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.

 

[Parmandur]

That is a very different conversation than the one at hand here. There is nothing in Mearl’s tweet or my response to it about pre-3e Editions, and bringing up the similarity between 5e and previous editions does not address my point in any way.

The topic of conversation is Mearls discussing the aspects of 3E and 4E design that led, ultimately, to their failure and how 5E learned and progressed on from the lessons learned. And the design team did so, largely, by stepping back and looking at what worked better (for the intended function of the game) in earlier editions and finding a balanced approach through very thorough testing.

So, yes, it is relevant to discuss how earlier editions worked, when 5E moved forwards by learning from that design. 5E is, really, a quite complex game, compared to most of D&D history.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's a screenshot of the tweet: View attachment 101691

So am I missing?

Yeah, you’re missing the words “gatekeeping via.” As in, the people who want to use rules complexity and lore density as a gate with which to keep people out of the hobby. So, unless the reason you like rules complexity and lore density is that it keeps undesirable people out of the hobby, then you’re not who he’s talking about.

 

[Charlaquin]

The topic of conversation is Mearls discussing the aspects of 3E and 4E design that led, ultimately, to their failure and how 5E learned and progressed on from the lessons learned.

That is the general topic of discussion in this thread, yes, but the conversation I was having with Lanefan was about the specific part of the tweets where he said that the interaction between rules trying to be as consistent as possible and mechanical options that break the power curve was resolved by focusing instead on flexibility and story.

And the design team did so, largely, by stepping back and looking at what worked better (for the intended function of the game) in earlier editions and finding a balanced approach through very thorough testing.

My argument is that the reduction of options wasn’t a necessary part of fixing the problem Mearls identified. The fact that earlier editions had fewer options does not counter my argument, or for that matter, have any relevance to it.

So, yes, it is relevant to discuss how earlier editions worked, when 5E moved forwards by learning from that design. 5E is, really, a quite complex game, compared to most of D&D history.

Maybe in a general sense, but not in the discussion Lanefan and I were having that you just butted into.

 

[seebs]

Reduction of options may not have been strictly logically necessary, but I think it was essential to actually getting the thing done, in practice. And they could have added more options since, but I also suspect that doing that would endanger things that are more important to them; either they'd put a ton of effort into balancing the options, meaning not putting that effort into other things, or they'd end up with a lot of people feeling that the options were Incorrectly Balanced.

With many more people and playtesters, or a much longer development cycle, sure, they could probably have produced significantly more options without breaking things too much. On the other hand, I am not totally sure that they could have made a thing which would have succeeded as well in their primary goals.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think much the same "cakewalk" claim has been made after the release of each edition starting with 2e. Nothing new there; and while it's harder to kill off PCs in some editions than others they can all be made about equally deadly (or not) depending on the DM.

The "'strong narrative' to 'enjoy'" claim came even sooner, right around the time the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1e era.

Cakewalk has become more and more overt however from 2e onwards. -10 before dead, then I forget 3e, but 4e had death saves making it hard to die and finally 5e it's almost impossible to die, short of a full TPK. And even if you do die, no worries, 3rd level revivify and done. Death is a speedbump on the plot train, because the show must go on.

Dont get me wrong. I actually dont want my dnd to be too deadly - I dont like auto dead at zero. PCs dying every session just gets you Bob the Fighter, Rob the Fighter, Nob the Fighter, etc - it's as bad as not dying at all.

And I agree about the Dragonlance modules. They were god awful too.

 

[Psikerlord#]

There are some games that I hate as much as @Psikerlord# apparently hates 5e.

Strangely enough, I don't bother following any forums where those games are discussed.

I dont hate 5e. The basic system is fine, apart from death and a number of the spells need to be removed. And reset everyone onto the same long rest refresh mechanic. And a few other tweaks. What I do dislike though, are Adventure Paths, which are partly responsible for the rise in importance of "plot", instead of RPGs focusing on open world choices - which after all is what they are better at than any other medium.

Want a cool branching RPG story? Play the Dragon Age Origins computer game; terrific story, cool characters, play anytime you want and more choices than an adventure path. Course you cant play with your friends. 4 out of 5 aint bad.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Someone needs to start writing their own material and stop using adventure paths, methinks.

I most certainly try to

 

[D1Tremere]

I would argue that 5e hasn't reduced options, it has reduced over reliance on mechanics rules.
If I envision my character as doing something cool like making a disguise and perform check to pass myself off as a gnome grandma I don't want myself as a player or the DM to feel constrained because another player believes this infringes on the usefulness of his gnome grandma feet/prestige class.
A swashbuckler or ninja, for example, need not be a class or specific rule package. One fighter may play it loud and tough while another swings from chandeliers, or wears all black and throws stars. Maybe its a rogue instead. No need to constrain player or DM flow with rigid or overly specific mechanics like a ninja class or swashbuckler feet in my opinion.

 

[ad_hoc]

OK, but that just pushes the issue back one step. Why can't my Champion fighter push someone to the ground and do damage in the process?

I can't see an in-fiction reason for that. It's pure metagame that runs directly counter to the idea that in a RPG "I can try and do anything".

That is the same thing as asking why your Champion can't make 10 attacks in 1 round.

They can shove to the ground and do damage by level 2. By 5th level they don't even need their Action Surge for it.

Battlemasters just get some damage when they do it because it is their thing.

 

[Parmandur]

That is the general topic of discussion in this thread, yes, but the conversation I was having with Lanefan was about the specific part of the tweets where he said that the interaction between rules trying to be as consistent as possible and mechanical options that break the power curve was resolved by focusing instead on flexibility and story.


My argument is that the reduction of options wasn’t a necessary part of fixing the problem Mearls identified. The fact that earlier editions had fewer options does not counter my argument, or for that matter, have any relevance to it.


Maybe in a general sense, but not in the discussion Lanefan and I were having that you just butted into.

Lanefan thought it was a relevant part of the discussion, and I would agree. Just saying it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

The balance they struck certainly isn't logically necessary, that's why they did extensive playtesting to see what worked in reality.