D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[Reynard]

Though, one of the things that Mearls says--and regrets--is that they were trying to appeal to a new audience with 4e (e.g. people who played WoW but not TTRPGs), and in doing so lost a lot of their 3.x audience

Okay, but that doesn't discount my point. People asserting that 4E was full of WoW mechanics are, at best, exaggerating.

 

[Minigiant]

On the campaigns ending at 7th level thing: 5e should clearly just go to level 10, with some of the good ideas currently in the 11-20 range being rewritten for the 7-10 level range. It's a huge waste of space detailing all the 6-9th level spells that people never use, that could be in an optional book that has the space to more clearly support high level play. Cool high level monster ideas could have rebalanced versions for 9th-10th level characters to fight. But there is a small minority of people who do play high level who don't want to buy a second phb for that material, I suppose.

The issue was that 5e was designed to appeal to older editions fans and those editions literally weren't designed to be played high level in any serious matter. Some races had level limits. Some classes drop off in features after certain levels.

Level 7 was less a sweet spot and more where most campaigns would hit the end of their major arc conclusion. Then the desire to continue when the game only has 2-3 good balanced levels left is outweighed by the desire to play something else.

That's why he says people start a new game right away. Levels 1-7 or 3-9 lets you defeat the BBEG or clear the big dungeon before the game breaks. 5-11 has you play some of the wonky levels too long.

 

[mearls]

This shouldn't have to be said repeatedly, but:

Taking inspiration from and trying to learn some lessons from the success of WoW is NOT the same thing as trying to create tabletop WoW.

Exactly! The main thing that we tried to take away from WoW was a larger focus on tactical combat that offered a puzzle. We felt that would make it easier to DM, plus give players a clearer sense of what they were supposed to do.

I think if we had been allowed to take the D&D Minis game and build a coop version, the game would've been far more successful and much better equipped to bring in new players.

 

[occam]

Truth. I don't know how many times I cried out, while playing A2e, "kite him! My heals are on cooldown. Did anyone aggro the demon? I need to farm his drops for my daily."

Oh, same. All of the 4e games I played sounded just like that.

 

[darjr]

Exactly! The main thing that we tried to take away from WoW was a larger focus on tactical combat that offered a puzzle. We felt that would make it easier to DM, plus give players a clearer sense of what they were supposed to do.

I think if we had been allowed to take the D&D Minis game and build a coop version, the game would've been far more successful and much better equipped to bring in new players.

Dunno if I disagree…

I do feel like saying that the things that make D&D special are not the bits that are like other skirmish or mini war games.

 

[Zardnaar]

Exactly! The main thing that we tried to take away from WoW was a larger focus on tactical combat that offered a puzzle. We felt that would make it easier to DM, plus give players a clearer sense of what they were supposed to do.

I think if we had been allowed to take the D&D Minis game and build a coop version, the game would've been far more successful and much better equipped to bring in new players.

I played that minis game a lot back in the day. 4E felt a bit like advanced version of that.

I lifted it's MR/SR system from it for hone brew. Make spells fail again.

After playing OSR I think there's a sweet spot. More advanced than B/X with options for players less crunchy than 3E+.

I liked the interview comment about 2012 playtest go in different direction.

Big Ideas and Concepts Pre 5E

Thread I started. What works what doesn't across multiple editions. I like 2E spheres for example wouldn't put it in a modern game.

 

[Minigiant]

Dunno if I disagree…

I do feel like saying that the things that make D&D special are not the bits that are like other skirmish or mini war games.

I think an aspect D&D fights with is that parts of it that make D&D most fans that people do like are often married to parts of it that make D&D special that many current fans and most potential fans don't like.

Then adding stuff people like from other media just muddies it further.

Like Bonus Actions and Divine buff spells. How do you get clerics to not be healbots who can do anything but attack BUT not step on the toes of both warrior classes and caster classes AND not be boring as watching grass grow.

 

[tetrasodium]

On the campaigns ending at 7th level thing: 5e should clearly just go to level 10, with some of the good ideas currently in the 11-20 range being rewritten for the 7-10 level range. It's a huge waste of space detailing all the 6-9th level spells that people never use, that could be in an optional book that has the space to more clearly support high level play. Cool high level monster ideas could have rebalanced versions for 9th-10th level characters to fight. But there is a small minority of people who do play high level who don't want to buy a second phb for that material, I suppose.

Just as an Agreeable anecdotal data point... Most of my 5e campaigns ran up through to mid-low teens before I get tired of fixing it in the racetrack of play and started something new.

I run to those levels with what I feel is sound reasoning though and I've only seen one player have an "issue"§ with it.

Back when I first started playing d&d I tended to play magic user type PCs with an eye towards long haul growth even when it meant being weaker early on but it always frustrated me how often it seemed like the campaign would end to start with new PCs new adventures just as the scales felt like they were tilting. Im much older now but still see that outlook and pattern in a lot of players if various class PCs. I find that running campaigns till low to mid teens gives a good chance for me to make sure everyone feels like their of got over the "newbie levels" and had come into serious power that really allows them to showcase "look how far I've come" long enough to not feel like they only reach that point after metaphorically jumping from an airplane.

Having a shorter path absent dead levels (ie like draw steel's 10 level spread solves both problems


§ said player was the kid of another player and it's not important why the kid was bad socially but his dislike was from the desire to minmax with CharOp so they could have the most powerful build at the table for most of the game. That in itself wasn't as big a problem was his desire to "win" and tendency to completely ignore anything said to him if I [the gm] tried to work with him on CharOp. Obviously he couldn't do that when I couldn't/wouldn't tell him and he was too hung up on a fantasy to work with others m

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Regarding high level games, in my most recent gaming group there were three rotating DMs (myself included) and high levels were reserved for one-shots, mini-campaigns, and team-based PVP events with a focus on power gaming and minmaxing. We had one where we fought Orcus and a retinue of high CR undead, and one where we fought Vlaakith, Tiamat, and Asmodeus in succession.

Myself, I've run one campaign to 20th, one to 16th, and one to 12th.

 

[Jaeger]

On the campaigns ending at 7th level thing: 5e should clearly just go to level 10, with some of the good ideas currently in the 11-20 range being rewritten for the 7-10 level range. It's a huge waste of space detailing all the 6-9th level spells that people never use, that could be in an optional book that has the space to more clearly support high level play. Cool high level monster ideas could have rebalanced versions for 9th-10th level characters to fight. But there is a small minority of people who do play high level who don't want to buy a second phb for that material, I suppose.

Yes.

I've always thought that if you cap HP progression around lvl 6 or so. And the 6-9 th level spells are largely yeeted along with the "skip button" spells; you can design a whole game of 20 levels around the 'sweet spot'.

Though, one of the things that Mearls says--and regrets--is that they were trying to appeal to a new audience with 4e (e.g. people who played WoW but not TTRPGs), and in doing so lost a lot of their 3.x audience

All under the auspices of RPGs "dying"...

In my opinion; RPGs go through cycles of popularity that the RPG companies can only do so much about.

5e got released right at the beginning of a wave, and they had a game that largely didn't get in it's own way to ride it.


I have a pet theory that editions have to basically hit rock-bottom before the fanbase will accept a proper revision of the game.

It seems to take about 15 years: (3.x/PF1 and AD&D2e)