Mearls on Balance in D&D

[mearls]

Oh come on, it was funny.

Yeah, it was funny. That quote can make me sound like a cheaty pants killer DM, and I honestly find that pretty dang funny.

Man, I'd write more but I have to go eat lunch. I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.

 

[Greg K]

Should point out it's a *lunchtime game* also -

He stated in the first article that it's pretty much just a hack-fest, since they only have a half-hour to hour for lunch. Judging from reading the guy's other stuff, his normal campaigns aren't like this, but I'm happy he posts these, because I think it really shows that the game is fun for multiple reasons - whether your group is heavy into intrigue, or just wants PHAT LEWT.

If I were playing in a lunch-game, I would treat it as a stress-relief, killing stuff and taking their treasures!

That's a relief to know. I missed that initial comment and was thinking I would never want to play in one of his games if these lunch time games were representative of his normal campaigns. Then again, I would still have skipped the lunch time games- I detest pure Hack and Slash.

 

[Korgoth]

I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.

I would really appreciate it if you would address the contents of your review of module B2. For reference, the text is located here:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

Specifically, I would pose several objections:

(1) A good review considers the goals that the work sets for itself and addresses whether the work met those goals. Do you think that B2 did not meet its goals, or do you think those goals are just worthless?

(2) Given that the edition of D&D in question gave out XP for recovered gold (the lion's share, actually) and had roles such as "Mapper" and "Caller", would you agree that the focus of the game was oriented toward exploring underworlds and recovering loot therefrom? And do you not agree that this goal is represented in B2?

(3) Given that B2 is meant to be an instructional module, as well as setting-generic, don't you think that the lack of names for Keep NPCs and other details were intentionally left out, to provide a springboard from which the DM would more fully flesh out the world? This seems to be explicitly stated on page 2, with the vintage Gygaxian quote: "It is you who will give form and content to all the universe. You will breathe life into the stillness, giving meaning and purpose to all the actions which are to follow." I think that B2 left out that information as part of its attempt to meet its own design goals.

(4) How do you explain your aggressive and insulting tone? Calling the module "garbage" and the consumers "dimwits" does not seem appropriate. Do you think an apology is owed?

Obviously, I think the module had reasonable goals which it met in keeping with the spirit of the game. I do not consider the module garbage or myself a dimwit. If you have something to say about the review or these points I'd be happy to hear it. Based solely off the content of your review I would be strongly disinclined to purchase any products with which you are involved or to take your opinions seriously (I mean ones unqualified by further statements you might make in this thread). If I had more to go on here that would be an enormous help in being able to make a better judgment about all of that.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Reynard]

That's a relief to know. I missed that initial comment and was thinking I would never want to play in one of his games if these lunch time games were representative of his normal campaigns. Then again, I would still have skipped the lunch time games- I detest pure Hack and Slash.

To each their own. Me, I would kill for a lunch hour of monster mashing. It'd break up the day real nice.

 

[mhensley]

To each their own. Me, I would kill for a lunch hour of monster mashing. It'd break up the day real nice.

Hell yeah! At least we know that WOTC eats their own dog food.

 

[mhensley]

I would really appreciate it if you would address the contents of your review of module B2. For reference, the text is located here:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

Specifically, I would pose several objections:

(1) A good review considers the goals that the work sets for itself and addresses whether the work met those goals. Do you think that B2 did not meet its goals, or do you think those goals are just worthless?

(2) Given that the edition of D&D in question gave out XP for recovered gold (the lion's share, actually) and had roles such as "Mapper" and "Caller", would you agree that the focus of the game was oriented toward exploring underworlds and recovering loot therefrom? And do you not agree that this goal is represented in B2?

(3) Given that B2 is meant to be an instructional module, as well as setting-generic, don't you think that the lack of names for Keep NPCs and other details were intentionally left out, to provide a springboard from which the DM would more fully flesh out the world? This seems to be explicitly stated on page 2, with the vintage Gygaxian quote: "It is you who will give form and content to all the universe. You will breathe life into the stillness, giving meaning and purpose to all the actions which are to follow." I think that B2 left out that information as part of its attempt to meet its own design goals.

(4) How do you explain your aggressive and insulting tone? Calling the module "garbage" and the consumers "dimwits" does not seem appropriate. Do you think an apology is owed?

Obviously, I think the module had reasonable goals which it met in keeping with the spirit of the game. I do not consider the module garbage or myself a dimwit. If you have something to say about the review or these points I'd be happy to hear it. Based solely off the content of your review I would be strongly disinclined to purchase any products with which you are involved or to take your opinions seriously (I mean ones unqualified by further statements you might make in this thread). If I had more to go on here that would be an enormous help in being able to make a better judgment about all of that.

Thanks for reading.

Please take this to another thread.

 

[crazy_cat]

blah blah blah

Whatever. Mislaid your senses of humour and context by chance?
Get over yourself already.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Gentlemen - Mearls has the option to respond to or ignore the questions as he sees fit. Comments like "Get over yourself" are more of a problem.

Play nice.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, it was funny. That quote can make me sound like a cheaty pants killer DM, and I honestly find that pretty dang funny.

Man, I'd write more but I have to go eat lunch. I'll make a reply to variouses and sundries later.

Sounds like you found a new sig, "Cheaty Pants Killer DM"

 

[T. Foster]

I find it hard to get too worked up or offended by that B2 review since 1) it was written 8 years ago (I certainly said/wrote plenty of things 8 years ago, some of which are probably presevred online somewhere, that I don't particularly endorse today -- and yet I don't feel an obligation to make a point of specifically apologizing for or repudiating them either), and 2) it's obvious from the tone (or at least should be obvious) that this is a joke/exaggeration, even if the "issues" it raises are (or were felt at the time to be) real.

As for those "issues," I generally don't agree with them:

1) none of the NPCs have names: yeah, that's true, and was clearly a specific design decision. As the review points out, this module was written/published after T1, in which many/most of the NPCs do have names, so it's not like Gygax couldn't come up with names, or felt it wasn't important, he just chose not to, presumably because he felt naming the NPCs was an easy way for novice DMs to begin customizing the module and making it their own (which is a specific theme of the module, especially the Keep portion -- see, for instance, the section on mapping the buildings in the Keep). If the module's at fault in this regard, it's only for not making this intention clearer -- including a sentence or two mentioning specifically that naming of the characters in the Keep has been left as an exercise for the individual DM, and perhaps providing a list of example-names (and, considering how tightly edited this module is, with barely a spare word anywhere, it's entirely possible that such a blurb was originally included and was cut out by the editors who felt it was stating the obvious).

2) the situation is too simplistic/unrealistic: yeah it is, but so what? This was a module designed to teach the basics of the game to 10 and 11 year old novice dungeon masters, not a magnum opus of worldbuilding. And it succeeded at that job admirably -- better than any other D&D module before or since, IMO. It introduced millions of people, including probably most of the people reading this thread, to the game and is still very widely remembered (mostly, but not always, fondly) to this day -- just a week or so ago we had a multi-page thread here devoted to "Bree-yark!" And the fact that some DMs saw it and felt "I can do better" is part of the point -- this was an "introductory" module, a tool to teach you the ropes, and it was intended that afer playing it you'd then be prepared and inspired to go on to create your own stuff, and that hopefully the stuff you created would be as good or better (and, if anything, it's a sad commentary that so little of the stuff that's been created since has been as good or better...).

3) the idea that had the module been more complex or "realistic" that it would've turned more people on to the game: I don't agree with this conclusion at all, suspect (hope) that Mr. Mearls himself doesn't agree with it anymore, and wonder if he really did at the time or if this was intended as a joke. There was a widespread notion, especially in the 90s in the wake of White Wolf's success and the rest of the industry's slumping, that rpgs were supposed to be "serious business" and that casual and/or "gamist" play was something to be looked down upon, and that what was impeding rpgs' acceptance by the mainstream was that they had too much "game" or kid-appeal element and weren't viewed enough as serious adult Art. I disagreed with that notion 100% at the time, continue to disagree with it, and think time has proven that if anything almost the exact opposite is true -- rpgs have been at their most successful when they've been the most "gamey" and the most accessible to casual play (even for the WW stuff), and Basic D&D and B2 epitomize that approach (which is why they were able to sell millions of copies -- because of, not despite, the "flaws" this review cites).

This is something that I think 3E/d20 struggles mightily with (it's got the game part down, but is not (IMO) at all accessible to casual play) and I think will be one of if not the defining question to be answered in any future revisions of D&D (whether it be 3.75E or 4E) -- how to make the game more accessible to casual players without alienating the hardcore fans? And I suspect that in these discussions Basic D&D and B2 will be looked at (if the folks at WotC are wise, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on) not as examples of the wrong approach, but of the right approach.