An Open Letter: 'Missing the Mark: Mike Mearls’s ‘Revised’ Ogre Mage'

[mearls]

Hey Stephen,

I saw your email and figured I'd save you the trouble of cutting and pasting my replies to the forum. I have a meeting in a few minutes, so I don't have time for a detailed response.

You raise a lot of good points. One of the fun and interesting things about doing the re-designs is that they provoke good conversations. There are a number of different ways that a monster can go when you give it a makeover. The really interesting question to me is, "What is the essence of a monster?" The answer to that seems to vary quite a bit from person to person.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is simply one developer's view of the process. They aren't official, and nothing in the MM is going to change. This is a sort of side project/thought experiment I'm doing. Normally, there would be a team of three working on this. Also, I haven't yet looked at a monster's flavor and background. So far, these have all focused on mechanics.

More importantly, this is a thought exercise and an attempt to create dialog. Eloquent responses such as your own are a huge incentive to continue the series. I want to hear reactions, disagreements, and ideas. They're what helps shape the game. I've read everything posted about the two re-designs and have learned a lot about what people want in the game, what they enjoy, and what they find interesting.

If you (or anyone reading this) is going to be at GenCon, there will be a seminar on Saturday about the monster makeover series. I lucked out and was able to get an event set up at the last minute. It's a two hour talk that will go over the creatures the series has covered, what people liked and dislike, and (if I have time) a live, audience participation re-design of an iconic D&D critter.

Here's the date and time:

Date and Time: Saturday 8/12 at 5pm
Location: Hyatt, Salon A.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Whats amusing is the same grognards griping about the ogre mage redesign and its loss of flavor are the same ones who complain about the monk being out of place...

Hey, now, I've *always* bitched about the monk. Katanas, samurai, and ninja too. More because of my history with the kind of people that play them than the flavor, per se. But Ogre-mages are certainly less iconically Oriental than monks and the rest.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

If you (or anyone reading this) is going to be at GenCon, there will be a seminar on Saturday about the monster makeover series. I lucked out and was able to get an event set up at the last minute. It's a two hour talk that will go over the creatures the series has covered, what people liked and dislike, and (if I have time) a live, audience participation re-design of an iconic D&D critter.

Here's the date and time:

Date and Time: Saturday 8/12 at 5pm
Location: Hyatt, Salon A.

Now that I would have signed up for. I've got games going now, unfortunately. Do you know if anyone is going to make a transcript available?

 

[Kesh]

Personally, I disagree with everything in the letter. The revised Ogre Mage better fits what I think it should entail.

To each their own.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

As I see it there were two reasonable options: (1) hone down the O-M abilities to increase its focus to make it a solid lower CR creature, or (2) beef up the O-M magical abilities to bring it closer to the Oni and let it really weigh in at CR 8.

Mearls chose the first and did an admirable job. The second path has much merit, as well argued for here.

My minor quibble is that I am somewhat skeptical that the O-M of any edition made for a decent Oni, although earlier editions were certainly far closer. But that is not a reason to dissuade one from getting it right here and now.

 

[Mercule]

Bravo, Steve. Like someone else said, I'd sign my name to this letter.

I particularly agree with this last paragraph:

I sincerely hope that these articles do not reflect the direction that D&D is heading for in a 4th edition. If it is, I feel it will change the game in ways I disagree with and will quite likely not support. To me, it feels like the soul, the enjoyable essence of the game, is being removed and replaced with a glorified combat game.

I am at once a supporter and hater of the "balance paradigm". I want to see all characters functional and fun. I don't want everything to revolve around combat, though. I think the worst "behind the scenes" explanation for a 3E change is that many special abilities were removed from fiends and other critters because they weren't often used in combat. WTF? I'm sorry, I thought I was getting a role-playing game, not an expanded wargame.

 

[Mark CMG]

Also, I haven't yet looked at a monster's flavor and background. So far, these have all focused on mechanics.

The approach seems flawed. The mechanics of a game are meant to give the flavor a mathematically-based, common language so the players can resolve the interaction between sometimes seemingly disparate elements. Building the mechanics first, and then overlaying the flavor as afterthought would lead to a shallow, unsatisftying playing experience, IMO.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

I sincerely hope that these articles do not reflect the direction that D&D is heading for in a 4th edition. If it is, I feel it will change the game in ways I disagree with and will quite likely not support. To me, it feels like the soul, the enjoyable essence of the game, is being removed and replaced with a glorified combat game.

I agree with most everyting the O.P. wrote, but this in particular.

 

[Gold Roger]

The approach seems flawed. The mechanics of a game are meant to give the flavor a mathematically-based, common language so the players can resolve the interaction between sometimes seemingly disparate elements. Building the mechanics first, and then overlaying the flavor as afterthought would lead to a shallow, unsatisftying playing experience, IMO.

I think what mearls meant was that so far in his articles he hasn't introduced the aspect of flavor yet. Not that flavor is a secondary step in developement (an impossible approach since developement has to approach everything design handed in, which includes the flavor).

 

[Mark CMG]

I think what mearls meant was that so far in his articles he hasn't introduced the aspect of flavor yet. Not that flavor is a secondary step in developement (an impossible approach since developement has to approach everything design handed in, which includes the flavor).

While that puts a more favorable spin on things that is not likely what he meant since it is not what he actually said. I think he is experimenting with mechanics and currently ignoring the flavor aspects of the game. I think he has not introduced them in his articles yet because they are not a part of this experimentation. That would be in keeping with both what he has said here and the material shared in the article.