D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[Tigris]

4E connection to MMO also comes from other sources like Art and Arcana book. People have been gaslighting the MMO connection for years essentially claiming what you're saying. No one recently has actually said 4E is WoW on paper.

They are saying there's an influence. Hard coded roles and refresh/encounter powers make it hard to not see it.

Jonathan Tweet also said in a Grandmother Fish AMA interview 4E was a disaster which lines up with what Mearls is saying about 4E alienating the playerbase.

Jonathan Tweet was the lead designer of D&D 3E and not involved in 4E so what he says has absolutly no relevance either and its clear that he does like his baby better.


Also the Art in 4E looks like Magic the Gathering art. As in it has the same artists and same artstyle. Again this may look similar to WoW, but this has to do with WoW, like MANY MANY games is inspired by Magic the Gathering.


Also instead of embaracing yourself by posting wrong things why not read the post I linked? In the video I linked Andy Collins specifically states that the roles come directly from organized play from D&D.

It is not that specialization is only shown in WoW. There are Jobroles, there are roles in soccer etc. everything teambased works better with specialized roles.

Also again if you would read my post, and try to understand the gamedesign behind, it is pretty easy to see that cooldowns (WoW) and refresh per encounter and per day (which btw. is how spells worked in D&D before as well. Vancian Spellcasting is daily spells) is mechanically not the same as cooldowns. The trick is to try to not only look at the superficial "oh both limit how often you can do something", but what gameplay is created by the mechanic.

Your claims don't even rise to the level of a Wikipedia check. Mike started as a designer in 2005, and was part of the "flywheel" design team that led the design from that point until the launch in 2008.

That's why we take what he says about 4e more seriously than what you say; he was there and you weren't.

Then maybe check a bit deeper? Like the interview I posted? Which clearly states that in the beginning only 3 people were involved. James Wyatt, Andy Collins and Rob Heinso.


The flywheel team started later (the 9 months I mentioned). And in the first player handbook of D&D 4E you can see that Mike Mearls was NOT a designer but developer.


This can also be read in the book Wizards Presents: Races and Classes - Wikipedia which clearly states that 4E development started early 2005 and mearls joinsed in october in the development process.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

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!

I think the game should serve both populations, and the DM's guide should explicitly discuss both.

It should talk about lower power, more earthbound games running "just" 1-10, or even less. And talk about how to run more powerful games with superhuman characters level 11+. And it should describe how both can be epic and awesome and satisfying. And their individual virtues. 10- games can be quicker, if you want, and fit more easily into a timeframe people can commit to. And higher level games can really dwell with the characters if you want, and give them crazier options for shenanigans.

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

100% with all of that, although it's funny to see you describe that as "the 4E mistake", when 4E was the edition which did the best job of making epic levels fun and runnable, and the one which made martials able to compete equally to casters. 4E got the closest of any edition to really nailing this design goal.

I do agree that you don't want to entirely eliminate the high level crazy magic, and that in a couple of places 4E did go too far, like eliminating Wish from the core rules.

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.

Yup. MMOs bore me to tears. 4E was fun (although it could become broken and drag with too many off-turn actions).

I feel like this statement will be controversial to several folks who love 4e.

Mike's statements that 4E wanted to make combat more tactically interesting and puzzle-y, that it wanted to make DMing easier, and make "what to do" clearer for players, are uncontroversial and things it was good at.

 

[Minigiant]

100% with all of that, although it's funny to see you describe that as "the 4E mistake", when 4E was the edition which did the best job of making epic levels fun and runnable, and the one which made martials able to compete equally to casters. 4E got the closest of any edition to really nailing this design goal.

The 4E mistake was realizing people didn't realize what they'd have to give up in order to get want they wanted so they have to make a decision.

It's like that joke of a man's wife or girlfriend asking to eat out, not making a decision on where, then not liking your decision. No matter how many times you asked for them to.

On my 3rd veto from mine for the next one. Sign.

 

[Mannahnin]

The 4E mistake was realizing people didn't realize what they'd have to give up in order to get want they wanted so they have to make a decision.

It's like that joke of a man's wife or girlfriend asking to eat out, not making a decision on where, then not liking your decision. No matter how many times you asked for them to.

On my 3rd veto from mine for the next one. Sign.

I think I mostly follow, but that first sentence feels like it's missing a word or something.

Do you ever play the 5-2-1 game for picking a restaurant? You give them 5 options, they pick any 2, and you pick the 1?

Or just ask them to guess where you're taking them, then take them to wherever they guess?

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the game should serve both populations, and the DM's guide should explicitly discuss both.

It should talk about lower power, more earthbound games running "just" 1-10, or even less. And talk about how to run more powerful games with superhuman characters level 11+. And it should describe how both can be epic and awesome and satisfying. And their individual virtues. 10- games can be quicker, if you want, and fit more easily into a timeframe people can commit to. And higher level games can really dwell with the characters if you want, and give them crazier options for shenanigans.


100% with all of that, although it's funny to see you describe that as "the 4E mistake", when 4E was the edition which did the best job of making epic levels fun and runnable, and the one which made martials able to compete equally to casters. 4E got the closest of any edition to really nailing this design goal.

I do agree that you don't want to entirely eliminate the high level crazy magic, and that in a couple of places 4E did go too far, like eliminating Wish from the core rules.


Yup. MMOs bore me to tears. 4E was fun (although it could become broken and drag with too many off-turn actions).


Mike's statements that 4E wanted to make combat more tactically interesting and puzzle-y, that it wanted to make DMing easier, and make "what to do" clearer for players, are uncontroversial and things it was good at.

4E epic levels were on paper only. They basically stretched level 3-10 over 30 levels and bloated the HP.

Pull out a 4E phb and look at the level 29 powers. They're about on par with 5th level spells in 5E and 3.5. That's level 9 and 10. Cantrips scaling at level 21 is another example.

4E MM another example. Bloated HP very low damage.

Worse you already know how the combats going ro end. You just have to spend 45 minutes-2 hours to get there. No tension pre determined results. Ultimately it's boring.

AD&D you might make a save 95% of the time but you can always roll a 1 and die. The odd of a TPK needs to be there and the odds of that happening are fairly low comparatively. Shadow Dragon in 2E eep. Death has very real consequences as resurrection isn't guaranteed and your con score drops.

 

[Scribe]

Or just ask them to guess where you're taking them, then take them to wherever they guess?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Classic EQ is the only MMO to feel like D&D to me.

Which isn't surprising considering it's origin story.

 

[Alzrius]

ACKS II integrates material and rules updates from many supplements and articles released over the years since the original game. The three books aren't all-inclusive, but they're darn close, and many adjustments have been made to (to my mind) improve play. Format is also improved, which helps readability for such a wordy text, so I would say it's an improvement all around while still being 90-95% compatible.

I'll admit that compatibility was one of those areas where I was particularly curious, mostly in light of the same question about 5E and whatever it is we're calling the current iteration of D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

4E epic levels were on paper only. They basically stretched level 3-10 over 30 levels and bloated the HP.

Pull out a 4E phb and look at the level 29 powers. They're about on par with 5th level spells in 5E and 3.5. That's level 9 and 10. Cantrips scaling at level 21 is another example.

4E MM another example. Bloated HP very low damage

There is a rumor that someone adjusted the formula last minute and this wasn't correctly until years later.

The base design was to have PCS start with ~20 HP, slowly grow from there, and have PCs and NPCs drop from 4-5 normal hits.

They screwed up the monster math. WOTC always screw up the math. Most IP holders do.

 

[Alzrius]

There is a rumor that someone adjusted the formula last minute and this wasn't correctly until years later.

I mean, @BenRiggs said this in his 2023 Gen Con seminar about 4E, so I think that it's more substantial than a "rumor" per se.