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.

 

[MNblockhead]

Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.

Since writing has to be done by writers and design by designers, it is disingenuous to argue that your intention was to not cast aspersions on the creators in question.

But I don't understand why everyone is so quick to pick up the gauntlet over this as if their wives have been insulted.

If an editor calls out a writer over a section of writing and states that it is "bad writing" they are certainly saying that the writer did a bad job in this instance, but that does not mean they are saying the writer is a bad writer who always or even usually produces bad writing.

I love 5e. It brought me back into TTRPG. But there are areas I think could be improved. I disagree with many of the calls for changes or additions that I've read in this and other threads, but I'm not personally offended, much less offended on behalf of a designer, when other posters express criticisms.

I find the discussion here about what constitutes lazy design to be very interesting, but the arguments over whether it is a polite term detract from this otherwise interesting discussion.

 

[5ekyu]

Not at all. I have no desire to play PF. I want it turned 1-2 notches towards that style to improve the value of the book at the table, not 10 and turn it into a legal code.

A good technical textbook is actually very readable. It often has lots of text and explanation about what the concepts mean and how to apply them. Sadly, many textbooks are pretty bad and look like a giant list of meaningless equations.

Well, what I can say from my experience only is that for easily the last 28 years the bigger more successful RPGs have been far more style towards coffee table than text books. Not saying there are not places for success with more text book style presentations but the top end takeovers have seemed to be more styled than that.

But hey, yeah, if what you say is true and that's the better mousetrap sweet spot, you might be making a million any day now. Just fill that niche.

 

[Maxperson]

What other RPGs are you comparing it to?

He lists some in the sentence immediately after the quote. Here's the next sentence which you cut out for some reason, before asking that question.

3.x/Pathfinder is a mid-heavy system, Hero is a heavy system. Of all the things 5E is, it’s not a heavy system

 

[Maxperson]

Staples charges exactly the same to print from a PDF as it does to make photocopies. So does the public library.

What PDF? They have the hardcover book only. No computer. No PDF. And if you really expect people to travel to Staples or the library to see what a character sheet looks like, you don't know people. The sheet needs to be in the PHB, which is why it is there.

 

[MNblockhead]

Just looking in the the PHB, there are several things that could easily have been "for the web":

<SNIP>

-Appendix E: The list of novels and such (1 page)

Right there without any rewriting or adding to the total length of the book I got 9 pages! I guarantee I could find another 11 to free up 20 pages.

DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH Appendix E. Well, you can move it to another section (preferably "Appendix N"), but the suggested-reading list is a cherished tradition. It's not D&D without a reading list.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Well, what I can say from my experience only is that for easily the last 28 years the bigger more successful RPGs have been far more style towards coffee table than text books. Not saying there are not places for success with more text book style presentations but the top end takeovers have seemed to be more styled than that.

Um, wow.

I mean, the chapter on combat is pretty nittanoid and detailed, and in general is pretty thorough. There are numerous other examples in the DMG of chapters that are thoroughly written. The chapter on skills is, by contrast, under-written. All I'm saying is moving the chapter on skills a bit in the direction of the chapter on combat. Not a lot, just a bit.

But hey, yeah, if what you say is true and that's the better mousetrap sweet spot, you might be making a million any day now. Just fill that niche.

Huh? I have a perfectly well established career with 0 desire to switch into the low pay and massive uncertainty of RPG design. That doesn't mean I can't make suggestions about how to make the game books better/clearer and more useful in play. I am 100% sure WotC doesn't much care what I think, though... but who knows.

 

[pemerton]

VERY good expression of why I feel the skill system is under-developed.

Thanks!

A follow-up comment: a developed skill systems doesn't have to be complex. Here's an example (adapted from Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Cthulhu Dark and HeroWars/Quest):

The player states what his/her PC is doing and what s/he hopes to achieve thereby. The GM indicates what ability or skill is to be tested, and sets a DC. The player makes the check (d20 + appropriate modifiers) and if it equals or exceeds the DC the PC succeeds at what s/he is doig and thereby achieves what s/he hoped to. Otherwise the GM explains what went wrong in conception, execution, or intervening factors.​

That sort of approach can be adapted to RPGs that don't expressly include it. I use a version of it when GMing Classic Traveller. But it's harder to adapt to 5e because 5e has non-uniform PC build elements (attack bonus and attack rolls are a discrete system from saving throws are a distinct system from ability/skill checks; and then there are all the overrides, adjustments, etc that come from class abilities, feats, spells, etc). (Contrast, say, Classic Traveller where a PC is just a list of ability scores, skill ranks and equipment.)

The fact that such a simple yet complete resolution system can't be straightforwardly ported into 5e counts as more evidence of its non-lightness, in my view.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH Appendix E. Well, you can move it to another section (preferably "Appendix N"), but the suggested-reading list is a cherished tradition. It's not D&D without a reading list.

Except those were usually in the DMG, at least in 1E and 2E.

To be clear, I didn't say cut it entirely, just noted that it's an example of something you could move to the web without a lot of loss. Moving it to the web would also mean it could be updated as new and interesting stories get published.

 

[MNblockhead]

And in many ways, it is very much not.

How is a raven like a writing desk?

Uh, for good luck with one you knock on wood and with the other you knock on a pecker?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

If this was true, then why does the the DMG have this....

Yeah, that's pretty much the DMG saying "don't bother."

And as per treasure acquisition, the DMG assumes gold drops and treasure acquisition as a fairly core part of the game and indeed provides extensive tables on it.

I am totally utterly not arguing for a return to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe a la 3.X, but some kind of exchange rules/guidance (as loose as it may be and caveated with "this isn't official in AL") would have been really useful. Yes, it's possible to devise this, but getting something reasonably worked out and thought through would be really useful, as opposed to having to wing it all the time.