D&D 5E Are DMs the Swing Vote?

[Dwimmerlied]

I think Mearls' comment about what players want is idealistic; DMs and players alike can most certainly be edition warriors. And while edition warriors aren't the norm among casual gamers, everyone who has played more than one edition has their preferences and the vast majority have a favorite.

For sure, but what do they base that on? Is it because they mindlessly adhere to a given edition, or because that edition works for them?

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Given the creative interpretations of what people said during the run up to the release of 4e, are you really surprised that people might start spinning things in the most negative way possible?

Not at all. Made me a little cynical too. Theres some pretty out-there stuff posted here at times, at others its hard to know and its good to ask questions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In a Legend & Lore column a few weeks back Mike Mearls made the claim of players:You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

Mearls statement there made me twitch badly. Not because it's not true (my fundamental criterion for Next is that it must work at what it does and I don't much care what it does). But because Mike Mearls himself is, from what I have seen, an edition warrior. Anyone who makes jokes about Warlords shouting hands back on to run down a playstyle is (especially when Cure Light Wounds doesn't put hands back on).

But how do we reconcile the idea that players - as a collective whole - are not edition warriors and will play what works with the reality that many groups never upgraded from earlier editons or left 4e for Pathfinder?

People like what works for them. 4e and 3.X work in different ways - and in order to learn 4e you needed to throw out the 3e form book and go back to square 2 or 3. Which meant that out of the box it really didn't work that well. Add in that 4e's opening module was Mike Mearls' utterly terrible Keep on the Shadowfell (a poor adventure in its own right and almost the worst possible fit with 4e) and the game did not work for them.From what I can tell, Mike Mearls has finally gone for the Unisystem design method. Make the game simple enough and familiar enough to get the hell out of the way while the game goes on - but in this case while sticking to D&D tropes that are familiar enough that people who are used to them will find they get the hell out of the way. Which isn't a bad way to do things.

Monster building was somewhat easier. Kinda. While there was far, far less math involved making a 4e monster also involved writing two to five unique powers. The math was annoying and slow, but brainstorming unique snowflake power could be even slower.

I've never had this problem. All I've done was picture the monster in my mind, visualise what it does, and write that up as a power or two.

 

[Ratskinner]

While I don't necessarily agree with the OP's thinking on a lot the details...I think the idea that DMs are a kind of "swing vote" for system is somewhat compelling. I don't think its terribly mysterious as to why, first, you need a GM to game and they have traditionally the most control over system. Secondly, I've met quite a few players who either never cared, or are exhausted on caring, about the particulars of the system the are playing. (Honestly, I've met a lot of players who are exhausted on the mechanical complexity of the recent editions in general.)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This wasn't transprarent to me - whose agenda are we aware of (and what is it)?

I'm guessing that Weather Report is referring to Mearls' agenda to sell us on the merits of the new edition he's in charge of developing?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

For sure, but what do they base that on? Is it because they mindlessly adhere to a given edition, or because that edition works for them?

IME, it's usually a result of both familiarity and what works for them. It kinda depends on personality too; some lean heavily toward the edition they played in their formative years, while others care more about the rules themselves.

 

[Jester David]

Mearls statement there made me twitch badly. Not because it's not true (my fundamental criterion for Next is that it must work at what it does and I don't much care what it does). But because Mike Mearls himself is, from what I have seen, an edition warrior. Anyone who makes jokes about Warlords shouting hands back on to run down a playstyle is (especially when Cure Light Wounds doesn't put hands back on).

That's flawed logic.
While most critics of 4e are not fans of the warlord, being critical of the warlord does not equate with being critical of 4th Edition or being an edition warrior.
It's an "all huskies are dogs but not all dogs are huskies" thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's flawed logic.
While most critics of 4e are not fans of the warlord, being critical of the warlord does not equate with being critical of 4th Edition or being an edition warrior.
It's an "all huskies are dogs but not all dogs are huskies" thing.

Being critical of the warlord or saying you want HP to be meat: Not an edition warrior.
Making gratuitous jokes about shouting hands back on: Edition warring.

Not all dogs are huskies. But that one is.

 

[Jester David]

Being critical of the warlord or saying you want HP to be meat: Not an edition warrior.
Making gratuitous jokes about shouting hands back on: Edition warring.

Not all dogs are huskies. But that one is.

We're discussing an off-the-cuff comment aimed at someone across the table while being recorded, which felt very much like the continuation of an argument they had engaged in previously. It wasn't some planned and calculated slight, it was a conversational counter-point.

And it was hardly a gratuitous joke.

First, it was relevant as William Wallace was being brought up as an example of a warlord. The counter was that William never healed anyone and the example of the only real non-fatal injury seen on screen is invoked.

Second, the edition was irrelevant to the discussion as they were discussing the warlord and his place in 5e, not 4e or anything else related to 4e other than the existence of the warlord. Had they been discussing the marshall it would not have been 3e edition warring.
It wasn't even comprehensively related to the warlord so much as a single ability of the warlord. Criticising the 3e ranger for Favoured Enemy when discussing the class in relation to 5e doesn't mean you're an anti-3e edition warrior, it just means you're critical of a particular ability and don't want to repeat any design mistakes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We're discussing an off-the-cuff comment aimed at someone across the table while being recorded, which felt very much like the continuation of an argument they had engaged in previously. It wasn't some planned and calculated slight, it was a conversational counter-point.

And it was hardly a gratuitous joke.

First, it was relevant as William Wallace was being brought up as an example of a warlord. The counter was that William never healed anyone and the example of the only real non-fatal injury seen on screen is invoked.

Second, the edition was irrelevant to the discussion as they were discussing the warlord and his place in 5e, not 4e or anything else related to 4e other than the existence of the warlord. Had they been discussing the marshall it would not have been 3e edition warring.
It wasn't even comprehensively related to the warlord so much as a single ability of the warlord. Criticising the 3e ranger for Favoured Enemy when discussing the class in relation to 5e doesn't mean you're an anti-3e edition warrior, it just means you're critical of a particular ability and don't want to repeat any design mistakes.

Apples and oranges comparison. Shouting wounds closed is a battlecry in the edition wars.

Second, William Wallace can't shout a hand back on because he isn't a 13th level cleric. Nor are most clerics. What he can inspire people to do is fight harder when all seems lost. How many times have you played that hit point damage with no other effect has cut someone's hand off? And of those times, how many times has it been cured by Cure Light Wounds?

Third, claiming that discussions about warlords are edition-irrelevant is meaningless when Warlords as a class have appeared in only one edition. And more to the point are iconic for that edition. The equivalent anti-3e approach wouldn't have been to talk about Marshalls, printed in a relatively obscure splatbook. It would have been to pick out 3e's multiclassing and say how ridiculous it is that a fighter can become a wizard just by killing a few orcs when an actual wizard needed to serve an apprenticeship. Because 3e's multiclassing is both unique to 3e and iconic to 3e.

Fourthly, if a Warlord can't pick people back up onto their feet and get people to keep fighting they can not do their job I've been through this in detail on other threads. The ability to get people to keep fighting is a fundamental ability of the warlord and may be quite literally the only ability two warlords share beyond the basics all characters have and the ability to wear leather and hide armour and wield simple and martial melee weapons.

Fortunately he appears to have changed his mind on his previous position.