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.

 

[Eric V]

Innovative design is not always bulky and unwieldy. Sometimes it is the reduction to essentials that makes a work innovative, especially when the trend before was making things bigger and more unwieldy.

Yeah, I'm sure sometimes that's true. I agree.

Not when I look at the Sorcerer, though (just as an example). That really seems mailed-in to me. I respect that you might see that differently, even if I'm not sure how. I don't remember it from the playtest packets, to be honest.

 

[Eric V]

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.

And I am genuinely glad they exist.

 

[Lanefan]

I think a courtly intrigue game of D&D is almost certain to involve issues around Charm Person and Suggestion spells - particulary if it's a game using the AD&D versions which (by contemporary standards) are super-high powered. At mid-level there will be ESP and other divination-related issues too

If those spells are going to be a problem in such a game - and I agree they most likely would be - it's trivially little work for a DM to strip them out of the game for that campaign during her design phase.

 

[TwoSix]

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”

Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less? Or is it easy enough to ignore?

 

[Lanefan]

Well, in 2E due to the various conditions at TSR when the person who did not really like D&D took over there was actually very little playtesting in general. You also correct that the Players Option series was not play-tested in fact the Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books were evidently worked in by two different teams with not much cross collaboration. All that being said because their was a mistake in implementation on a past product does not mean a future direction should not be taken but the mistakes of the past learned from. D&D 5E seems to be well playtested internally with external playtesting involved as well. Also, while I don't work at WOTC and while I may not like all their decisions it seems from the D&D Brand standpoint the designers/writers are in fact very collaborative and keeping each other in the loop on directions of various projects, which makes sense given the small number of actual designers and writers left at WOTC. Additionally D&D 5E is much more streamlined than 2E was so laying additional layers on top of the system should not be that hard. As it stands now I see why a modular expansion adding more tactical options for those who want such things is not feasible and able to be implemented without breaking the system.

Conversely, as I agree we aren't privy to the internal workings at WotC, could it be possible they've in fact tried such an overlay internally and found that it does break the system? If yes, that'd sure explain why it hasn't been released.

Now, I do kind of understand that if you have people who are great at CharOp and someone who is not good at Charop joins a group that the less skilled Charop person can feel overwhelmed. I have seen this happen. Likewise if a strong Charop person joins a group where everyone is not good at CharOp that character can overwhelming shine (in combat) and make other PCS feel useless. I have seen this happen although in all honesty not as often. The way to correct this is 1) people who are stronger at CharOp will hopefully help and teach someone not as skilled. In my 20+ years of D&D I have mostly played with very tactically minded and CharOp minded players.

I mostly haven't, and am glad of it.

Reason being is that the few CharOppers I've played with are the same people who get their knickers in knots when I or another player does something suboptimal or gonzo or silly just for fun; leading me to generalize that they tend to simply take the game far too seriously.

To answer your question. 1E D&D was the granddaddy of all RPGS. I would have played that system because there was nothing else around for me to compare it too at the time and no one knew any better until later on. So, in 1E there would be no way for my Thief X to be different from Thief Y other than background and story but again that is because D&D was the first and RPGs were limited and not with the nuanced and varied taste in playstyle gamers have now (see P.S./Addendum). I started in 2E (though I have some 1E books) and in that system people wanted official ways to differentiate themselves which is why we had "The Complete" series where characters could take a kit and in a crude manner try to gain a difference mechanically in class features. Then Players Option came out in 2E where you could distinguish yourself. Then 3E and 4E came out which was all about customization. Now we are in 5E and supposedly some people are claiming people don't want customization yet anytime WOTC releases a book with actual rules expansions it flies off the shelf at every game store I have seen. Xanathar's was gone within a day at my FLGS. None of the fluffy adventures WOTC has released has ever sold out that fast. So somebody's wanting options.

Addendum: Due to a discourse I had with 2 individuals on here I feel I am forced via irksome arguments to clarify a statement that should be readily apparent. Of course at the time of AD&D 1E there were other RPGs around but if you have one product occupying the vast amount of shares in a niche market then for all intents and purposes that is not a market at all. For example, if only 4 % of the populace drank soda and Coca-Cola was the soft drink 98% of soda imbibers drank most marketers would be loathe to really say there is a soft drinks "market" despite the fact there were other soda makers fighting over 2% of the market share. This is why if you recall there was an article not too long ago about how the end of 3.5 kind of saved RPGS being in local bookstores and not only gaming stores. This was because prior to Pathfinder D&D was really the only RPG (again in a NICHE/specialty market) that was selling enough copies to warrant chain store occupancy. Thus bookstores chains were starting to question having a totally separate shelving space for RPGs when the only RPG that warranted enough sales to be in chain stores was D&D. Evidently when PF started becoming popular it sold enough and gained enough attention that book chains like B&N and Borders were able to say look we have 2 products that produce X amount of supplements therefore we can justify having a separate section for RPGs. My point is during the early phase of the 1E era D&D while other games were around D&D really had no real market challengers from TTRPG perspective therefore the mechanical options or lack thereof was not as big an issue. Please accept my apologies if this sounds condescending (it is NOT my intent) and probably already know this and what I meant but again I felt the need to justify given certain interactions of recent.

To clarify: when I asked how those players would do in a 1e game I didn't mean 1e back in 1983 when there wasn't much else, I meant if you were to switch to 1e today and dive right in.

How would they do in a system where character differences aren't relfected in the mechanics beyond the most coarse-grained of ways (e.g. differences in classes and races)?

Lan-"and now to find out why I've been mentioned so many times in here..."-efan

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.

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.

Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to. If he has Skulker, he can at least do something the others can’t, which is to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by dim light, but unless he’s a variant human, it takes a fifth of his adventuring career to get it, and either way that’s the only meaningful difference he gets from the others for the next four levels.

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.

Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.

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.

Starting at a higher level only further frontloads the decisions one gets to make in creating the character. The problem with Feats being only every four levels is not that you don’t get them until higher levels, it’s that you don’t get to make very many build choices, and you have to wait a long time between making them. I want more decision points more frequently.

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?

I’ve said a few times, I would like something like Powers from 4e or Archetypes from Pathfinder. I want, when I level up, to be making choices about what my character gets this level, instead of just following a predetermined advancement path and filling in the numbers.

 

[Charlaquin]

Somewhat related question; would the release of an official book of new mechanical subsystems make those who prefer a simpler version of 5e like the edition less? Or is it easy enough to ignore?

I can’t imagine why it would make them like 5e less, but yet, their reactions seem to suggest that it would.

 

[Lanefan]

Can't that question be answered just by comparing the two rules?

In 5e, there is no limit on how many undead can be turned; in AD&D it is 1d12 (except at high levels vs comparatively weak undead).

In 5e, the duration is much shorter in absolute terms (1 minute rather than 3d4 minutes) but a bit better in combat effectiveness (10 rounds rather than 3d4 rounds).

In 5e, the undead get a saving throw (vs a DC of 13-ish at 1st level up to 19-ish at 20th level), with a bonus of -2 for zombies, -1 for skeletons, +0 for shadows, +1 for wights, and +2 for wraiths and vampires (vampires also have legendary resistance). That makes 1st level clerics better at turning than their AD&D equivalents; but the AD&D progression is far more generous, especially vs weaker undead and once the cleric reaches mid-to-upper levels. Eg a 7th level AD&D cleric turns a wraith on a 7, an 8th level on a 4; whereas the saving throw number in 5e will be around 13 for the wraith facing a 7th cleric, around 14 vs an 8th level cleric - ie much less of a generous progression. A 14th level AD&D cleric has a 17 in 20 chance to turn a vampire, which is better than a 20th level 5e cleric.

So the AD&D rules will tend to weaken lower-level 5e clerics and tend to power-up the mid-to-upper level ones. Whether that's desirable or not would seem to be table-relative. (And whether the additional costs of bringing in an ad hoc table rather than just sticking to the spell DC save rules are worthwhile also seems table-relative.)

Is there a reason you think that this would be worth doing?

I was simply throwing it out there as an off-the-top-of-my-head example, along with a few others, of a possible kitbash one could do to 5e.

I've no idea whether it'd be worth doing or not and, at the moment, no reason to try.

 

[Oofta]

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be. I want characters who can do different things, not just do the same thing with slightly different numbers and a different description.
[/LIST]
Sir Hits-Hard and Sir Turtle are doing the same thing as each other with different numbers and different descriptions. You may say Sir Hits-Hard uses a maul while Sir Turtle uses a longsword, but both are just using the Attack Action to see if they hit, and then rolling damage. It’s jusr that one might have slightly higher bonuses on his s Attack and damage rolls and the other might have a slightly higher AC. Not an interesting distinction. Sir Stabemlots at least gets to use a bonus action to make another attack, but he’s still just doing the same thing, with slightly lower numbers and slightly more often. Sir Shootemup is choosing to fight at a range instead of up close, but that’s nothing the other three couldn’t do if they wanted to. If he has Skulker, he can at least do something the others can’t, which is to attempt to hide when only lightly obscured by dim light, but unless he’s a variant human, it takes a fifth of his adventuring career to get it, and either way that’s the only meaningful difference he gets from the others for the next four levels.


Those 4 PCs are described differently and have slightly different numbers, but the mechanics they use are about the same.


Starting at a higher level only further frontloads the decisions one gets to make in creating the character. The problem with Feats being only every four levels is not that you don’t get them until higher levels, it’s that you don’t get to make very many build choices, and you have to wait a long time between making them. I want more decision points more frequently.


I’ve said a few times, I would like something like Powers from 4e or Archetypes from Pathfinder. I want, when I level up, to be making choices about what my character gets this level, instead of just following a predetermined advancement path and filling in the numbers.

If you want a PC that does something other than hit people with a weapon they shouldn't both be champion fighters. Fortunately there are plenty of options for that. Why would we need 1 sub-class to carry that much weight and complexity? Play a different sub-class or class. Or multi-class.

As far as wanting 5E to be more like 4E, let me just say NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! If you're entitled to your opinion, then so am I.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you want a PC that does something other than hit people with a weapon they shouldn't both be champion fighters. Fortunately there are plenty of options for that. Why would we need 1 sub-class to carry that much weight and complexity? Play a different sub-class or class. Or multi-class.

There are very few options for fighters of any kind that do anything but hit people with a weapon. The Battlemaster is basically the only option, and he does one thing, which is roll an extra die and add the number rolled to something.

As far as wanting 5E to be more like 4E, let me just say NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! If you're entitled to your opinion, then so am I.

You absolutely are, although I would say that “wanting 5e to be more like 4e” is a gross oversimplification of my perspective. 4e had serious issues, but in my opinion, giving every character a choice of cool new feature to get every level was absolutely not one of them.