Will the real Mike Mearls please stand up?

[Fifth Element]

My only question: is it any wonder he doesn't post here anymore?

 

[Dausuul]

He's also the guy who designed elaborate, skill-based stunt systems for Iron Heroes and Book of Iron Might; then a couple years later said that you should ditch all untrained skills and just use ability checks; then designed 4E; and is now back to the ability check thing.

4E is not "Mike Mearls's D&D." If it can be said to be anyone's, it's "Heinsoo's, Wyatt's, and Collins's D&D," since those are the names on the Player's Handbook. Mearls was a developer, which means he was in charge of road-testing and fine-tuning the mechanics, not designing them. That's not to say he had no input in the design, but you can't just look at 4E and see Mike Mearls's vision for the game made flesh (well, paper).

Take 4E out of the above, and Mearls seems to have been following a very common arc among dedicated gamers:

Phase 1: Whoa! RPGs! These games are awesome! I don't know all the rules but who cares? Make it up!
Phase 2: There's way too much "making it up." What we need are well-defined systems to cover everything, with rules for all the corner cases.
Phase 3: All these systems seemed like a good idea at the time, and they're fine in isolation, but taken together they're smothering the fun. I don't have time or patience for them any more. Let's go back to something simple, with the GM making judgement calls when necessary.

This certainly describes my changing viewpoint over the past couple of decades. I bet a lot of other folks here would say the same.

 

[Wyrd]

I will probably catch some flak for this, but oh well.

He grew up.

Anytime someone comes into something new there is a short (3 months to a year) period where everything is shiny and new. After that, they start to think there has to be a better way. They see the things all the more experienced people are doing and think their way is stupid, and that they can do so much better. So they try different new things, sometimes they get lucky and it is something innovative, the vast majority of the time they create garbage. Eventually they mature and figure out why all the more experienced people were doing it that way to begin with.

This happens, it's part of human nature, look at teenagers, they go through that rebellious period where they think their parent's just don't get it.

Mike Mearls' Keep on the Borderlands-bashing RPGnet review was recently brought up in another thread. That was odd, but I was willing to give him a pass on it because it's 12 years old and it's supposed to be a comedy review.

But now I've learned that Mike Mearls invented the phrase "Mother May I" (as it pertains to RPG design) here.

I know this is 7 years old, but still -- it's completely serious and he seems to have arrived at this position after a good deal of thought on the subject.

This bit in particular I find frankly disturbingly cynical, in addition to being the complete opposite of what he's saying nowadays:
He's talking about D&D here...

What do you think? Is it weirding you out that the guy who despises Keep on the Borderlands and coined the term "Mother May I?" is now singing the praises of old school D&D and "rulings not rules"?

I would like to see him talk a bit about how dramatically his opinions about RPGs have apparently changed. Until then I think I'm going to have to take everything he says as DDN team lead with a pinch of salt from now on.

 

[Li Shenron]

Reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt... Everyone writing a review (on a movie, a music album, a game etc) is subject to his/her mood of the time. Maybe the same movie/game could get a very different opinion from you depending on what mood you were expecting that movie/game to deliver you on that evening, and while this first feeling is going to strongly influence your opinion later, watching the same movie / playing the same game again can in fact change that. I know that personally this has happened to me many times...

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is almost like people change and develop over time.

Nothing unusual about this really. I would rather see someone change their mind on issues like this than rigidly adhere to an idea just because they dug in their heals seven years ago on the internet.

How many people here have gone from liking something in a game initially, to hating it a few years later? Sometime what seems like a good idea at first, turns out to not work so well over time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think you're in a position to speak for Mearls. One of our rules here is to not ascribe intentions to other members, and that's what you're doing here. Please don't.

If it makes you feel any better, I've known Mearls for over 15 years and he likes classic D&D just fine. That was really clear back when we were playtesting Iron Heroes. I can also sympathize a little. The funniest thing I have ever written on EN World, maybe in my entire life, was a thread to Nemmerle on the old boards where I got to mock Fiend Folio monsters and illustrations. I happen to love the FF, but anyone reading that thread would have trouble believing it. Eh - loving something means you recognize its warts and accept it anyways.

I imagine no one here is 100% consistent if you go through our posting histories. I know I have changed my tune on things from time to time.i have also written blogs, reviews, or posts that were inspired by a short lived mood.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Take 4E out of the above, and Mearls seems to have been following a very common arc among dedicated gamers:

Phase 1: Whoa! RPGs! These games are awesome! I don't know all the rules but who cares? Make it up!
Phase 2: There's way too much "making it up." What we need are well-defined systems to cover everything, with rules for all the corner cases.
Phase 3: All these systems seemed like a good idea at the time, and they're fine in isolation, but taken together they're smothering the fun. I don't have time or patience for them any more. Let's go back to something simple, with the GM making judgement calls when necessary.

This certainly describes my changing viewpoint over the past couple of decades. I bet a lot of other folks here would say the same.

Yup. I've gone through that cycle at least twice and am probably going through it again now.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I like the fact that the playtest module is an excerpt of "KotB". I may not always like Mike's decisions, but I have played a game he DM'ed and I can say this much, he does love the game. My personal opinion, this was his way of apologizing and even poking a little fun at himself.

 

[Fifth Element]

4E is not "Mike Mearls's D&D." If it can be said to be anyone's, it's "Heinsoo, Wyatt, and Collins's D&D," since those are the names on the Player's Handbook. Mearls was a developer, which means he was in charge of road-testing and fine-tuning the mechanics, not designing them. That's not to say he had no input in the design, but you can't just look at 4E and see Mike Mearls's vision for the game made flesh (well, paper).

Sure, if you want to be all "accurate" about it.

Take 4E out of the above, and Mearls seems to have been following a very common arc among dedicated gamers:

Phase 1: Whoa! RPGs! These games are awesome! I don't know all the rules but who cares? Make it up!
Phase 2: There's way too much "making it up." What we need are well-defined systems to cover everything, with rules for all the corner cases.
Phase 3: All these systems seemed like a good idea at the time, and they're fine in isolation, but taken together they're smothering the fun. I don't have time or patience for them any more. Let's go back to something simple, with the GM making judgement calls when necessary.

This certainly describes my changing viewpoint over the past couple of decades. I bet a lot of other folks here would say the same.

Yeah, I suspect that's a common arc.

 

[Libramarian]

Why does it matter?

I was not impressed with the playtest packet.

That is combining with this new information about his complete turnaround in opinion about RPG design, to produce the distinct impression the he doesn't know what he's doing.

But it's just an impression, we'll see how it turns out!

I understand why people who were impressed with the playtest packet are not concerned about this. If it blew me away then I also would not be worried about his changing opinions, and perhaps would even think positively of that.

Ad hominem attack. Make Mearls look stupid or like he's just following the party line from WotC and it's easier to dismiss him. Whether the original poster wanted to dismiss 4e or Next, I don't know.

Pffft I'm not dismissing anything. I am doing what I said in the OP, taking what he has to say with a pinch of salt. Particularly when he talks about his past experience with D&D. Or when he says things like "it's my opinion that D&D is at its best when the DM is making rulings not rules." I mean -- this is literally the exact opposite of what you used to say. What does this actually mean to you? Are these just buzz words?

I hate when people overuse ad hominem. Most of the time it's a valid point. It's not unreasonable to wonder whether someone actually knows what they're doing when they're very inconsistent in their opinions about it.

It's neither disturbing nor cynical.

He's talking about the relationship between two friends playing a game. I find "when they don't have power over you, you don't need to worry about trusting them" to be a cynical comment when referring to friends.

Or you could just evaluate the things he's currently saying and see what you think of them.

I don't care enough to put in the extra effort to separate spin from genuine personal opinion. If I have to do that then I'm just going to tune out their blogs and articles and just wait for the final product.