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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Regardless of the rest of what you wrote, I think this is the only thing that matters. I suggest really truly reading what you wrote here (along with wanting a 6e) and thinking about it, and trying to read my post again.

There is a big difference between the following statements:

1. I don't like your design goals!

2. I like your design goals, but I don't think you accomplished what you were trying to do!

3. I don't really care what your design goals are, I just want what I want.

Sure. What I’m saying is, “Your design does seem to accomplish what you were trying to do, but I think you could have accomplished the same goals in a different way, which would have been more appealing to me.” I guess if you want to be reductionist about it, you could argue that’s 3. But frankly, sharing opinions is the point of a forum.

RWhen someone says, "Hey, we considered X, but we decided not to design for X, because that's not what we are designing for ..." then, well, you can't really say, "Yeah, well, I don't care man, you should have X anyway!"

Thats not what I’m saying though. I’m saying “I see what you’re designing for, but I think you may have over-designed for it. You accomplished your stated goal with the first change, so I don’t see the second as necessary.”

RMaybe you want to have an iPhone, that runs Android OS, and is fully expandable, and doesn't use the Apple Store and doesn't have a walled garden and doesn't use proprietary connections ... and that's great. But that's not an iPhone.

Sure, but it’s still valid critique to say that the iPhone not having a headphone jack doesn’t meet its design goal of user friendly interface.

 

[robus]

And, of course, there's Paizo's Bagel Emporium that's opened right next door!

Edit: Speak of the devil: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5626-Pathfinder-s-Runelords-Are-Returning!

 

[Charlaquin]

It is off-point: it is more like buying the donut and complaining that it is too sweet and needs more onions.

It’s even more like the bagel store tweeting that the reason they switched to selling donuts instead of bagels was a shift in breakfast philosophy, because they think sweet breakfasts are better than savory ones, and commenting that they didn’t need to switch to donuts to offer a sweet breakfast - chocolate chip bagels have the advantages of being both sweet and a bagel.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

No it's not. This isn't akin to buying the wrong type of thing and not getting what you anticipated, it's saying that a vendor used to sell you something you liked (3e and 4e style rules) but doesn't anymore. Playing an RPG isn't like buying a single item, it's more like subscribing to a service.

I agree with you, but I think I should clarify: I do like 5e. I like it better than 3e or 4e. I just think that in trying to fix the issues of 3e and 4e, they overcorrected a bit, and the product could be improved by combining 3e and 4e’s wealth of character customization options with 5e’s design philosophy of flexibility over consistency.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I agree! I am certainly not trying to shut down your opinion, and I keep saying that your preferences are valid.

I'm just trying to back this up to a higher level. To use the suddenly-popular bakery analogy, you are the person who really likes bagels. So if the bakery makes the decision to serve donuts, it will seem obvious to you that they could serve a few bagels, right? They are a bakery, and they used to serve them, and they know how to make them, and you really like bagels! And would it kill them to serve some bagels? Just a few ... maybe some salt bagels? And cinnamon raisin? And maybe keep lox on hand, because who eats bagels without lox?

But design is about tradeoffs. That bakery isn't serving bagels. You can't eat the best 10 looking entrees on the restaurant menu. And (to use one example) the mechanics which are too light for you, are just the right level to bring back older players and have it be taught to younger generations- it's always a tradeoff.

I’m not though, that’s what I’m trying to say. I do like donuts. I’m here for donuts. I’d just like some maple bacon on the menu so I can mix savory with my sweet.

(And, fwiw, I hope that there are 3PP that will give you the complexity that you desire!)

Conplexity is not what I desire. Complexity is an inherently bad thing in a tabletop game, and 5e made a good move streamlining (in fact, I think they could benefit from streamlining even more in some cases.) What I desire is depth. And depth necessarily comes with some complexity. The key is finding the right balance for what you’re trying to do. And I don’t think 5e hits that mark. Certainly not for my taste, but from what I’m reading in these tweets, it seems like they overshot their own goals as well.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree with you, but I think I should clarify: I do like 5e. I like it better than 3e or 4e. I just think that in trying to fix the issues of 3e and 4e, they overcorrected a bit, and the product could be improved by combining 3e and 4e’s wealth of character customization options with 5e’s design philosophy of flexibility over consistency.

Sure, me too. 5e and 4e are about equal for me in hitting my preferences (although for different reasons), and 3e/PF is only slightly behind. I'd just like 5e with a few more decision points, that's all.

 

[Charlaquin]

It kind of is, though: if it has been six years since new management turned a failing bagel shop into a thriving donut bistro, coming to complain that you like bagels is just missing the point.

It’s also not what anyone is doing. I’m coming to the donut bistro, enjoying my donuts, and pointing out that, hey, wouldn’t some sweet-and-savory menu options be great? Especially when the reason you stated for not making bagels any more is that they’re not sweet. Like, maple bacon donuts are sweet, so serving them isn’t against your new philosophy (a philosophy I agree with, by the way.)

 

[Gradine]

My guess is that all of your 5e characters feel the same because they are all the same: the "my character is the best in the world at what he/she/it does" character. I find it curious to consider playing endless variations of the same character as a role-playing game, just as I'd find it curious to see someone lauded as a 'great actor' when he only ever portrays one role. Adding more mechanical complexity wouldn't actually make a better game; it would just allow you to distract yourself for a bit longer before realizing you're just playing the same character, over and over, in a glorified board game.

If that's what you want to do, cool -- as noted by other posters, there's a ton of third-party material to let you do just that. Just don't cram it into the 'core game' where I as a DM have to deal with it, because running a game where I'm dealing with the characters' mechanical strengths and flaws is way less interesting to me than one where I'm dealing with their personality strengths and flaws.

--
Pauper

While this dips a little too much into "badwrongfun" for my tastes, I think this analysis hits the nail on the head for why CharOpers in particularly seem to be dissatisfied with the lack of meaningful choices at each level. 5e, very deliberately I would argue, unclogs the time and energy previous editions devoted to the character choice analysis paralysis in favor of allowing players to spend that time and energy making meaningful character choices from a more narrativist or story-based context. This is not to say that powergamers can or don't do both; I've played with many that do. But I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that it's much easier to devote headspace to building a narrative around a character when one isn't also worried about so-called "trap" options or pouring over online guides for hours to find just that right feat. To say nothing of the breadth of character choices present in 3.X and 4e encouraging or at least presenting so justification for certain gamers to call out their fellow narrativist gamers who are taking skill bonus feats and prioritizing Intelligence over combat stats for "dragging down the party."

I have nothing against CharOpers and Powergamers and the like (at least when they're not being prescriptive) but I've long since learned that games which cater to those players are not my cup of tea, and I'm personally grateful for the shift in priorities from 5e (and my players are as well!)

 

[Reynard]

It was a carrion crawler in my case. *shakes fist*

Ten years old. First character. Carrior crawler beneath the rotting gate of the old keep.

The DM: my dad.

THAT's uphill both ways, kids.