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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which was as absurdly wrong as Bush declaring victory in Iraq. Core means center. If everything is core, nothing is core since you can't have everything be at the center. It's quite literally impossible for everything to be core. What they seem to have meant was that all of their books were official, which is only a slightly less ludicrous statement since that applies to every official book from 1e to 5e, with the exception of the Unearthed Arcana books.

Come on, ‘person. You know what core means, don’t be obtuse.

In 5e, only the “core 3” are core. Everything else is *offcially optional*.

In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.

its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”.

Pretending not to know how a word is being used in a discussion isn’t helpful.

I would be happy to give you both of those things.

I mean, great, but wotc isn’t.

 

[Jester David]

No, it doesn’t assume that at all. It assumes that most players want mechanical distinction. Are you going to next argue that most players would be perfectly happy only having 3 options with no mechanical distinction after choosing between those 3 options, and little distinction between the 3?

A ribbon ability is very much still a mechanical ability. It's just not one that has an impact on combat, and thus can be added without "breaking" the game.

Choosing between ribbon abilities may not be popular, because that's a lot of work for nothing. But gaining a free non-combat power that lets you play the character you envision would suit most players just fine. The player says what they want their character to do and what they envision the character doing, and the DM proposes a small flavourful bonus. That should satisfy the majority of players/

After all, a large percentage of players don't give a flying eff about their "build" or choosing from a long list of options. Not every player is a power gamer, and not every player is character builder who spends their time between games picking between powers and choosing from a long list of options.
That kind of playing very much is a minority. Most players do just want to show up and play and not have to do "homework" between sessions where they level up.

also, the fact that people enjoyed 1e doesn’t mean that 5e isn’t better. That should be blindingly obvious.

No, but at the risk of argumentum ad populum, the fact that 5e is ridiculously more popular than the customisation heavy 3e and 4e is a pretty good sign that player base does not care about that stuff.

its not blindingly obvious, because it isn’t even true.

Are you seriously saying characters with feats are exactly the same power level as characters with feats?! That being able to choose feats doesn't make characters better?

In fact, it isn’t even true to say that there isn’t any such thing in 5e, outside of feats.

But there ARE feats. Feats ARE the decision point that allow customisation. That there's not a customisation point beyond feats is irrelevant.
Yeah, there aren't as many feats as in 3e/4e. We could use a few more: they haven't really expanded into non-racial feats in any expansions. But feats are very much are designed to serve as the customisation point of characters and the place to insert new unique mechanics beyond subclasses.

Warlocks, Battle Masters, Hunter Rangers, 4 Elements Monks, Sorcerers, are all examples. The last two aren’t as popular, but that is quite clearly because their resources are too limited and they feel frustrating to play as a result, even for new players that know jack about power levels.

And the fact they haven't added more subclasses with additional decision points, like different Battle Master or Way of Four Elements tells you what?

It can be done that way, but it’s better for the player that wants to summon and consort with spirits to have an option that actually does that.

There very much IS a feature that allows players to "consort with spirits". It's the totem barbarian's 3rd level feature Spirit Seeker. That lets them cast beast sense and speak with animals as rituals. Because they're communing with nature. So, if that option counts as "speaking with spirits" why not just reflavour the Ritual Caster feat and say that's how the mechanic is working?
Why do we need and a new option that does the exact same thing but with a slightly different name and description?

Just take Ritual Caster and/or Magic Initiate and reflavour. Gain the mage hand cantrip and unseen servant ritual and reflavour them as spirits.
Or just make a new feat that replicates those mechanical effects but is called Spirits Talker. Because it's effectively replicating an existing feat it's automatically balanced.
This isn't rocket surgery.

As for need, again, we don’t “need” a game to exist. Need isn’t relevant except as a shorthand for a strong desire amongst the player base to have it.

Nothing is gained by having dozens or hundreds of subclasses. But that adds confusion and bloat to the game. Bloat and the related power creep have very much killed 3e and 4e. We really don't need that again.
If a player really wants something niche or specific, they can make it themselves or turn to the DMsGuild. That's what they're for. The onus isn't on WotC to support every single conceivable option or character concept. Because that's impossible.

 

[Umbran]

In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.

its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”.

Maybe I am behind the times, but I don't think *everything* can be assumed part of a 4e game at any particular person's house. That may hold in some form of organized play, but I think that's rather too expansive an expectation for home games.

 

[Maxperson]

Come on, ‘person. You know what core means, don’t be obtuse.

In 5e, only the “core 3” are core. Everything else is *offcially optional*.

In 4e, everything, including DDI exclusives, is just as “core” as the PHB, and things are only optional by Rule 0 houseruling.

its used to indicate what is an assumed part of the game, and what is “extra”.

Pretending not to know how a word is being used in a discussion isn’t helpful.

There was no extra obligation for the DM to use anything beyond the core 3 in 4e. He had the exact same obligation to use additional material, and the exact same authority to refuse it as he had in every other edition. Calling everything "core" in 4e was ridiculous and they realized that before 5e came out. Heck, even 4e didn't believe what the designers said. It has several books listed as supplements and not core like it did with the various PHBs.

 

[5ekyu]

You could definitely cut about half the spells, easily.

But you don’t need 12 pages to explain how to set DCs.

Should probably cut half the spells anyway though.

I am pretty sure cutting half rhe spells would tick off quite a few spell caster players, since its rather nonsensical to assume they would only cut the ones nobody uses.

 

[pemerton]

Y'all seem to be calling the designers lazy

Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.

 

[5ekyu]

I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? WotC just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described.

So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered.

Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... too convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch. (Actually I don't spend time on Twitch but they sure seem to.)

How skills work is in the PHB. Among those bits of info is the GM sets DC and iirc baseline DC easy medium hard etc.

The DMG covered more for GMs about assigning dc.

That seems focused and deliberate to me, not what i would call lazy.

 

[Oofta]

Describing writing or design as lazy isn't a description of the writer or designer.

Saying someone is lying is the same as calling them a liar as far as I'm concerned.

What you call lazy (a loaded, insulting term) is a design decision. You can disagree with the decision without insulting the devs.

I for one prefer the style, stealth rules and all.

 

[5ekyu]

I very much agree. There are several places, especially in the PHB, where the designers just punt on things. For instance, buying and selling magic items or making items. Heck, much of anything with the game economy. I mean, what do PCs do with the treasure they collect, anyway? WotC just skipped it and offered excuses about why they were skipping it. They didn't provide all that much guidance in the PHB about setting DCs or how skills work. While there are things like that in the DMG even those are kind of sketchy and, of course, many players are likely to only have the PHB. Regardless, one would presume that the natural place to put examples of how skills work would be where the skills are described.

So... lazy here really refers to the fact that the designers decided to blow off parts of the game that nearly any reasonable person would expect to be addressed to some degree. They've filled some of this a bit later on, but even so it's sketchy and highly focused on fluff. I totally get why they don't want to make hard-and-fast rules that RAW lawyers interpret as a property right and I also would understand if they decided to mark certain systems as "not for AL" but doing nothing just leaves a lot of things unanswered.

Now I get that 5E was supposed to be less rules-heavy than 3.X and 4E, but I find it a bit... too convenient that the parts of the system the designers didn't want to deal with, strategically, got left up to the DM. So my guess was that there was some strategic laziness there. Still, why do I pay a game designer? Oh? To spend time on Twitch. (Actually I don't spend time on Twitch but they sure seem to.)

On the other point... Why do there need to be rules on what you spend treasure on in the PHB? Isnt that a choice very much specific to settings? To character desires?

Havent had any problems with players characters spending treasure in my games so far.

 

[cbwjm]

Which was as absurdly wrong as Bush declaring victory in Iraq. Core means center. If everything is core, nothing is core since you can't have everything be at the center. It's quite literally impossible for everything to be core. What they seem to have meant was that all of their books were official, which is only a slightly less ludicrous statement since that applies to every official book from 1e to 5e, with the exception of the Unearthed Arcana books.

The additional player's handbooks, dungeon masters guides, and monster manuals were all part of the core rules of 4e, it says so right on the cover.

Supplements were things like the books focusing on arcane or martial power.