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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.


We probably are, yes.


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.

What you said was this:

...currently 5e does not give me the tools to express a character differently than other characters of the same class and subclass. At best, I’ll have slightly different modifiers to the same exact actions if I choose different Feats and ASIs, but those differences are minor and come several levels apart.

Expression IS roleplaying. So I'm confused why you say you want to express them differently, but disregard the role playing aspects.

I also disagree because 5e absolutely gives you to the tools to express characters differently of the same subclass. I just gave you an example of 5e mechanics that allowed me to play the same subclasses completely different. And in a game with bounded accuracy, being able to use your proficiency bonus when attempting a skills check is not a minor thing. That's with backgrounds, given at level 1. With feats (which fighters get more often than anyone else), that makes even a bigger difference. There are feats that allow you to cast spells if you want--that is no small difference either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

With reference to the first question, it depends what you mean by "deciding a mechanic to apply".

Examples of play.

Hopefully I've answered this. I'm happy to say more if you're interested.

I get what you're saying. I think when I said deciding what mechanic to apply, I meant more in cases where there is no specific rule, or if there are factors that mean the standard rule doesn't quite apply.

I think your examples give a variety of how this can be handled.

For me, in the context of 5E, I think the rules as they are are pretty applicable in most cases. I do think there are some gray areas in the application of some skills and what they can be used to accomplish, but I'm comfortable mitigating those. Plus, with 5E, everyone can attempt skill checks even if untrained, they just receive no proficiency bonus to such rolls. So that makes it easier.

Some of the other commonly discussed problem areas....I tend to not find them to be problematic.

I can only speak about this from experience.

The first thing to say about that experience is that it includes very little 3E D&D - I mention that because for many posters on these boards that is an important comparison case - and that for the past 20 years it hasn't involved much open/club play. (That largely stopped when I finished my undergrad studies.)

But over the past 30 years, I've found that if a player's sheet tells them something encouraging about their PC's social capabilities, then they are more likely to declare interesting social actions than otherwise. I've also found that uncertainties across differing subsystems can make fair adjudicaiton hard. (An example that I can probably link to if you're interested: Luke Crane, in running Moldvay Basic, let someone move silently based on a DEX check - and only later on worke out that was proably hosing thieves who had a much lower % chance to move silently.) And I've found the best way to encourage players to declare interesting and unexpected actions is to adjudicate them fairly by reference to the mechanics so that the players know they can succeed (but perhaps also fail) and so they keep doing them (because they know they can succeed, although there is no guarantee).

No doubt others have had different experiences!

I think that players will tend to lean into their characters' strengths, sure. So a socially savvy character will be played as strong in social situations, and a strong character will be played as focused on combat, and so on. I don't know if this means they will do so in a creative way, or if they will just lean on the options that are allowed to them. For combat, I think it makes sense in D&D. For social based encounters and actions, I prefer to not rely on set actions so much. I think it's better for the DM to review the situation and establish a ruling. I think there is enough structure in the game with opposed checks, Difficulty Classes, and so on that allows the DM to make reasonable rulings.

And so in that sense, I agree with you that the best way to encourage players to come up with interesting actions is to adjudicate fairly. I feel that adjudicating fairly is more on the DM when there are less specific mechanics involved, no?

I think this may be how 3E handled it (I'm not sure - as I've said, it's not really a game where I'm across all the detail)?

I'm not a big fan of "allowed/not allowed". To me it's a product of class-based games with tightly circumscribed abilities (spell lists are a classic example but not the only one - thief abilities are another example, as Luke Crane belatedly realised!).

I prefer a system that allocates capabilities in ways that are mechanically fairly transparent, so that if you try strategy X rather than strategy Y you roughly know what you will be bringing to bear. In AD&D the way I got into this style of GMing was by refereeing an all-thief game - so (outside of magic, which is more easily quarantined within the context of the fiction) the issue of "that's not allowed" didn't really come up. (Maybe we had no tracking in that game - it was mostly city-based - or maybe someone had the Wilderness Survival Guide Tracking proficiency; I don't remember any more.) But for nearly 20 years (1990-2008) I overwhelmingly GMed Rolemaster, and it has an express "no limits, just costs" approach to PC building and making checks. Players naturally enough will try to steer the action into spheres of activity to which they're suited, but you will see them trying stuff that they need to try even if they're not too good at it.

And then 4e encouraged this sort of play even more because the "subjective" DCs within a skill challenge framework make success possible even for the poorly skilled, while allowing the specialists to be able to get the multiple successes within their field of specialisation that are needed to bring the situation to a successful conclusion. (Mathematically: a 50-50 chance of success is something that a player will attempt as a one-off to get something s/he wants; but that player can't win a skill challenge on 50-50 odds, so the "subjective" DCs don't lead to the unskilled "outshinging" the skilled in their field of expertise.)

3E and it's versions were a double edged sword for me. I liked a lot of the streamlining and the correction of things that had never really made sense (descending ACs, a poorly defined skill system, wonky saving throws, etc.) but it went too far in codifying things to the point where there were rules for everything to the point where the DM wasn't really needed to interpret the rules and make rulings. I think it fostered a very antagonistic, rules-lawyerly game.

So for me, because I primarily DM in 5e, I've found the environment to be less antagonistic, and that my players are trying more varied actions than before. They may not have as many "class powers" or whatever, but they tend to take more actions that are unique and suited to the actual moment.

If the comparison class is D&D, as you suggest, then some of those remarks make more sense then they otherwise seemed to. Thanks for suggesting that reading.

Yeah, I think that's what was meant if you go back and look at the comments, and what's implied by some of them. And I think it's pretty apparent when you look at the results, especially compared to previous editions.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

If that seems to be where the momentum is going, all the more reason to advocate more strongly for a course correction!

 

[Charlaquin]

What you said was this:

Expression IS roleplaying. So I'm confused why you say you want to express them differently, but disregard the role playing aspects.

I also said this:

It’s all well and good to describe my attacks differently than Tommy describes his, but if we’re ultimately still rolling the same d20 to see if we can roll the same d8, with maybe slightly different modifiers, then I’m not really doing anything different. I’ve been accused in this thread of playing the same characters over and over with different mechanics, but to me if I don’t have different mechanics, I’m playing the same characters over and over with different descriptions. You need both. D&D is both roleplaying and game, and the false dichotomy that seems to exist between them in public perception only serves to harm a hobby that by definition is supposed to be both.

To reiterate, as a roleplaying game, D&D should provide the opportunity for expression both through roleplaying and through game mechanics

I also disagree because 5e absolutely gives you to the tools to express characters differently of the same subclass. I just gave you an example of 5e mechanics that allowed me to play the same subclasses completely different. And in a game with bounded accuracy, being able to use your proficiency bonus when attempting a skills check is not a minor thing. That's with backgrounds, given at level 1. With feats (which fighters get more often than anyone else), that makes even a bigger difference. There are feats that allow you to cast spells if you want--that is no small difference either.

I just flat-out do not agree that which skills you have Proficiency in is a meaningful difference in the way a character plays. Ultimately it’s still just roll a d20, add some numbers, compare to a target result. Changing what numbers I add does not change the fundamental game mechanic. Some feats do indeed provide meaningful difference, but for the hundredth time, they come too few and far between. Four levels is a fifth of a character’s lifespan, if the character is played all the way to level 20. For most campaigns, it’s closer to a third, or maybe even a half. One to three opportunities to make a character meaningfully mechanically distinct through the entire course of play, each choice separated by months of real life time, is just not enough for my taste.

 

[Eric V]

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.

But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to?

 

[Charlaquin]

Certainly there will be a 6E... eventually. That will not only be a long time coming, however,

I’m aware. I’ll have plenty of time to provide feedback about what O think 5e is doing well and how I think it could be improved.

it is also certain to be backwards compatible with 5E.

Yeah, we’ll see about that. A lot can change in the time it’ll likely take before they’re ready to release a new edition.

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.

Again, we’ll see. Meanwhile, I’m going to keep giving the best feedback I can.

 

[Oofta]

I never attacked you. Unless you’re insulted by the word turd, I don’t see where my comment was insulting. If something I said was insulting though, I apologize. It’s getting pretty frustrating having my motivations repeatedly misidentified as power gaming. Don’t make assumptions about my play preferences and there won’t be a problem.


But each of those subclasses is expressed through only 4 features, that come several levels apart from each other, and are all locked in by the single choice of subclass. If our campaign goes to maybe 10th level, that’s only two features that distinguish an Assassin from a Swashbuckler, both of which are tied to the same decision point, and one of which takes over half the campaign to come online.


Feats are a start, but they are few and far between. Ranged vs melee isn’t a character building choice, my swashbuckler and your assassin can both use a rapier or a bow at any time. Multiclassing doesn’t fix the problem of my rogue being the same as your rogue, it just lets me play a character who isn’t a rogue.


Most of the options you list here aren’t real distinctions. +2 ro this skill instead of that one. +1 average damage with this weapon instead of that one. It doesn’t change the fundamental gameplay. We’re still both spending our turns doing fundamentally the same thing.

This is less of an issue with spellcasters because they actually get a choice every level or two of what mechanical options they want to add to their repertoire, in the form of learning spells.


And I would have preferred that they did so.


I disagree that the variety is significant.


That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done differently in the future.


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 guess I'm just not sure how much more variety you want.

For example with just the champion fighter:

• Sir Hits-hard wields a maul. He takes a few more hits because he doesn't use a shield, but wades into combat and swings hard. He may miss a bit more often than his allies, but when he does it's going to hurt. Heaven help a wizard that tries to cast a spell while he's next to them.
• Sir Turtle uses his shield to bash enemies to knock them down or away from his allies. He's tough to hit, so he's trained to stop people in their tracks if they try to run away.
• Sir Stabemlots uses dual swords, and is able to move around the battlefield without provoking opp attacks.
• Sir Shootemup doesn't bother wearing heavy armor and likes to hide in the back and uses his enemies as pincushions. Thanks to growing up on the streets he's also pretty good with lockpicks and hiding in the shadows.

To me, these 4 PCs are significantly different mechanically. I'm sure I could add a few more. If you do a human variant you can get the feats from 1st level.

I agree they're pretty front loaded. I just think D&D has always been that way. For better or worse it's fundamental to the core concepts of the game. Then again I'm a pretty lenient DM and allow a decent amount of refactoring of a PC's mechanics as long as the character stays the same. The game is about having fun and if a build isn't working my players are allowed changes or can always bring in a new character.

If it's a question of not getting cool options until higher later, maybe you could start at a higher level. I've done it with experienced players for short-term campaigns.

As far as other games, let me rephrase. What concepts could be pulled in from other games that wouldn't upset the more-or-less balance of 5E? What kind of variety are you looking for? Because it seems to me my fighters above would feel very different from level 1 and my descriptions would apply from level 4 on.

I hear calls for an Advanced 5E (which I don't think will ever happen because there's not enough of a market) but what would it look like?

 

[Eric V]

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?

As for need, well, nothing is really "needed," right? Sales are still brisk, so it's not needed that way. It IS needed to keep my own particular group interested; they are finding the mechanics of the game (which is what we buy, right? That's what's exclusive to D&D, the particular mechanics of that edition; the rest is common to RPGs in general) to be uninteresting. It's not a unique phenomenon to my group either, if I'm reading various other posters correctly, but with sales being what they are, WotC certainly doesn't care about losing those groups. So, I'd say it's "needed" if WotC wants my group and I-don't-know-how-many-others to continue to spend money on their products. Does that answer your question?

To the rest of your post...partly it's a lack of time. I'm a dad, a prof who brings a lot of work home, a DM who spends what free RPG time prepping sessions instead of coming up with rules, I play board games with people not in my gaming group...sigh.

For example, my absolute fav toon to play from an earlier edition was an Avenger, a class that sadly didn't make the cut for 5e (I know about the Vengeance Paladin, but despite the one mechanic staying the same, the play at the table is very different for a stealthy Assassin's Creed based Assassin to a zealous, heavily armoured spellcasting warrior). I have a file on my computer that is almost 2 years old about how to properly bring the Avenger into 5e...and even though I would love it, it's still not done.

Part of the reason it's not done is the reason I mentioned upthread about how people want "official" products only: I'm not a professional game designer. I actually believe that someone who gets paid to do this for a living will bring to bear certain expertise that I simply don't have. I mean, doesn't that make sense? All these people who do this in their spare time (unless they have a TON of that...) who think they can produce better work...man, I don't know. Sounds like hubris to me, especially since WotC can bring more resources to bear on the idea than I can (playtesting, for example).

So yeah, I'd like to pay experts to do what they are best at...and maybe that's as good a way as any to express my disappointment with some of these aspects of 5e. Good companies give people what they want; great companies give people what they didn't realize they wanted. Here's an article expressing better than me the ideas behind that statement: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davids...ng-them-what-they-didnt-ask-for/#79fd54b83ad5

From the early playtest packets, it seemed that was where 5e was headed. Then the people spoke, and we ended up with a popular greatest hits edition. That's not a pejorative; greatest hits albums sell really well! Selling well has been good for the game!

I do wish I could have seen what could have been though...like I mentioned way upthread, every edition of D&D from 2e on gave me something I didn't even know I wanted from the RPG experience. 5e hasn't done that...but I suspect a "Game's really well-established, so go wild, you creative types" Advanced Player's Handbook (still with playtesting, and still done by people with decades of game design under their belt) would do the trick.

That was overlong, but hopefully expresses the perspective well. At the least, it's not about powergaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

I, for one, am glad of that, but right now I can't even remember why we're talking about this? Something to do with determining where DnD 5e sits in terms of how rules heavy it is?

Because Mike Mearls said,

3.5 and 4 were very much driven by an anxiety about controlling the experience of the game, leaving as little as possible to chance. They aimed for consistency of play from campaign to campaign, and table to table. The fear was that an obnoxious player or DM would ruin the game, and that would drive people away from it. The thinking was that if we made things as procedural as possible, people would just follow the rules and have fun regardless of who they played with.

At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.

These two aims play together in an extremely terrible way, at least from a design perspective.

To which, a few of us said, “Yeah, that makes sense. But a lot of players really like having a lot of mechanical options in a modular framework, and it seems like this:

With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.

Could have solved the problem on its own, without the need to gut those mechanical options and modular famework.”

And so now we’re having a 100+ page argument about it, because god forbid anyone want more mechanical customizability than 5e already offers. Those dirty powergamers are out to ruin our game with all their badwrong “roll-playing”!

 

[BookBarbarian]

But...I mean,...isn't that what the free, basic rules really amounts to?

I love the basic rules. I really would like to run or play in a game with just those options. Just to see what concepts I can explore with so few choices.

Can I express an enjoyable Barbarian or Ranger as a Fighter? Probably not, but I bet I could learn a thing or two by how close I can get.