D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked

[Imaro]

You can even ask people what they remember in real life its extremes and distinctions ... steady Freddy is also forgettable.

Sword and sorcery is better handled by games where the sorcerer gets cut down by one blow from a fighting type with better
initiative.

Where magic is inherently evil

Barbarians are better than other types because Civilization is evil (so being low or light armor might help fighting even more)

Doesnt sound so much like D&D to me

There's other sword and sorcery besides Conan... just saying.

 

[Imaro]

I am waiting for his response on this one (I have an answer but want to hear his)

I believe he non-answered... answered earlier in the thread with 4 possible outcomes.

 

[Garthanos]

What WotC could do, is to provide a modular mechanics expansion which may attempt to balance the mundanes with the casters. That is certainly an option and falls within the 5e paradigm.

I am not holding my breath with their release schedule and no decent Warlord on the table. (I could be wrong about the Warlord coming out though if Mearles is exploring bringing troops in battle with in a skill challenge context)

 

[Garthanos]

Achilles was the son of a Nereid in the myths... not a god. Either way the invulnerability that would protect him from the fire comes from an enchantment and not innate ability...something that can actually be replicated by a D&D fighter in nearly any edition.

At birth/infancy because yeh you hand that enchantment out to fighter types all the time and there are actually mechanics for it...

Oh and you think a dispel magic would remove an effect created by the river stix

sheesh

 

[Manbearcat]

...and Fighters remain by a huge margin the most popular Class.

And a likely clinically insane, teenage, illiterate, peasant girl swung the tide of The Hundred Years War by repeatedly charging fortified English positions (which should have been an absolute death sentence) bulwarked by the French zealouts WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVED SHE WAS SENT FROM GOD TO ENSURE CONTINUED FRENCH HEREDITARY RIGHT TO THE THRONE.

Humans are UNBELIEVABLY irrational. And the fact that lots and lots together can believe something or convince themselves of something isn’t interesting. It’s rote human conditioning (and has evolved to become advantageous when facing acute selection pressures).

So the fact that a lot of players who have played D&D for awhile and have internalized a paradigm, or casual players who want a low overhead entry point like vanilla Fighter design isn’t persuasive of any thing in discussions like this. Mearls et al may have to consider that data when discussion design impetus, but we (here on these boards) aren’t constrained by such things. We can discuss design implications on various components of actual play and be unmoored by the signal of (likely cognitive bias-driven) social data. So continuously bringing things up like that (eg “I’m in the majority and your interests are minority!”) are neither interesting nor persuasive to someone like me. They only serve to stifle conversation insofar as I get bored of dealing with that refrain...over...and over...and over...and over...and just check out of conversations (or engaging the board wholesale).

 

[Garthanos]

There's other sword and sorcery besides Conan... just saying.

Elric of Melnibone.. almost all sorcery is a ritual and evil. He uses a weapon instead (and it is evil too damn it). Ends up learning his morality by proxy from Barbarians because his civilized culture is immoral and he also stops wearing the Plate armor he after book one. ( Excuse for lighter armor because he has to be hopped up on drugs early on to wear it later the weapon gives him regeneration and mobility is better than armor )

 

[Parmandur]

And a likely clinically insane, teenage, illiterate, peasant girl swung the tide of The Hundred Years War by repeatedly charging fortified English positions (which should have been an absolute death sentence) bulwarked by the French zealouts WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVED SHE WAS SENT FROM GOD TO ENSURE CONTINUED FRENCH HEREDITARY RIGHT TO THE THRONE.

Humans are UNBELIEVABLY irrational. And the fact that lots and lots together can believe something or convince themselves of something isn’t interesting. It’s rote human conditioning (and has evolved to become advantageous when facing acute selection pressures).

So the fact that a lot of players who have played D&D for awhile and have internalized a paradigm, or casual players who want a low overhead entry point like vanilla Fighter design isn’t persuasive of any thing in discussions like this. Mearls et al may have to consider that data when discussion design impetus, but we (here on these boards) aren’t constrained by such things. We can discuss design implications on various components of actual play and be unmoored by the signal of (likely cognitive bias-driven) social data. So continuously bringing things up like that (eg “I’m in the majority and your interests are minority!”) are neither interesting nor persuasive to someone like me. They only serve to stifle conversation insofar as I get bored of dealing with that refrain...over...and over...and over...and over...and just check out of conversations (or engaging the board wholesale).

I'm pretty sure that St. Joan of Arc would be a Cleric in game terms, not a Fighter. Also, I'm not sure that taking a stance for or against her being sent by God to preserve the French Monarchy is entirely in keeping with board rules, so I shall refrain from stating an opinion on the matter.

However, it seems rather uncouth to explain people's preferences that are different to yours as being born from their being stupidheads at the mercy of blind evolutionary forces.

 

[Garthanos]

So the fact that a lot of players who have played D&D for awhile and have internalized a paradigm, or casual players who want a low overhead entry point like vanilla Fighter design isn’t persuasive of any thing in discussions like this. Mearls et al may have to consider that data when discussion design impetus, but we (here on these boards) aren’t constrained by such things. We can discuss design implications on various components of actual play and be unmoored by the signal of (likely cognitive bias-driven) social data. So continuously bringing things up like that (eg “I’m in the majority and your interests are minority!”) are neither interesting nor persuasive to someone like me. They only serve to stifle conversation insofar as I get bored of dealing with that refrain...over...and over...and over...and over...and just check out of conversations (or engaging the board wholesale).

I do not think bored is the word I would use annoyed is closer...

 

[Manbearcat]

Well that is constructive response if I ever saw one!

And I didn’t say that people are stupid heads or subjugated by evolutionary forces for liking x. What I said was, and used one of the most eminent examples in human history to bear that out, it’s extraordinarily difficult to tease out legitimate signal from cognitive-bias-laden population data. The same goes for Joan’s claims to divine providence vs self-serving, evolutionary psychology-enforced placebo.

And extending that further, using such data isn’t persuasive nor does it fascilitate interesting conversation of the implications of game design on actual play.

 

[Garthanos]

Argument "ad populum" is annoying as hell