D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

I think we could have the best of both worlds if we could re-normalize having a stable of characters at different levels. When the adventure reaches its natural conclusion and you start getting the itch to play some new characters, don’t just toss the old ones aside. Keep them on hold to revisit later. You never know when the urge to play a mid-level one or two shot might strike. When it does, bust those older characters back out, play them through it, and now you’ve got some 8th or 9th level characters in reserve. Forget the epic 1st to 20th level mega campaign, let’s make shorter adventures with a variety of starting levels the new norm.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Even if people don't play to 20th level, they want to see it. There needs to be something that they can look at and dream of attaining, but not actually reach. They want to imagine how cool it would be to be a 20th level Paladin or Wizard. If they get everything they want at 10th level, then after a couple of campaigns they will be done. There will be nothing left to strive for.

Fans want to see (and fight) the 11-20 content.

I keep saying. D&D and D&D clones need to grow up and grow some.

1. Define what the PC equivalent of an Archmage is for a
   1. Pure Martial Warrior
   2. Pure Martial Skill monkey/Thief/Assassin
   3. Half Magical Warrior
2. Define what the Monster equivalent of a Lich is for a
   1. Pure Martial Warrior
   2. Pure Martial Skill monkey/Thief/Assassin
   3. Half Magical Warrior

Every other major Western fantasy IP that goes to Epics has done it. Warhammer. Star Wars. Warcraft. Greek myth. Norse Myth.

The fanbase loves it's broken magic. So TSR, WOTC, and everyone else who wants the full fanbase has to PC warriors and Monster warriors who can wade through the broken magic and keep coming to have epic duels with each other.

This is something MMOs excelled at. All archetypes had PC and enemy variants. You could play a Mac level fighter or mage and fight a fighter or mage at the middle or end of the dungeon. Each class had a tactical purpose in the PC party AND a puzzle to solve as an enemy.

The community wants that broken magic and crazy monsters. Cutting the game down to 10-12 levels or nerfing all the magic to the ground are just the biggest copout solutions the community settles for. Mostly because "Give them what they want, and they will hate it." . The community wants levels 11-20. It has to accept the magic and brokenness, accept the QOL improvement of casters, then accept the required add one to complete the process.

It's the 4E mistake. We have to get the people what they want and make it work instead of removing it, painting over it, or shifting the problem somewhere else. The people want the possibility of fighting a "Darth Vader" or a Lich. No big bag of HP. But also no complex multistage maniacs DMs can't run. Maybe going back to old school magic immunity, teleportation and flight being assumed blast a certain level, and allowing force construct destruction.

I think the high level Vampire in 2025 is a step in the right direction as the Epic Rogue Enemy

 

[mamba]

Even if people don't play to 20th level, they want to see it. There needs to be something that they can look at and dream of attaining, but not actually reach.

I am not dreaming of attaining that, it holds no interest whatsoever. Stopping at 10 is perfectly fine, maybe stop at 12 or 14 if you feel like it, but anything beyond 5th level spells can go away

I’d much rather have them focus on getting that first ‘half’ right than to waste pages on the rest

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Give us a percentage you're comfortable with...because all I see you doing is trying to dilute the association Mearls is making between 4e and WoW. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that WoW influenced the game in a massive way - and that those that were saying so at the time were right? Why are we so afraid of acknowledging the truth?

It certainly doesn't take away from the innovations 4e brought to D&D and the RPG market at large. You know it is perfectly ok for one to like 4e and recognise the impact WoW had on it. It doesn't make one any less of a roleplayer.

 

[aco175]

I’m right now putting together a Tales of the Valiant game, and after reading the comments here I’m pretty sure I’m gonna end it around level 10.

I like to go into level 11 just to give the players a chance to use the cool bump in power at least once. Give them a chance to nova on a group of mooks or put the BBEG here and make it an epic fight.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

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

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder....

Would having spells that have the duration of

1 Attack
Or
Movement

Solved the Bonus Action problem.

Meaning instead of casting Misty Step as a bonus action, it just replaces your movement with 30 ft of walking and a 30ft teleport.

Or Healing word replaces one of your attacks with a attack and heal.

This would have limited the need to use your BA as everything is an action.

I pondered the idea on my own game. Just Actions and Reactions.

 

[Reynard]

Give us a percentage you're comfortable with...because all I see you doing is trying to dilute the association Mearls is making between 4e and WoW. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that WoW influenced the game in a massive way - and that those that were saying so at the time were right? Why are we so afraid of acknowledging the truth?

It certainly doesn't take away from the innovations 4e brought to D&D and the RPG market at large. You know it is perfectly ok for one to like 4e and recognise the impact WoW had on it. It doesn't make one any less of a roleplayer.

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.

 

[Minigiant]

Give us a percentage you're comfortable with...because all I see you doing is trying to dilute the association Mearls is making between 4e and WoW. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that WoW influenced the game in a massive way - and that those that were saying so at the time were right? Why are we so afraid of acknowledging the truth?

It certainly doesn't take away from the innovations 4e brought to D&D and the RPG market at large. You know it is perfectly ok for one to like 4e and recognise the impact WoW had on it. It doesn't make one any less of a roleplayer.

I think it's less the denial the link between 4e and WOW and more denial the link of WOW and D&D.

MMORPGs were more or less Online D&D with the IP scratched off and the DM automated.

Many of the success and innovation of late90s/early00 MMOs were dealing with all the problems D&D & mid 90s MMOs were dealing with that MMOs couldn't ignore to make money. And D&D and TTRPGs are still dealing with it

1. Party Roles
2. Making high level fun
3. Action Economy
4. Not making Healers boring not OP

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Give us a percentage you're comfortable with...because all I see you doing is trying to dilute the association Mearls is making between 4e and WoW. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that WoW influenced the game in a massive way - and that those that were saying so at the time were right? Why are we so afraid of acknowledging the truth?

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.