D&D 5E (2014) EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next

[FreeXenon]

1E = 5
2E = 5
3E = 7
4E = 9
5E = ?

I loved every single edition of the game in their time, but each successive edition has brought the game forward and in wonderful directions. For me 4E rocks and is the current pinnacle of D&D.

 

[Kichwas]

5E already?

I knew 4E didn't quite go as planned and led to the rise of Pathfinder...

But didn't it only just come out a little bit ago?

Will we see 6E come 2014?

I feel as I barely got started buying into 4E books, and haven't even seen groups yet that had made a switch up from 3E, and now 5E is entering into hype-up?

 

[Kichwas]

You gave 1E a 9 and 2E a 2?! This doesn't make any sense, they are practically the same game mechanically, barring some minor tweaks (which includes things like better initiative rules), I just dont see how lack of half orc and assassin makes an almost identical game lose 7 points?

To be completely fair, when we play AD&D it is usually a 1E/2E hybrid, using mostly the rules from 2E with anything 1E thrown in as desired (such as 1E rangers, paladins, and assassins).

Makes sense to me. 2E seemed motivated solely to remove the word 'demon' from every book, and to cover up all the bare chested females in the artwork.

I give that a 1, because it was an unneeded edition.

I'd give 4E a 1 because it was not D&D. As an RPG in general I give it an 8. Its a -great- game in my opinion. But Runequest was closer to D&D than 4E was. 4E is the game I would choose to push on the people showing up for 'Fantasy Hero / GURPS / RuneQuest / Etc' night. Pathfinder is the game I'd bring out for the folks who'd show up and say 'lets do DnD'.

I give 1E a 4. It was good until I found games that gave me options.

I give 3E a 7 - it got me playing D&D again as a game with options that still felt like D&D.

So that makes my list:

1E: 4
2E: 1
3E: 7
4E: 1 if called D&D, 8 if considered "WotC Fantasy Roleplay".

Pathfinder: 7 - its just 3E with a new name on the cover, and somebody's d20 book sliced into the pages at random points. Which actually, makes it more or less the go-to choice these days.

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

You are correct. Blame it on my tired brain, lack of reading comprehension, or fear of counting on two hands. Several of these editions would have been solid eights if I was paying closer attention to the question. My bad, not the first, nor the last.

No problem, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it correctly.

 

[Tsuga C]

Realistic weights for arms (two-handed swords do NOT weigh 25lbs), weapons speeds, and to-hit adjustments need to be included in order to emphasize their respective opportunity costs. As a 1E DM I saw players routinely drift toward the heavy-damage weapons until I started mandating that weapons speeds and to-hit adjustments would be a mandatory part of play. At that point, a number of the players realized that the free ride was over and that there was going to be a serious initiative penalty to some of their favorite arms, so no longer was everyone going to have a two-handed sword or an over-sized battleaxe. Striking first often makes a big difference in melee, after all.

 

[Mark CMG]

OK, this is better - explain what you mean by "roleplaying aspects" and you might have a solid point.

I think there are ways for all of these sectioned-off elements of the game to be more integrated with one another by virtue of engendering the player's mechanical choices, initially, based on background and character concept during creation and then on actual progression of the character, on-screen and off, over the course of the game. The character is built based on the concept and experiences more flexibly rather than in pre-packaged chunks of numbers with names already attached. I feel this sort of organic creation better facilitates roleplaying rather than thinking of a PC as a bundle of mechanical tricks.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Basic D&D = 5
1E = 7
2E = 4
3E = 9
4E = 3
5E = ?

2nd was based on initial release - it didn't change the things I wanted changed from 1st ed, and kept stuff I didn't want. Gave up on it as a game system. Had some good setting (Spelljammer is still my favorite D&D setting ever published).

3rd has been my favorite incarnation of D&D.

4E was very elegant, but I play solo and the game was so designed around group tactical play it couldn't do solo. And Essentials (and starting with psionics) moved away from one of the things I really liked - the same power/advancement structure.

I have high hopes for N.

 

[Balesir]

I think there are ways for all of these sectioned-off elements of the game to be more integrated with one another by virtue of engendering the player's mechanical choices, initially, based on background and character concept during creation and then on actual progression of the character, on-screen and off, over the course of the game. The character is built based on the concept and experiences more flexibly rather than in pre-packaged chunks of numbers with names already attached. I feel this sort of organic creation better facilitates roleplaying rather than thinking of a PC as a bundle of mechanical tricks.

Well, unless you have access to a super-science universe-creation machine, PCs are a "bundle" of descriptive elements that amount to "mechanical tricks" in the sense that the mechanics are the device we use to communicate about the game world. The PC, as such, does not really exist - only the players (including any GM) do.

Building characters based around a (shared) fictional progression of events might get the players into a headspace conducive to exploratory play, but that is only one possible approach to roleplaying; to assume that it is somehow "naturally" superior or that other foci are simply adjuncts to it is purely an aesthetic choice, and is not necessarily shared, let alone universal.

In short, I think thou dost assume too much... The atmosphere and illusion promoted by the methods you propose are prefectly fine methods to get what you want - but that isn't what everybody wants and it isn't, exclusively, "roleplaying".

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, unless you have access to a super-science universe-creation machine, PCs are a "bundle" of descriptive elements that amount to "mechanical tricks" in the sense that the mechanics are the device we use to communicate about the game world. The PC, as such, does not really exist - only the players (including any GM) do.

Thank of it this way, the caller and receiver exist in a phone call but the content that the caller puts into the call is the most important thing, regarding the actual phone call, and the phone and infrastructure are there to support delivery of that content, regardless of the caller or receiver.

Building characters based around a (shared) fictional progression of events might get the players into a headspace conducive to exploratory play, but that is only one possible approach to roleplaying; to assume that it is somehow "naturally" superior or that other foci are simply adjuncts to it is purely an aesthetic choice, and is not necessarily shared, let alone universal.

Assuming a character in the setting is roleplaying, I think we agree. My problem is accepting the term "roleplaying game" on the cover of a game that focuses primarily on combat, encourages players to focus on combat through the preponderance of rules geared toward combat, and gives little to no focus on the actual roleplaying, even in combat.

I recently watched two tables of gamers at the FLGS set up for their own games. To the outside observer, it would have been very difficult to tell them apart. Each was a game that lasted a couple of hours. Before each, one person at the table read a bit of scenario setup text. The remainder of the time was spent moving figures on the tabletop in combat with one another. At one table, a couple of the players referred to their miniatures by names they had been given. The table where the miniatures, the characters if you will, was a Necromunda game where the players didn't have miniatures with the exact weapons they had chosen so they gave the individuals names that could be easily recognized by looking at the miniature: one had an eye-patch and was called by some pirate name, another was very muscular and was called Big Dan or some such, etc. The players on the other table hadn't even bothered naming the individuals and most referred to them in the Third Person, "The Dwarf does (this)" though one went so far as to say, "My fighter does (this)" or "My fighter charges toward the (that)," so at least there was a sense of ownership. When I asked one of the players later if they liked that type of game he said, "Yeah, I love roleplaying games." I didn't have the heart to tell him that what he was actually doing wasn't really playing a roleplaying game. It might say that on the rulebook but what was happening at the table wasn't a roleplaying game or at least was less so than the Necromunda game taking place at the next table where the players' combatants (PCs?) at least had names.

So, yes, I do believe that there are some less roleplay-ey ways to approach a roleplaying game. I won't say superior, because I love games like I just described, I just don't call them roleplaying games and wouldn't likely use a roleplaying game ruleset to run such a game because I feel there are other rules that actually handle that type of game better. Nevertheless, a roleplaying game ruleset should probably encourage the roleplaying aspect all throughout the rules, from character creation through gameplay, whether its in combat or exploring or emulating other social interaction in less combative environments. Integrating all of the aspects of the game so that the focus is on character, not how what a character might do 'mechanically interfaces with the game space' would go a long wa toward helping such a ruleset earn the name roleplaying game on its cover.

In short, I think thou dost assume too much... The atmosphere and illusion promoted by the methods you propose are prefectly fine methods to get what you want - but that isn't what everybody wants and it isn't, exclusively, "roleplaying".

I'm not sure what everyone wants is roleplaying despite the terminology they use.

 

[Balesir]

Thank of it this way, the caller and receiver exist in a phone call but the content that the caller puts into the call is the most important thing, regarding the actual phone call, and the phone and infrastructure are there to support delivery of that content, regardless of the caller or receiver.

I think system is much closer to the language the participants in the conversation use to convey thoughts and ideas clearly and precisely than it is similar to the medium over which the sound of their voices is transmitted, really. I think that analogy is illuminating as to why some systems are good at specific topics and modes of discussion, as well as throwing some light on why I strongly dislike systems where one participant is tasked with making up new words as it suits them...

Assuming a character in the setting is roleplaying, I think we agree.

Surely it would be the players, not the characters, who were roleplaying

My problem is accepting the term "roleplaying game" on the cover of a game that focuses primarily on combat, encourages players to focus on combat through the preponderance of rules geared toward combat, and gives little to no focus on the actual roleplaying, even in combat.

Again, what are you suggesting "roleplaying" should be? I would describe it as simply looking at a situation from the perspective of some entity (which might be singular or even plural, depending on the style and context of the situation being subject to the roleplay) and making decisions from the basis of that perspective.

I have roleplayed in many situations. There are real time computer strategy games that I think are ripe for roleplaying. Two major ones would be Hearts of Iron and (especially) Crusader Kings II. In CK you are effectively playing a king (or duke or count) in medieval Europe. Your game interface is not first person and the general emphasis is very much on ruling, statecraft, war and combat - but when you find out that your newest wife is plotting to kill your eldest son so that her eldest son will ascend to your throne - look me in the eye and tell me you don't "feel the roleplay vibe"!

The table where the miniatures, the characters if you will, was a Necromunda game where the players didn't have miniatures with the exact weapons they had chosen so they gave the individuals names that could be easily recognized by looking at the miniature: one had an eye-patch and was called by some pirate name, another was very muscular and was called Big Dan or some such, etc.

I have no idea what Necromunda is all about, sorry - is it some sort of skirmish game (from what you say here)?

The players on the other table hadn't even bothered naming the individuals and most referred to them in the Third Person, "The Dwarf does (this)" though one went so far as to say, "My fighter does (this)" or "My fighter charges toward the (that)," so at least there was a sense of ownership. When I asked one of the players later if they liked that type of game he said, "Yeah, I love roleplaying games." I didn't have the heart to tell him that what he was actually doing wasn't really playing a roleplaying game. It might say that on the rulebook but what was happening at the table wasn't a roleplaying game or at least was less so than the Necromunda game taking place at the next table where the players' combatants (PCs?) at least had names.

All that tells me is that they had low character investment (probably using pre-gens in a "living" game - there's irony! - if I'm guessing) and were using director stance. I strongly suspect that roleplaying was going on at both tables, in fact.

As to which I would class as a "roleplaying game" - I think that comes down to design aims. It's funny - back in the early days of D&D, roleplaying games were the "new fangled thing" abhorred by grognard tabletop wargamers a bit like 4e is the current bête noir of 3e afficionadoes, and a wargaming crew came up with a very neat little game called "En Garde". For a long time they swore blind that it absolutely wasn't a roleplaying game, nosiree. Of course, it was, as any sensible roleplayer could see...

So, yes, I do believe that there are some less roleplay-ey ways to approach a roleplaying game. I won't say superior, because I love games like I just described, I just don't call them roleplaying games and wouldn't likely use a roleplaying game ruleset to run such a game because I feel there are other rules that actually handle that type of game better. Nevertheless, a roleplaying game ruleset should probably encourage the roleplaying aspect all throughout the rules, from character creation through gameplay, whether its in combat or exploring or emulating other social interaction in less combative environments. Integrating all of the aspects of the game so that the focus is on character, not how what a character might do 'mechanically interfaces with the game space' would go a long wa toward helping such a ruleset earn the name roleplaying game on its cover.

What "roleplaying aspects" are you talking about, here? I mean there's the immersive stuff and the deep character exploration/authoring stuff, but frankly those are pretty niche fringes of roleplaying even as I cover it. They are fun and engaging, and all, but they are so tricky and demanding to get right that I can only really take them as an occasional indulgence. They are like truffles or foie gras - lovely, but you really wouldn't want too much of them. Sometimes I'll even take a light salad just for something different!

I'm not sure what everyone wants is roleplaying despite the terminology they use.

I think that depends on how narrowly you define your term "roleplaying". I see folks playing FPS computer games roelplaying. I see wargamers roleplaying. If they put themselves in the position of looking at the (imaginary) world from the perspective of the character or team that they are playing and make decisions based on that perspective, then as far as I'm concerned they are roleplaying.