D&D 5E Neuroglyph's "30 Minutes with Mike Mearls" Interview

[Mercurius]

I didn't see a thread for this, which is surprising considering it came out yesterday (I could just be blind).

Anyhow, two things in particular stood out for me.

As a preliminary to the first, Mearls mentions the influence of World of Warcraft and other MMOs on 4E design; I might have missed it, but haven't seen it said so explicitly. But what I found particularly of note, and the first of the two things I wanted to mention, is that he says that the dissonance that many felt when playing 4E came partially because most folks jump from Player's Handbook to Player's Handbook across editions, and don't play all the incremental steps that can be found in supplements such as Book of Nine Swords and Unearthed Arcana, which are in a sense (as he puts it) akin to "3.6, 3.7 etc."

I think this is a very good point, and from this WotC seems to have learned that the PHB itself is the core rulebook, and needs to be relatively "vanilla" (in the D&D sense of the word) and adhere closely to D&D tradition. After that, well, you can go wild. And that is the point of the so-called modular approach of 5E.

Secondly, he was pretty elusive about settings but from what he said I'm hopeful that we're going to see something, that he recognizes the value of the classic settings as what makes D&D D&D. But again, he doesn't really say anything specific.

Anyhow, a good interview - some interesting points.

 

[Remathilis]

As a preliminary to the first, Mearls mentions the influence of World of Warcraft and other MMOs on 4E design; I might have missed it, but haven't seen it said so explicitly. But what I found particularly of note, and the first of the two things I wanted to mention, is that he says that the dissonance that many felt when playing 4E came partially because most folks jump from Player's Handbook to Player's Handbook across editions, and don't play all the incremental steps that can be found in supplements such as Book of Nine Swords and Unearthed Arcana, which are in a sense (as he puts it) akin to "3.6, 3.7 etc."

I think that might be true, but there were plenty of people who used (and liked) Star Wars Saga, reserve feats, martial adepts, and a whole lot of late edition 3.5 stuff and STILL found 4e disorientating. I remember personally, feeling fairly confident between all those 2006-7 releases I knew what 4th was going to look like and I was shocked and disappointed.

However, that's all water under the bridge.

 

[Chocolategravy]

he says that the dissonance that many felt when playing 4E came partially because most folks jump from Player's Handbook to Player's Handbook across editions, and don't play all the incremental steps that can be found in supplements such as Book of Nine Swords and Unearthed Arcana, which are in a sense (as he puts it) akin to "3.6, 3.7 etc."

He is either delusional or lying. They admitted the final few 3E books were the playtest for 4E and everyone playing them felt the dissonance. No one felt they were an incremental addition. You ended up with hitting people with a sword which would non-magically cast Heal while in an anti magic field, no-save effects or things like Warlocks nauseating (a very powerful condition) at will. None of that was remotely 3E, they completely ignored all the 3E conventions and core mechanics. People who had been playing 3E for years didn't mind something a bit different, nor did they mind how utterly busted some of it was either, so that is how we got stuck with the tragedy of 4E.

Just don't. Keep it contstructive and don't bash the editions you don't like! - Lwaxy

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What I found most interesting was the talk about PDFs. It sounds like they have ideas of what they'd like to do, but no solid plans. In fact, that seems to describe much of the future of the edition. They're taking a slow, deliberate approach to whatever they do.

 

[ppaladin123]

He is either delusional or lying. They admitted the final few 3E books were the playtest for 4E and everyone playing them felt the dissonance. No one felt they were an incremental addition. You ended up with hitting people with a sword which would non-magically cast Heal while in an anti magic field, no-save effects or things like Warlocks nauseating (a very powerful condition) at will. None of that was remotely 3E, they completely ignored all the 3E conventions and core mechanics. People who had been playing 3E for years didn't mind something a bit different, nor did they mind how utterly busted some of it was either, so that is how we got stuck with the tragedy of 4E. I think this is a very good point, and from this WotC seems to have learned that the PHB itself is the core rulebook, and needs to be relatively "vanilla" (in the D&D sense of the word) and adhere closely to D&D tradition. After that, well, you can go wild. And that is the point of the so-called modular approach of 5E. Secondly, he was pretty elusive about settings but from what he said I'm hopeful that we're going to see something, that he recognizes the value of the classic settings as what makes D&D D&D. But again, he doesn't really say anything specific. Anyhow, a good interview - some interesting points.

[/QUOTE]

I am sure some folks fit Mearls description....had never really explored the splat books at all and were surprised by 4e. I also agree with the above poster who said that some people had read and liked later 3.5e books (e.g. Bo9S) and didn't like 4e. And you are saying that some people read and didn't like the later 3.5e books to begin with. That may be true as well.

However, last time we had a new edition many fans felt alienated by the way it was sold (3e has all these problems and 4e is so much better!). This time around WotC has resolved to bring together folks with all sorts of edition preferences. Even if he thought 4e was a mistake (and I am not saying he does), do you expect him to say, "yeah 4e stinks...we brought back the good stuff!" and alienate all the people who really did enjoy and possibly prefer 4e over past editions? He is trying to unite the fan base and rebuild good will. Nothing good would come out of talking smack about any previous edition.

 

[Andor]

Yeah, the first portion of that interview struck me as a large pile of used horse chow. It was also the most self-congratulatory mea culpa I have ever read.

There was some good stuff in the rest of the interview I thought. It seems clear they do not have a grand strategy. They are still feeling out options with PDFs, and pondering the balance of settings vs adventures vs output rates.

 

[pemerton]

Mearls mentions the influence of World of Warcraft and other MMOs on 4E design; I might have missed it, but haven't seen it said so explicitly.

Here's what I read about WoW/MMOs:

I think what 4th Edition, looking back, what we were trying to do was to start predicting for D&D where we thought the game was heading… so that was a big part of it. So what we think, when people are coming to role-playing games, they’re going to have that MMO background or a video game background.

. . .

[W]hen we thought about the 5th [Edition] Starter Set, should have a choose your own kinda adventure thing? Where for 90% of the people this like the first time they encounter a choose-you-own-adventure style play, they’ve never seen this before. But they’ve probably played a role-playing game… they’ve played Skyrim or [World of] Warcraft or any of those game, so they probably actually know what a role-playing game is. We can probably just assume they know what a role-playing game is and they know they just need to make a character, and let’s just start explaining how this game works

. . .

So a lot of what [we did]with the playtest was get a good sense of the player base, starting there first, then creating the game. Rather than starting more like let’s try and get ahead of the curve, and try and think where we are going to be and then designing to that, and then having the audience catch up to us. And I think both approaches made sense because actually, when you run a game, there are a lot of games which have managed to be ahead of their time or have defined genres, right? Like World of Warcraft is a great example, or first-person shooters like Halo for the console. There are people who are on consoles today because of Halo in 2001 being so cutting edge. So I think there is always a risk when you take something that you think you understand and try to really change it that you can then have that discontinuity.

. . . .

So going in to this knowing At Will magic, I would have been surprised if people didn’t like it. It was popular in 4th Edition, and it just kind of makes sense. That’s the kind of thing too, coming from a computer game background, people who play Skyrim and [World of] Warcraft, well of course you have At Will magic, right? D&D’s kind of a weird outlier where you stick a Wizard with a crossbow once he’s out of spells. Those games have Firebolt or something the Wizard can always throw, so I think that people are just used to that. So it’s not weird that D&D is going that way [too].​

In other words, both 4e and 5e are designed under the assumption that new players coming to them have played online/computer RPGs.

The influence of WoW on 4e was that, like WoW and Halo, 4e tried to be ahead of its time.

The influence of WoW on 5e is that, like WoW and Skyrim, 5e has "pew pew" magic.

Did I miss something?

 

[Mercurius]

In other words, both 4e and 5e are designed under the assumption that new players coming to them have played online/computer RPGs.

The influence of WoW on 4e was that, like WoW and Halo, 4e tried to be ahead of its time.

The influence of WoW on 5e is that, like WoW and Skyrim, 5e has "pew pew" magic.

Did I miss something?

Did you miss something from what Mearls said (or implied) or in terms of the influence of these games on 4e and 5e?

Anyhow, I think that while both were designed with the assumption that new players have played video games, it is clear that 4e tried to incorporate "video game-like" elements more than 5e. Aside from how I might personally feel about that, I don't say this as a judgement, just a statement of observation.

 

[pemerton]

Did you miss something from what Mearls said (or implied) or in terms of the influence of these games on 4e and 5e?

Anyhow, I think that while both were designed with the assumption that new players have played video games, it is clear that 4e tried to incorporate "video game-like" elements more than 5e.

Can you give me the passage from the Mearls interview where he says that "4e tried to incorporate "video game-like" elements more than 5e"? That's what I missed. All I saw was the bits I quoted, where he said that both 4e and 5e are designed keeping in mind that new players will have played computer/MMO RPGs, and where he said that 4e, unlike 5e, tried to "leap ahead" like Halo and WoW.

 

[Mercurius]

Can you give me the passage from the Mearls interview where he says that "4e tried to incorporate "video game-like" elements more than 5e"? That's what I missed. All I saw was the bits I quoted, where he said that both 4e and 5e are designed keeping in mind that new players will have played computer/MMO RPGs, and where he said that 4e, unlike 5e, tried to "leap ahead" like Halo and WoW.

I think it is more implied than directly stated. And of course I'm taking what Mearls said, reading between the lines, and comparing it with my own observations. Even this "leap ahead" idea can be interpreted in this manner - as leaping away from traditional RPG design into a form that incorporates "video game-like" elements.

Out of curiosity, do you disagree that 4E has more "video game-like" elements than 5E? That hardly seems like a controversial statement, especially considering that 5E was clearly an attempt to hearken back to a more traditional game.