Interview with Mike Mearls

[Deadline247]

Mearls is always great to listen to...but the guy conducting the interview was painful and woefully unprepared.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mearls is always great to listen to...but the guy conducting the interview was painful and woefully unprepared.

I am not sure, but I think it was during GenCon? I suppose no one was entirely fit at the time of the interview. But I must admit, the long pauses were bad. Maybe he should have edited them out, at least.

 

[cangrejoide]

So after almost 30 years, I now have to let D&D go. It's totally irrational to be upset about this, I know - D&D was never the best game around IMHO and all previous editions and materials are still useful, and developing new campaigns and adventures is still perfectly possible (never mind the backlog of hundreds of books and modules I've still got to read, let alone play). But somehow I feel as if a very good friend has changed beyond all recognition, taken on a life style which I cannot agree with, and so a parting of the ways is best for all concerned.

And that makes me really sad.

Its a very sad day when a gamer of 30 years has to abandon D&D just because an edition change. I don't even know how to address this statement, it's totally wrong to my perspective.


As for the OP and the interview:

It was a very informative interview, and actually made me understand a lot of the changes in 4E.

 

[Caliber]

I can't speak for him, but in my case, it's not that I can't. It's that, under most circumstances, I won't.

Not only do I prefer reading, but it takes a lot less time than listening to a podcast. So if there's a transcript available, yeah, I always prefer that route.

This. Listening to a podcast is intensely distracting to me. I either give all of my attention to it (which can be difficult since my eyes are otherwise disengaged and will likely seek stimulus) or have it run in the background and miss every other word. I'd like to listen to neat-o podcasts but I just can't figure out how to do so that works for me.

If I had a transcript though, I could read at my leisure, start and stop when I wanted, and even skim ahead if I hit some rough patches of boredom. Podcasts just don't offer service like that.

 

[jeffh]

M:tG is not a RPG and should not be influencing RPG gameplay.

Even setting aside the fact that you're taking these remarks out of context (as has already been pointed out), this is a complete non sequitur. The Lord of the Rings isn't an RPG either, and I assume no-one who's into D&D would say that means LotR shouldn't be influencing RPGs.

 

[Dausuul]

Even setting aside the fact that you're taking these remarks out of context (as has already been pointed out), this is a complete non sequitur. The Lord of the Rings isn't an RPG either, and I assume no-one who's into D&D would say that means LotR shouldn't be influencing RPGs.

Actually, from where I'm sitting, LotR's pernicious influence has tainted D&D ever since elves, dwarves, and hobbits were jammed willy-nilly into a game whose true heritage lay with the swords-and-sorcery tradition of Howard, Vance, and Moorcock.

It's not that I don't love LotR, but its themes were never a good fit for D&D.

 

[darjr]

Actually, from where I'm sitting, LotR's pernicious influence has tainted D&D ever since elves, dwarves, and hobbits were jammed willy-nilly into a game whose true heritage lay with the swords-and-sorcery tradition of Howard, Vance, and Moorcock.

It's not that I don't love LotR, but its themes were never a good fit for D&D.

What about that dive through Moria? What about that escape from the goblins caves under the mountains?

Dungeon delves by a ragtag, oddball mix of characters.

That is a whole whopping serving of D&D right there. Do Howard, Vance, or Moorcock ever really get THAT close to the game?

Or, in your opinion, is that part of what is wrong with D&D?

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Mearls is always great to listen to...but the guy conducting the interview was painful and woefully unprepared.

Nah, that's just the way Clyde does his shows. If most of us doing interviews didn't edit, you'd find similarities. Even with full notes for an interview, those moments happen.

Listening to a podcast is intensely distracting to me. I either give all of my attention to it (which can be difficult since my eyes are otherwise disengaged and will likely seek stimulus) or have it run in the background and miss every other word. I'd like to listen to neat-o podcasts but I just can't figure out how to do so that works for me.

My best podcasting listening time is when I'm driving.

If I had a transcript though, I could read at my leisure, start and stop when I wanted, and even skim ahead if I hit some rough patches of boredom. Podcasts just don't offer service like that.

Trust me, many of us would like to, but audio transcript services are way too expensive. There's more food for thought on the whole issue of text vs. audio, but that's a different thread.

As for Clyde's interview of Mike Mearls, this was, and I don’t think I exaggerate, the most important interview on 4e out there, period. Especially for those who instinctively did not like 4e, Mike’s explanation of the design philosophy behind it, his elaboration of the way the game was built up and how it’s meant to work, sheds a ton of light that was simply not made clear at any previous point. I mean, simply stating that the elimination of simulationism from the game was a driving goal of design was a sudden flash of realization for me as to why I was having problems with 4e.

If this kind of information had been released prior to 4e’s release, a lot more people would have been able to make an informed decision, whether pro or con, in full understanding of the differences in design, mechanics and philosophy inherent in the two rules systems (3e and 4e).

I, for one, found many of my complaints with the system answered once I realized what the design conceit behind them were, and I know I wouldn’t be alone. I'm still in the fence, but I can at least now examine the options with a better understanding of what they are. I imagine I'll end up just liking each system for what it does best and keeping both options as viable.

 

[Nebulous]

I can't speak for him, but in my case, it's not that I can't. It's that, under most circumstances, I won't.

Not only do I prefer reading, but it takes a lot less time than listening to a podcast. So if there's a transcript available, yeah, I always prefer that route.

I can't stand listening to podcasts. Here's another vote for a transcript.

 

[Rechan]

That is a whole whopping serving of D&D right there. Do Howard, Vance, or Moorcock ever really get THAT close to the game?

Or, in your opinion, is that part of what is wrong with D&D?

Not to put words in the person you quoted, but IMHO, what's "wrong" with D&D is that it can't get "away" from those things. Yes, LotR/Howard/Morcock had nice things in there.

But D&D for the most part has been shackled to that. It has refused to get away from a tidier version of Middle Earth.

Lord of the Rings was great. But it is not the beginning and end of Fantasy. It should not be.