D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[overgeeked]

I don't wholly disagree, except this attitude continues the romanticism of a glorious 1-20 campaign that lasts 3-4 years and everyone is deeply invested in their characters and it's forever memorable and epic and... A romantic fantasy that many players will never see.

I friggin hate the romanticism of the grand story campaign, because it's such a big yoke to put around the GM's neck... And honestly as the GM, I fall for the fantasy all the time as well. Start a game at level 1, or 3, or whatever, play it til you're good, and then peace out at 10! You had some good times, go make some new ones.

Why can't the game be 1-10? What about 1-12? Why 1-20, because it's been 1-20 for some decades? Ax some sacred cows!

But then I'm pulled back to reality. WotC bought DnD, Hasbro bought WotC, and they expect a return on their investment. They bought those sacred cows: six stats, saving throws, fighters, fireballs... The game is designed with the assumption that these are going to be there, and later the mechanics are designed for them- not the other way around.

So yeah, 1-20. It's a weight on those designing the game, they need to account for levels that don't really matter as much, but it's a core part of DnD that owners are likely not going to want to ditch.

A whole lot of the hobby is romanticism. People romanticize every aspect of the hobby. That we’ll have time. That we’ll get to play. That we’ll run that one campaign. That we’ll use those books. That we’ll run those modules. That we’ll use those dice or minis. Etc. It’ll be so great when. Someday. Romanticism keeps the hobby alive.

 

[Distracted DM]

So peace out at level 10 then. No one is stopping you.

You probably missed the part where I was talking about how it affected design, or how the romanticism of those higher levels affects me as well even though it's a PITA every time we go that high.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've tried a couple MMOs and bounced off of them because I did not enjoy how they play, and I've played tactical RPGs and love them. As someone with experience with both, 4E is far more like the latter than the former, so seeing someone say 4E is like WoW is grating because it I know from personal experience that it isn't true. We even have evidence of this from the fact that the D&D MMO that came out during 4E plays nothing at all like 4E.

4e combat is tactical with heavy grid reliance (not that you cannot play TotM before anyone needs to post that).

EDIT: But this raises an interesting question as to what do we ascribe as tactical - geometrical areas of affect? turn based combat?

 

[the Jester]

High level play is awesome. Those of you who have never tried it really should. That said, I get that it's hard to keep a group together long enough to go from 1st to 20th level, and that there isn't much support for high level play; but it might be more common if there were more support for it.

I, for one, would be terribly disappointed in a version of dnd that didn't include high levels or their equivalent in some way, even if just in an "epic feat progression" form or something.

 

[TiQuinn]

You probably missed the part where I was talking about how it affected design, or how the romanticism of those higher levels affects me as well even though it's a PITA every time we go that high.

Nah, I just disagree with the first part as most of the official campaigns end somewhere in Tier 3. And the romanticism thing? I mean, you're basically just saying it's a PITA for you therefore jettison it even though other people like it?

 

[Desdichado]

OK well, gonna give that a watch.

It's pretty simple. Reduce monster hp, but increase monster damage.

 

[Distracted DM]

It's pretty simple. Reduce monster hp, but increase monster damage.

Yeah, I asked him some questions about the particulars via Patreon DMs, I'm curious if I get some answers

 

[Desdichado]

I think trying to put out a version of D&D that only goes to level 10 would be a mistake. One of those, "Give them what they want, and they will hate it." situations. Like the TV series that have a romantic "Will they? Won't they?" situation. Everyone says they want to see them get together, but as soon as they do, the show's ratings tank.

That's a totally different issue. The whole point of will they won't they is to see them actually get together. They're just as disappointed if they never resolve it. The problem there is that once the main question of the metaplot (will they, won't they) is resolved, what else is there to do?

Bad simile; little in common.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know what you are talking about. I am exactly saying that WoW was a big influence on 4E. But I am also saying that the people COMPLAINING that 4E was just tabletop WoW and dismissing it as such are being disingenuous.

So direct your indignation elsewhere, please.

Would help if you'd directed your strawman somewhere else first. Nobody says, including the interview with mearls, that 4e was full of WoW mechanics... except you, complaining about the nonexistent people who didn't say it. Don't bring baggage from some other conversation into every one that has the keyword 4e in it. What mearls said is that of course WoW was a massive influence on 4e, because management's directive was to reach out via the design of the game to people who were playing WoW instead of D&D, before everyone playing D&D was playing WoW instead.

Whether or not that was a reasonable fear or not was also part of the discussion. But no, nobody said that 4e was designed to explicitly replicate the WoW experience at the table with WoW mechanics.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

Sounds like Vanity Frankenstein 5E!
I even kept a lot of 6th through 9th level spells as one-off spells accessible as 10th level ability (but with potential drawbacks) and for use as "ancient magic to be uncovered" in dungeons and the like.