Mearls on Balance in D&D

[hong]

Even if the excellent player has a less powerful character on paper, that doesn't mean that he should be condemned to mediocrity because Buildmaster over there spends more time reading rulebooks than learning how to think tactically.

Indeed. He should be condemned to mediocrity because he's too lazy to educate himself on the game.

 

[Korgoth]

Indeed. He should be condemned to mediocrity because he's too lazy to educate himself on the game.

I guess it depends on what kind of challenge the game is supposed to represent. I think the game should challenge the player's wits, tactical abilities and sometimes general knowledge or communication skills.

The other school of thought seems to think the game should challenge one's ability to digest thousands of pages of rules and feat descriptions and come up with a l33t k1LLaR K0mb0... or at least something as efficient as possible that gets the maximum possible bonuses.

I'll grant that it does clearly take a special skill to read and digest all the 3E rules and supplements and come up with a brutally efficient "build" that takes damage per round output or skill bonuses to undreamed-of heights. I just, personally, see that as a pointless skill to develop and I'm not interested in running a game that puts the challenge on that level.

I'd rather run a game where the challenge is put on whether you can solve problems in-game, like puzzles, traps, barely-navigable locations, and difficult tactical situations.

So clearly, 3E is not the game for me. If it is for you and you're having fun with it then bully!

 

[Kishin]

People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element. Also, since he seems to be at the forefront of development lately, his head seems to stand out as the place to lay blame.

I have no idea. He wrote a terribly insulting review of Keep on the Borderlands that pretty much insinuated that you would be an idiot for liking it. So he thinks he knows more about D&D than Gary Gygax, in other words.

I don't know the guy personally, but he came off very arrogant in that review.

Link?

Also, IMO he's a far better game designer than Gary, at least in this era of D&D.

 

[Korgoth]

Link?

Also, IMO he's a far better game designer than Gary, at least in this era of D&D.

See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.

A better game designer than Gary? That sounds pretty darn ridiculous. How many games has he designed which have surpassed D&D at the height of its popularity?

Maybe Mr. Mearls better represents 3E D&D's philosophy. But that doesn't make him a better designer than Gary Gygax. I don't know the guy... maybe he's a better physicist than Albert Einstein too. I have yet to see it, however. That's not bashing... that's just asking for some results to back up a claim.

Incidentally, while I have not seen evidence that Mr. Mearls considers himself to be a better game designer than Gary, his review clearly indicates that he finds B2 to be beneath him. My opinion is that this comes from a failure to understand what B2 is actually all about. As explained upthread. I was hoping Mr. Mearls would explain himself, but it seems that so far he has chosen not to do so. I'm sure he is a busy fellow.

 

[Ourph]

People love to Mearlsbash because his views and design decisions are controversial, particularly amongst the old guard element. Also, since he seems to be at the forefront of development lately, his head seems to stand out as the place to lay blame.

Personally, I like about 50% of what Mr. Mearls has to say about game design. I hate his thoughts on redesigning the Rust Monster, but I think he's spot-on when it comes to his analysis of Rules Mastery vs. Barriers to Entry and related subjects. I'm not sure I'd like a game solely designed by Mike Mearls, but if I were writing my own game I'd definitely value his opinion (even if I didn't always agree with it).

 

[Charwoman Gene]

See post #36 on page 1; I linked it again later in the thread.

A better game designer than Gary? That sounds pretty darn ridiculous.

I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.

And that's a moot debate, because 1) that's something completely different; 2) Gary is the inventor of the genre, while Mearls is a designer within the bounds of the genre. Not that comparable - like comparing Adam Smith to Wallstreet Broker.

 

[freyar]

I'm not sure how off-topic this is given how far we are from the OP already, but here goes:

I think Steven Hawking is a better physicist than Albert Einstein.

As a physicist in the same field as Hawking, I have to say that he's quite smart but not in the same league as Einstein. If you want to pick someone alive today as having remotely the same kind of impact as AE, go with Ed Witten (publicity or lack of notwithstanding). Seriously!

 

[hong]

I guess it depends on what kind of challenge the game is supposed to represent. I think the game should challenge the player's wits, tactical abilities and sometimes general knowledge or communication skills.

... because reading, you know, doesn't require wit or knowledge. Maybe it's an oracular thing.

The other school of thought seems to think the game should challenge one's ability to digest thousands of pages of rules and feat descriptions and come up with a l33t k1LLaR K0mb0... or at least something as efficient as possible that gets the maximum possible bonuses.

Well, can you do it?

I'll grant that it does clearly take a special skill to read and digest all the 3E rules and supplements and come up with a brutally efficient "build" that takes damage per round output or skill bonuses to undreamed-of heights.

Indeed it does. It's the polar opposite of the skill required to spend three hours thinking up yet another fiendish plan to rule the world disguise yourself as giants, taking into consideration the myriad possible complicating factors and contingency plans required, succumbing to paralysis of analysis, in the end failing to accomplish anything of note, and finishing the night arguing about who would win: a samurai or a knight.

"What are we going to do today, Brain?"

"Same thing we do every day, Pinky: fail to get into a fight!"

I just, personally, see that as a pointless skill to develop

... whereas being able to think up new and innovative ways to disguise yourself as a giant is valuable and worthwhile! Perhaps we can start work on an IPO.

and I'm not interested in running a game that puts the challenge on that level.

Well, at least you didn't say that you could, but chose not to.

I'd rather run a game where the challenge is put on whether you can solve problems in-game, like puzzles, traps, barely-navigable locations, and difficult tactical situations.

"Shut up and roll for initiative!" -- Richard Feynman, paraphrased

 

[Hussar]

Again, you're talking about house-ruling around the assumptions built into a system, not using a system where the assumptions aren't there to begin with. This isn't even a problem in other systems (AD&D for example) because there is no "treasure the character will need by the next level to be considered truly at the next level's power". The rules do not assume that a party at a given level will wield a given level of power. The rules assume and instruct the DM in a certain style of play where this isn't an issue. Saying "I would have this problem if I deviated from the basic assumptions of 3e" isn't an indictment of AD&D or Amber or any other RPG with no guidelines for wealth by level. If anything, it's an indictment of 3e for needing those extra rules.

I'm sorry, but this is untrue. The +x DR of 1e pretty much necessitated certain magic items by certain levels. Certainly that was taken into account when designing adventures. You don't see gargoyles in Cult of the Reptile God. Although, to be fair, you do see a wight, at the end, after the party is assumed to have picked up one of the many magic weapons floating around.

Yes, the wealth by level was never specifically called out, but, it was most certainly there. There's a reason why tough monsters had better treasure. You were at a level where you needed those magic weapons, so the chance of finding them goes up with tougher monsters.

I see this argument a lot, and it always surprises me that people think that wealth by level considerations were never part of the game before 3e. I have a question then. If your PC died and a new PC came in, did they always come in at level 1 or at 1 level back from the rest of the party. We did 1 level down. And, we always gave a higher level character magical treasure.

Am I strange in doing this?