechanics for 5e tough to get right is the way they relate to one another. As you say, you might think - this frighten effect I'm homebrewing seems fine - and then you realise what it interacts with and balances against... and not just spells, but creature saves etc, etc, etc...

pemerton · Sep 23, 2018

ad_hoc said:
That is the same thing as asking why your Champion can't make 10 attacks in 1 round.

They can shove to the ground and do damage by level 2. By 5th level they don't even need their Action Surge for it.

Battlemasters just get some damage when they do it because it is their thing.

But this seems to go directly to [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION]'s point. As soon as the scope of action declaration is rationed by reference to other mechanical elements of the game, rather than just the fiction, then designing options can become pretty hard.

Kobold Boots · Sep 23, 2018

Stacie GmrGrl said:
There is no narrative identity in the game as per the rules as written. There are no encoded rules on how to manage non-combat XP. There are no rules on how to give out Inspiration. There are so many things left open to interpretation because they didn't want to design it.

I think that one of the tests of whether or not a rule is written in the books is:

1. Is this rule in its application, highly contextual and likely to be DM fiat?

If answer equals yes - Leave it to the DM
If answer equals maybe - playtest it to see if we should write one.
If answer equals no - write a rule.

I don't know if I'd use the term lazy for anyone if I didn't know them and I don't presume to know the day to day stressors inside WoTC.

pemerton · Sep 23, 2018

Lanefan said:
I, like the post I quoted, was referring to non-combat resolutions.

Combat in D&D (all editions), as in most RPG systems, has reasonably solid combat resolution mechanics.

When you say "most RPG systems", what ones do you have in mind?

But anyway, my point was that no one would accept "GM decides" as a satisfactory resolution system for anything they regarded as high stakes. The fact that a system is mostly GM decides for non-combat just shows that non-combat is not treated as high stakes in that system.

Lanefan said:
At the practice level -10 before dead was a very widely used option in 1e; though it wasn't in the original 3 books

It's in Gygax's DMG (p 82):

When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a draught (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a corna far 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies.

Derren · Sep 23, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
I think that one of the tests of whether or not a rule is written in the books is:

1. Is this rule in its application, highly contextual and likely to be DM fiat?

If answer equals yes - Leave it to the DM
If answer equals maybe - playtest it to see if we should write one.
If answer equals no - write a rule.

I don't know if I'd use the term lazy for anyone if I didn't know them and I don't presume to know the day to day stressors inside WoTC.

A DM can overule everything if he doesn't like it. But not providing a rule in the first place forces him to come up with his own ruling every time.

Kobold Boots · Sep 23, 2018

Derren said:
A DM can overule everything if he doesn't like it. But not providing a rule in the first place forces him to come up with his own ruling every time.

True.

In reply: If the rule doesn't exist, many wouldn't know it needed to. There's something to be said for applying the logic you quoted and keeping the game lighter. (obviously lighter is relative)

KB

Kobold Boots · Sep 23, 2018

DEFCON 1 said:
Now you may think "Well, they were never going to see my comments about them anyway, so I can just say they deliberately chose to ignore whole parts of them game that I think they should have put more work into and thus call their design lazy...".

Considering we've had game luminaries on this forum up to and including Gary himself (RIP) I wouldn't make that assumption.

FWIW - This isn't the site to be "Internet Stupid" on if you want to make anything approaching a side hustle, let alone a career out of RPG work.

That said, I don't think either of you intend to directly insult the other person. I do think that some liberties in language were taken to make a point; and folks need to show more empathy towards each other. Self included.

pemerton · Sep 23, 2018

ad_hoc said:
I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of it.

For example - When asked about a regret Mearls has pointed to the design of the fighter, specifically the subclasses. The Champion and Battlemaster have no identity, they're just bundles of mechanics.

Most of the classes and subclasses in the game are designed narrative first rather than mechanics first. It's a design philosophy.

As were most of the 4e classes, at least it seemed to me!

But frankly I don't accept that the 5e wizard subclasses were designed "narrative first" - they are designed to accord with schools of magic that Gygax made up in his PHB and that got some mechanics tacked onto them in 2nd ed AD&D. The Channel Divinity/Turn Undead clerical ability is another obvious bit of tradition that has no particular narrative grounding. Rogue sneak attack is another.

pemerton · Sep 23, 2018

DEFCON 1 said:
You are absolutely correct, I don't know you, so I have no idea.

But at the same time you don't know Mike, Jeremy, or the others who designed 5E. So you have no idea the choices or decisions that were made to go into how they chose to create the game, or the work they put in to do so. So to call their work lazy is just as disrespectful.

I can't believe you're doubling down on your attack on @ Stacie GmrGrl. The WotC team are professional publishers working for a commercial publishing house. Part of their job is to have their work subjected to analysis and criticism, and describing writing or design as "lazy" is one mode of criticism (broadly, it means repeating tropes or following an established path rather than trying to come up with a novel solution to the particular challenge being tackled). It's not an attack upon their personal character.

If you think their work is, in fact, not lazy in conception or execution, argue that point.

Stacie GmrGrl said:
YBecause of how much focused is put on allowing the DM to make rulings about so many things, just about every action a player does is a process of asking the DM if its okay, leading to a game of DM-May-I.

A good, fair DM will make it fun and fair

I XPed your post, but wanted to comment on this bit of it.

I think I am a good and fair referee. But I still don't like systems that require everything to be filtered through GM decision-making - I don't want to be the one telling a story at the table. I want the story to be the result of resolving declared actions.

The most recent experience I had of this was GMing some onw-world exploration in Classic Traveller. Whereas that system is full of tight resolution sub-systems - for social interaction, especially with officials; for interstellar travel; for combat (though it can be a bit boring!); even for extra-vehicular manoeuvres in vacc suits - when it comes to onworld exploration there are rules for determining if a vehicle suffers mechanical trouble, but otherwise it all depends on the GM deciding how long it takes to get from A to B, what might happen on the way there, etc.

It wasn't terrible, but it was not that fun either. There was a huge contrast a session or two later, when the PCs were attacked by a starship in orbit, with a small craft having flown down to provide spotting and direct the orbital fire - the game includes a system for resolving an attempt to escape from an attack whicht is written for small craft coming unde starship fire, but which I was easily able to extrapolate it to the case of escaping fire in an all-terrain vehicle. This allowed us to play out an exciting escape in ATVs across a desert planet with a toxic atmosphere, hoping to find shelter in a rock formation before being blown up by an orbiting starship's laser. It was much better than the (lack of) exploration resolution mechanics.

Oofta · Sep 23, 2018

jamesstreissand said:
I'm sorry to burst your bubble dude, but at no point did I complain about 5e. I haven't mentioned the system, it's mechanics, etc so much as once.

What I responded to (and had you taken time away from grandstanding, you'd have noticed) was Mike's proclamation on the WHY of 5e.

Mike's pretty clearly characterizing people who like the mechanical side of things as not worth marketing to, designing for, etc. I think its a shame, is all I'm saying.

I'm a pragmatic person. I don't think WOTC is lazy. I don't think they "owe" me anything, that it's shameful that they don't come to my house and ask me personally what I want in a game. They don't hate people that have a different play style, it's not that certain people aren't "worth marketing to", or that you're not welcome. [NOTE: I'm not saying you personally have said all of these things, it's a general impression I've gotten over multiple threads.]

They're a business. They have to make design compromises, like all businesses. They looked at the previous editions and made a decision on how to build the game. With 4E they listened to a vocal minority and practically killed the game from a sales perspective.

At the same time, there are plenty of alternatives. There are 3rd parties that provide options or other games. You could always go back to a different edition or house rule in different aspects. So just to be clear, my issue is not that you have a problem with 5E. It's that you're ascerting a motivation or lack therein to the designers that simply doesn't exist.