D&D 5E Are DMs the Swing Vote?

[Dwimmerlied]

But IMO a lot of times edition wars are less about editions and more about that particular discussion. Nuance, subtlety, and shades of gray get thrown out as the discussion becomes less about finding common ground and more about proving that other guy wrong.

From what I've seen I'd agree. People like to argue I think, and people feel foolish if backed into an intellectual corner I don't agree that people don't know what they want tho.

 

[Raith5]

What motivates people to pontificate on discussion boards is indeed mysterious. I am glad there are places like EN word where people have forthright opinions different from my own, which are mostly civil. I tend to see edition 'warriors' more in terms of way folk personalise and generalise debates rather than being hardline about X or Y edition.

But I think sometimes people are driven by the imperfections in things they like (or misrepresentations by others of the things they like) rather than what they detest. I know that I am most interested in the really novel and interesting mechanics that 4th ed brought into the hobby which were really underdeveloped, and ways 4th edition was, in IMO, misrepresented by WOTC and others. And thus some of the good ideas in 4th ed seem to be taboo or dismissed from thought as D&D goes forward. I think this is shame but certainly not worth warring about.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think its just as fair to assume that it is inclusive and an opinion he has interpreted from their research and playtesting.

If you think Mearls is just innocently venturing an opinion about some interesting things he found in the playtest data, then that's you're right I suppose. I think I could make a pretty convincing argument that both by subtext and by literal reading, it's you who's doing a lot of extrapolation here.

But a person could waste their whole life scouring these L&L articles for meaning, so I'd rather we just agree to respectfully disagree.

 

[pemerton]

If you are talking about DMing 4e but aren't using the online tools, I think your opinion, while valid for your case, might not be representative.

I don't think 4e is nearly as attractive without the online tools; they are a key element of the mix.

I GM 4e and don't use the tools, but agree that I am probably a bit of an outlier. For me the ease of GMing 4e isn't mostly the tools or the maths (although that's good, too). It's the fact that it behaves the way I want it too. The game surprises me, as players do wacky or unexpected things, and I respond in ways that I didn't anticipate. But the mechanics don't surprise me. And so they leave me free to push the players hard (via their PCs) without having to worry that I need to second-guess myself or massage the resolution to make sure that the game doesn't crash to a halt.

A person may like a certain edition, and argue for that edition and against others on the interwebs. But IMO a lot of times edition wars are less about editions and more about that particular discussion. Nuance, subtlety, and shades of gray get thrown out as the discussion becomes less about finding common ground and more about proving that other guy wrong. So the "enemy editions" become represented by their worst aspects turned up to eleven. In reality, though, people aren't so hardline.

I don't know if I'm an edition warrior or not - that's really something for others to judge. I have strong views about what I like - whether or not I'm right in those views is also something that others would have to judge.

I don't fully understand Mearls' remark that "You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works." For me, part of the game working is that things are done in specific ways - for instance, it's important to me that the mechanics enable action resolution without GM fiat, and that resolution deliver exciting outcomes without the GM needing to prescript what those outcomes will be, and I think there is good reason from the history and experience of RPG design to think that this does require things being done some ways rather than others (in particular, I think process simulation mechanics don't satisfy my desiderata).

I haven't filled in all the playtest surveys, but I've done some. I've always been asked what my favourite edition is, and have answered with 4e. And my responses to other questions reflect that preference. In the most recent survey I made some critical comments about the knight ability in the current packet that is a substitute for marking, that reflect the preference I've just outlined for non-process sim mechanics. Does that make me an edition warrior (and hence, assuming Mearls is accurately reporting his data, an outlier)? Or am I a non-edition warring playtester who's simply letting Mearls know whether or not the game works for me?

 

[Dwimmerlied]

If you think Mearls is just innocently venturing an opinion about some interesting things he found in the playtest data, then that's you're right I suppose. I think I could make a pretty convincing argument that both by subtext and by literal reading, it's you who's doing a lot of extrapolation here.

But a person could waste their whole life scouring these L&L articles for meaning, so I'd rather we just agree to respectfully disagree.

We are both interpreting. That's a point i was making. I thought, from what was actually said that you were extrapolating many degrees from what was actually said. I'm reading this stuff because I'm interested, and I'm open to ideas about what's going on, for sure. If you do have a convincing argument, I'm more interested in hearing it than hearing that you have it.

I hope that this doesn't sound disrespectful, btw.

 

[Manbearcat]

Another possibility is that people are responding via the surveys and other feedback channels in ways that imply they aren't edition warriors. Let's not simply assume that Mearls is self-deluded or incompetent.

I've filled out most of the surveys and I'm not even sure how "edition warriorism" would manifest in them. I generally perceive edition warrior rhetoric as use of (i) willfully provocative, boilerplate language or (ii) snide, drive-by remarks that have little use or explanatory power (they merely serve to malign/troll), or (iii) dismissive language that revokes someone's credibility as an authentic D&D player because they prefer one system versus another. I can't even fathom what use or in what way those things would manifest in the surveys. Saying "I prefer process-based mechanics to outcome-based mechanics" isn't edition-warrior language and it especially isn't so if you expand as to why. Neither is saying the inverse. Would saying "I won't play 5e if it includes non-removable <forced movement, liberal use of SoD, martial dailies, mechanics centered around the adventuring day rather than encounter> be edition warring? I'm not sure that it is. That can be just benign advocating for preference within the design framework. I would say that the position of "I won't play 5e if it includes <this thing I don't like> even if its not in the default game and I never have to interact with it at the table" is edition warring. But I'm not sure how that would be able to come out in a focused survey.

An edition war is generally started when someone trolls a thread, willfully provokes, or dogpiles. You have edition warring at that point before the other side even responds in defense. In my experience, trolls typically need an audience. The surveys provide no audience (just the interns that collate the data and perform whatever processing they do, if any) and no fanfare. It just doesn't make sense for it to manifest in the surveys.

It just seems a pretty fluffy "I have a dream" remark that is much more "looking for, and unsurprisingly finding, vindication of our design hopes" (they need the greater D&D culture to be one tribe versus multiple, disparate, competing tribes) than it is reality on the ground. I suppose one could say that it is cynical (not backed by reason and parsed data) to perceive the greater D&D culture as fractured tribes. I don't agree with that but I don't see how the surveys would bear that out one way or another. I think making the argument that the needle of D&D isn't moved by Yankees fans versus Red Sox fans is a pretty hard one to make.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't fully understand Mearls' remark that "You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works." For me, part of the game working is that things are done in specific ways - for instance, it's important to me that the mechanics enable action resolution without GM fiat, and that resolution deliver exciting outcomes without the GM needing to prescript what those outcomes will be, and I think there is good reason from the history and experience of RPG design to think that this does require things being done some ways rather than others (in particular, I think process simulation mechanics don't satisfy my desiderata).

His point is that you don't think that 4E is the only possible game that can accomplish what you want. If 5E can deliver these same things to you and they work for you... you'd be willing to try it and play it. You aren't going to shut the game out just because it isn't 4E. Some people do that. They have their one game they play and forsake all others (especially when it comes to D&D editions), regardless of whether or not the other games can deliver the same things they like in the one they do.

I presume when Mearls says "edition warrior"... he's talking about the type of person that will say "If the Warlord isn't a full class in 5E... then I'm not playing the game." Even if there's a Warlord sub-class, and it has the same sort of function and performs in pretty much the same way in 5E that it did in 4E... since it's not a "full class", then obviously WotC "doesn't care about him", and he refuses to play the game in its entirety.

THAT'S what I think Mike is talking about. If you can get non-magical healing in some form... it doesn't matter what the form is, you're okay with playing it in whatever form it takes, and you're not going to war over something as simple as just a change from class to sub-class.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But those bold words, they weren't said. That's your reading of it. For that to be correct, we have to interpret Mike's use of the word "you", which is what you are doing, and I don't know what that is based on other than extrapolation. I think its just as fair to assume that it is inclusive and an opinion he has interpreted from their research and playtesting.

The point isn't so much about "what did Mearls say?", but rather, "what could someone believe Mearls meant" when he said it.

The rewritten version I posted is a fair reading...and, if you were an edition warrior, a likely reading. He may not have meant it that way, but his phrasing could be taken in that inflammatory way.

Its one of the pitfalls of press releases: your words WILL be parsed.

 

[Warbringer]

I don't know if I'm an edition warrior or not .

I'd say more "edition paladin"... And as we know, that's a completely different class

 

[Weather Report]

I don't know if I'm an edition warrior or not

That's how you come across (and very aggressive).

Makes some of my experiences on these boards unpleasant.