Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Here's Tasha's Contents Page
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8118933" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>Mike Mearls said repeatedly in numerous interviews that the slow release schedule is a big part of the success of 5e, and that the reduced number of player options is also a big part of the success of 5e. See for example <a href="https://merricb.com/2017/01/03/mike-mearls-a-summary-of-the-interview-on-tabletop-babble/" target="_blank">here</a>, where our own [USER=3586]@MerricB[/USER] summarizes the relevant portion of that interview as, "Mike believes that the slow release schedule has been a big part of the success of the fifth edition of <em>Dungeons & Dragons</em>. D&D can be big and intimidating, and in earlier editions, the breadth of options allowed for many broken (over-powered) combinations, as well as characters that were (mechanically) quite difficult to understand. Similarly, with settings, the amount of detail published for (say) the Forgotten Realms, would intimidate Dungeon Masters, as they didn’t feel that they could get enough of a handle on them to properly run and design adventures in the setting. The wall of information presented by previous editions so daunted potential players and Dungeon Masters that they wouldn’t even try the game."</p><p></p><p>Mearls also said at the time, "We really want to take it easy with adding new mechanics to the game. Each new option increases the chance that something broken or confusing will enter the game. Our plan is to add things only if the game really needs them, like an option that makes sense for a setting or that fits a role within a specific campaign. The playtest showed us that most players and DMs don’t want hundreds of pages of new content each month, but instead a much more deliberate, careful release schedule."</p><p></p><p>It might be wiser to acknowledge the poster you were responding to, [USER=10531]@see[/USER] , is coming from a perspective which does have some foundational support. Probably better to do that before diving in to disagree with Mearls and questioning his data and introducing other factors which may not have been considered (all of which is a fair perspective to look at). Saying the poster is coming from baseless superstition, given the context of the words of the guy who helped design 5e and who has the insider data at his fingertips talking directly about what he thinks are the key points which contributed to the success of this edition, probably isn't the look you're going for here. It looks like you're being dismissive without good grounds for that approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8118933, member: 2525"] Mike Mearls said repeatedly in numerous interviews that the slow release schedule is a big part of the success of 5e, and that the reduced number of player options is also a big part of the success of 5e. See for example [URL='https://merricb.com/2017/01/03/mike-mearls-a-summary-of-the-interview-on-tabletop-babble/']here[/URL], where our own [USER=3586]@MerricB[/USER] summarizes the relevant portion of that interview as, "Mike believes that the slow release schedule has been a big part of the success of the fifth edition of [I]Dungeons & Dragons[/I]. D&D can be big and intimidating, and in earlier editions, the breadth of options allowed for many broken (over-powered) combinations, as well as characters that were (mechanically) quite difficult to understand. Similarly, with settings, the amount of detail published for (say) the Forgotten Realms, would intimidate Dungeon Masters, as they didn’t feel that they could get enough of a handle on them to properly run and design adventures in the setting. The wall of information presented by previous editions so daunted potential players and Dungeon Masters that they wouldn’t even try the game." Mearls also said at the time, "We really want to take it easy with adding new mechanics to the game. Each new option increases the chance that something broken or confusing will enter the game. Our plan is to add things only if the game really needs them, like an option that makes sense for a setting or that fits a role within a specific campaign. The playtest showed us that most players and DMs don’t want hundreds of pages of new content each month, but instead a much more deliberate, careful release schedule." It might be wiser to acknowledge the poster you were responding to, [USER=10531]@see[/USER] , is coming from a perspective which does have some foundational support. Probably better to do that before diving in to disagree with Mearls and questioning his data and introducing other factors which may not have been considered (all of which is a fair perspective to look at). Saying the poster is coming from baseless superstition, given the context of the words of the guy who helped design 5e and who has the insider data at his fingertips talking directly about what he thinks are the key points which contributed to the success of this edition, probably isn't the look you're going for here. It looks like you're being dismissive without good grounds for that approach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Here's Tasha's Contents Page
Top