Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[ForeverSlayer]

No.

"The original Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set boxed set (TSR 1001) was first published by TSR, Inc. in 1977,[1] and comprised a separate edition of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, distinct from the first edition of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game, which was initially published in the same year."

Unlike recent "basic sets" which are introductions to the complete game, the original Basic game was a distinct version of D&D that stood alone from AD&D, but shared common elements.

The Basic set was actually meant to springboard characters into the "Expert Set", which comprised levels 4+.

I saw the basic set as where you started and AD&D as where you ended up. Now if I am not mistaken the OD&D thief had d4 hit dice, but it also had 2d4 at 2nd level and then 3d4 at 3rd etc...

We used a blue box if I remember straight and then we moved to the hardback book with the guy stealing the gem on the front.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Oh god now I remember! Weren't there like 20 boxsets or something? I think one was black and and another like a magenta looking color? I do remember a blue box with the dragon on it.

 

[IanB]

Yeah take it from those of us who were alive at the time and played both systems, Basic-Expert-etc. was an entirely separate game with its own full slate of products, a fully supported campaign world, etc.

 

[wayne62682]

There is no agenda, I just call it like I see it. Seems to me Wizard's hit a nerve and when the crap hit the fan they locked the thread instead of toughening it out.

Again, that's SOP over at the WotC boards. I've been going there for some... 5 years now? Maybe six, and they were always unwilling to actually accept responsibility for half the stupid garbage they spout out, hiding behind the fact it's "their" forum to squash dissent under the guise of keeping the forums friendly for the kiddies. It used to be a lot worse.

 

[Henry]

You could improve your percent by race and with a really good Dex.

Ooh, an extra 5 or 10%! I quiver with anticipation!

More seriously, an ultra-high Dex and different race really didn't make a huge difference in 1E. In the majority of cases, it took that 10% or 15% chance and raised it to 20 or 25 as a one-time shot. The quicker level gain really doesn't do enough to offset the Thief's disadvantages.

On the one hand, it does reinforce, as Mearls says, the idea that Thieves are screwed by life and never catch an even break, and so have to maximize their potential by cheating in some ways. Let's face it, Magic-users until level 5 or 6 had the same problem - they had to play dirty pool to keep alive once that one or two spells per day got used. I used to play with guys who would load their mages with paint packets, flash powder, stage magician style tricks, and flaming oil and poison, and anything else the DM would let them get away with, to game the system in the absence of parity.

 

[mudlock]

Arguing which editions of D&D had what size hit-die for thieves and whether or not a thread on a different forum sucks is... not where I had hoped this thread would go.

Look, I'm not gonna say that creativity isn't a good thing, or that necessity isn't the mother of invention. But it's stupid and, frankly, terrifying to me that the top rules-writer for a game would expound on how AWESOME it was that it was necessary for him to act creatively because, basically "the rules were just so terrible, lol!" That's not what I would be looking for in a head of R&D. I'd want to hear how his rules continue to allow for and reward that kind of creativity while also being BETTER RULES.

It's not a trade off! Bad rules don't inspire creativity, and good rules don't kill it.

 

[Obryn]

But it's stupid and, frankly, terrifying to me that the top rules-writer for a game would expound on how AWESOME it was that it was necessary for him to act creatively because, basically "the rules were just so terrible, lol!" That's not what I would be looking for in a head of R&D. I'd want to hear how his rules continue to allow for and reward that kind of creativity while also being BETTER RULES.

Is that what he wrote, or what you read?

-O

 

[wayne62682]

Is that what he wrote, or what you read?

-O

Judging by some of the comments on the now-locked thread, a lot of people seem to have read that, or similar. I'm one to agree, even if it's not indicative of any sort of trend with the game, to have someone who is the lead designer for the game basically say they enjoyed the game when the rules were utter garbage is a little frightening, more so because he didn't mention anything about what was wrong about that style; it indicates (or hints at, at least) that he might not KNOW what was wrong about that style and therefore be incapable of making sure that 4e and future editions don't go that route as well (and based on the response to things like Cleric nerfs and the Vampire class, it might have started down that path already).

To put it in perspective: I am a software developer by trade. If the CIO of my company says that he enjoyed programming the most when it was in COBOL on a mainframe, because it was harder to do than it is to write C# with Visual Studio on Windows 7, it's a fearful prospect because it indicates a complete lack of evolution and understanding of better things. That's a similar situation here with Mearles - he is basically saying "I had fun when I had to think creatively to get around shoddy rules", but he's making it sound like the shoddy rules were not a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

If he had said basically, The old rules weren't balanced at all and the Thief class was way underpowered, so I had to resort to being creative to get around the bad rules it would have been better received because it at least indicates an acceptance that the old style was bad compared to the new way things are going. Instead, he basically said I had a lot of fun playing an underpowered class because it was underpowered so I couldn't use the rules to my advantage, which isn't acknowledging anything except the fact that he doesn't mind lousy rules (or worse still, cannot determine if rules are lousy) and, it could be inferred, prefers them because they fostered creativity as a workaround.

 

[malraux]

But even the best rules are no substitute for creativity. And losing sight of what makes the game fun (the creativity) and focusing on how mearls just wants bad rules seems to be an uncharitable reading at the least.

Look, a basic element of intellectual engagement is to give an author the benefit of the doubt. If there are multiple interpretations of what someone says, you should engage not with the worst reading but the best one. If your boss says that COBOL programing was enjoyable because one person could read and follow the entirety of a program, he's not saying he wants to cut all programs down to small sizes.

 

[Obryn]

Judging by some of the comments on the now-locked thread, a lot of people seem to have read that, or similar.

Frankly, the WotC forum is a hive that breeds and feeds paranoid conspiracy theorists. Not everyone, mind you, but it's way more prominent there than anywhere else. (Remember the Rule of Three about clerics? The board conclusion was, "5e is around the corner, and it won't have Leaders." I mean, really.)

Anyway, I don't get anything out of the article which says, "Broken rules are awesome! Let's make more!" Let's review.

He had a blast playing a Thief in BECMI because he made his own fun. He said he was basically forced to do so, because the class itself was pretty dire. You could conclude, "Hey, this means Mike wants to make crap classes!" Or you could take the article at face value, where it's clear the point is this:

Most entertainment fosters a sense of admiration and fandom in us for its creators. D&D fosters a fandom in ourselves. We are the stars, we are the creators. The game gives back to you as much energy and love as you put into it. Not too many forms of entertainment can claim that. That’s what makes D&D great. That’s why I still play after all these years.

IMO, that thread encapsulates everything that's wrong with the worst kind of fandom.

-O