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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Most folks want mechanical distinction, not just power.

What does mechanical distinction WITHOUT power look like to you? How many choices to make at each level that are all lateral moves would be enough to satisfy the craving for difference?

 

[Oofta]

Stealth rules are lazy, I agree. Same with some of the other stuff you mentioned. It's not a perfect game, no matter what some people on here act like.

This is an example of what I was talking about earlier. There's a podcast on this from the early days of 5E. Crawford had detailed rules for stealth. They decided to not use them for the very same reasons alluded to in the tweets. It just wasn't the direction they wanted for the game.

Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy because they didn't want a game that was as rules heavy as the previous two editions. That's not lazy, it's a design decision. One I'm quite happy with.

 

[Jester David]

First of all, I didn’t say we need more. Please stick to what I’ve said when replying to me. I’m not particularly interested in answering for other people. I personally see the phb as too limited to really satisfy the needs of my group, but the only thing missing right now is stuff that is favorite material for my group, like playable gnolls, and worthwhile orcs and kobolds. We’re fairly resigned to homebrew on those specific examples, unfortunately.

Again, how many campaigns a single group can get through in a span of time doesn’t matter nearly as much as you want it to, because the preference for more options isn’t about that. What you’re missing, again, is that a given player isn’t generally interested in all of the classes, or all types of concepts, and as @Umbran pointed out, more choices is about crafting a character, not so just about replayability.

But even in the realm of replayability, a dozen classes isn’t really a dozen choices per player, because most players aren’t interested in concepts found within all dozen classes. And there are broad concepts that 5e is light on still, so while I’m cool with what is out, and new stuff is mostly gravy (other than very specific stuff from previous editions, like Eberron races, artificers, etc) it’s entirely understandable why some folks aren’t satisfied with the current options.

But, moving back to the actual issue at hand, it’s not that there aren’t enough options, as such, for many players. For many players, it is that a given character only has so many decision points, and choosing “assassin” or “Beast Master” locks you into a progression all the way to level 20, with very little choice other than feats, of which there aren’t that many.

What the game needs, is for every class to have an alternate progression that accesses more decision points, and/or subclasses that increase decision points per level tier.

First , this assumes the best/only way to differentiate a character is mechanical. There was no mechanical distinction between most classses in 1e/2e and people managed to create vastly different characters just fine...
Reflavouring or working with a DM to make an additive and unique “ribbon” power is often the best way to define a character.

Second, there already IS an alternate progression with more decision points in the game. They’re called “feats”.
And the reason there shouldn't be a second should be blindingly obvious. You just need to compare featless games versus ones where feats are permitted.

Again, option creep = power creep. If you have a couple optional class features at each level, one will be the ‘best’. Just by picking that one, the character will be more powerful. And you repeat that three or five or seven times and the new character is significantly better than a base character.
Creating a wave of alternate options is the best way to just shatter the game’s balance....


Again, we don’t need any of that codified. That doesn’t need to be done by WotC and handled by splatbooks. That can be handled through cooperation with the DM and the player or liberal use of, y’know, imagination.
The spirit talker can be done via the Magic Initiate feat and flavored as taking to spirits to “cast” some divination spells. Maybe a bonus power, or boon.
At worst, if the concept is that much larger, it’s easiest to just make subclass. Those are easy. 3-5 powers.
RPGs thrive on homebrewing. That’s how new game designers are made. Heck, the reason we have D&D is Aneson homebrewing and hacking Chainmail.

 

[Eric V]

This is an example of what I was talking about earlier. There's a podcast on this from the early days of 5E. Crawford had detailed rules for stealth. They decided to not use them for the very same reasons alluded to in the tweets. It just wasn't the direction they wanted for the game.

Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy because they didn't want a game that was as rules heavy as the previous two editions. That's not lazy, it's a design decision. One I'm quite happy with.

Yeah...I made sure not to call the designers themselves lazy (don't see how anyone can know that, just like I can't know if they're extremely hard-working), but since this seems to be where the 5e megafans want to take the narrative, I'll just bid y'all adieu. 5e is as perfect as D&D can get!

 

[Derren]

Yeah...I made sure not to call the designers themselves lazy (don't see how anyone can know that, just like I can't know if they're extremely hard-working), but since this seems to be where the 5e megafans want to take the narrative, I'll just bid y'all adieu. 5e is as perfect as D&D can get!

Until 6e is announced, then it was a horrible system no one in his right mind would use and anyone not ditching it for the glorious new edition deserves to get banned.

 

[Satyrn]

In some packets . . . there wer more expanded exploration rules and depending on your pace and formation you had to make a readiness saving throw.

Intriguing!

I am gonna have to search for that.

 

[Parmandur]

Until 6e is announced, then it was a horrible system no one in his right mind would use and anyone not ditching it for the glorious new edition deserves to get banned.

If there ever is 6E: there probably will be, in a backwards compatible form, as they have attled on an evergreen approach.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What does mechanical distinction WITHOUT power look like to you? How many choices to make at each level that are all lateral moves would be enough to satisfy the craving for difference?

I don’t understand what’s confusing or unclear? There are many games where you can choose between options at most or all levels.

"The game" needs nothing: gamers may.or may not want certain features. Where there is sufficient demand that doesn't alienate others, we may see it. Alternative Class features are something they are floating to test interest right now, so we'll see.

Okay? I’m not interested in nit picking back and forth about what “need” means.

First , this assumes the best/only way to differentiate a character is mechanical. There was no mechanical distinction between most classses in 1e/2e and people managed to create vastly different characters just fine...
Reflavouring or working with a DM to make an additive and unique “ribbon” power is often the best way to define a character.

No, it doesn’t assume that at all. It assumes that most players want mechanical distinction. Are you going to next argue that most players would be perfectly happy only having 3 options with no mechanical distinction after choosing between those 3 options, and little distinction between the 3?

also, the fact that people enjoyed 1e doesn’t mean that 5e isn’t better. That should be blindingly obvious.

Second, there already IS an alternate progression with more decision points in the game. They’re called “feats”.
And the reason there shouldn't be a second should be blindingly obvious. You just need to compare featless games versus ones where feats are permitted.

its not blindingly obvious, because it isn’t even true. In fact, it isn’t even true to say that there isn’t any such thing in 5e, outside of feats.

Warlocks, Battle Masters, Hunter Rangers, 4 Elements Monks, Sorcerers, are all examples. The last two aren’t as popular, but that is quite clearly because their resources are too limited and they feel frustrating to play as a result, even for new players that know jack about power levels.

Again, option creep = power creep. If you have a couple optional class features at each level, one will be the ‘best’. Just by picking that one, the character will be more powerful. And you repeat that three or five or seven times and the new character is significantly better than a base character.
Creating a wave of alternate options is the best way to just shatter the game’s balance....

Cool, good thing that isn’t the only option I proposed.

Again, we don’t need any of that codified. That doesn’t need to be done by WotC and handled by splatbooks. That can be handled through cooperation with the DM and the player or liberal use of, y’know, imagination.
The spirit talker can be done via the Magic Initiate feat and flavored as taking to spirits to “cast” some divination spells. Maybe a bonus power, or boon.

It can be done that way, but it’s better for the player that wants to summon and consort with spirits to have an option that actually does that. As for need, again, we don’t “need” a game to exist. Need isn’t relevant except as a shorthand for a strong desire amongst the player base to have it.

 

[ad_hoc]

Elegant design is difficult and takes a lot of work.

Anyone can write pages upon pages of rules. Creating an RPG like D&D so that play is fast and rulebooks don't need to be pulled out (or memorized) during play takes a lot of work.

Take Boardgames - Much of the innovation over the last 20 years has been creating elegant design. Settlers of Catan is a light game that takes an average of 90 minutes to play. There is a lot of time spent not engaging in the game. New games with the same amount of depth take 30 minutes to play. Fiddly bits, board clutter, chit management, downtime, and more have all been refined and further refined to create more elegant games. There are fewer rules and cleaner boards, but that doesn't mean that designers are lazy.

On a different note people like to talk about the power of options a lot. The thing is, most people don't know how to accurately evaluate different options. And those who have the skills to do so don't have the opportunity to adequately test their ideas. D&D is not a competitive game. In a competitive game which people take seriously claims don't matter. What matters is who wins. That proves which strategies are better. I have followed 3 games competitively in my life and in every game I've seen the general population who play those games swear that certain strategies are terrible only to see those strategies rise to the top.

I recommend to anyone who is looking to D&D to stretch their strategy and tactic muscles to get really deep into a competitive game. One where money is on the line if you can. The nuances of strategy and the amount of time it takes to master those games will surprise you.

 

[Umbran]

What the game needs, is for every class to have an alternate progression that accesses more decision points, and/or subclasses that increase decision points per level tier.

More accurately - "What the game would have to have to scratch the itch of some of these players". Or "What the game would have to have to satisfy me..." or the like.

The game is apparently doing very well, so saying it "needs" these things in the overall objective sense is a bit of a stretch.