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.

 

[TwoSix]

Not going to argue it. Saying “one” generally takes someone a second of time. “Chocolate” is more complicated, but folks say and do things differently and that’s the beauty of life.

Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.

Heck, I just tried reading a 30 word sentence in exactly 30 seconds, and it was painfully slow to do so.

 

[Numidius]

Let's take the "exchange of information" at the table as keyword and guideline, and analize WotC work by that.

In Magic, the game is symmetric between the players, the "information" brought to the table coming from both their decks of cards' builds

In 3e, given the asymmetrical traditional rpg type of game (one DM with full information "vs" many players with virtually none): they provided a rigid and "bloated" rules framework to spread the required basic information available at any moment, in any table as evenly as possible, for both sides. Moreover providing players with lots of choices to be optimized in char-gen & advancement to create their pc builds, in order to (let's say) compensate the Monster Manual of the DM.

In 5e they realized that equity, fair play, at the table could be obtained more easily by the "mere" consensus among people playing, not necessarily by rules overload.
Fine. The problem I'm starting see in this approach, is that they are just redistributing the load of "information" available in the system only on one side, the DM side.

Power gaming & rules lawyering, might not be the problem itself, the cause, but rather the symptom: a big (and for some: really bad) side effect of the Magic cardgame approach of 3e.
I'd like to think that what these people want (me included, even if I am more of an immersive guy) is, in abstract terms, more "information" to operate more efficiently in the system/world/setting/game/whatever, and the only way would be to have this information to go from them to the DM also (and back again, of course).

Thinking more in abstract, the conversation at the table is the medium, while the information is the content.
Both sides should have the means to exchange valuable info to the other (valuable by having either mechanical weight, or agreed consensus, thus providing active actions, actual changes in the setting; things the DM would be willingly forced to reckon with... IMO).

Going back to topic, I'd argue that 3e premise/goal/intention was fair in this regard, but in practice failed because of the cardgame mindset; while 5e just missed the point of said premise, only streamlining the practice itself at the table, without recognizing the underlying desire of a more evenly spread agency at the table (that I like to define by the exchange of interactive&proactive information).
Now all the frame (the management) of the campaign, seems lifted from the players' side and loaded on the DM.
I'm not saying this is bad per se, I'm only noting the shift.

Does it make sense?

Not sure if it does to me, anyway; but these are my thoughts emerged from following, with interest, this whole thread.

 

[Numidius]

Let's take the "exchange of information" at the table as keyword and guideline, and analize WotC work by that.

In Magic, the game is symmetric between the players, the "information" brought to the table coming from both their decks of cards' builds

In 3e, given the asymmetrical traditional rpg type of game (one DM with full information "vs" many players with virtually none): they provided a rigid and "bloated" rules framework to spread the required basic information available at any moment, in any table as evenly as possible, for both sides. Moreover providing players with lots of choices to be optimized in char-gen & advancement to create their pc builds, in order to (let's say) compensate the Monster Manual of the DM.

In 5e they realized that equity, fair play, at the table could be obtained more easily by the "mere" consensus among people playing, not necessarily by rules overload.
Fine. The problem I'm starting see in this approach, is that they are just redistributing the load of "information" available in the system only on one side, the DM side.

Power gaming & rules lawyering, might not be the problem itself, the cause, but rather the symptom: a big (and for some: really bad) side effect of the Magic cardgame approach of 3e.
I'd like to think that what these people want (me included, even if I am more of an immersive guy) is, in abstract terms, more "information" to operate more efficiently in the system/world/setting/game/whatever, and the only way would be to have this information to go from them to the DM also (and back again, of course).

Thinking more in abstract, the conversation at the table is the medium, while the information is the content.
Both sides should have the means to exchange valuable info to the other (valuable by having either mechanical weight, or agreed consensus, thus providing active actions, actual changes in the setting; things the DM would be willingly forced to reckon with... IMO).

Going back to topic, I'd argue that 3e premise/goal/intention was fair in this regard, but in practice failed because of the cardgame mindset; while 5e just missed the point of said premise, only streamlining the practice itself at the table, without recognizing the underlying desire of a more evenly spread agency at the table (that I like to define by the exchange of interactive&proactive information).
Now all the frame (the management) of the campaign, seems lifted from the players' side and loaded on the DM.
I'm not saying this is bad per se, I'm only noting the shift.

Does it make sense?

Not sure if it does to me, anyway; but these are my thoughts emerged from following, with interest, this whole thread.

An example of information exchange from PC to DM: the PC background; or goals of the party.

Very basic ones, actually, but might be powerful in the campaign.

What I have seen in games I played in, is that dismissing those bg/goals is a habit of both DMs that prefer a railroad game or a sandbox one.

In both cases the DMs become the only providers of information in the game.

(Just to tell you where I'm coming from...)

 

[pemerton]

As an aside: Engaging the fiction, for sure, and also I'd say Engage the Setting, as players, so to have "new information", about the game fiction, flowing from PCs* to the GM, not only the usual way around, from Gm to Pcs.

*PCs decisions, choises, investment of resources and creativity to alter the setting/situation, "forcing" the Gm to react to them, and enjoy the unexpected new stuff brought to the table by players.
Not an easy task, btw.

If I'm understanding you right, that's very much my preferred approach to RPGing.

Here's an actual play report (first session of a 4e Dark Sun campaign) which is fairly representative.

 

[pemerton]

Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.

The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)

The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Unless you have a different source of data than I do, most English speakers average between 110-150 words per minute when speaking, which is about 4-5 syllables per second.

Heck, I just tried reading a 30 word sentence in exactly 30 seconds, and it was painfully slow to do so.

I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again at some point. I'm obviously living in some sort of reality distortion field based on my own way of speaking and an incorrect view of time.

Thanks,
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)

The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.

.. this is at least part of my time abstraction problem for those who were following my admission of inaccuracy.

Much of my time has been spent mentoring and teaching older and younger co-workers. I had to un-learn speaking at the speed of my thoughts in order to be effective.

Thanks Pem.
KB

 

[Maxperson]

The rule of thumb I use when preparing to give a talk (which is a regular part of my job, as an academic) is 100 words per minute. (And half that, or less, for a lecture, because you have to repeat yourself so the students can get it down!)

The most common weakness when junior academics give their first talks and their first lectures is that they talk too fast. Ordinary conversational pace - especially a nervous pace - is quite a bit faster than the speed at which you want to talk if presenting complex and novel material to an audience who are expected to be absorbing it in a serious way.

How about when you're in the middle of mortal combat?

 

[Charlaquin]

How about when you're in the middle of mortal combat?

The announcer does speak pretty slowly.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION] - I found your long post interesting. If I've followed you properly, you're suggesting that 5e "solves" the issue of rules bloat/complexity by shifting to a very GM-driven game. To me, that seems fair, and consistent with how I generally see the game presented on these boards. (Of course that's generalising across a wide degree of individual variation.)

Thinking about action resolution, I believe there are two main ways to achieve a greater degree of symmetry at the table.

One is to go for relatively hard-coded "subjective" DCs, which then provide a reasonalby "knowable" framework for the players to exert themselves against. I look at 4e in this light; and a non-D&D system that I also think fits this description is Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic - though rather than a table/formula for level appropriate DCs like 4e has, it uses GM-side dice pools to generate the opposition.

Another is to go for "objective" DCs - which therefore give the GM a lot of latitude in establishing the DCs and, thereby, the "feel" of the setting (especially when, unlike 3E, GM discretion is prioritised more highly and there are fewer long lists of DCs-by-circumstance) - but to give the players (i) less reason to want to succeed all the time (eg "fail forward" techniques of resolution) and/or (ii) resources on their side that allow them to adjust upwards from their basic competence if the GM turns out to have set the DCs higher than the players hoped/planned for. Burning Wheel is a system I play and GM that has both (i) (by way of fail forward, and also because its advancement system means sometimes your PC needs to lose) and (ii).

4e also has (ii) (eg action points, healing surges, many boosting powers, etc), which combines with its use of "subjective", system-driven DCs to generate a very high degree of player capacity to respond to, engage and shape (not in meta-ways, but by rich and ambitious action declarations) the situations the GM frames the PCs into. I think for those who haven't played much 4e in accordance with this logic of the system, and whose conception of player-side RPGing comes from relatively sparse systems where the only high-octane player-side resources are spells and magic-items, it can be hard to convey the difference of play in 4e compared to those sparse systems, that results from all these player-side resources in combination with the system-driven DCs and creature builds.

Another two systems I'm currently GMing are Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller. The former has a few player-side meta-resources, but not many: players are mostly just rolling pools built from their PC stats and skills. And it uses "objective" DCs. So it relies on "fail forward"-type adjudication to encourage player-first rather than GM-driven play.

Classic Traveller also uses "objective" DCs, but - a bit like the way in which D&D spells are notionally ingame rather than meta but are able to play the role that meta resources play in other systems - the objective DCs in Classic Traveller generally happen to have a nice spread relative to the sorts of bonuses PCs have. And it also uses a lot of dice-driven stuff on the GM-side as well as the player side. This led me to make a post late last year about Classic Traveller as a very dice-driven game. (So "negatively symmetrical", neither player nor GM driven.)