Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

ad_hoc said:

Now that it is highly successful people are upset that it isn't 3e or 4e.

I wonder, if 5e crashed and burned, would these people still be upset? Would they happily go to Pathfinder (or another game) and be happy that the game they don't like failed?

Click to expand...

I would not be happy if it failed nor would I go to Pathfinder (I did not like Pathfinder 1e's changes and I don't like what I have seen of Pathfinder 2e). I don't think, however, that wanting or having WOTC provide is, necessarily, a bad thing. Personally, I think most of WOTC supplemental material has been a combination of junk and/or not to my taste. However, I am all for more options that help DMs better tailor the game to their campaign and style- this includes new classes and subclasses, variant classes, and substitution class abilities, and filling in missing elements. I for one would like
a: official replacement abilities for the Bard's Jack of All Trades, the cleric's Channel Divinity: Turn Undead and Destroy Undead, Rogue's Thieves' Cant and Slippery Mind, and the Thief subclass's Use Magical Device.
b. official additions to classes such as an Urban Terrain for the Ranger and for a Druid Land Circle.
c. official variants that offer minor tweaks to classes such as an Urban Barbarian, Urban Ranger, and Wilderness Rogue (note: I have done these for personal use and posted them on ENWorld, but official versions would be nice- especially, for those groups that only use official material.
d. an official and optional skill point system. The lack of such as an option in the DMG was a disappointment to myself and most players and DMs I know (again, most not all, as one or two of my DM friends don't like skill points).

Elfcrusher said:

Don't forget Cubicle 7!

Click to expand...

Don’t forget EN Publishing!

https://www.patreon.com/ensider

Elfcrusher said:

This confused me. Why is it hard to play games without "support"? What does support even mean? More stuff to buy?

Click to expand...

Marketing, mostly. Everyone who is even vaguely aware of geek culture has heard of D&D, and most people with an interest in D&D is probably most interested in the most current edition. The only time that this was not the case was during 4e’s run, and only because 4e displeased the experienced players who the potential newcomers relied on to teach them the game.

Elfcrusher said:

Lots of people play lots of RPGs without ever buying new stuff. Heck, look at all the people who still play their own variant of 2e or whatever.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! It’s not about having more books to buy, it’s about having visibility. The game people see on shelves at bookstores and game stores, that they see promoted on Amazon, that all the podcasts and streams are playing, that’s the game it’s going to be easiest to find players for. Everything else has to be pitched as “Like the thing you’ve actually heard of, but different in ways that probably don’t mean anything to you,” which is a pretty hard sell.

Elfcrusher said:

Anyway, what I meant is that I enjoy making characters for option-heavy games with thick rulebooks, but when my friends and are deciding what game to play we tend to choose the lightweight, elegant ones: 5e, The One Ring, Dungeon World, etc.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is so lucky to have a consistent group of players who are all experienced RPG gamers willing to try different systems. For many of us, when we decide to play a game, we have no choice but to play the game we can find players for, which more often than not is the most current version of D&D.

Jester David said:

...
The 3rd Party Tal'Dorei Campaign Guide is outselling Pathfinder. Heck, it might be outselling some official WotC adventures. And MCDM’s Strongholds & Followers made $2 million on Kickstarter alone, becoming the best selling RPG Kickstarter.
3rd Party Publishers are doing just fine. Heck, given the larger audiences and more content gaps, they’re probably doing better than in 3e.

But whatever you need to tell yourself.

Click to expand...

Calm down. Yes, us third party pubs are doing fine. But it’s not the d20 boom, or even close to it, in terms of volume of third party publishers. And that’s not a problem, either way.

DM Howard said:

What people? Those of us that want more options love 5E, we just want more of it.

Click to expand...

It's more a response to people who feel that WotC have forsaken them, and that WotC are duty bound to cater to them. There was some talk of that in this discussion and I have certainly seen it again and again over the last 4 years.

Whoever that may be.

Once I really got the grasp of 3e I found it to not be my thing. Still, it was easier to parse than 2e so that was a plus. 4e was not my thing at all. For me, D&D had ended as I had no interest in that game.

While I was a little sad about the sales numbers and that D&D as a whole might just stop being made, I was okay with it. I didn't feel like I was owed anything. Mearls has stated their design philosophy. It's a person's thing or it isn't. Something out there that isn't someone's thing doesn't injure them.

I used to think I wanted more 3.5, that is to say more mechanics and options and rules. I thought more rules meant more options. The more I DM though the more I believe more rules means less roleplaying. If there are not a million different mechanics for Barbarian builds then perhaps the difference becomes who the this particular Barbarian is instead of what it can do differently. I think 5e has a growing number of mechanical options balanced by a design that allows for creativity and a move away from roll playing. One great example is the winged tiefling. There are no rules in 5e for a winged Aasimar, but there is a way to give wings to a tiefling at the cost of a race feature. The Aasimar have a similar class feature, so without the need for a separate specific rule it is very easy to create a character concept that incorporates it. I also prefer the move away from modular character build design that has nothing to do with in game experiences and character development. I didn't think that I would, but since this shift I have noticed my play experience being more about interactions between players and game world and less about tactical combat. Just my 2c.

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]
[MENTION=87131]DM Howard[/MENTION]

There was more 3rd party stuff for 3E. A glut of it, in fact.

There is quality material out for 5E, but it has come out much slower.

Ninja'd, by the top ninja.

Charlaquin said:

Well, yeah, kinda hard to play option heavy games when there isn’t support for them. I played a lot more option heavy games than option light ones when 3e and 4e were the actively supported editions.

Granted, Pathfinder is an option currently, but Pathfinder has that written-to-make-the-GM’s-Role-as-minimal-as-possible issue that I agree with Mearls was a serious problem with 3e and 4e. Maybe PF2 will fix that, but I doubt it.

It’s just very frustrating that right now the only options with any mainstream recognition are DM-empowering and options-light, or DM-disempowering with lots of options. Those of us who like the DM-empowerment of 5e and the player-side crunch of Pathfinder have to either suck it up and compromise one way or the other, or desperately hope we can find a group for our 3rd party game of choice. Like, I’m sure in a few years when the Angry GM has published his RPG, that’ll be right up my alley, considering I agree with most of what he says. But unless his game becomes the most miraculous success story in Indy RPG history, I doubt I’ll be able to get a group together for it.

Click to expand...

"DM-empowering and options-light" I disagree with this statement. Not having a specific rule for everything under the sun is rules light, not options light. An empowered DM and rules that allow for creative engagement means more options to me, not less. An emphasis on who the character is, as opposed to the minutia of combat mechanics, means you can create highly fun and original characters instead of optimal, suboptimal, or broken build variants.

jamesstreissand said:

Since you can't seem to get it through your thick ing skulls;

I am ONLY saying I think it's a shame that one of the biggest designers out there doesn't think of us as being welcome at the table. That's all. That's it. Nothing else.

I hope I don't have to explain why I'd like a "there's still a seat for people who like the gaming aspect" approach.

Click to expand...

Except it's not a seat for people who like the gaming aspect if you read into the tone of the decision. It's the people who take the game so seriously that they ruin it for everyone else who are being targeted.

KB