Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[mbeacom]

I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?

 

[Kobold Boots]

I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?

It doesn't attract jerks.

It allows jerks to be jerks more frequently if they're inclined to be that way to begin with. Creating more rules to offset the behavior doesn't correct it - it just makes the game less enjoyable for folks that can't stand up to the jerks and get them away from their tables.

At some point the design crew realized that they were spending more time trying to clarify things because of rules gaps only exposed by a certain type of player and they're not doing it anymore. Whether or not that type of abrasive rules lawyer is caused by the complexity of the game is not the issue; the fact that they do exist is - and the team doesn't want to perpetuate the issue by supporting the behavior through an ever increasing level of complexity.

Better to simply say: DM rules his or her table. Players decide whether or not they want to play there. -- then get back to being a game publisher and not a baby sitter.

Note: D&D got plenty complicated off of a simple set of rules just by letting DMs house rule their tables. Somewhere around late 1e and 2e it started getting bulky and went full on bloat by 3.5. Times change and it's probably no surprise to anyone paying attention that the times D&D was most popular were the times it wasn't as heavy. (80s and recently)

 

[mbeacom]

It doesn't attract jerks.

It allows jerks to be jerks more frequently if they're inclined to be that way to begin with. Creating more rules to offset the behavior doesn't correct it - it just makes the game less enjoyable for folks that can't stand up to the jerks and get them away from their tables.

At some point the design crew realized that they were spending more time trying to clarify things because of rules gaps only exposed by a certain type of player and they're not doing it anymore. Whether or not that type of abrasive rules lawyer is caused by the complexity of the game is not the issue; the fact that they do exist is - and the team doesn't want to perpetuate the issue by supporting the behavior through an ever increasing level of complexity.

Better to simply say: DM rules his or her table. Players decide whether or not they want to play there. -- then get back to being a game publisher and not a baby sitter.

Note: D&D got plenty complicated off of a simple set of rules just by letting DMs house rule their tables. Somewhere around late 1e and 2e it started getting bulky and went full on bloat by 3.5. Times change.

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.

I think that whenever someone posts bluntly they run the risk of leaving what they're saying open to interpretation. Mike's a human first, game designer later and I don't hold the WoTC team to any standard of communication beyond where I would be if I was annoyed by something. At some point it's on me whether or not I want to take him in a negative light.

My opinion is that the 3.5 and Pathfinder grouping of games has a lot more area where the DM needs to interpret things, and a lot more reading to be fluent in the game system such that the DM needs to manage expectations of his or her players as to how things will be judged and how rules will interact with each other in niche cases. Because most DMs don't have the time or the inclination to read everything, create a spreadsheet, do the math and figure out the balances ahead of time.. should they run in to or be a "difficult player" it makes the game less enjoyable and straddles the DM with a decision to not run things "by the book" with less emphasis on their right to "do it the way you want".

Now were I running a game company (FWIW I love crunchy systems) I would not write a crunchy system without a long chapter on game balance and mechanics theory aimed at the DM such that they knew one of the things they had to do was come up with their own "how my world works" document and "players agree to" document. This is so far away from "lets just play a module on Friday night" that I see exactly where Mike's coming from.

KB

 

[Satyrn]

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.

I think it's not that it was designed for jerks, but was made to defend against jerks. Like, they were indeed writing it for people who enjoy mechanical depth, while also spending lots of extra effort to close off loopholes or the like so that the jerks couldn't use that mechanical depth against their fellow players.

 

[D1Tremere]

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. So when he says "making a game for "jerks"" He doesn't really mean making a game for them, rather he means designing a game to try to manage them. But I still wonder what games he might be talking about. I think 3.5 certainly has a lot of rules and explores a lot of mechanical corner cases. But does that mean, Mearls is saying 3.5 is "made for jerks"? Is it not possible that some perfectly good people just enjoy having more mechanical depth? I personally do not. I am not a big fan of 3.5. But I never got the feeling it was made for jerks. I always felt like it was made for people who enjoys lots of simulation.

t is perfectly reasonable to like 3.5 or any other system, and people can do so without being jerks. The problem is that as the rules try to account for every possible scenario in order to make games more homogeneous from one table to another, they begin to select for players who approach the rules as immutable law. This type of selection favors min/maxing, rules lawyering, and a heavy meta game focus on right vs wrong ways to do things. Even this is not really a problem if that is how everyone in the group enjoys their experience, but it can create players who are ill prepared for games that do not function to such specifications. It encourages a competitive approach instead of a cooperative approach from some players.
To be fair, his original definition of obnoxious players is never really given. In this case he seems to be referring to competitive or mechanically inclined players, as those are definitely the kind of players that 5e moves away from. I do not necessarily agree that these are always or often problematic players, as again it is mostly down to how you frame your ideal of a good player/group.

 

[Lanefan]

You can talk on your turn.

Is this to say you can't talk when it's not your turn?

That takes turn-based rigidity to a whole new level. Yikes!

 

[Satyrn]

To be fair, his original definition of obnoxious players is never really given. In this case he seems to be referring to competitive or mechanically inclined players.

I think he's referring to the kind of player who finds a ridiculous exploit in the rules (like the Whirlwind Attack/Great Cleave/bag-of-rats combo) and insists upon using it the game because "it's in the rules."

 

[Hriston]

Is this to say you can't talk when it's not your turn?

My view is there really is no time in the fiction during the six-second round when it's not your turn, so if you want your character to say something during that round, your turn would be the appropriate time to describe that.

 

[Lanefan]

My view is there really is no time in the fiction during the six-second round when it's not your turn, so if you want your character to say something during that round, your turn would be the appropriate time to describe that.

That must make on-the-fly tactics co-ordination a pain for the front-liners, if nothing else; never mind the taunting and threats piece...

"Go left!"
"I got this!"
"Joa, cover the Elf, she's down!"
"They've got a caster! Back right!"
"Andy! Incoming behind you!" (nickname for Andiriana or some other equally-long name)
"Surrender or die!"
"You want some o' this?!"
"Medic! I'm hurtin' here!"
"Twenty-two!"
"Twenty-three!"
"Parlay!"

Any one of these takes a second or less to say, and any one could change the upcoming action of one or more allies and-or foes. (well, except for the kill count...)

Lan-"that still only counts as one!"-efan