Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.

Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all

At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e: off we dont want you anymore, go away.

Kite474 said:

In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.

Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all

At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e: off we dont want you anymore, go away.

Click to expand...

Well they can't please everyone.

I am very happy they departed from the design philosophy of 3e. 5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me. There is always Pathfinder for people who want 3e.

ad_hoc said:

Well they can't please everyone.

I am very happy they departed from the design philosophy of 3e. 5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me. There is always Pathfinder for people who want 3e.

Click to expand...

True, I do feel sorry for the 4e folks who really just dont have jack anymore.

As for cant pleasing everyone. That's definitely true it still I feel they could have done something to not just dash a chunk of their fanbase to the rocks.

Maybe something like a WW/Onyx Path Press Translation guide?

The Human Target said:

Every time Mearls talks I think "oh that's why I don't really like 5e."

So 4e has rules bloat and is unbalanced now?

Pffffft.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the rules bloat part is probably true. Unbalance? Nope, but, that's not what he said anyway.

But, the basic point that [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] is making here seems to ring true. 3e and 4e really, REALLY tried to universalize the gaming experience. The whole RAW issue really came to the fore in 3e and 4e was the RPGA edition. By shifting the design approach away from trying to formalize play across every table, to accepting that every table is pretty much playing a different game from a similar base, they avoid alienating too many people (WHAT?!?! They nerfed MY favorite character!?!?!) and avoid burying the game under the weight of so much material.

Kite474 said:

In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.

Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all

At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e: off we dont want you anymore, go away.

Click to expand...

It feels like that sometimes. Despite it not being a binary choice. I mean I like and play both 4e and 5e. While there is no denying the success of 5e at my table and more generally, I do find it missing the complexity and depth that 4e had (probably too much of!). I really respect both games and enjoy the fact that there a variety of gaming styles in the hobby - including the dreaded powergamer.

I think the main thing going forward is do they want 5e to be broad church that includes those players or are they happy to completely leave this ground to Paizo etc?

Kite474 said:

True, I do feel sorry for the 4e folks who really just dont have jack anymore.

As for cant pleasing everyone. That's definitely true it still I feel they could have done something to not just dash a chunk of their fanbase to the rocks.

Maybe something like a WW/Onyx Path Press Translation guide?

Click to expand...

They do still sell the 4E books on the DMsGuild.

Kite474 said:

In short: We decided to try something against what we were previously doing in order to get back to basics and something that was much more friendly to a wider audience.

Which honestly works great for them and I cant blame them at all

At the same time it does really feel like they just went to the people who enjoyed 3e and 4e: off we dont want you anymore, go away.

Click to expand...

That was going to happen anyway.
4e was very similar in philosophy to 3e, but that didn’t stop the people who enjoyed it from feeling alienated and switching to Pathfinder. No matter what they did with 5e, a lot of 4e fans would have walked.

Regardless, the approach they had wasn’t working. It led to several very short editions, both with a mid-edition reboot. Doing the same thing again likely wouldn’t have worked any better.

neobolts said:

The topic of bloat (and by extension, release pace) is part of what Mearls was getting at. I was just sharing my personal experience that the pace of book releases has outstripped my responsible spending for the first time in 5e.

The problem is I really really really want to buy $175 worth of D&D modules, sourcebooks, and art books.

Click to expand...

So its a good problem, like having too much starting pitching.

Morrus said:

I’m inclined to agree. For me, options speak to replayability.

Click to expand...

I veer more towards the 5E minimalism than PF crunchiness, but this strikes a chord with me. My daughters and I started playing Catan a few months ago; we've probably played half a dozen times, or slightly more. While we still very much enjoy it and there are subtle aspects still to be explored, I can see how we'll soon be ready for an expansion set to diversify play experience.

So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.

I'm guessing there are several reasons they haven't explored that route, one being that it might dillute the cohesiveness of the game and community. Perhaps they believe--maybe rightfully so--that the more people play the same version of the game, the stronger the community. Another reason might simply be a matter of dedicating resources, that is, designer time. A third might be wanting to keep a simple, straightforward and minimalist release schedule.

Anyhow, I just don't see why, in principle, more rules options detracts from the integrity and purity of the core 5E game--as long as those options are just that: optional. Who knows, maybe at some point we'll see an "Advanced D&D" line, but I doubt it.

ad_hoc said:

5e feels like it is back to the feeling of 2e and before. Which is great for me.

Click to expand...

I've read this several times since 5th Edition was released but I don't get it. I started with 2E and I felt like 2E had an enormous amount of options and "rules bloat" attached to it.

Mercurius said:

I veer more towards the 5E minimalism than PF crunchiness, but this strikes a chord with me. My daughters and I started playing Catan a few months; we've probably played half a dozen times, or slightly more. While we still very much enjoy it and there are subtle aspects still to be explored, I can see how we'll soon be ready for an expansion set to diversity play experience.

So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.

I'm guessing there are several reasons they haven't explored that route, one being that it might dillute the cohesiveness of the game and community. Perhaps they believe--maybe rightfully so--that the more people play the same version of the game, the stronger the community. Another reason might simply be a matter of dedicating resources. A third might be wanting to keep a simple, straightforward and minimalist release schedule.

Anyhow, I just don't see why, in principle, more rules options detracts from the integrity and purity of the core 5E game. Who knows, maybe at some point we'll see an "Advanced D&D" line, but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

I think a better analogy is that I, and others, would like some coffee with our donuts.

Mercurius said:

So while I love the simplicity of 5E, I really don't see why they can't have optional "expansion sets" like Catan for those who want a crunchier, or at least more varied, mechanical experience. I am generally a very happy 5E customer, but I remain slightly disappointed that they didn't really explore the whole "complexity dial" and "modular options" avenue that they talked about during the playtest.

Click to expand...

When I see requests for more crunchy modular options I wonder if it has to be done by the D&D team at WotC. I mean, there are already a bunch of fantastic class, subclass, spell, etc. options in the dmsguild store. Some of it is effectively free. On top of that, a number of authors from the dmsguild, the adepts, are basically officially endorsed by the official team.

There are also some very good third-party publishers who create 5e material. Not only DM tools like Kobold Press' Tome of Beasts, but also character options as well.

These, to me, seem to serve the purpose of that modular crunch you mentioned. With this in mind do we really need to have "official" options? Admittedly, these options are not available in Adventure League games, but that serves a fairly niche audience and most data seems to point to people playing in home games where getting DM approval is but a conversation away.

Long story short, I sort of feel we already do have crunchier options.