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.

 

[Satyrn]

The Champion entertainer offers up a soft spoken poem to the princess's handmaiden, gaining her admiration. Two hours later, the location of the hidden princess, was no longer a secret. No roll required.
Possible setback: A promise made to visit the handmaiden the following night.

Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.

 

[Eric V]

As I’ve said repeatedly, I like 5e. I like it better overall than my next favorite edition, 4e, despite feeling that 4e handled many aspects better. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out places where I see room for improvement. This “If you don’t like everything about the game, get used to it or get out” attitude is absurd, and harmful to the growth of the game. One can, and should, both enjoy something and be critical if its flaws. 5e is a great game, that’s why I play it. But it is lacking in mechanical customizability, which is in my opinion one of its flaws.

I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters. 5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though? Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change." And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it. I get it.

It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.

All in all, it's forced me to look at other systems, and some are pretty exciting though.

 

[Sadras]

Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.

The module described her as a bit of clam.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sorry, this really stood out to me because I can't make any sense of it. I've played 2 champion fighters. One was a halfling fighter with the criminal background. It was when I converted by 1e fighter/thief PC into 5e. Even at level 1, he played exactly like my old fighter thief, with a pretty strong emphasis on the sneaky part. As soon as I got access to feats, things like skulker and dungeon delver really fleshed out that concept. The other champion fighter I had was a human who had heavy armor mastery at 1st level, and I played him like defender knight.

But what you’re describing here is in how you chose to play the characters, not in what avenues of play were available to them. Your Halfling fighter had, what, +3 Dex, Proficiency in Stealth, compared to the human fighter’s... I’ guessing +0 Dex, untrained in Stealth, and disadvantage from his armor? All of that is just numbers. The least interesting form of mechanical distinction. The only difference in these characters’ stealth capabilities that I would consider significant would be that the Halfling can move through spaces of medium or larger creatures and hide when obscured by them, while the human can’t, and at level 4 the Halfling can hide when lightly obscured by darkness and has low-light vision and the fighter can’t and doesn’t. That’s for differences, that come from two decision points, which occur four levels apart (a good 2/3 of an average campaign!) So for what, like 2 months of game time it’s only two differences that come from one decision point.

If you think that feats and backgrounds are minor, then we are miles apart on what minor means.

We probably are, yes.

Those are actually critically impactful aspects that make the PCs feel very different from each other, even with the same class and subclass. And if you think the only difference between subclasses with different feats is slightly different modifiers, then I don't think you're using the same feats or backgrounds in the book at all, because they make a huge difference.

Feats do provide some meaningful distinction between characters, the problem is that they come so few and far between. Backgrounds, in my opinion, do not provide significant distinction, only ammounting to a handful of slight differences in numbers and a roleplaying ribbon.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters. 5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though? Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change." And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it. I get it.

It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.

All of this is very true. However, anyone who thinks there will never be a 6e is fooling themselves, and as someone who has an interest in seeing D&D continue to improve with each new edition, I am going to continue providing feedback, positive and negative, throughout 5e’s lifespan.

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] I think another factor in this discussion and why there might be a divide is, frequency of play. The more frequently one plays, getting through the material and roleplaying various class, then the greater the likelihood one will be asking for something like an Advanced Player's Guide for more variation.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Two Hours later? Dude is indeed a champion.

That gives me a T-Shirt idea.

Champions do it with no rests.

 

[Satyrn]

It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.

Maybe we should join forces and petition WotC for two Advanced Player's Handbooks: 1) An AD&D for players who want lots more mechanical choices than we have right now, and 2) an AD&D for those who want lots less.

 

[Parmandur]

All of this is very true. However, anyone who thinks there will never be a 6e is fooling themselves, and as someone who has an interest in seeing D&D continue to improve with each new edition, I am going to continue providing feedback, positive and negative, throughout 5e’s lifespan.

Certainly there will be a 6E... eventually. That will not only be a long time coming, however, it is also certain to be backwards compatible with 5E. On top of that, I'll predict that if it does change on this front, it will be further away from what your preference seems to be: not closer.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm in the same boat (DMing a weekly 5e game, hoping to do an AiME game soon), yet feel previous editions did some things better...but none of that matters. 5e is a game designed to be popular, and since it is more popular now than any previous edition (is that largely because of the actual game mechanics though? Not so sure...there are a lot of factors, methinks), we're just going to have people saying "too bad, so sad, it's well-loved and so will not change." And yeah, if there's no financial motivation to do so...a Hasbro-owned company won't do it. I get it.

It's too bad; I think the game is certainly sturdy enough to have an Advanced Player's Handbook without falling apart (in that sense, I seem to hold 5e in higher esteem than a lot of people here), or losing income. I'm in a minority on that viewpoint, it seems.

All in all, it's forced me to look at other systems, and some are pretty exciting though.

This is a reasoned statement about 5E. However, I have a question about the need for something like an Advanced Player's Handbook; is such a product really needed? I'd be fine with them coming out with it, ultimately, but I also think that there was a lot of flexibility baked into the game precisely so such a book wouldn't be necessary because players and DMs would design their own advanced rules or options.

And then with the advent of the DMs Guild, such user created content becomes available for sharing.

Do you not want to spend time creating options that would suit your players/game? Do you lack the time? Do you feel that only a WotC produced book of options is acceptable?