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.

 

[ad_hoc]

"Story first" may have been the design concept, but it's not how the game actually turned out. D&D 5E may not be as heavy on mechanics as 4th or 3rd ed, but it's still very much a tactical wargame at the core, part of the tradition that goes all the way back to Chainmail and beyond.

The vast majority of the rules in 5E relate to combat, while there's not a single rule that directly drives the story. Whether you get an exciting story or a boring one when playing 5E is entirely up to the players and DM.

This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.

However, lets talk about who likes 5e.

I don't personally know anyone who likes both 5e and tactical wargames.

I invited a boardgame friend to play and he wasn't into it because it was too story driven and not focused enough on strategy and tactics. And he isn't wrong. D&D makes a terrible strategy game. I think some of the people who play 5e and gripe about it would probably be much happier checking out the advances in boardgames. There are great thematic games out there which are competitive and tight.

I don't have the data, but I think it is safe to assume that the millions of new players aren't playing it as a war game. The people I know who play don't even like boardgames.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.

No, it is 100% true. Explain how 5E mechanically is any less of a wargame than Chainmail is.

D&D has always been a wargame. You can of course play D&D with more focus on the story less tactical combat in your sessions, but that doesn't change what the system actually is. I expect it was the style of your game rather than the system that turned off your boardgamer friend, my wargaming friends are having loads of fun playing 5E as a tactical dungeon crawler.

 

[Tallifer]

D&D can be either a roleplaying game or a tactical game or (usually) a mixture of both. I played a lot of D&D back in the day at my university's wargame's club; and I also played many wargames.

The interesting thing about wargames is that there are also two broad approaches: players like me focused on reliving the history and enthusing over the colorful bits; other players focused much, much more on the tactics and strategy of winning.

 

[pemerton]

D&D has always been a wargame.

I don't agree that 4e is a wargame, for two reasons.

(1) Skill challenges are not a wargame resolution mechanic.

(2) More interestingly (perhaps) a lot of its combat resolution mechanics aren't wargame mechanics because their role is to drive a certain archeypte or fictional happening, rather than to emulate historical or even fantasy combat. The paladin power Valiant Strike is an example - it doesn't model how a paladin fights, but rather creates incentives for a paladin to be played valiantly.

Come and Get It would be another example.

 

[CapnZapp]

CapnZapp, have you ever tried HARP (High Adventure RP - a type of Rolemaster-lite)? It's not D&D (obviously) but it might satisfy some of your desiderata. (Because not D&D, not so good for pick-up games - I'm not sure what your situation is in that respect.)

I looked into it when it was new(ish), but got scared away by its apparent lack of balance.
Thanks though for the suggestion.

 

[pemerton]

I looked into it when it was new(ish), but got scared away by its apparent lack of balance.

Fair enough. I can see how that would be an issue.

I know you don't like 4e (unless I'm misrembering badly). Does PF2 have anything to offer, or have you been left a bit hosed?

 

[5ekyu]

That exciting outcome can come about in games that don't use measurements in the way that 5e does.

Which was my point.

I'm not sure that this is always super-exciting. It seems like it might be a little pedantic.

What? Should 5e go metric?

5e measures jumping to the half foot level. Jumping is frequently fairly important.

Movement and lots of things are measured in feet.

There is nothing required in 5e that prevents distances of 1 ft from mattering.

Some GMs may choose otherwise.

 

[Eric V]

I have to say, by this metric, vast swathes of the spell rules could go.

This seems to be true in practice; in another thread here, people are describing how they virtually never change out the spells prepared of their spellcasting PCs they play.

 

[Maxperson]

@Hriston's suggsetion that an initiative check is a multi-character contest to see who gets to go first seems right to me. I can read page 58 of the Basic Rules, which describes contests in terms of opposition between two character. But presumably those rules are intended to be extrapolated in appropriate cases - for instance, if instead of two character racing to grab a ring from the floor, we were trying to resolve a treasure hunt at a birthday party, or an orienteering competiton, the contest mechanic would presumably be the appropriate one, with the mechanical success ordering corresponding to the in-fiction success ordering. (only one can be the winner!)

You have misstated the rule and thereby applied it incorrectly to initiative. The rule is not that there can only be one winner. The rule is that only one can succeed. Only one person out of 20 racing for the ring can get succeed in getting it. With initiative all 20 succeed in the goal of having the potential to act during the round.

 

[billd91]

This claim is, of course, absurd and wrong.

However, lets talk about who likes 5e.

I don't personally know anyone who likes both 5e and tactical wargames.

I invited a boardgame friend to play and he wasn't into it because it was too story driven and not focused enough on strategy and tactics. And he isn't wrong. D&D makes a terrible strategy game. I think some of the people who play 5e and gripe about it would probably be much happier checking out the advances in boardgames. There are great thematic games out there which are competitive and tight.

I don't have the data, but I think it is safe to assume that the millions of new players aren't playing it as a war game. The people I know who play don't even like boardgames.

You may not know me personally, but I’m raising my hand about liking wargames and 5e. Sure, I’m not approaching it as a wargame, but then again, I never have. The most board gamey version we ever played was 4e because it necessitated that degree of focus on the board, but we still didn’t approach it as a wargame or board game.

And the number of players who also play board games who also play 5e? Around my neck of the woods, it’s a lot.