Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing. When I first started playing D&D it had basically invented the 'role playing' genre, that was what made the game interesting and different. We played it to be a 'different person', having heroic adventures in imaginary worlds.

I'd argue that the primary focus of a tabletop wargame is combat, but not D&D. That isn't to say that someone can't -make- that the primary focus, of course... and I think that 3e may be moving towards that, whether deliberately or unconciously (for instance - searching for traps used to be a role play thing, which was all based on description back in the '70's. Now it is more a case of a quick roll to find traps using search skill)

 

[Erekose]

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).

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?

I think there are lots of issues to unpack with D&D and where it is heading. For those of us who have a main focus on the roleplaying aspect there have been worrying trends for some time, e.g. 3.5E with more of a focus on minatures, and recent supplements with more of a focus on tactical combat, etc. In its current format, the evolving ruleset remains flexible enough (or perhaps more accurately optional enough) to allow all styles of play. I just hope that when a new core ruleset is produced and all of the options are crystallised into one coherent whole that it maintains this flexibility.

 

[hong]

I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing.

To be precise, the primary focus of D&D is roleplaying combat.

As opposed to, you know, actual combat.

 

[RedFox]

An anthropomorphic bat druid?

Where the heck did they get that one from? The 3.0 Savage Species book or something?

 

[Jawar]

Without being disparaging, from what I've read of his monster redesigns on the WotC site, I honestly hope he has as little to do with the design of 4E as is possible...

And I hope he's one of the people in charge of 4E.
I like Mike Mearl's views. He's not one to hold on to sacred bastions just because.
I give the man an applause!

 

[Hussar]

I'd argue that the primary focus of D&D is role-playing. When I first started playing D&D it had basically invented the 'role playing' genre, that was what made the game interesting and different. We played it to be a 'different person', having heroic adventures in imaginary worlds.

I'd argue that the primary focus of a tabletop wargame is combat, but not D&D. That isn't to say that someone can't -make- that the primary focus, of course... and I think that 3e may be moving towards that, whether deliberately or unconciously (for instance - searching for traps used to be a role play thing, which was all based on description back in the '70's. Now it is more a case of a quick roll to find traps using search skill)

Ok, I got into the game with AD&D, so, I really don't know what you're referring to. The Find Traps skill was hard wired into the thief from pretty much the get go. Role play find traps? Why? The thief player said, "I search for traps on the door/chest/green demon face" and the DM rolled the dice.

How is that different from now?

See, I see the game entirely differently mostly because all we ever played was modules. GDQ, A series, Tomoachan, and others. They were all hack fests. Even Keep was pretty much nothing but a series of fights when we played it.

It wasn't until we played Ravenloft that we realized that you could actually talk to the baddies.

 

[Jawar]

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.

A Keep on the Borderlands was my 1st OD&D adventure.
It was a passable scenario, even at the time. Our GM confessed us how unlikely that many humanoid races lived together in such a closed space (the entrance caves were quite close to each other) and he tried to give the monsters an intelligence, so they actually had a life there. He tried to adapt; still, the setting was highly unlikely and pretty basic.

Still, we had quite fun, in the OD&D style.

Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson kicked the thing rolling and they will be forever in my Hall of Heroes.
However, I tend to see all things in perspective.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Ok, I got into the game with AD&D, so, I really don't know what you're referring to.

It used to go like this in our games:

Fred: "I'll knock on the walls, looking for hollow areas"

Joe: "meanwhile, I'll check the edges of the door for trick hinges"

DM: "Fred, there is a hollow sound just behind the bedstead. No obvious way of opening it though. Nothing around the door, Joe."

Joe: "I'll try each of the torch sconces"

DM "The third torch sconce moves, and with a creak the secret door opens"

 

[phindar]

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?

Maybe so. While I like combat, I don't think its the only or even the best way to solve every problem the party comes across. But a lot of the time, players are just looking for a fight even if it makes no sense (from a character perspective) to get into one.

This last line was my favorite in the article:

I think people like the chance to try out weird, high level characters, and as DM it's interesting running a game where I try to kill off PCs without cheating. It's definitely a change of pace from my regular campaigns.

Kill pcs by cheating, the Mearls way.

 

[MerricB]

D&D enables roleplaying, but focuses on combat. There are exceptions, but almost every adventure has a lot of combat in it. The exceptions (like Tomb of Horrors) are very interesting - they tend to go to the investigative plot, one that is possibly underused. (Mind you, mystery plots are very common in Living Greyhawk adventures I've run).

Cheers!