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

[pemerton]

My take on this issue is 4E tried to compete with WoW by emphasizing similarities and the more structured mechanics in MMOs.

5E is trying to compete with WoW by emphasizing the differences, the human factor of the DM.

Maybe it's just because I'm not familiar enough with 3E, but I don't really see how 4e is more structured in its mechanics than 3E is.

1st ed AD&D also had rather structured mechanics, at least as written.

You use the word "emphasise", and maybe you are intending that to carry a lot of the weight of your comment: ie it's not so much that 4e is atypically structured in its mechanics, but that it emphasises that structure.

I can think of two different ways of emphasising a mechanical feature (there are probably others). One is this: the play experience makes the feature salient to the participants in the game. Here are two examples where I think 4e does this more than 1st ed AD&D: in-combat movement rules; and hit points/damage.

AD&D has rules for in-combat movement speed. However, it's rules around positioning and AoE mean that movement speed is mostly an issue when closing into, or retreating from, melee, but don't really come into play when a melee itself is being resolved. Whereas in 4e, with its rules for OAs, forced movement, etc makes the movement rules salient not only at the beginning and end of a melee, but during it also. So 4e emphasises the structured movement rules in a way that AD&D doesn't.

AD&D, like 4e, treats a lot of hit point damage to PCs as non-physical. But it doesn't generally make this salient in play; whereas 4e, with second wind and inspirational healing tied to healing surges, does so. So 4e emphasises the non-physical character of hit points in a way that AD&D doesn't. (This isn't really about structured mechanics, but it still illustrates a way in which a system can emphasise a certain feature of the mechanics.)

The other way in which a RPG system can emphasise a mechanical feature is via presentation. To me, the functional difference between a 4e wizard's spell abilities and an AD&D wizard's spell abilities is relatively modest: both choose abilities from a list, with some choices being made during creation and others after a long rest; and both have a certain rationing scheme for those abilities. The differences pertain to the length of the list, the scope of the choices to be made after a long rest, and the details of the rationing scheme. At high levels, these differences are likely to be highly noticeable but at the lowest levels of play I think they're really rather small (the existence, in 4e, of at-will spells and short-rest recovery spells is the most noticeable one).

But some people seem to think the presentation of a 4e wizard's spell abilities, as instances of a more general shceme of AEDU powers, makes them radically different from the more traditional presentation in the form of a spell-slot per level chart and an appendix of spells filling the back half of the book.

For these people, at least, the 4e presentation emphasises the structure of wizard magic (in terms of choosing from lists, rationing at certain rates, etc) in a way the traditional presentation doesn't, even though in terms of play experience the difference is really quite modest, and mostly pertains to the details of rationing.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My take on this issue is 4E tried to compete with WoW by emphasizing similarities and the more structured mechanics in MMOs.

5E is trying to compete with WoW by emphasizing the differences, the human factor of the DM.

I think that's a pretty good insight. Assuming you're right, the 5E strategy is much better. An RPG is never going to be a better MMO than an MMO and trying is a losing proposition.

I don't honestly understand how there's a debate about about WoW's influence on 4E. At the time4E came out, I'd played every edition since 1980 and I played WoW for about 2 years, so I was pretty familiar with both, and when I read the 4E books I saw stuff that looked like WoW to me all through it. I know it's controversial and I don't care to debate the particulars, but that was definitely my impression.

 

[Li Shenron]

...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 agree, that part really stood out from the interview.

In the 3e era, I bought the 3 core, the 5 early class-oriented splatbooks, a few 3rd-party books, some FR and then Rokugan books. I never switched to 3.5, except buying Unearthed Arcana, but I've always considered that a long-term investment with modular ideas to use in specific campaigns, not a natural progression of the game.

It now makes a lot of sense to me, to think that people who bought all supplements and used them in their games were following a sort of evolution of the 3e edition, and that 4e might have been a not so giant step in the same direction.

This might explain why instead 4e didn't feel like D&D to me, because to me D&D stopped at the core books (the early supplements were almost harmless, even tho they had some potentially game-changing feat or other game element). And that was because IMHO each non-core book is optional and is bought by a minority of people compared to the totality of those playing the edition.

Apparently at WotC they made 4e with that minority in mind, assuming such minority was playing the game "right" or was to be rewarded for their loyalty. Which kind of makes sense, but if the majority doesn't follow up, you can't blame them either...

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't honestly understand how there's a debate about about WoW's influence on 4E. At the time4E came out, I'd played every edition since 1980 and I played WoW for about 2 years, so I was pretty familiar with both, and when I read the 4E books I saw stuff that looked like WoW to me all through it. I know it's controversial and I don't care to debate the particulars, but that was definitely my impression.

Pretty much this. In fact, I don't understand why one side uses the comparison to offend and the other receives it as an offense. WoW is a great game, with some really cool things that a good PnP RPG would do no harm in trying to emulate, and some of 4E's iconic features are just that. Defender characters (well, the 3E knight was a defender before 4E defenders, surely), the easiness of out-of-combat recovery and the idea that all characters are activating non-basic abilities all the time are some that come to my mind.

Also, it's worth saying that some of the most controversial 4E things have absolutely no relation to WoW. Damage on a miss and inspirational healing are good examples. I'm not a 4E fan, for example, and my initial resistance to it is more about presentation than anything else. The dryness of the game, the fact that a ton of old favorites, from both sides of the screen, were missing in action, and let's not even begin to discuss the dire changes to the implied setting. Also, there was a general feel of "hell, I don't believe you're denying me the druid in order to force me into your splatbook threadmill".

As a fan of pre-4E and post-4E D&D, I disagree with Mearls that the disconnect happened because people were not playing with sword sages or warlocks. D&D players are generally creative people, they're open to new things, but as with anyone else, they're certainly more comfortable when newness is presented with a package of familiar things, not "even more newness". In face of the rumors that the Elder Elemental Eye will be invading the Realms in 2015, I really hope they're not learning the wrong lessons.

 

[GSHamster]

Maybe it's just because I'm not familiar enough with 3E, but I don't really see how 4e is more structured in its mechanics than 3E is.

1st ed AD&D also had rather structured mechanics, at least as written.

You use the word "emphasise", and maybe you are intending that to carry a lot of the weight of your comment: ie it's not so much that 4e is atypically structured in its mechanics, but that it emphasises that structure.

I'm primarily an MMO player. Here's how I see 4E moved closer to MMOs (at least those of the WoW generation)

1, More defined roles. MMOs of that generation are heavily governed by the Trinity (tank-healer-damage), and the mechanics enforce those roles. As a result, classes tend to heavily specialize into their role. 4E classes aim at more defined roles than classes in previous editions. Before 4E, classes may have fallen into a role de facto. In 4E, classes were put into roles de jure.

2. The encounter as the central unit. Most MMOs approach each encounter fresh. HP are back to full, resources are back to the starting point, etc. The state of the PC as combat starts is independent of what happened in previous encounters. Prior to 4E, this was very much not true for D&D. The initial state of the PC depended heavily on the previous enounters. 4E, especially with elements like encounter powers, moved a lot closer to the MMO state.

3. Powers for all classes, especially non-magic ones. Before 4E, warriors just attacked. In 4E they used specific powers. This is closer to an MMO non-magical class.

4. More emphasis on tactical movement, including positioning and things like knockbacks, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that these are bad changes. Again, I'm primarily an MMO player so I like MMO mechanics.

What I'm saying is that in late 3E WotC took a look at its players and its competition. Where were the people (geeky gamers) who normally played D&D? What WotC saw was a lot of people, who in the past would be playing D&D, were playing games like WoW instead.

I believe WotC saw MMOs as their primary competition, not pen-and-paper companies like Pazio. When faced with competition like this, there are generally two ways to go:

1. Assimilate the best parts of your competition. Maybe WotC's research showed that people liked the stronger mechanics of MMOs. That non-mages liked having cool powers. So that's the tack they took with 4E. They attempted to compete with MMOs by incorporating what they saw as best parts of the MMO game mechanics.

2. Emphasize the differences. The most important difference between an MMO and D&D is the human DM. The human DM does some stuff poorly comparatively (mathematical calculations) and some stuff a lot better (handling social, unexpected situations). This is the tack that 5E is taking.

I think that 4E failed because WotC misunderstood the best parts of MMO mechanics. The "killer" mechanics of MMO are not the combat ones, it is the social ones. The ability to play with other people far more easily than in the real world.

Those of you with real life gaming groups are incredibly lucky. Every so often I try to get a tabletop gaming group going, and it just never works out. But I find it far easier to join a guild or get a group going in an MMO. Not to mention that I can play an MMO far more often and in a more convenient fashion.

 

[technoextreme]

That was my experience. The terminology of strikers, controllers, marking, etc. was absolutely baffling to my players. Not only were the terms alien, but we had never thought of classes in terms of their tactical role (we never used a grid). Wizards use magic. Fighters fight things. Thieves sneak around and steal things. When a player wanted to create a Ranger, I explained to him there were two kinds - a Hunter, who was a controller (we were playing Essentials), and a Scout, who was a striker. He didn't know what I was talking about. And when I explained it, he still didn't really understand, being unaccustomed to thinking of classes in terms of a tactical combat role. He ended up taking the striker (Scout) because it looked easier.

I can't speak for people coming to 4E from MMOs, but a group of players coming to the game (even the more traditional Essentials version) with 30 years experience found it a jarring transition. In the end we quite enjoyed it, but as a game with a different focus and mindset than we were accustomed to. We played for eight months, and none of my players ever bought a 4E book, more or less relying on me to run the mechanics of the game. But after an introduction to the 5E PHB and a couple hours going over character generation, they all went out and bought the PHB.

The problem with this argument is that guess what game introduced the concept of a defender, the concept of a striker, and the concept of a healer/leader. Its the same game you played over thirty years ago. Except thirty years ago Gygax didn't really call it striker, healer, and defender. They were wizard, fighter, and cleric.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem with this argument is that guess what game introduced the concept of a defender, the concept of a striker, and the concept of a healer/leader. Its the same game you played over thirty years ago. Except thirty years ago Gygax didn't really call it striker, healer, and defender. The class designs were more akin to what you would expect.

Not quite...

The AD&D 1e core classes (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, Thief) don't map to their 4e assigned roles as well as we think.

A fighter in 1e could be a "defender" due to his high AC/HP, but he lacked anything remotely "sticky" about him and a % strength made him the best non-magical damage dealer in the game.

A cleric was a healer, but aside from a few minor buffs (bless, prayer) he wasn't as big a leader as 4e's cleric. The concept of lazer clerics (who stood back and shot/buffed and healed) is completely foreign; clerics got heavy armor and d8 HD to be in melee with fighters.

A magic-user had some control magic (sleep, web, charm) but he was the number one "striker" due to great attack spells like magic missile, cone of cold, and lightning bolt. While a MU was appreciated for his attack magic, he was REALLY liked for his utility spells like dispel magic, fly, knock, and teleport. Which is why the wizard's "control" power felt really weak; he wasn't really much of a controller before.

A thief was a piss-poor striker. Backstab rarely equaled a solid fighter hit, let alone a magical spell, and it was often a "once per combat if lucky" thing. Rogue were explorers who best avoided combat rather than ducked in with grace and speed.

So the 4e roles are really attempts to make the classes into what people THOUGHT they were, rather than what they actually were.

 

[Haffrung]

Not quite...

The AD&D 1e core classes (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, Thief) don't map to their 4e assigned roles as well as we think.

A fighter in 1e could be a "defender" due to his high AC/HP, but he lacked anything remotely "sticky" about him and a % strength made him the best non-magical damage dealer in the game.

A cleric was a healer, but aside from a few minor buffs (bless, prayer) he wasn't as big a leader as 4e's cleric. The concept of lazer clerics (who stood back and shot/buffed and healed) is completely foreign; clerics got heavy armor and d8 HD to be in melee with fighters.

A magic-user had some control magic (sleep, web, charm) but he was the number one "striker" due to great attack spells like magic missile, cone of cold, and lightning bolt. While a MU was appreciated for his attack magic, he was REALLY liked for his utility spells like dispel magic, fly, knock, and teleport. Which is why the wizard's "control" power felt really weak; he wasn't really much of a controller before.

A thief was a piss-poor striker. Backstab rarely equaled a solid fighter hit, let alone a magical spell, and it was often a "once per combat if lucky" thing. Rogue were explorers who best avoided combat rather than ducked in with grace and speed.

Exactly. The fighter was a defender and a striker. The cleric was a front-line melee guy who could also heal (typically outside of combat). The magic-user could do all kinds of things, much of it outside of combat. And the thief was flat-out bad at combat and contributed with expertise outside of combat and setting up advantageous context for combats.

So the 4e roles are really attempts to make the classes into what people THOUGHT they were, rather than what they actually were.

Or rather, into what people who focused on tactical combat encounters as the central element of the game thought they should be.

 

[D'karr]

Or rather, into what people who focused on tactical combat encounters as the central element of the game thought they should be.

Which is the only time the roles are actually needed - combat. A player can play a charismatic "talky mctalktalk" fighter simply by investing in a skill feat, and spending points in the CHA ability score. The role does not limit that in any way. Roleplaying doesn't limit that in any way. Any obstacles are completely self-inflicted by the player/DM.

All the role does is simplify the "nomenclature/descriptor" so the user knows, in combat, what way the class performs best. You can also "break away" or "bend away" from that combat role by either multiclassing, or expenditure in particular feats.

In addition the roles allowed the broad classification of classes so that specific things of that role could be "mapped" to the classes. A warden and a fighter both have "defender" as their combat role. However, in play they actually play very differently though they both fit that combat role.

 

[technoextreme]

Not quite...

The AD&D 1e core classes (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric, Thief) don't map to their 4e assigned roles as well as we think.

I was referring to OD&D which was a re-fluffed tactical war game. Hence the reason why as you even said that the wizard maps out to a striker role because the role the wizard originally had was field artillery.

So the 4e roles are really attempts to make the classes into what people THOUGHT they were, rather than what they actually were.

I think 4E mainly made the roles a bit more streamlined and obvious more than anything. Without reading about early editions of D&D its easy to miss what those roles were because they come out of left field.