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

[Umbran]

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 don't find this to be the case at all. There's usually a number of different flavors that are consistent with a given set of mechanics. Heck, I think it'd make a great creative exercize - take a stat block with no flavor text whatsoever, and think up several critters that are consistent with the set of abilities.

I expect the real issue isn't which one comes first, but which one gets more attention.

 

[Mark CMG]

I expect the real issue isn't which one comes first, but which one gets more attention.

That may be so, and to what degree.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

One thing is nice to know...Mike read the letter, answered it, and apparently is following the discussions his articles generated with an interested mind.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I recommend the seminar! If it's as good as the one that Monte and Mike put on at Gen Con 2004, it's well worth it. Mike is passionate about monsters and putting them in play. Whether or not you agree with everything doesn't matter. He's a good designer and has the game at heart.

 

[Delta]

Excellent post. Let me underscore one thing:

You also state that, “while its attack does good damage, it fails to stack up to other big, beefy monsters at CR 8.” Well, since the ogre mage is supposed to resort to physical combat only when necessary, one would think that its biggest “punch” would be in its spell-like abilities and not in physical combat. The assumption that it has to have a physical attack equal to other CR8 monsters seems to be taking the ogre mage in a direction that contradicts the description.

Not only did Mearls focus on physical combat, he explicitly did his comparison with the Stone Giant, which is physically the toughest monster in the core rules for its CR. I even think that the giant stats are actually broken, myself. If you average Hit Dice and Hit Points for creatures their size in the core rules, the giants are way off the high end of the bell-curve. God forbid that become the new standard for measuring all monsters.

 

[Mercule]

One thing is nice to know...Mike read the letter, answered it, and apparently is following the discussions his articles generated with an interested mind.

True. I'd missed that (serves me right for wandering away to do real work while the editor is open). Kudos to him for doing so.

I do appreciate the web articles as testing grounds for new ideas and ways to gather feedback. That's a great idea.

 

[BOZ]

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.

heh, i'll have to remember that.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[francisca]

Believe me, it took me a long time to finally post this. I wrote it, rewrote it, set it aside, wrote it again, and finally decided I was done. What started as a 2 or 3 paragraph rant became this letter. I did send a copy to Mr. Mearls at the email address shown on his website. If he responds, and if he gives permission, I will let you know what he has to say.

and it was worth it. Nice job, Steve.

 

[Pants]

More importantly, this is a thought exercise and an attempt to create dialog.

I've been saying this since the articles started, yet no one seems to listen. Everbody's is so anxious to promote the 'doom-n-gloom' thought process rather than the 'let's find out what works' that the articles are espousing.

Personally, even if I haven't agreed with the redesigns thus far, I think it's an excellent way to figure out what people want out of the game.

Kudos to you Mike for the idea!