D&D 5E Mearls interview

[Jester David]

You know, honestly I know rules arn't the point of the game... but honestly I'm paying them for rules.

They tell me I can run any story I can make up, but then he talks about how they're going to sell me story and keep the rules to a minimum.

Like the discussion of the 3e sorc, he felt it wasn't a good class cuz it didn't have a story for why it was different than a wizard. or the 4e warlord he doesn't like the story of that class healing.

Shouldn't those things be for the DM to decide. I would rather have a PHB full of rules and not one bit of story. Let me describe how those rules work in my world.


Sorry I just listened to the podcast interview with him this morning and his placing story over rules in the books bothers me. Story is more important than rules in the game, but when I want to buy story, I'll buy a novel, when I buy DND I'm buying the rules.

Looking just at RPGNow.com I can see 119 different RPG systems. To say nothing of variants, hacks, and smaller systems.

If I want just a rule system I can find plenty. I turn to D&D for its 40-years of story and lore. That's what sets it apart.

 

[Raith5]

This is an interesting interview. While I agree with much of this I was struck dumb(er) when he claimed that vancian magic "a pretty solid way to try to strike a balance" between a wizard and fighter types. I am not hardcore against Vancian or daily magic, but does it really balance the types of characters? The variance between martial and magic character was always a problem in all my pre 4th ed campaigns - both in terms of power of martials vs magic PCs and in terms of different PCs wanting very different pacing (5 minute adventuing day etc). Vancian may have other virtues but balancing between PCs seems strange IME.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This is an interesting interview. While I agree with much of this I was struck dumb(er) when he claimed that vancian magic "a pretty solid way to try to strike a balance" between a wizard and fighter types. I am not hardcore against Vancian or daily magic, but does it really balance the types of characters? The variance between martial and magic character was always a problem in all my pre 4th ed campaigns - both in terms of power of martials vs magic PCs and in terms of different PCs wanting very different pacing (5 minute adventuing day etc). Vancian may have other virtues but balancing between PCs seems strange IME.

Vancian magic is easier to balance against the fighter than most of the magic systems you find in fiction, particularly if you want magic to be able to do grand things. Many fictional magic systems would be the equivalent of at will sixth level spells.

 

[Gargoyle]

Looking just at RPGNow.com I can see 119 different RPG systems. To say nothing of variants, hacks, and smaller systems.

If I want just a rule system I can find plenty. I turn to D&D for its 40-years of story and lore. That's what sets it apart.

I turn to D&D because it's a rules system my friends and I can agree on. The lore is secondary. So guess there are at least two sides to this issue?

 

[Minigiant]

I turn to D&D because it's a rules system my friends and I can agree on. The lore is secondary. So guess there are at least two sides to this issue?

That is the whole point really.

You turn to D&D because it's the game with the rules and lore you and your friends agree on. You turn to its rules because you like its rule for X over some other games or some DM's houserule or improvisation.

I have a perfect game... in my head... but few want to play a game where the happiness of your knights, sworn lords, and pledged artisans in more important than you magic sword.

So I play D&D because I like it too and so do some other peeps.

 

[Zardnaar]

The focus on story may be because they have to compete with the OGL. The rules do not matter and if Paizo ever fixes 3.5 with Pathfinder 2 they may have an issue competing with mechanics.

The story however is something the OGL can't touch. The D&Disms and campaign settings are hands off.

 

[Gargoyle]

Not to speak for Mearls, but the impression I got is that he doesn't believe that the rules should get in the way of the story. If that's what he meant, I agree.

 

[Jester David]

I turn to D&D because it's a rules system my friends and I can agree on. The lore is secondary. So guess there are at least two sides to this issue?

Totally.

But there's no shortage of retro-clones and D&D-like games. Anyone can make a D&D-esque game. But only D&D can provide everything else.

 

[billd91]

Not to speak for Mearls, but the impression I got is that he doesn't believe that the rules should get in the way of the story. If that's what he meant, I agree.

That's what I'm thinking too. The rules serve the story. Too much rules structure and I feel the story is determined by the rules. I see this a lot in rules forms and debates about adhering to the RAW. And I can't help but feel that those viewpoints miss much of the point of RPGs.

Edit: Sure enough, anybody can use the rules any way they want. I just feel they're not getting all they can out of the experience.

 

[gyor]

Honestly I found that a disappointing interview over all. No cool new info on Next, accept that the Sundering Authors are an influence on D&Dnext. That's about it.