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.

 

[Hussar]

I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.

There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild. There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e. The only thing is, they aren't "official". But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?

I know that I'd love to run a Binder in 5e using the binder rules - a massive book on binders on the DM's guild all free. Our next campaign will feature a skeleton PC from DM's Guild. I've run modules, heck, my Thule campaign is hardly "official" D&D.

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?

 

[Eric V]

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?

For some, it's the DM of their group that won't allow non-WotC material.

As for why that might be the case, I think it has to do with using material created by someone who does this for a living as opposed to just on the side. Presumably, the former brings a level of expertise and playtesting that the latter simply can not. As a result, the product is more "trustworthy."

 

[TwoSix]

I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.

There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild. There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e. The only thing is, they aren't "official". But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?

I know that I'd love to run a Binder in 5e using the binder rules - a massive book on binders on the DM's guild all free. Our next campaign will feature a skeleton PC from DM's Guild. I've run modules, heck, my Thule campaign is hardly "official" D&D.

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?

<shrug> Got me. I use a ton of homebrew material. (Granted, relatively little is from DMs Guild, I sponsor several Patreons to get my material.)

The good thing about "official" material is that it drives discussion and opens up new approaches to be commonly accepted within the wider community. You rarely saw concepts like "Using Cha to attack" in homebrew, just as an example, until Hexblade came out in Xanathar's Guide. Now it's pretty widely accepted.

 

[Fallstorm]

I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.

There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild. There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e. The only thing is, they aren't "official". But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?

I know that I'd love to run a Binder in 5e using the binder rules - a massive book on binders on the DM's guild all free. Our next campaign will feature a skeleton PC from DM's Guild. I've run modules, heck, my Thule campaign is hardly "official" D&D.

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?

For the same reason people want WOTC to publish official campaign worlds instead of one of the numerous third party worlds out there. People enjoy official products.

I am partly joking and partly serious. Official products in theory have had better playtesting. Official products are often (though not always) of a higher quality than unofficial products. Also, with numerous material out there it is hard to know what product will be allowed from home game to home game yet if the product is official and applicable (an official product of a WOTC campaign world) or a generic rules expansion you can feel with more certainty the DM will allow it in the game, and everyone in the group will at least be familiar with the product rather than some obscure option book that one person has heard of. Also keep in mind D&D 5E was initially built on the premise of being modular in design. This was openly touted as a selling point that the core rules while simple would 1) have aspects of every edition of D&D. I think they have fulfilled this promise well as I see aspects of 1-4th edition the core rules and 2) that while simple the game would be modular so that at the basis the theater of the mind folks could play the game with no problems but that via modular expansions the tactical player and power gamer would be able to tweak the dials of the game to fit their tastes. The latter part WOTC as a company has not fulfilled.

TSR did this back in 2E. The rules of the core 2E game were fairly simple (although not always logical) and they kept the core game but but later came out with the Player's Option series (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, etc.) to appeal to people wanting more technical elements to the game which many other RPG at that time had incorporated into their systems. I fail to see why WOTC would not do the same thing now and I don't think that tactical power gaming and narrative gaming are mutually exclusive traits. My group is composed of power gamers who love tactical combat. These same gamers also sit down and write very detailed backstories, etc for their PCs.

 

[ad_hoc]

Yup. Honestly, I feel it's a bit of a cop-out. Leaving the bulk of the work to the GMs, ignoring players (and GMs) who do want mechanical differentiation and options, for whatever reason.

There are many merits of the 5e design, but it's not the be-all-end all, since there is no such game that fulfills every expectations of every group and player. I'd be more happy if he's said that simplicity makes the game more approachable and easier to GM. I feel those are much more concrete and straightforward assertions.

Some people want D&D to be all things to all people.

There are games out there which provide the thing. 5e not being quite to taste is not a fault with 5e.

The designers have an artistic vision which they adhere to. This is much better than just letting it be a jumbled mess without direction.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know this has been asked many times but, I never get an answer I understand.

There are literally thousands of rule expansions available for 5e on the DM's Guild. There are rule expansions for pretty much everything you could possibly think of for 5e. The only thing is, they aren't "official". But, since the issue is that people want mechanical differentiation and options, and those options are easily available, what's the problem?

I know that I'd love to run a Binder in 5e using the binder rules - a massive book on binders on the DM's guild all free. Our next campaign will feature a skeleton PC from DM's Guild. I've run modules, heck, my Thule campaign is hardly "official" D&D.

Why are people so hung up on "official" for home games?

For me, it's not about 5e not having enough classes, subclasses, feats, etc. It's about 5e not having enough ways to customize a character. Subclass is only one choice. Feats and ASIs are only 4 choices (a few more for Fighters and Rogues). When I say "options," I don't mean of things to spend my character building resources on, I mean more character building resources to spend.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For me, it's not about 5e not having enough classes, subclasses, feats, etc. It's about 5e not having enough ways to customize a character. Subclass is only one choice. Feats and ASIs are only 4 choices (a few more for Fighters and Rogues). When I say "options," I don't mean of things to spend my character building resources on, I mean more character building resources to spend.

Backgrounds? Races? Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws? Physical characteristics at the top of page 2 of the character sheet?

I'm actually not following what you are looking for. Seems like there are endless combinations to customize and create a unique, flavorful character.

 

[Charlaquin]

Backgrounds?

One choice, made at character creation, that boils down to two skills and two tools/languages.

Races?

One choice, made at character creation. Has a decent mechanical impact, but does little to differentiate the way a character plays.

Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws?

Great for fleshing out a character's personality, but has next to no mechanical impact. Also made at character creation.

Physical characteristics at the top of page 2 of the character sheet?

Again, character creation only choices that are good for roleplaying but have absolutely no mechanical impact.

I'm actually not following what you are looking for. Seems like there are endless combinations to customize and create a unique, flavorful character.

What I'm looking for is more ways to build characters to make them mechanically different from one another. In particular, more character building choices to make beyond 1st level. Currently, you make all character building decisions at character creation, with the exception of a Subclass at 2nd or 3rd level (if you didn't decide that ahead of time), and a Feat or ASI once every four levels (a few extra for Fighters and Rogues). That is very, very little to make one character actually behave differently than another.

 

[pemerton]

Rolling damage is not a part of the attack role and resolution. Neither is hit point tracking. Damage and hit points is a different part of the combat process.

<snip>

Jump results in moving through the air X feet. Knowledge checks result in something completely different. That combat has a different result either doesn't make it different from the skill process

The basic structure of RPG action resolution is fiction >> mechanics >> fiction.

(By way of contrast: fiction >> fiction is free narration/storytelling; mechanics >> mechanics is boardgaming or wargaming.)

Here is the structure of a knowledge check:

Fiction: "I think I remember learning something about this land - the name of the king will come to me in a moment!"

Mechanics: <establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure>

Fiction: Either "Of course, it's King so-and-so the Nth" or "Dash it, I can't remember!"​

Here is the structure of a jump check:

Fiction: "I run to the edge of the chasm and leap!"

Mechanics: <establish DC, roll a 20 check, apply applicable modifiers, compare to DC to determine success or failure>

Fiction: Either "You clear the distance land on the other side" or "Uh oh, . . . ."​

An attack roll doesn't get back to fiction until all the hit points are ablated:

Fiction: "I draw my sword - 'Have at you, foul orc!'"

Mechanics: <a sequence of initiative checks, attack rolls, damage rolls, hit point tracking, etc>

Fiction: Either "You run the orc through - it's dead!" or "You fall to the orc's mighty blow - do you want to roll up a new character?"​

The referee can narrate stuff in the middle stage of the combat if s/he wants, but it would all be just colour. Compared to the ability/skill checks, you don't get back to fiction until a whole series of mechanical processes which have no analogue in the context of an ability/skill check.

If there is movement during the course of the fight, or if either the PC or the orc inflicts a condition somehow, it's more complex - in Vincent Baker's terms there are some box-to-box arrows and some box-to-cloud and cloud-to-box arrows - but the basic point still stands.

 

[TwoSix]

What I'm looking for is more ways to build characters to make them mechanically different from one another. In particular, more character building choices to make beyond 1st level. Currently, you make all character building decisions at character creation, with the exception of a Subclass at 2nd or 3rd level (if you didn't decide that ahead of time), and a Feat or ASI once every four levels (a few extra for Fighters and Rogues). That is very, very little to make one character actually behave differently than another.

"What do you mean, all the Monopoly tokens are the same? The car is an aggressive risktaker, and the hat is an antisocial orphan!"