Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Glyfair]

I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really hate the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably why he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).

The approach you see of Mike might by a symptom, Mike isn't. The first thing I saw from him was the Atlas Games d20 adventure The Belly of the Beast. It's one of my favorites and one of the strengths of it is that it is driven by character interaction.

For those interested, here is his resume. (Side note: "The Eunuch Game" sounds fun, fantasy Paranoia)

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I don't like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the least interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant threat of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.

Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you actually want to spend as little time fighting hill giants as possible, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?

Buh? What else was there to do in The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief than blat 42 hp hill giants? The king was in like the second or third room. You pretty much had a constant combat from the get go.

Who played this module as a rp scenario? We never even talked to anything in here. See, kill, move on.

As I recall, it was a couple of fireballs leading off that pretty much set the tone for this module.

 

[Greg K]

Its not just Mike (although seeing some of his blogs I wonder if what I liked about his early work may have had to do with the editors and publishers for whom he was writing). I look at both Andy Collins's website and his article on the use of PrCs in the campaign and see some great stuff. However, I look at his advice on the WOTC site and there seems to be a big disconnect between what you see there and elsewhere.

 

[MerricB]

It is interesting to see what Mike writes because he currently works for Wizards. His insights will often directly impact future products.

T.Foster's experience with Steading seems atypical. Your job is to kill the giants. I don't recommend a frontal assault, but at some point you *are* going to have to fight all the giants in the great hall... and there's a lot of them. See reports in early Dragon magazines of how the finalists did it at the original convention it debuted.

The primary focus of D&D is combat. It is also what is most popular about the game. You might not have it so much in your game - and that's fine - but Wizards do need to design to the market.

With Barrow of the Forgotten King and other products, there's a definite emphasis on role-playing, puzzlesolving and other non-combat situations, but not at the expense of a non-combat adventure. It's still mostly combat.

Mike Mearls review of Keep is a classic though. I still don't know his reasoning behind it. (I regard Keep itself as a classic, great adventure though... designed as a good introductory adventure with lots of fun combat.)

Cheers!

 

[Erekose]

. . . Mike Mearls review of Keep is a classic though. I still don't know his reasoning behind it. (I regard Keep itself as a classic, great adventure though... designed as a good introductory adventure with lots of fun combat.) . . .

I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?

 

[Maggan]

I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?

I googled this:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

That's probably the one.

EDIT: I read it, and while it is agressive and insulting at times I think the issues raised by Mearls are relevant. If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original. That said, it doesn't read well as a review, it's more of a rant, and probably was written to be a humorous take on the Keep.

/M

 

[WhatGravitas]

Rust monster love. I got nothin'.

Hmm... but that's exactly the reason, why I like Mearls' stuff. It rubs people in the wrong way, and he isn't afraid of doing that. I like to be challenged by stuff I don't like, as long as it is well explained and reasonable.

And sometimes, he turns out to be as insightful as inventive, like with Iron Heroes.

 

[Nyaricus]

I haven't seen this? Does any one have a link to Mike's review?

I was just thinking the same thing...

cheers,
--N

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

Still does not eliminate (or even reduce) miss chances,

You may want to read the spell before you state what it does not do.

"Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target."

The article doesn't give enough information to determine how they found the proper squares to attack.

 

[Erekose]

I googled this:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_1250.html

That's probably the one.

EDIT: I read it, and while it is agressive and insulting at times I think the issues raised by Mearls are relevant. If someone would release a module such as Keep on the Borderlands today, it would not be as well received as the original. That said, it doesn't read well as a review, it's more of a rant, and probably was written to be a humorous take on the Keep.

/M

Wow . . . just read the review . . . while I haven't played The Keep on The Borderlands for about 25 years I don't remember it being as bad as Mike's review makes out.

Although I seem to remember thinking that The Palace of the Silver Princess would have been a better introductory module for the Basic Set.