Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Piratecat]

Gentlemen - Mearls has the option to respond to or ignore the questions as he sees fit.

And frankly, I thought Korgoth phrased his questions quite well. As Hyp. says, Mearls may or may not want to address the question, but it's nice to see someone ask something they're passionate about in a polite way instead of ranting. Thanks for that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You had some darned rough DMs!

My character got destroyed when I stuck a 10 foot pole in the demon mouth in Tomb of Horrors because the DM running it said the destrouction traveled up the pole. Thats the point where I just said screw it, and started running everything.

 

[Nellisir]

As for that Keep on the Borderland review, from back in '99?

That...sorta jumped out at me. That review is -eight- years old. I haven't scrutinized Mike's resume recently, but I'm pretty sure 95% of his game work is post-3.0. He can defend himself (if he thinks he needs to, which I don't really think he does...), but to assume his game design opinions and experience haven't changed at all since then is pretty...simple-minded.

 

[phindar]

Specifically, I would pose several objections:

I don't disagree with Korgoth's points, but I think its also important to keep in mind the review was humorous in nature. If I'm reading Michael J. Nelson's (of MST3K) review of Anaconda, I'm not going to be disappointed that he doesn't lay out a rigourous examination of the director's intent.

Besides, brutally savaging the things we loved as children is what adulthood is all about.

 

[Henry]

My character got destroyed when I stuck a 10 foot pole in the demon mouth in Tomb of Horrors because the DM running it said the destrouction traveled up the pole. Thats the point where I just said screw it, and started running everything.

I'd love to take that discussion into a full-blown thread, but have run outta time today; I'll just say that's pretty poor, because that kind of thing is what 10 foot poles were made for! At least I had a guy lose only his arm when he went rummaging around in the pitch-black demon mouth with no protection...

 

[Ourph]

First, I'd like to see where Mearls has declared his "one true way and all others are stupid" statement. A link would be very nice.

That's not what I said.

Second, if you are offended by his 8 year old, tongue-in-cheek written article about KotBL, written as a fan, then you have missed out on a joke, I'm afraid.

I'm not offended by it at all, but I think it would be hypocritical to post a sarcastic, shot-taking review like that (even if it is mostly in good fun) and then turn around and be offended when others take your work and subject it to the same treatment (again mostly in good fun).

And am I imagining things, or are you implying that Mearls has made statements that he is offended by ENWorld, somewhere? If so, I would like a link to those sources, as well, please.

I am not implying that. Apparently you are imagining things.
What I'm saying is that, 1) I don't see Mike getting all offended at the comments people direct toward his work and his POV; 2) If he did get offended by blunt criticism it would be a little silly, since he is intentionally challenging sacred cows and addressing contentious topics with blunt and unsympathetic analyses; and 3) You can be embarrassed if you want, but I don't think anyone has said anything in this thread or in previous threads concerning Mike's work that they need to be ashamed of.

I will always be ashamed and embarrassed when any game designer is attacked here on ENWorld. Especially one who was once a fairly regular member our or community.

Or anyone else, for that matter.

I will be right along-side you if they are being attacked on a personal level. When people are picking apart their performance at their job or the opinions they express regarding the game, that's a different thing. It's always important to be as polite as possible of course, but there's only so much you can do to sugarcoat the phrase "I think his work is horrible." or "In my opinion, that is the worst idea I've ever heard.".

Yes, I know it's cool and trendy to bash The Man, especially on the internet, but it's always shameful to see it done to former members of our community who happened to have "made it", or at least as close to that as can be done in the RPG industry.

If it's "The Man's" job to offer his opinion on contentious issues in public, it seems only natural that a certain amount of vociferous disagreement is going to follow. It seems to me that if the issues Mike writes about weren't expected to be contentious then there wouldn't be much sense in addressing them in the first place. IMO the firestorms his recent articles on the WotC site have generated among the fan community were the expected and desired result of the articles, not some shameful byproduct. I know if I were writing those articles I'd be much happier to see a 30-page debate on their merits than a one-post thread with no replies. At least the 30-page thread indicates people are reading and thinking about my work, even if they don't always agree with me.

 

[Warren Okuma]

Wasn't his point that the evil bard would have magic items primarily of use to the party's good bard (who needed a power boost)?

Evil Bard is killing good bards. Who says he doesn't have some good bard stuff? besides a +X chain shirt is a +X chain shirt. Yeah, it might go to the ranger. Oh, well... A magical musical instrument that double's the bard's bonuses isn't too disruptive.

And as for selling it. Just put on some odd enchantments, such as "residual natural aura." If the players ask what the heck a residual natural aura, just smile and say it's not a spell or an enchantment, thus it can't be identified.

If they sell it act all eager (you want to sell this! Really! Sold! Gimmie! Gimmie!) and if they still sell it laugh maniacally and say sucker! (then send another evil bard or whatever to go after it...)

Oh, btw, residual natural aura=mcguffin and a small bonus... say a +1.

This is called the giving theory of GMing rather than the taking theory (nerfing) of GMing. To each it's own.

 

[Warren Okuma]

You may be assuming that the good bard faces the evil bard alone.

I assume nothing however...
1) It's called a duel. Bardic college sponsored duel. Or something.
2) Or a singing duel a play off.
3) Or not.

 

[MKMcArtor]

AEG's jim pinto blamed developer Mearls for the hacking, and I was dissapointed.

Wow. Classy.

 

[Roman]

I always like it when game designers proffer their ideas on game balance and game design on the web. I am interested in game design per se, so this is sufficient for me to seek out and peruse those articles or thoughts with interest and the fact that such thoughts indicate the likely future course of D&D (including perhaps shedding some light on the likely future shape of 4E) only piques my interest further. Mike Mearls has done this to a greater degree than most other current D&D designers, or at least more of his insights find its way to me to read and I like that very much.

That said, I don't like some of the design philosophies that seem to be looming on the horizon, such as per encounter balancing (I explained why my thread on new design paradigms - it would probably derail this thread if I did so here again). But I like other design philosophies greatly, such as the elimination of dead levels, and I agree with others to some degree, for example with the advantages of reworking some monsters.