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.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I think they were a little afraid of backlash after 4e, but some aspects they wanted to keep because they were identifiably D&D. Ability Scores where 18 is high, Armour Class, longswords, Hit Dice, etc. Some terms that all D&D gamers know regardless of edition, that help distinguish D&D from other generic fantasy RPGs.

Absolutely, and I think it was more than a little afraid. I suspect they were in "do or die" mode, at least insofar as corporate ownership was concerned, though I don't know. One thing with 4E was that I think it fell into the "uncanny valley": It was in the D&D family but changed a lot of aspects people expected to see. I'm not arguing whether some folks liked the changes or not, but they changed a lot. 5E went much back towards prior versions in many ways.

Other bits of design were less about backlash, and more about the direct wishes of the playerbase. They did a massive public playtest, and that gave them a good idea of what the players want. They were added explicitly because the players wanted it and that's what the feedback reported.

Yeah, though one problem I've had with their method for seeking feedback is that they run right into selection bias issues. Listening to a hyper-engaged group online isn't necessarily a good way to get feedback. By and large I think they did a good job, though there were some fairly core things I think they missed on.

 

[Shasarak]

I realize I'm late to the party and maybe this is in the very long thread somewhere. But can someone explain how designing with a greater complexity or level of mechanical options attracts s? Or am I misreading this somehow?

Dont worry about it, there is no correlation.

Its just marketing.

 

[Shasarak]

What made the difference with WotC however, and what many people either forget or ignore, is that WotC was coming from designing a very successful game where there really was a rule for everything: Magic the Gathering. They then took that rule-for-everything ethos and tried to apply it to D&D, with decidedly mixed results.

I have to say that I have never heard that particular argument before. Is there any evidence that the RPG team had anything to do with the CCG team?

Remembering that WotC essentially absorbed the TSR team.

 

[Maxperson]

No, the rules don’t say that. I understand how you might have misinterpreted them as saying that because I’ve made the same mistake myself, but if you recognize that the rules for combat always assume the participants are in combat with each other, you won’t have the problems that result from using the combat rules for encounters in which the parties aren’t fighting with each other, like rolling initiative when they aren’t taking directly opposing actions or having both sides stand around being surprised when no one’s attacking.

There is no rule that says what you are assuming. It's also not a direct ability contest in any way, shape of form. Initiative is as obviously indirect opposition, as sun will obviously come up tomorrow. In any case, it's stated in Sage Advice that initiative is not a contest, so it isn't. Since you can't seem to get that it's not direct opposition, just go with the Sage Advice.

 

[Hussar]

Me: The rules allow for simultaneous surprise, so attacks haven't necessarily happened when initiative is rolled.

You: Well, I used to run combat like the rules say, but then I decided to change them and run it differently.

So you run encounters differently than the game says. How is that relevant to a discussion on how to run encounters per RAW?

Attacks might not have happened, but combat has. Attacks =/= combat. Heck even without surprise, you can have a round of combat with no attacks quite easily - baddies go invisible and move away would be one example.

And since we're still flogging this equine - [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously claiming that if 2 people tried to hold a door against one opponent, it would not be a contest since a contest can ONLY be 2 actors? Or if three people tried to grab a ring, 5e D&D has no mechanics to support resolving the outcome, but, only houserules?

Seriously?

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely, and I think it was more than a little afraid. I suspect they were in "do or die" mode, at least insofar as corporate ownership was concerned, though I don't know. One thing with 4E was that I think it fell into the "uncanny valley": It was in the D&D family but changed a lot of aspects people expected to see. I'm not arguing whether some folks liked the changes or not, but they changed a lot. 5E went much back towards prior versions in many ways.




Yeah, though one problem I've had with their method for seeking feedback is that they run right into selection bias issues. Listening to a hyper-engaged group online isn't necessarily a good way to get feedback. By and large I think they did a good job, though there were some fairly core things I think they missed on.

I've never seen anyone use the term uncanny valley for 4e, but, y'know, I think that's pretty spot on. And, frankly, the whole concept does go a long way to explaining reactions.

 

[Satyrn]

Should probably be called the Uncanny Dungeon instead, though.

 

[Greg K]

1. DMs don't read everything.
2. DMs don't create campaign primers.

As someone that does these things, I, actually, will not play D&D with a DM that does not. Then again, Rolemaster and Hero were two of my first non-TSR games and they, along with AD&D2e ,shaped my perception that the DM needs to design a campaign primer.

 

[Lanefan]

I have to say that I have never heard that particular argument before.

I heard it constantly during and for a while after the 3e release, and I think it valid.

Is there any evidence that the RPG team had anything to do with the CCG team?

The actual teams were separate AFAIK, but they both worked for the same boss/company in the same place and the cross-influence is clear. Around the same time there was also a lot of talk (and considerable resistance, which never quite made sense to me) about actually cross-pollenating the games - have iconic D&D monsters show up as Magic cards, for example, and use Magic settings* and storylines for D&D.

- this at least, 15+ years later, is finally starting to happen.

Remembering that WotC essentially absorbed the TSR team.

Such as it was...

 

[Shasarak]

I heard it constantly during and for a while after the 3e release, and I think it valid.

Curious, I have never heard it until now.

The actual teams were separate AFAIK, but they both worked for the same boss/company in the same place and the cross-influence is clear. Around the same time there was also a lot of talk (and considerable resistance, which never quite made sense to me) about actually cross-pollenating the games - have iconic D&D monsters show up as Magic cards, for example, and use Magic settings* and storylines for D&D.

- this at least, 15+ years later, is finally starting to happen.

So this thing that was talked about constantly only actually happened...15 years later.

It really makes me wonder exactly how much cross-influence there actually was for there to be essentially no cross-influence. Until a DnD designer switched to work in the MtG department.

I would probably put more stock into an arguement that Spellfire influenced DnD more then MtG since it was produced by the same boss/company.

Such as it was...

Mmm, yes such as it was indeed.