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.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it.

True, and we were looking back over the older editions for comparison. 0e-1e-early 2e provided fewer options, late-era 2e along with 3e and 4e provided more. Mid-2e was more or less about the same as 5e in terms of scope, though vastly different in implementation and nowhere near as cohesive.

 

[Morrus]

There are some games that I hate as much as @Psikerlord# apparently hates 5e.

Strangely enough, I don't bother following any forums where those games are discussed.

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. If you imagine you're on a forum where nobody is allowed to express negative opinions about D&D, you're incorrect. This is not that site. I asked people nicely; you ignored it. Don't post in the thread again, please, and DO NOT tell people to go elswhere; you do not have that authority.

 

[Lanefan]

I think most of Mearl's tweet is garbage, especially the purported intentions of 3e and 4e, but if their 5e intent was to make a cakewalk game that ensures the party gets from plot point A to plot point Z, via a long winded adventure path, with a "strong narrative" to "enjoy", they succeeded.

I think much the same "cakewalk" claim has been made after the release of each edition starting with 2e. Nothing new there; and while it's harder to kill off PCs in some editions than others they can all be made about equally deadly (or not) depending on the DM.

The "'strong narrative' to 'enjoy'" claim came even sooner, right around the time the Dragonlance modules came out in the 1e era.

 

[DM Howard]

Thank you.
Which is partly why I've been so defensive of DMsGuild. It can be amateur hour at times, but from personal experience there are a lot of people who have spent a lot of time and effort into making great products.

Thank you for the great content!

I certainly could have worded my criticism of the DMs Guild better so I apologize for that. I guess I just don't see DMs Guild as a replacement for visible 3PP products in stores, that's all.

 

[Charlaquin]

True, and we were looking back over the older editions for comparison. 0e-1e-early 2e provided fewer options, late-era 2e along with 3e and 4e provided more. Mid-2e was more or less about the same as 5e in terms of scope, though vastly different in implementation and nowhere near as cohesive.

Sure, but I don’t see how 0e-2e are relevant.

Mearls’ Claim (paraphrased): 3e and 4e were built around trying to make the gameplay experience as consistent s possible from one table to another. This, combined with an emphasis on providing players lots of mechanical options, lead to a negative play experience, so for 5e we focused on giving the DM the freedom to make their game their own, and focused player options on story.

My counter-claim: Those are great design goals, but I think you could have achieved them without taking away the multitude of mechanical options 3e and 4e provided players with.

It seems to me that “Well, 2e had more DM freedom and fewer mechanical options too!” is a nonsequitur. What does that have to do with Mearls’ claim or my counter-claim? Like, I’ve heard from a lot of folks who liked 2e that 5e reminds them of it, and that’s awesome, but reiterating that fact doesn’t seem to contribute anything to the conversation about whether or not 5e could have accomplished its goals without reducing player options.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, but I don’t see how 0e-2e are relevant.

Mearls’ Claim (paraphrased): 3e and 4e were built around trying to make the gameplay experience as consistent s possible from one table to another. This, combined with an emphasis on providing players lots of mechanical options, lead to a negative play experience, so for 5e we focused on giving the DM the freedom to make their game their own, and focused player options on story.

My counter-claim: Those are great design goals, but I think you could have achieved them without taking away the multitude of mechanical options 3e and 4e provided players with.

It seems to me that “Well, 2e had more DM freedom and fewer mechanical options too!” is a nonsequitur. What does that have to do with Mearls’ claim or my counter-claim? Like, I’ve heard from a lot of folks who liked 2e that 5e reminds them of it, and that’s awesome, but reiterating that fact doesn’t seem to contribute anything to the conversation about whether or not 5e could have accomplished its goals without reducing player options.

It is extremely relevant, as a major part of the Next playtest was going back to basics and seeing what worked in earlier editions. Mearls has been clear elsewhere that bringing the game closer to what worked for people in AD&D and BECMI was a design goal...that has worked very well. They spent a lot of time in Next tuning the complexity to work for the audience needs.

 

[Paul3]

A couple of days ago, I was creating a 17th level barbarian as a test case for a high level one shot I want to run. It took less than a half hour. To create a 17th level character. In D&D. I was flabbergasted.

The reality that there are players who consider this a bad thing is baffling to me. This kind of approach is why so many new players (and returning older players like myself) have returned to the game, no longer overwhelmed with mechanical bloat reserved for the power-gamers.

I can't tell you how much I love 5e.

 

[Fergurg]

There is a HUGE difference between "not being welcome at the table" and "not getting exactly what you want".

You are more than welcome to play 5e. You are more than welcome to provide your feedback in the surveys. And of course you are ENTIRELY welcome to homebrew your own content, or use all the amazing 3rd party content available here and on DMSGuild. A lot of it is quite good, and it's easy to find, and it's cheap.

They're just not going to change the game that works for 99% of the market to cater to the 1%. (Especially because every single person in that 1% has their own notion of what 5e should be.)

Mearls tweeted out a few months ago that people wanting more mechanical complexity were just trying to keep women out of the game and, "You're fired from D&D. Find a new hobby."

 

[Parmandur]

Mearls tweeted out a few months ago that people wanting more mechanical complexity were just trying to keep women out of the game and, "You're fired from D&D. Find a new hobby."

That is really not what he said at all, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Fergurg]

That is really not what he said at all, by any stretch of the imagination.

Here's a screenshot of the tweet: View attachment 101691

So am I missing?