D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd like Intelligence to have an impact on physical combat. Watch the boxing match from the first RDJ Sherlock Holmes film, where he invokes the "awesome by analysis" trope to predict not only what his opponent will do, but comes up with a strategy to defeat his opponent in the most efficient way, including a diagnosis for the injuries he deals.

Fundamentally, this is why I think the game made the most sense when the dominant measure of how competent a warrior was was being in a warrior-type class and their level. The WotC-era push to focus on attributes as at-least-equal to level and class selection (particularly with 4e/5e, where you can't even choose a class with more BAB, as you could in 3e/PF) was a decision with some interesting downstream consequences. Back in 2e, we often made relatively high-int fighters -- admittedly in part because gauntlets of ogre power were plentiful, and they could turn their extra languages into weapon proficiencies (which could become fighting styles, specialization, etc.), and if you were human you might well be dual-classing into mage sometime later anyways -- but also had to be really really strong for it to make much difference, whereas just being a fighter and gaining levels was your primary way of getting better at hitting (and a +X magic weapon helped with damage as much as most strength scores did).

 

[Haplo781]

Fundamentally, this is why I think the game made the most sense when the dominant measure of how competent a warrior was was being in a warrior-type class and their level. The WotC-era push to focus on attributes as at-least-equal to level and class selection (particularly with 4e/5e, where you can't even choose a class with more BAB, as you could in 3e/PF) was a decision with some interesting downstream consequences. Back in 2e, we often made relatively high-int fighters -- admittedly in part because gauntlets of ogre power were plentiful, and they could turn their extra languages into weapon proficiencies (which could become fighting styles, specialization, etc.), and if you were human you might well be dual-classing into mage sometime later anyways -- but also had to be really really strong for it to make much difference, whereas just being a fighter and gaining levels was your primary way of getting better at hitting (and a +X magic weapon helped with damage as much as most strength scores did).

Back in the day when ability scores were 3d6 6 times straight across and an 18 gave you a +2, yeah.

 

[MwaO]

They aren't interested in anything beyond "X% of players like/dislike this thing."

Right. I'm saying their survey structure wasn't even designed to determine that.

 

[Mistwell]

Video #5 Questions Continued from this prior post.

Question regarding errata issues for balance topics: First they would release a playtest document, likely multiple times with interactions. Then they would likely issue a new subclass which addresses the issues which givens DMs the option to replace the older subclass. Then they could offer a new class option for the class, as an optional rule. [Note: These are things they did in Tasha's, but were considering it as a means of addressing issues all the way back in 2015!]

On conversion guides for converting an older campaign from a prior edition to 5e: They are working on conversion guides. The DMG has levelled treasure packages as a guideline.

If a person wants to continue with prior edition character that has a lot more complexity than the level initially in 5e: It's tricky. Everything which showed up in a PHB in a prior edition has some analogue in 5e. For example, Warlord elements can be found in Battlemaster fighter options. They don't intend to have as many mechanical options though. They are focusing on the most popular elements from prior editions. You won't get to replicate a Xeph Psion from day one for instance as Psionics will take a while for them to get to.

 

[Jaeger]

Why do people insist that WOTC doesn't know what they're doing? They made some decisions you don't agree with, that doesn't make them incompetent.

I will say that they were certainly trying.

I am currently going through the video's, and while giving some answers - they have generated a much longer list of questions...

It's not a matter of "ingrained," like you keep repeating.

This was literally their explicit design intent. They explicitly wanted HP growth (note how you always call it "bloat," in order to inject disdain for the concept right from the start, as opposed to a neutral word like "growth") to be the only remaining major demonstration of growing character power. You gain levels, and as a result, you cease to be scared of orcs and goblins; sure, they might hit you, but you can take a dozen such hits now no sweat. Thus you can actually have a dozen thrown at you and you're okay with that.

If someone says they want to remove the one thing the designers explicitly said was meant to represent character growth, it's not that big a leap to then ask "sooooo... what's going to replace that then? Because that's what the game was explicitly built to show advancement through." It's why BM Fighters get more extra attacks and bigger dice, but not better maneuvers, just more maneuvers.

Except that it is ingrained as you proved with your response to DEFCON 1's post.

You admit that you immediately assumed a whole list of things that were off the table when he only mentioned one thing.

And it's not just you - nor the design goals of 5e - I have gotten a similar response no matter what edition was being discussed when I have floated a similar idea in this and other forums.

"the one thing the designers explicitly said was meant to represent character growth" Obviously, they Lied.

Why else do they have stat increases, skill increases, and more class abilities as PC's Level Up? That's a bit more than one. It's also more than enough to represent character growth. Without HP Bloat it give a 'shallower' power curve to PC advancement. Personally I find Higher level HP power levels to be largely illusionary anyway as everything is scaled to PC power levels by design.

And yes, I do hold Higher level HP Bloat in contempt because it is something that has led to mechanical scaling issues in every WotC edition of D&D which they have consistently failed to properly address. In spite of all their vaunted "playtesting".

 

[Mistwell]

Video #6 Questions

Question about the Free Basic Rules and OGL and Piracy issues:

Mearls felt making a version of the game free is helpful in reducing piracy. But ultimately making people a fan of D&D first is the most likely way to get them to buy content later (though he thinks the analysis is different for indie creators). He doesn't view the job of WOTC to be law enforcement. Mearls engaged in piracy for video games in his youth, like Ultima III, which led him to buying Ultima V later. He did the same with Napster, and then eventually moved to buying in iTunes because the storage stays on the cloud and was always there even when you switch computers or platforms. Piracy in his mind is just people sharing stuff as introductory, and if the content is high enough quality, and the physical book is high enough quality in art and texture and such, people will buy it. The best way to counter piracy is to offer a service customers really want.

Similarly Mearls mentions with digital products, doing something which makes the features and game faster and usability so great you'd want to pay for that rather than a static version is the key. [Note: This predicts DNDBeyond]

The basic game is intended to lower the barrier to try the game. A one-shot for a friend to try the game is accessible if they can just download those rules and sit down and play, or like at a convention. The goal is to make it easier for people to join us in our completely awesome hobby.

Question about the secret to a really good process: Iteration is part of it, and iterating with a purpose. Trust with the people you're working with is also highly important. Finally, having clear goals and vision early on so people know what they are working towards and not working at cross processes. Knowing your goals doesn't mean knowing your end product. Just that you know what you're constantly working towards philosophical objectives.

Questions: Which mechanics were difficult to say no to? Mearls says he really liked using dice instead of static bonuses, like plus 1d4 instead of +2, but nobody agreed with him. Some class mechanics, like the charge action, were kept out for good reasons. Like it undermined fast turns. Flanking was similar. There was a lot of argument about bonus actions and it was originally rejected by Mearls and took 3 months of persuasion and convinced Mearls it was his idea (though it was not).

Playtesting the DMG: The focus was what would make the DMs job easier. Lists of treasure were roughly done on just asking experienced DMs what they thought would be appropriate for a level. Playtest DMs sometimes drove the optional rules in DM, with requesting optional tools to add. Adding some additional styles of play which slightly varied from the core styles. DMG was the hardest book to do. They couldn't really do iterative testing the same way.

Questions on Monster races? They wanted to get away from penalties. Considering a lot of options on how to handle that. Not sure about the savage species route. Ability score penalties were not really dinging characters - if you had a negative charisma dwarf, you typically just wouldn't play a sorcerer and dumping charisma was not meaningful.

Question on contracting out Mayfair games: Mearls says don't want to dilute their focus. They don't tend to want to do other RPGs, unless they were adapting 5e to something else, because they are a big fan of slowly improving things over time with iteration and you lose that if you start from scratch with a whole new thing.

Question about the number of books people like to acquire: Mearls repeated people tend to buy the core books, and then four expansion books over a decade. Their mindset changed to much more user experience and looking at a big picture for the game. When looking at a new product they have to ask what it brings to the table. They are focused on cultural milestones and ways to make a new book an event and not just the next thing for the next month. Get people talk about D&D, even if they don't plan to buy something. They do a product because they can tell a story about that product that makes sense and exiting and is engaging. For example "The biggest dungeon ever published for D&D" and here is the book for the DM, and here is the book for the players with character options and cool lore. Things with backgrounds specific to the locations and setting. Things which can ground a character in that campaign.

They are being more story and adventure focused. By expansions people tend to think of mechanics and crunchy, and so maybe they will focus on just four big mechanics focused expansions with a lot of other books on story and adventure. So they're not always dumping a giant book of new mechanics out there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not sure that tracks though. After all, the exact same argument applied to ASI's and now we have floating ASI's. It's far simpler, after all, if all halflings get a Dex bonus or all Goliath's get a Str bonus.

I'm not sure they need to explain it at all. After all, they don't really explain it now. We accept Str and Dex for attacks because, well, we've had it that way for fifty years. But, there's no actual reason for it to be like that. And, if the arguments against floating ASI's don't really hold much water, I'm not sure that allowing players to choose their "attack" stat is all that different.

Valid counterargument. Can't disagree. My only possible response from WotC's point of view might be that D&D has never really been a game where you can "play anything" per se.... that's the whole point of having Classes and Races after all-- contained and set packages of both story and mechanics. So perhaps from their way of thinking maybe they don't see a Fighter as an overarching umbrella term of "people that fight" in whatever manner they choose to... but rather the Fighter class is a set package wherein they use melee and ranged weapons via STR and DEX? That's just their story as WotC has designed it?

I have no idea if that is in fact true or not-- I'm just shooting spitballs here trying to find an argument that fits the facts as we've seen them thus far-- but maybe that's just their way of thinking and design? For the most part and traditionally over the editions Fighters use STR, Thieves/Rogues use DEX, Clerics use WIS, and Wizards use INT. And for the most part that hasn't/doesn't change.

That being said... I personally would have no problem seeing the spellcasting classes use any of the three mental stats (or even four if you throw in CON) for casting, perhaps depending on their domain/school... and thus wouldn't have any real issue with warrior types using any of the six stats for their attack mod either. I mean after all... most PCs are attacking with a +5 at 1st level regardless (+3 mod plus +2 prof bonus), so who really cares how they get there?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure. They're at least easier to point to directionally in a "probably strong" vs. "probably weak" kind of way (though even that could be misleading for various fantasy reasons).

But "probably smart", "probably wise", "probably charismatic"... without the external class contexts.. good luck.

again books and covers... I agree especially when you factor in being a fantasy. heck isn't there a trope about the small guy kicking everyones butt... maybe it's the same concept as the big jock being the smartest person in the room.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Back in the day when ability scores were 3d6 6 times straight across and an 18 gave you a +2, yeah.

and fighters got the equivalent of +1 to hit every level after 1st

 

[Mistwell]

Video #7

Focus on not just selling to people who are already playing the game by making sure marketing and advertising is comprehensible to someone who has never played.

For new character classes, which they have not done so far, they'd first ask "What's the hook that's going to make a person want to play that." There is no magic single formula for making a new class it's very focused on who that class would appeal to and providing mechanics which serves those expectations. Their big question is, is this a sub-type of an existing class or a truly new type of class. Most will be a new type of sub class.

Question which seems to be about how D&D is a very maker culture and a marketplace for...3d printed figures? Hard to hear the lengthy question but Hasbro has some agreement in place to acquire something along that lines maybe but nothing to announce. [This could be a hint on what is coming with the VTT. They could add you make your own PC digital figure, or a marketplace to buy your own digital figure.]

Monster CR Question: Effectively what they do is break it down to a monsters offensive and defensive strength considering accuracy, and then features and special attacks and legendary actions all feed into it. How long will this monster live is a question asked before adjusting. And then baseline numbers for how difficult a monster is derived from an average player numbers. They then compare that CR 1 baseline to that monster's offense and defense. It's a very complicated Excel spreadsheet.

Question about Rich Burlew's campaign that was never published: Some of his setting ended up in Eberron, like the undead elves. They did buy all three winning settings from the setting contest.

And that concludes this 7th and final video summary.