Interview with Mike Mearls

[D'karr]

But D&D for the most part has been shackled to that. It has refused to get away from a tidier version of Middle Earth.

Lord of the Rings was great. But it is not the beginning and end of Fantasy. It should not be.

I agree that LoTR should not be the ultimate measuring stick. However, I see nothing preventing anyone from "unshackling" from that trope. I do it routinely and mostly without any problem. Eberron seems to do that too. But the party of heroes doing heroic things trope should not be something D&D distances or separates itself from. I think that is one of the main reasons D&D has been so successful for over 30 years.

I think the problem with D&D might be that it will try to emulate itself rather than generic fantasy tropes.

For specific campaigns the campaigns settings should change the tone. D&D Core should stick with mostly generic fantasy/sword & sorcery.

 

[Rechan]

I agree that LoTR should not be the ultimate measuring stick. However, I see nothing preventing anyone from "unshackling" from that trope.

There's nothing preventing except the expectation of keeping it that way. Oh sure, you can - but if I just did not offer Dwarves/Elves/Halflings in my games, it would turn people off - because that's what's expected.

To paraphrase Mearls, "You could count into the billions the number of settings that have been published which are 'Here is Fantasy England, next to Fantasy France, next to Fantasy Germany, not far from Fantasy Russia'. That's not helping either.

Eberron did do good, but it didn't go far enough. For instance, dwarves are... still dwarves. There's no real change there.

But the party of heroes doing heroic things trope should not be something D&D distances or separates itself from.

Wait, what? Who's advocating that? I don't think anyone is suggesting "Hammer and Chisel: the Commoner and Tradesman Roleplaying Game".

But then, D&D has been able to simulate more than just "Go, save the world/slay the dragon/go into the dungeon". Anti-Heroes, mysteries, noir/pulp, there's more to the genre than Heroes being Heroes; Elric was an anti-hero.

I think the problem with D&D might be that it will try to emulate itself rather than generic fantasy tropes.

Trying to get away from "Generic fantasy" is good, imho. Because it's generic. There are a ton of game systems you can do generic with. Gurps, Fantasy HERO - if D&D = Generic fantasy, then why aren't the other generic fantasy systems doing so well?

 

[TerraDave]

thanks for posting, and bumping.

Ya, it could have used some editing, and it was a testament to Mearl's patience, but it has some good stuff.

 

[D'karr]

There's nothing preventing except the expectation of keeping it that way. Oh sure, you can - but if I just did not offer Dwarves/Elves/Halflings in my games, it would turn people off - because that's what's expected.

To paraphrase Mearls, "You could count into the billions the number of settings that have been published which are 'Here is Fantasy England, next to Fantasy France, next to Fantasy Germany, not far from Fantasy Russia'. That's not helping either.

Eberron did do good, but it didn't go far enough. For instance, dwarves are... still dwarves. There's no real change there.

If your players already know that your campaign does not have X,Y and Z then they are making a conscious decision to play in a game that does not include those, or changes them significantly. And that is why I mentioned that changes of tone should be limited to campaign settings and homebrews and not the core.

If you are having problems getting players when you remove X, Y and Z, then it is either that they prefer to play with those tropes available, or that you have not entirely made it clear that those are the expectations from the beginning. If they believe the campaign has those, then they might feel "bamboozled" by the changes and think that there was a bait & switch.

Wait, what? Who's advocating that? I don't think anyone is suggesting "Hammer and Chisel: the Commoner and Tradesman Roleplaying Game".

But then, D&D has been able to simulate more than just "Go, save the world/slay the dragon/go into the dungeon". Anti-Heroes, mysteries, noir/pulp, there's more to the genre than Heroes being Heroes; Elric was an anti-hero.

Trying to get away from "Generic fantasy" is good, imho. Because it's generic. There are a ton of game systems you can do generic with. Gurps, Fantasy HERO - if D&D = Generic fantasy, then why aren't the other generic fantasy systems doing so well?

Nobody is suggesting that. Your original post was too broad, so in case that is what you meant, I added that statement.

Why are other games not doing so well? Because they are not D&D.

 

[JeffB]

Very good interview-or rather, Mike's info was excellent.

The interviewER on the other hand

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The interviewer really just needed a quick edit pass.

 

[Rechan]

If your players already know that your campaign does not have X,Y and Z then they are making a conscious decision to play in a game that does not include those, or changes them significantly.

Again, I said that I would exclude them but that would make gaining players harder. Because I hate them but acknowledge that it would alienate players. And so I despise that, especially in a town where I can barely get anyone together while bending over backwards to accommodate any player.

Nobody is suggesting that. Your original post was too broad, so in case that is what you meant, I added that statement.

I don't understand. You added something that had nothing to do with what I said or had anything to do with the argument whatsoever? Because... why?

Why are other games not doing so well? Because they are not D&D.

So it doesn't matter WHAT D&D is, as long as it has D&D on the front.

 

[rounser]

I think the problem with D&D might be that it will try to emulate itself rather than generic fantasy tropes.

That's already begun. The result is an irrelevant cypher to anyone but established hardcore fans who are jaded with the classic tropes as well.

For specific campaigns the campaigns settings should change the tone. D&D Core should stick with mostly generic fantasy/sword & sorcery.

Bingo.

Or release a supplement to support it. Don't do it to the core - and that's arguably what's being done to the core this time around.

 

[D'karr]

I don't understand. You added something that had nothing to do with what I said or had anything to do with the argument whatsoever? Because... why?

Because you said this:

Lord of the Rings was great. But it is not the beginning and end of Fantasy. It should not be.

Which is a broad enough assertion to prompt my original response. That the heroic journey and the fellowship trope are pretty good things to keep and D&D should not distance itself from it.

I hope that is clear enough now.

 

[D'karr]

That's already begun. The result is an irrelevant cypher to anyone but established hardcore fans who are jaded with the classic tropes as well.

That is one way to look at it. It can also be seen as a way to attract a much broader base. Those that did not necessarily grow up weaned on Moorcock, Howard & Leiber. Even Gygax posited that he included a lot of the LotR tropes because of the popularity of the novels at that time. Nowadays with the movies that popularity is probably even greater. So should WotC just ignore that potential avenue because it is popular?

Bingo.

Or release a supplement to support it. Don't do it to the core - and that's arguably what's being done to the core this time around.

Maybe or just maybe those things that are being "done" can easily fall into the category of fantasy / sword & sorcery.

Personally, I don't see much difference in the way I'm running my games now than when I was running BD&D & 1e. Many of the rules are different, the same can be said of when I was running 3e, but the gameplay and the fun we are having at the table is still pure D&D to me.

If the game experience is not the same for some, I feel sorry for them, but I don't feel the need to apologize for the things I like. The same way that I don't expect them to do so about the things they like.

In the end it is just a game and I have better things to do with my time than spend it commiserating about what was done or not. I have fun playing and when I don't I find something else to do.