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]

As a creator myself, I can tell you that most creators do pay attention to official reviews almost all of the time. A lot more than a random person on the internet. Coincidence you would bring up Asimov, because one of my favorite quotes of his is also relevant to this discussion: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Having heard from Ellison and now Asimov, I got curious about what Stephen King thinks. (Buried in this interview )

"I’m always interested in what my readers think, and I’m aware that many of them want to participate in the story. I don’t have a problem with that, just so long as they understand that what they think isn’t necessarily going to change what I do."

So like, just writing an email to WotC might be enough if they're less like Ellison and more like King.

 

[ClaytonCross]

If they ACTUALLY said "3rd most played" I would laugh so hard it likely hurt before asking how they got that from their data.

On dnd beyond I have easily 2 dozen characters generated I have never played once for every character I have there that I have played. It's an easy generated tested for chargen. You gotta know tons of the characters there are just "what ifs".

How could they tell sort the difference between "played" and "not played but looked at"?

Do they judge plead by how many times I experimented with adjusting up on the fly - thinking each of those uses of the "in game tools" was an actual session.

One of the worst data fallacies is the idea that making assumptions "based on the data you have" (without understanding the data you have and its limitations) is "better than nothing" or "better than smaller pools of actual play experiences".

​

So your saying the human fighter is not the most played class because the same logic still applies... The did call out that one metric for tracking that is that they check if HP is manipulated not a max but in terms of damage and healing back to full. That said while I have made many characters but I have never sat around for hours damaging and undamaging my unused characters for no reason. Are you going to tell me you damage, heal, and level your unused characters? … That would seem a bit odd to me. So while I will agree the metrics are not 100% I think they are way more accurate than your giving them credit for unless their is large group of people who are GMing games where they are their only player... which I have never heard of.

​

In my experience, one of the restraints on warlock play seems to be the baggage that comes from the patron/pact relationship. It seems like a lot of the more option/more complexity types also share the "less gm in my character" and so once a gm says "ok let's do the talk about your pact and obligations" they start looking for other classes or redefinitions of player agency.

That's not necessarily a conflict first of all as The Old One patron does not require that your patron recognize your existence, you could be a pact breaker in the case that you made a deal with the devil but then decided to betray them when you came to your right mind (which is where death locks come from if they kill you for it), and the assumption here is that no other character including Clerics who are REQUIRED to obey their deity or paladins who have to play with their oaths or become and oath breaker would be less popular for the same reason. I am playing a warlock, have a cleric, and a paladin in my group. We have "baggage" with all three but we don't mind it... we call it back story and it hooks each character into the world...In fact the classes without hooks... generally have hooks added to them one way or another. This has never been a problem in any game we have ever played. That in mind, your placing a personal play style choice that conflicts with your GM as if all players and GMs are the same and creates this intrinsic problem.... when that is not the case. From the same type of argument I could say "All fighter characters are abandoned because players realize the just wanted to play a strategic fighting game but then GMs made them roll play any way instead of being the stoic warrior, so they all quite and decide to play something else." … but that would be silly since I has no basis in a metric or reality its just a personal view.

 

[ClaytonCross]

That just isn't true. There needs to be a goal that takes priority. Go back to what Mearls said that started this thread.

"In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what. In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling. Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum."

Who determines what, not what determines who.

Some people pick out mechanics and then create identity and narrative to support those mechanics.

The designers decided to support those and focus on a community who wants to pick out identity and narrative and then have mechanics that support that. It is an important distinction.

Mearls then goes on to say that it is nice if the people who prioritize mechanics can get to play too of course. The thrust though is that the player base has shifted, which makes sense as there are millions of new players. We're at peak D&D. The 3e and 4e players are a very small minority now.

Do you see the distinction? One must come first in design. A common attitude I see among "optimizers" is the idea that identity and narrative are easily mutable. Create your "build" and then find a way to justify it with theme after. The game is no longer designed with that approach in mind.

Like it or not, that is the reality.

They may want to start with story but the PHB and DMG are what you need to play they are 90% mechanical rules and 10% story fluff​

So your arguing that the "first one" is the priority and the only thing that really matters but if that is the case then you don't need rules for how the game is played you just need the fluff... then no one will play and arguing over "you can't do that!!! YES I CAN !!" would cause the game to implode for MOST users. It takes a specific type of person to play text base honor system games with no actual game play rules. However, 100% strategy games are video games. Video games are very popular. People power game in video games. D&D is an RPG and to function and function well it MUST have both Fluff and Strategy to function...If not it becomes a forum conversation or video game. Story fluff gives mechanical rules and strategic combat purpose, Mechanical rules with strategic combat give story fluff weight because failed negotiations and threats have character death and depleting resource management like HP. Your welcome to go read a book or join in a community story forum (which often degrade and fall apart) or a strategic board game. I have even had sessions of entirely strategic combat or entirely story fluff. However, what brings me back to D&D is the combination of both feeding from each other. If all you want is a 100% narrative story their are outlets for that... they are not D&D. They could be based on Forgotten realms but they become a D&D story forum or book... but if you invited me to play D&D and showed up to you reading a book or posting story on forums I would wonder why your not ready to play an annoyed that you lied . Both are required.

It doesn't matter which one you decide to start with … its just approach. In the end an RPG must have story and mechanical rules or it becomes something else. If they don't inform each other in a partnership they just will not work well. Which is why Mearls runs everything from story and Crawford everything from mechanical meting together to make one awesome product.

If you doubt that D&D is a rule based game look at the amount of time the spend answering Sage Advice and test Unearthed Arcana... mechanical rules are a key part of D&D but... so is story. Discounting ether for the other is a mistake.

Right, and the middle ones are all very close so it makes sense for them to go back and forth. Warlock is not the most popular. The most popular by a wide margin are Fighter and Rogue. Warlock is still in the middle, a little higher than I would have thought at 3rd but still not close to Fighter and Rogue.

Your argument was that complicated classes with a lot of options are the most popular. I don't think that applies to Fighter and Rogue.

Err... you didn't watch the video did you? The D&D beyond staff said that the highest class of fighter has 4% and warlocks have demanding lead over warlocks and clerics that despite what appear as small numbers is NOT even close.....They are not "going back and forth" warlock has left them in the dust. Fighter is the "beginner's class" as stated by the D&D staff and has always been so. Good players still use it but it holds number one because you don't need to learn as much to play it as it generally has no spells and attacking multiple times with weapon is not a hard concept. Rogues, represent the stealth melee arch type (which they are not limited too) but again for beginning players is simple to understand and not a caster but with a different perspective than fighters in heavy armor for those who want to be sneaky. What warlock DID do is become the #1 caster in the game and a caster commonly taken has a hexblade for the gish option, and with the celestial patron warlock it can basically do any job but tank... which fighter does well .. and perhaps arguably be supper stealthy since casting verbal spells makes fighting unnoticed from shadow difficult. ...So your saying only two class are ranked higher for perhaps the only to functions it can't do and that some how diminishes the flexibility of the warlock class!???!? lmao... no … no it doesn't.

 

[abirdcall]

][/COLOR]
So your arguing that the "first one" is the priority and the only thing that really matters but if that is the case then you don't need rules for how the game is played you just need the fluff...

Mearls said this is how the game is designed.

Like it or not, it is good to understand that.

 

[abirdcall]

Here is Jeremy Crawford on how they develop and design subclasses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc

1. Start with the story
2. Describe the story
3. Brainstorm mechanics to express the story
4. Compare mechanics to other subclasses within the same class for balance
5. Ensure subclass mechanics match the infrastructure of other subclasses. Eg. new Cunning Action for Rogues
6. Check for duplication with other subclasses
7. Check back to ensure it is representing the story
etc.

They start with story then get to mechanics. Rather than start with mechanics then fit in the story.

The distinction is important, and important to understand in order to understand the game and the rules.

Some people don't like it, but it's good to know it. This is 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Without the explicit exception in initiative the normal rules for ability checks would apply because initiative is an ability check.

The rule they added to initiative solves ties for initiative and means you dont use the ability check tie rule.

As the designers say specific trumps general.

I can use Guidance on my dex check for initiative for instance because its an ability check.

You are misapplying the ability check rule for ties. The rule for ties is for contests ONLY and initiative is not a ability contest. There is no winner and loser like with opposed checks, so that rule does not apply. The general rule for tied initiative between DM and players is that the DM decides.............just like if there was no rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Firstly, it does match reality, because people just aren't walking around afraid of plants, and even if they were, that doesn't mean that they're aware that a specific plant is a threat, any more than I'd be aware that a guy walking past me is a threat, just because I've been attacked completely at random by a guy walking past me on the street before. He can still sucker punch me, because knowing that people are potentially dangerous doesn't mean I'm away that a specific person is about to attack me.

No man. It doesn't match reality, because in reality there aren't plants that move and eat you, disguised as normal plants. I don't have to worry in a forest that a treant might want to kill me.

It doesn't say that you have to be unaware that a potential threat might exist, it says you have to be unaware of the threat. A person isn't a threat just because they have the potential to attack you. You have to be aware that they're about to do so. There is no reason to make that any more clear than it is, wasting page space that is put to good use in the book as is.

It doesn't say that you have to wait until you see a weapon coming for your face, either. A potential threat is still a threat to you. A dragon sitting on a hill is only a potential threat. Are you telling me that it can get surprise on a group of wary adventurers? That's absurd. The rule is not clearly explained, which is fine. Vague rules are in line with 5e stated design goal.

Someone else already explained that you're wrong about what the rules actually do without the clause in question.
It's a rule. Not a "non-rule rule", but simply a rule.

And as I show in the post above, that person is flat out wrong. Initiative is not an opposed check, so the rules for contests don't apply to it. Initiative is simply a way to see who goes first.

There isn't a contradiction there, you're just questing after confusion.

First half of the sentence, "You can communicate however you are able," which means that there are no limits to the ways you can communicate, so long as you are able. The second half of the sentence, "through brief utterances and gestures," limiting you to exactly two ways to communicate. If you have telepathy, you can't use it as it's not one of the two ways set forth, except that you can because you can communicate however you are able!! It contradicts itself very clearly.

 

[Greg Benage]

First half of the sentence, "You can communicate however you are able," which means that there are no limits to the ways you can communicate, so long as you are able. The second half of the sentence, "through brief utterances and gestures," limiting you to exactly two ways to communicate. If you have telepathy, you can't use it as it's not one of the two ways set forth, except that you can because you can communicate however you are able!! It contradicts itself very clearly.

You can use telepathy as long as your telepathic utterances are brief.

(I'm assuming you're in earnest, but I'm really not sure.)

 

[Maxperson]

You can use telepathy as long as your telepathic utterances are brief.

(I'm assuming you're in earnest, but I'm really not sure.)

An utterance is verbal. A thought is telepathic. You cannot make a telepathic utterance.

ut·ter·ance
ˈədərəns/
noun

• a spoken word, statement, or vocal sound.
• the action of saying or expressing something aloud.
• an uninterrupted chain of spoken or written language.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Here is Jeremy Crawford on how they develop and design subclasses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc

1. Start with the story
2. Describe the story
3. Brainstorm mechanics to express the story
4. Compare mechanics to other subclasses within the same class for balance
5. Ensure subclass mechanics match the infrastructure of other subclasses. Eg. new Cunning Action for Rogues
6. Check for duplication with other subclasses <-- mechanics and story
7. Check back to ensure it is representing the story
etc.

They start with story then get to mechanics. Rather than start with mechanics then fit in the story.

The distinction is important, and important to understand in order to understand the game and the rules.

Some people don't like it, but it's good to know it. This is 5e.

You do realize steps 3-4 are mechanics. That's 3.5 of 7 or 50% of the process. Not only that but I have been saying one informs the other... so you start with story 1&2, the you enforce mechanics 3-4, then you pulling back to story because your mechanics have informed your story just as your story has informed your mechanics. That the PHB and DMG are more than 90% mechanics. I have never said that you can't start with story. In fact, my only point is 5e is not JUST story or JUST mechanics, they are two parts of a whole and act to support each other. Your saying you can't start with mechanics and get to the same place but you actually can I have personal made characters and campaigns setting as a GM both ways. I just need a starting point and to make sure I full fill BOTH in the end. Your arguments are that that D&D is a story game and mechanics are not all that important but we have PHB and DMG that were made first and the basics of every other book for a good reason. Its a story world based on rules.... that means both. You assertion that story is king and every thing else is crap is proven wrong by the existence of suck extensive rules.

Don't believe me still?

Let's actually Quote Jeremy Crawford
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings

"Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling. The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible. No matter how good those tools might be, they need a group of players to bring them to life and a DM to guide their use."
Your link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SeqUY8Pjc is specific to building classes and subclasses but ok, lets look at it.

What is the story
0:44 - "Every design... at least the best designs. They start with a story" --So he caught himself mid sentence to correct that not all designs start with a story and "best" is subjective. He goes on about this being a mission statement starting point. I have played characters based on a mechanical role in a party and so have many other players... for example... when asked to join a Champaign I said sure, the party then said, "Hay we need a scout, do you mind playing a scout of some type?" This was also a mission statement but not based on a character story but mechanical desire so I used that to inform my story playing a warlock scout who came from the village of the party leader then tied him to the role of scout by giving him devils sight and I made him a surviving street urchin (for scout skills) who's family was killed by the same band of cultist that killed the party leader's family. This created a story bond to a party member and a story reason for me to have evolved as a scout as having a mechanically superior "darkvision" which leads to my character applying himself as scout to be useful in a group by making use of a mechanical advantage... so he is not just saying he is a better scout than the human paladin … he is actually better at scouting and so naturally fills the role due to having this above average ability and a desire to find some way to help. That is not me disagreeing with his approach. I am just saying their are 2 and he has a favorite.

2:46 - "Sometimes we will end up making changes to the mechanics that push the story in a new direction. And then we go back ...and sort of talking on the practical side. We go back and actually change that story text so that it now reflects the new story that the subclass is telling" ...So Jeremy Crawford in the link your using to discredit my statements said that … sometimes the mechanic changes the story.... Story informing mechanics...Mechanics informing story... just like a said the whole time.

3:15 (Talking about Mike Mearl's process, don't want to have to word for word the video your welcome double check me) "where you get to see some of that early concepting phase of lets spit ball something, lets come up with a story, and then lets brain storm some of the little class features and other mechanical nuggets that could express that story. And it really is a way you just let your imagination run wild. ...With some limits. One of the big limits even in that initial phase is that your playing in kind of playground that already exists"

...that is him saying you can't make the story without considering the rules as a container "playground" he goes on to talk about the "mechanical heft" of subclasses and keeping the mechanical weight of a subclass in comparison to its primary class in mind not to balance classes but to keep a mechanical standard of priority and power of subclass features vs class features... meaning that story being a starting point does not mean your not constantly looking at mechanical design building story in a mechanical vacuum.

You need both. This idea that D&D is a story game only or a Mechanical Game only is frankly against reality. It must have both to function. They are both equally important no matter which one you start with.