Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[Balesir]

As you may have guessed, I lean toward using DM judgement here. Because of the small tactical impact--cover is not that big a deal most of the time--I think making the system fast and responsive takes precedence over making it clear and predictable, and DM judgement is usually the fastest and most responsive option.

The main tactical element in our game is the requirement to be in total cover/concealment in order to hide, I think. Here it is of vital importance to the rogue character.

I much prefer to err away from DM judgement because, that way, the players feel they succeed because they "get it right" rather than because "the GM lets them". For me, that is an important element of D&D 4E (but not of all roleplaying games - see some of my other posts for details).

 

[the-golem]

Oh thats it! MM ruined minis!

...wrong thread?

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that he's yearning for the "good ol' days" without minis, but wasn't he the main guys that worked on 4E? Why push for a tactical, grid-heavy system if ... he ... doesn't ... like it?

 

[Ryujin]

Maybe he was told to push a collectible element, like minis? Now that they've pulled away from that he's either free to criticize minis, or he's now been told to somehow minimize the effect of minis going away

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

lol, I think you guys give them way more credit for elaborately planning these things than actually exists.

When you design a game, you don't really know how it's going to turn out. You may not know either exactly what you want in a game. There are a lot of differences between what you imagine the game will be and what it is. Besides, no game plays the same way with different groups. Maybe 4e was exactly what Mike thought he wanted 4-5 years ago. Maybe it WAS what he wanted back when they were designing and play testing things. It is a good bit different game now than it was when it was released for that matter.

Honestly, if Mike wants fuzzy rules at this point he's going to have to either convince someone to let him write 5e or go back to playing AD&D and leave 4e to the people that believe it is a good game. I find it disturbing that the guy in charge of R&D for the product apparently doesn't like it...

 

[Klaus]

lol, I think you guys give them way more credit for elaborately planning these things than actually exists.

When you design a game, you don't really know how it's going to turn out. You may not know either exactly what you want in a game. There are a lot of differences between what you imagine the game will be and what it is. Besides, no game plays the same way with different groups. Maybe 4e was exactly what Mike thought he wanted 4-5 years ago. Maybe it WAS what he wanted back when they were designing and play testing things. It is a good bit different game now than it was when it was released for that matter.

Honestly, if Mike wants fuzzy rules at this point he's going to have to either convince someone to let him write 5e or go back to playing AD&D and leave 4e to the people that believe it is a good game. I find it disturbing that the guy in charge of R&D for the product apparently doesn't like it...

Mike is a good enough designer that he can see the benefit of something that isn't his pwn personal preference. Gygax himself wasn't fond of the Tolkienesque races, but he agreed to include them for his players' benefit (although he did spin elves closer to his personal preference).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mike is a good enough designer that he can see the benefit of something that isn't his pwn personal preference. Gygax himself wasn't fond of the Tolkienesque races, but he agreed to include them for his players' benefit (although he did spin elves closer to his personal preference).

There's a difference between being able to work on a team and work on a design that isn't 100% to your liking and being sold on that design and believing in it. This latest article of Mike's makes it QUITE clear that he's not at all sold on the way 4e has worked out. Given that he's the guy in charge game system implementation itself if he doesn't any longer believe in the product then there's a serious issue there. Does it really serve the game to have a principle advocate who doesn't like the system? Obviously not if you happen to be someone who DOES like it.... At this point I would feel more comfortable if someone else filled that role.

EGG said a lot of things, but I'm not really convinced he meant a lot of them. Or maybe more accurately he believed them, but that didn't make them true. AD&D 1e particularly was practically an homage to Tolkein. I think Gary just wasn't comfortable giving that much credit to LotR. He cited a lot of inspirations and always seemed to want to minimize the influence of Tolkein, yet the game was filled with elements that were clearly derived directly from Tolkein and those elements were quite obviously not just thrown in as an afterthought to appease fans.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think 4e DOES EXACTLY provide the tools to marry those elements. That is in fact what it does in spades. Things have standard definitions and when no other consideration overrides everyone knows what is meant and what the rule is. A wall that is blocking terrain does X. If it doesn't do X then IT ISN'T BLOCKING TERRAIN.

Lol... This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Secondly, I do not need a rule to tell me "If there is blocking terrain, you cannot move through it. This wall is blocking terrain." That's common sense kind of things that shouldn't be coded in the first place. If you need the game to tell you that you can't walk through a wall, then, man, something is wrong.

Now, maybe the game doesn't provide a definition that is suitable to whatever the DM is trying to portray at that point, so he improvises. That's fine. If the other players don't like the way the rules were applied and don't feel that they support the fiction the way they would like then they SHOULD be able to speak up. If the DM is going to try to be authoritarian that isn't a game system issue at all.

I never said otherwise. This entire paragraph is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my post or anything else said here.

The problem with a system that tries to work the way 3e's cover 'system' did or which just names some terms but never defines them like AD&D did is that you are always having to negotiate with the DM what it all means. It is all just either an endless time suck or everyone just assumes the DM knows what he's talking about since nobody else has a clear idea what is what unless they ask about every detail on the map.

That's funny, because I'm playing in a game using the 1981 Moldvay Basic rules and cover is largely a non-issue and literally a non-time suck, whereas in 4th Edition games I've participated in, those "clear, concrete cover rules" have been more of a time-sink than most combats take in their entirety in the Basic game. Funny how that works.

The main reason that AD&D worked was really because it was such a BAD tactical game that it just didn't matter. Now, admittedly, 4e is a more tactical game, which some will or won't like, but GIVEN THAT IT IS its rules are formulated in an appropriate fashion.

You're right. 4E is a tactical game, designed like a board game. AD&D is a strategy game, and designed more like a war game.

But, neither of those things have anything to do with the roleplaying aspect of the games. And, that aspect is accomplished with how the strategy and tactical elements, as well as the real world cues we're bringing into the game (dice, character sheets, minis, etc...) impact the fiction, which is the roleplaying part.

And, DM judgment is essential for a roleplaying game.

 

[wedgeski]

There's a difference between being able to work on a team and work on a design that isn't 100% to your liking and being sold on that design and believing in it. This latest article of Mike's makes it QUITE clear that he's not at all sold on the way 4e has worked out. Given that he's the guy in charge game system implementation itself if he doesn't any longer believe in the product then there's a serious issue there. Does it really serve the game to have a principle advocate who doesn't like the system? Obviously not if you happen to be someone who DOES like it.... At this point I would feel more comfortable if someone else filled that role.

"Doesn't believe in the product"? What?

"Doesn't like the system?" Huh?

Only on a messageboard could such enormous conclusions be drawn from so little.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Doesn't believe in the product"? What?

"Doesn't like the system?" Huh?

Only on a messageboard could such enormous conclusions be drawn from so little.

Well, the whole system is built on a rules concept and style of implementation that the man just spent an entire column disparaging. Yes, it was cast in the form of an exposition but it was QUITE clear which side the author was on. The very fact that the head designer of the game would open up that debate says all that really needs to be said. It isn't exactly taken entirely in isolation either. He's made a number of other statements in the same general vein. You can interpret it differently of course but I clearly see that we have a guy in charge of the design of 4e who has come around to a point of view that is fundamentally at odds with the design of the product he is in charge of, so yeah, I'll stick to what I said before. I predict this will lead to a shakeup before too long as well. It isn't a tenable situation.

 

[P1NBACK]

The very fact that the head designer of the game would open up that debate says all that really needs to be said.

Mike Mearls was not the "head designer" of the core 4E system.

I believe that was Rob Heinsoo.

From my 4E PHB1:

D&D® 4th Edition Design Team
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt

D&D 4th Edition Final Development Strike Team
Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, James Wyatt

Player’s Handbook Design
Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt

Player’s Handbook Development
Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Stephen Radney-MacFarland,
Peter Schaefer, Stephen Schubert