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.

 

[shadowoflameth]

I agree. It isn't the designer's responsibility to fix the obnoxious people in your party with rules. Rule zero is don't be a jerk. If your campaign theme is friendly to power gamers and challenges them to be the most powerful, all seeing 20th level whatever they are, fine. If one guy shows up with Lord Featherfall a Kenku Paladin who acts like Howard the Duck then he's might make everybody else miserable but he isn't breaking the rules of the Players Handbook.

 

[lkj]

All I know, after reading this discussion, is that I'm now hungry for donuts and bagels. And there's not a bakery for at least 40 miles from my current location. So, eh, you are all terrible people who should be ashamed of yourselves.

AD

 

[Derren]

Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.

 

[MNblockhead]

Uh huh. And then you become that guy who is talking about how the only good D&D is when you walked 5 miles, in a sonwstorm, uphill, just so you could cast your single magic missile as a first level magic user before the kobold killed you dead, and those whipper snappers should get off your lawn, already.

Don't be that guy.

Hey now, some of us earned the right to enjoy being "that guy." Back in the 80s we didn't have ready Internet access to vent our nerd rage, we can to shout at the wall and complain to long-suffering friends in person. Now, I can't yell at you whipper snappers to get off my lawn. Y'all are spending your time indoors reminding me how old I am on Internet forums. ;-)

Also? Firefly kinda sucked.

So, I'll just quickly walk away from this one....

 

[BookBarbarian]

Or, if design is too abstract, think about going out to eat. There may be 500 wonderful entrees and appetizers on the menu, but you can't order them all.

Anytime I see a restaurant with too many things on the menu I always think "There's no way they know how to make all of these things well, or can source all of these ingredients fresh." Sure enough it's never great. I'll take a restaurant with 5 things on the menu that they do right over that monster any day. Then I just switch up which restaurants I go to to get more variety.

I'm sure that applies to the analogy somehow.

It's more like saying, "Man, I still can't believe they cancelled Firefly after 13 episodes" and getting the response of "It doesn't matter, it was Fox's decision to make, and if 12 seasons of Bones was the more popular choice, you just have to accept it." Sometimes you just want to express a desire for what you used to have.

You analogy has caused me to think. But it is still hurtful.

Also? Firefly kinda sucked.

But not as hurtful as this.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm just glad I'm not the only person in D&D fandom who thinks Firefly was crap. But at least it wasn't as bad as Buffy I guess.

 

[Umbran]

Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.

With, respect (not that you're showing much, but hey), that is a *fully* assed job of unfinished and unclear rules. Calling it half-done job implies that their intent was to do lots of detail and clarity and then they fell short - but, that's not the case. The vagueness is *by design*, intended, and thought through. And sells really well. It is *well-crafted* unclear rules, because clarity has a cost that many folks don't want to pay.

As Vroomfondel said - rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

 

[dave2008]

Interesting. I do like most of what he’s saying, but I also wish they would embrace the fact that a lot of players still have a strong desire for mechanical options. Focusing on narrative identity is great, and the goal of those specific mechanical advantages should be to express a character’s narrative identity rather than to break the game’s progression curve. But 5e still offers so little in terms of ways to mechanically differentiate a character. He paints mechanical options as if they’re at odds with the design philosophy he describes here, but I don’t think they are at all.

I don't think he thinks they are at odds. He states, "If balanced correctly, every(one) has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum."

That to me indicates that he sees a benefit to narrative and mechanics. I think you just don't believe they haven't balanced correctly (at least not for you).

 

[Charlaquin]

4e got flack for every class feeling similar, it sounds like what you are talking about is every member of a class being the similar. Unless you are arguing that the 5e Wizard class is more similar to the 5e Fighter class than the 4e Wizard class is to the 4e fighter class, in that case you would be wrong by a whole host of metrics.

Good point. Yes, I do mean that characters of the same class feel too similar to each other.

 

[happyhermit]

Cudos to WotC for advertising a half assed job of unfinished and unclear rules as an advantage and narrative freedom and getting away with it.

By "Cudos" are you referring to their scientific research principles, or is this just a half-assed, unclear way of saying "Kudos"? Either way, if "getting away with it" means producing an incredibly successful product, they sure have.