D&D 5E EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next

[Mark CMG]

I think system is much closer to the language the participants in the conversation use to convey thoughts and ideas clearly and precisely than it is similar to the medium over which the sound of their voices is transmitted, really.

I wish it were always that integrated. That might be so, when miniatures are never on the table. Not that it cannot also be when they are but the situation often becomes something like my example in the last post when there is that addition.

Surely it would be the players, not the characters, who were roleplaying .

That should be read differently, one of the problems when a system is imposed between two communicators, in that "Assuming a character in the setting is roleplaying, I think we agree" is not meant to mean 'If we assume a character in the setting is doing the roleplaying, I think we agree' but rather 'To assume (to take the part of) a character in a setting is the act of roleplaying, I think we agree.'

Again, what are you suggesting "roleplaying" should be?

Can be as simple as the act of assuming the part of a character within a setting. But we are also discussing what makes a roleplaying game, so the act of roleplaying is what one does but must also be what a roleplaying game primarily encourages. One can certainly roleplay in times when one is not playing a roleplaying game. I could, for example, waddle a salt shaker across a table toward a young nephew and give voice to that shaker by saying in a high pitched tone, "I am Salty!" but that doesn't mean I am playing a roleplaying game nor adherring to a roleplaying game system. Your following example might be considered similar.

I have roleplayed in many situations. There are real time computer strategy games that I think are ripe for roleplaying. Two major ones would be Hearts of Iron and (especially) Crusader Kings II. In CK you are effectively playing a king (or duke or count) in medieval Europe. Your game interface is not first person and the general emphasis is very much on ruling, statecraft, war and combat - but when you find out that your newest wife is plotting to kill your eldest son so that her eldest son will ascend to your throne - look me in the eye and tell me you don't "feel the roleplay vibe"!.

Certainly a rich story for a game. I have recently played a multiplayer game where we all effectively played named knights, one of us the king, of a land being constantly invaded from two sides by different forces. Your individual game interface is a sheet of abilities and powers, as well as points you can take before you are killed. Although all of us were meant to be allies, one of us turned traitor and was secretly working against us in all of our endeavors, essentially lying to our faces, from the character's point of view, through the entire game. This was the boardgame, Shadows Over Camelot. It is not a roleplaying game but I could certainly feel a roleplaying vibe.

I have no idea what Necromunda is all about, sorry - is it some sort of skirmish game (from what you say here)?.

Yup. A GW minis skirmish game.

All that tells me is that they had low character investment (probably using pre-gens in a "living" game - there's irony! - if I'm guessing) and were using director stance. I strongly suspect that roleplaying was going on at both tables, in fact..

Suspect what you like but it would go against what I witnessed. As someone with a theatre degree and about 20 years of stage experience I can assure you that a director doesn't assume, or take the part of, a character and does not actually roleplay. Someone taking a Director Stance would not actually be roleplaying during the time when that stance is taken.

As to which I would class as a "roleplaying game" - I think that comes down to design aims. It's funny - back in the early days of D&D, roleplaying games were the "new fangled thing" abhorred by grognard tabletop wargamers a bit like 4e is the current bête noir of 3e afficionadoes, and a wargaming crew came up with a very neat little game called "En Garde". For a long time they swore blind that it absolutely wasn't a roleplaying game, nosiree. Of course, it was, as any sensible roleplayer could see....

I was a tabletop wargamer before D&D was ever released and play wargames, boardgames, and roleplaying games regularly to this day. As a sensible roleplaying gamer and wargamer, and one who has done it for 40 years, I tend to have a fairly good sense of which tread close to the line of the other, and which seem to cross. I can certainly observe a game in actual play or read a rule system and make such a call.

What "roleplaying aspects" are you talking about, here? I mean there's the immersive stuff and the deep character exploration/authoring stuff, but frankly those are pretty niche fringes of roleplaying even as I cover it. They are fun and engaging, and all, but they are so tricky and demanding to get right that I can only really take them as an occasional indulgence. They are like truffles or foie gras - lovely, but you really wouldn't want too much of them. Sometimes I'll even take a light salad just for something different! .

Play any roleplaying game that isn't also a combat game (or that has very few combat rules at all) and you will easily find roleplaying aspects in abundance. Do you ever play such games? Are they made up of only "immersive stuff and the deep character exploration/authoring stuff?"

I think that depends on how narrowly you define your term "roleplaying". I see folks playing FPS computer games roelplaying. I see wargamers roleplaying. If they put themselves in the position of looking at the (imaginary) world from the perspective of the character or team that they are playing and make decisions based on that perspective, then as far as I'm concerned they are roleplaying.

As I have said in the past, I can shout "Charge!" whenever I move a Knight on a Chess board but that act of seeming to roleplay doesn't make Chess a roleplaying game. That's a simple statement that I think shows where we differ in opinion.

 

[Balesir]

I wish it were always that integrated. That might be so, when miniatures are never on the table. Not that it cannot also be when they are but the situation often becomes something like my example in the last post when there is that addition.

Oh, weird - I always find figures and scenery add a good vocabulary for the first "element" of roleplaying - giving the players a clear view of what their character's situation is. Getting that clear generally helps, rather than hinders, roleplaying.

That should be read differently, one of the problems when a system is imposed between two communicators, in that "Assuming a character in the setting is roleplaying, I think we agree" is not meant to mean 'If we assume a character in the setting is doing the roleplaying, I think we agree' but rather 'To assume (to take the part of) a character in a setting is the act of roleplaying, I think we agree.'

Aaaahhh - click! Gotcha; sorry for not reading it correctly before.

I guess I seldom think of it as "assuming" a role since Actor stance forms quite a small part of the way I and most of those I game with roleplay. Not that I find anything wrong with Actor stance, per se, but it's never really been to our taste.

Can be as simple as the act of assuming the part of a character within a setting. But we are also discussing what makes a roleplaying game, so the act of roleplaying is what one does but must also be what a roleplaying game primarily encourages. One can certainly roleplay in times when one is not playing a roleplaying game. I could, for example, waddle a salt shaker across a table toward a young nephew and give voice to that shaker by saying in a high pitched tone, "I am Salty!" but that doesn't mean I am playing a roleplaying game nor adherring to a roleplaying game system. Your following example might be considered similar.

Hmm, I think "Salty" would be more entertainment acting than "roleplaying", as such. How can you take decisions based on the outlook of a salt mill? Not that you couldn't write a roleplaying game that gave some sort of coherent world picture, from the point of view of a salt pot, but I doubt that would be something you would get from performing ventriloquism for a child. But, if you did manage to formulate a world view and some cogent aims and concerns for your salt mill/pot, then I would say that you were roleplaying, yes. The fact that the "system" and rules of "Salt Shaker Tales" were made up on the spot would not make it any less a roleplaying game - but there would need to be sufficient world creation to identify at least some of Salty Sam's wants and worries to qualify as such.

Yup. A GW minis skirmish game.

Ah, OK - thanks.

Suspect what you like but it would go against what I witnessed. As someone with a theatre degree and about 20 years of stage experience I can assure you that a director doesn't assume, or take the part of, a character and does not actually roleplay. Someone taking a Director Stance would not actually be roleplaying during the time when that stance is taken.

I know what you mean about theatre/cinema directors, but I think Director Stance in a roleplaying game sense can include roleplay. If the player is considering the game situation from the point of view of the character and directing the character to act in a manner that makes sense given that point of view, then I would call that roleplaying. Maybe this is a difference between us - I don't see either Actor stance or immersion as at all required for roelplaying.

Play any roleplaying game that isn't also a combat game (or that has very few combat rules at all) and you will easily find roleplaying aspects in abundance. Do you ever play such games? Are they made up of only "immersive stuff and the deep character exploration/authoring stuff?"

No - lack of combat as a form of conflict does not make any difference here, though, in my experience. Roleplaying is, in my view, manifest in the in-game actions the characters take in response to the view they have of the situation they are in. This can happen in combat or out of it. Apart from games that don't treat combat in any special way (Primetime Adventures, MGF Glorantha, HeroQuest) most of our Hârn sessions involve very little combat (because it's so lethal in HM!). Roleplaying is evident when the chatacers take action based on their situation as they perceive it. Just the same as it is during a 4e D&D combat...

As I have said in the past, I can shout "Charge!" whenever I move a Knight on a Chess board but that act of seeming to roleplay doesn't make Chess a roleplaying game. That's a simple statement that I think shows where we differ in opinion.

As I said, I don't regard Actor stance as necessary for roleplay, and in like vein I don't confuse "acting" with "roleplaying". Acting might be used sometimes as a tool while roleplaying, but just because I'm using a hammer doesn't mean I'm building an ark...

 

[Mark CMG]

Oh, weird - I always find figures and scenery add a good vocabulary for the first "element" of roleplaying - giving the players a clear view of what their character's situation is. Getting that clear generally helps, rather than hinders, roleplaying.

Leaving aside the "good vocabulary" as featheirng your nest, allow me to ask you to describe a number of ways in which you use miniatures outside of combat or just so the GM knows where the character is when in a dangerous environment.

Aaaahhh - click! Gotcha; sorry for not reading it correctly before.

De nada.

I guess I seldom think of it as "assuming" a role since Actor stance forms quite a small part of the way I and most of those I game with roleplay. Not that I find anything wrong with Actor stance, per se, but it's never really been to our taste.

This adherence to Forge terminology is likely problematic in our discussions. What they managed to do wth that one set term, "Actor's Stance" is take the primary way in which one can assume a character in a setting (through first person dialogue) and shunt it aside as if roleplaying games don't need to have anything to do with that. It opens up the possibility for someone to basically call anything a roleplaying game simply by claiming an affinity with the interface of a game. Some of the rest of your post where you utilize that false, IMO, distinction I'll just skip over because we have both outlined our opinions regarding that division by this point.

I know what you mean about theatre/cinema directors, but I think Director Stance in a roleplaying game sense can include roleplay. If the player is considering the game situation from the point of view of the character and directing the character to act in a manner that makes sense given that point of view, then I would call that roleplaying.

Not until he gets out of the directing stance and assumes the role again by getting into the actual acting (in its broadest sense, as someone who performs an action). That's the leap between discussing roleplaying and actual roleplaying. There's really nothing confusing about it. It's just the choice of discussing how someone might be roleplaying and actually roleplaying. Directing is what happens during reheasal. When the acting begins, when the actual act of playing a role takes place, the director is no longer involved. This is not to say that someone need be interfaced in first person dialogue mode throughout an entire game. There are times when a shorthand version needs to get you through, what retrospectively become, various scenes. This can be through first person narrative but once it gets closer to third person narrative, your so-caled Director's Stance, you are removing yourself from the act of roleplaying and are no longer truly assuming the role. Obviously, it can be used as a way to navigate through a setting, but that doesn't make it roleplaying. Director's Stance would be how most boardgames are played, not actually vocalizing how the Chess Knight might yell when moving into combat but simply moving the piece, executing the combat maneuver, then moving on with the game.

 

[Balesir]

Unfortunately I'm about to go away for a few days, so can't answer now in more detail, but suffice to say I disagree that roleplaying = in-character dialogue and first person action description. The best explanation of why might be found (appropriately enough) in a little book by Charles Tilly called "Why?"; much of dialogue is the expression of skills that we constantly and unconsciously apply. In-character dialogue consists in me using my own dialogue skills and habits, when to roleplay I should be forming an outlook assuming the character's skills and habits instead.

 

[Mark CMG]

Unfortunately I'm about to go away for a few days, so can't answer now in more detail, (. . .)

Catch you on the other side.

In-character dialogue consists in me using my own dialogue skills and habits, when to roleplay I should be forming an outlook assuming the character's skills and habits instead.

That suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "in-character."

 

[Campbell]

Here's My List:

AD&D 1 = 7
AD&D 2 = 5
3e/PF = 3
4e = 8

AD&D 2e gets low marks for the expansion of caster power and for its lack of coherence. Later supplements make a good read though. 3e gets astoundingly low marks for trying to meld RM style simulation into an incredibly abstract game and making changes to make sense and then failing to adjust rules content for play-ability. See: monsters using same rules as players, ability scores allows mean the same thing, iterative attacks, everyone gets bonus spells, scaling saving throws with varying save progressions. That last one is a personal bugaboo. I have an abject hatred of rock paper scissors casting where you already know what your target is throwing down. 4e gets high marks for doing what it set out to do amazingly well even if the goals were different than previous iterations. AD&D 1e is also an incredibly coherent fairly well designed game even if the assumptions it makes about long term play don't really conform with my gaming style.

 

[Balesir]

Leaving aside the "good vocabulary" as featheirng your nest, allow me to ask you to describe a number of ways in which you use miniatures outside of combat or just so the GM knows where the character is when in a dangerous environment.

We have used miniatures for:

- Scaling a cliff, with some characters helping the poorer climbers and gear being hauled up, too.

- Navigating trap-strewn dungeons, where traps may affect others standing in specific places (but you gotta stand somewhere!)

- Tense social situations, where a swift exit (or the start of a fight) may be needed at any moment, and where certain interpersonal effects may be aided (or defused) based on relative position.

- Simple marching order for travel and transit situations, in case of ambush (or to inculcate the idea that ambush might occur...) Also includes camp layout and positions of those on watch.

- Sneaking up situations and scouting, where both the scouts' positions and the scene being scouted out can be represented in a "picture" rather than a (necessarily) partial verbal description.

Plus several I've forgotten, probably.

This adherence to Forge terminology is likely problematic in our discussions. What they managed to do wth that one set term, "Actor's Stance" is take the primary way in which one can assume a character in a setting (through first person dialogue) and shunt it aside as if roleplaying games don't need to have anything to do with that. It opens up the possibility for someone to basically call anything a roleplaying game simply by claiming an affinity with the interface of a game. Some of the rest of your post where you utilize that false, IMO, distinction I'll just skip over because we have both outlined our opinions regarding that division by this point.

I'm happy dropping the "stances" terminology, even though it just makes the discussion clunky.

To be clear: not only do I think speaking in first person, visualising the scene in first person and seeking to think in first person as the character ("immersing") are unnecessary, I think they can be a positive hindrance to playing a character.

The reason for this is that we all have a raft of assumptions, beliefs and defaults surrounding how we view the world, and we have a complex skillset around modelling what other people think and believe, and around shaping our own behaviours and words in ways that we believe will move those other peoples' opinions and beliefs in certain ways. These assumptions, beliefs and skills are with us regardless of whether we are "roleplaying" or not. If we want to deliberately play a character with somewhat divergent views and assumptions to our own, then focussing purely on a first-person view will hinder our attempts to consciously separate ourselves from our own default assumptions and views, thus hindering our "roleplaying", as I define it.

Immersion and first person focus can be a useful roleplaying tool, but like many tools it tends to make us see things in characteristic ways. If I imagine that I am seeing what the character sees, I will habitually interpret the scene as I would interpret the scene, not as the character might. By separating myself from the character a little, I can consciously choose to skew things a little to represent how I imagine the character interprets the scene. Skill systems can be particularly useful, here, as there may well be things in the scene that are "obvious" to me, but not obvious at all to the character (and, to be clear, might easily be either correct or incorrect). Similarly, there may well be things that are opaque to me, but quite obvious to the character (even though I might know them; for example, having heard the players talk prior to approaching an NPC, I might know perfectly well what their aims are in the encounter, even though I would not have done had I not been privy to the prior discussion; meanwhile, the NPC might or might not "see" what the PCs are after - either correctly or incorrectly - based on their own interpersonal skills and world model).

Basically, interpersonal interactions are a complex set of processes that we are only just beginning to understand through science. The book I referred to is a nice little introduction to one aspect of this. Having played "the DM and the player interact yet again and take the (predictable) outcome of their interaction as a cipher for what happens between the characters in the game" for many years, I'm sick of it and would much rather explore the terrain of how these interactions might be represented in ways similar to those in which we model combat in RPGs. I want to get the players engaging with the game world on an intellectual level, not an emotional one (although that may follow, if the situations are framed well and appropriately) from the point of view of their character.

I guess it's like the difference between sentiment and sentimentality; the interactions the folks I game with and I get through our own models and assumptions have sort of become cliché to me; I want something more, and achieving that needs form and structure to help me reach it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is the point of simulating characterization if you are sonremoved from the character? Personally I would rather experience things from a 1st person point of view than a 3rd person. Both have hindrances, but it is entirely possible to get into character using 1st person. Actors do it all the time. I would argue it also produces a much more enjoyable experience.

 

[Swick]

My Ratings

On a scale of 1 (hated it) to 10 (loved it) how much have you liked:

1. Basic D&D
2. 1E
2. 2E
3. 3E
4. 4E
5. 5E

Basic D&D: 6 (Good as an introductory book/materials/box)
1E: 7 (It's been decades since I've played, but I plan on buying the Premium books when their released)
2E: 8 (Even with the dreaded THAC0! )
3.xE: 7 (Maybe a bit higher, but it broke down after 10th level too quickly)
4E: 6.5 (I liked some of the innovations created here, but there were too many negatives, such as the "elegant" battles that took 3+ hours)
5E: 7.5 (So far...with the understanding that it's not the finished product)

 

[Balesir]

What is the point of simulating characterization if you are sonremoved from the character? Personally I would rather experience things from a 1st person point of view than a 3rd person. Both have hindrances, but it is entirely possible to get into character using 1st person. Actors do it all the time. I would argue it also produces a much more enjoyable experience.

That's your opinion, and it's a perfectly valid one, but I disagree with it.

When I play 1st person, whatever I do I will get "me in a gorilla suit"; I cannot transcend the makeup of my own mind, my mental models and psychological makeup, in that mode. Just like old movies where the "monsters" are people in suits, the basic physiology of "head, torso, two arms and two legs" has to be accomodated. If, like Harry Harryhausen, I switch to "puppet theatre", I may lose out a little in fine control and the expressions may be (literally) wooden, but at least I can play things that don't amount to "a man in a gorilla suit".