Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[wedgeski]

I think Mearls highlights an essential contradiction at the heart of any roleplaying game: it is simultaneously strengthened and weakened by rules which define a PC's options. I for one am very glad that the head of D&D understands this and is prepared to acknowledge it openly, and I'm *very* happy that the head of D&D has such a long history with the game.

One day D&D will be under the stewardship of people who only know of D&D in terms of 3rd or 4th Edition. Even as a lover of 4E, I want that day to be put off as long as possible.

 

[Balesir]

If you are so unimaginative that you cannot possibly comprehend ignoring (or changing) what is written in a sourcebook, an errata PDF, or any other medium, you have no business trying to qualify anyone's creative experience.

<snippage>

I'm also going to head off the inevitable reply of "This is how we improve the game". I say: B***Sh**. You don't improve the game by spreading a viral message of damn the man. You improve the game by discussing and sharing experiences and comparing them to what others have experienced. That's how things improve. Not griping on EN World or a WotC forum.

Criticism and complaint are crucial to the development of the game. Being rude and clumsy about it, however, will only cause problems and sour moods. That there is criticism and that negative opinions are voiced is fine, it's just that there is a distinct lack of social grace in how it is being done. However, grace must also be shown in how one points it out, or else the same issues arise. Screaming matches and pointed accusations from either side just make everything feel like a skill challenge in Pandemonium.

QFT - this needed to be said. Matt James' point about 'sharing experiences' I think is especially germane - more on that below.

In my opinion, good rules will inspire you to do things that you wouldn't normally do.

So, if a ruleset inspires me to rip out some pages, throw down the rulebook and storm out the door, that's a good thing, right?

What I read is this:

"Hey, look at what these rules inspired me to do! I really enjoyed that."

OK, here is where I get to the meat of what I want to say. I think Mike Mearls is doing a fair job, here, of explaining/revealing what it is about roleplaying gaming in general that he likes - where he gets his fun and where he's coming from. This is good stuff, and I'm not one of those throwing fits about his posts (I post to the WotC forums under the same name I do here; feel free to check). But I do have one problem, so far: I get no inkling at all that Mike Mearls understands in the slightest why I like the D&D 4E system specifically. I don't take this as a failure on his part so much as a challenge to make it clear on my part, but it does cause me some anxiety.

The reason why it causes me anxiety is simple: Mearls is the guy in charge of D&D development and, if he really doesn't understand what it is that I like about 4E then he may lead the development in a direction that will take out of the game what I enjoy. This wouldn't even be deliberate - there's no "conspiracy theory" going on, just the realisation that if he doesn't know why I think it's good, how will he know to keep what it has that I enjoy?

Now, in the final analysis all this shouldn't bother me, since I already have a game I enjoy. If Mearls takes it off into a form I don't enjoy I still have a game as it is now - I just ignore all future changes and products. Except that, as this anxiety that the head developer does not understand what I get out of 4E cuts in, WotC are simultaneously trying to make it harder to "get off the bus" by locking the electronic tools into online versions (that you can't just take away a "frozen" copy of for your own continuing use) and similar gambits. None of this is insuperable, but it contributes to a creeping sense of disquiet so that I can well understand why several people are feeling insecure and dissatisfied, even if I disapprove of the ways they articulate that disquiet.

Speaking for myself, I think the most constructive thing I could see WotC (and Mike Mearls in particular) do is communicate some sense that they do understand what is so great about 4E* and that they have no intention to sacrifice that for what they seek to add to the game. Mike Mearls does seem to consider that there is "something missing" from 4E - whether that is because of the number of folks playing other game systems (some of whom knock 4E for reasons that seem as puerile to me as the personal attacks aimed at Mr. Mearls recently) or because of some dissatisfaction with his own experiences with the system I have no idea. That he feels the need to add "a certain something" does not bother me - that he might inadvertently take away just what I love about the system in order to do so does bother me.

For my part, perhaps what is needed is something to try to communicate to WotC what exactly it is about 4E that makes it a uniquely excellent roleplaying game in my opinion. Maybe if several 4E 'patriots' were to make an honest attempt at this, it might either (a) increase understanding inside WotC or (b) prompt WotC to say "oh, yeah, we agree with this - we have no intention of taking this away!" Result, either way around, I think.

* Like inspiring creativity, improvisation and innovation within the rules, instead of the "sub-game" of influencing the GM to let you do other stuff that's more powerful/fun than what's in the rules...

 

[Scribble]

One of my other hobbies is homebrewing beer... Homebrewing has a motto: Relax, Don't Worry- Have a Homebrew.

It boils down to, we do this for fun, and to relax. It's not a job it's a hobby, so quit worrying.

Whenever someone starts freaking out because they think they've spoiled their wort- gotten it infected, added the wrong amount of this or that, or otherwise did something terrible, someone will say... RDWHAHB.

I think gaming needs a similar motto.

Relax Don't Worry- Roll Some Dice?

 

[P1NBACK]

Here's what I think Mike Mearls was saying:

"The Thief rules were crap, but since we were playing D&D (a tabletop RPG) it was OK because we could wing it and come up with creative ideas to overcome the weakness in the rules! Other games can't do this. So, D&D and tabletop RPGs are awesome and that's why I keep coming back!"

Here's what I wish he would have said:

"The Thief rules were crap, but since we were playing D&D it was OK because we could wing it and come up with creative ideas to overcome the weakness in the rules! This is where D&D and other tabletop games shine. And, it's what brings people back. How can we make rules in the future that focus on helping and inspiring players to be creative and imaginative that aren't overlooked because they suck?"

 

[Raven Crowking]

If he were just waxing nostalgic about the hilarious olden days and the stupid things we did, that would be one thing, but it sure doesn't sound like that's what he's saying here.

Nope. It sounds like he's saying 5e might be a game I would enjoy!

Please, someone tell me I'm reading this wrong; that the #1 rules-guy doesn't really think that bad rules are good.

You're reading this wrong.

He's saying that they're not bad rules.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

Got any evidence to back you up?

I have four out of five of the BECMI boxed sets at home, the Mentzer versions published from 1983 to 1985 and covering levels 1 through 36. (I do not hold with the Immortals Set; as far as I'm concerned, when the PCs have literally become gods, it's time for a new campaign.) I could go on eBay and buy a Rules Cyclopedia from 1991 if I wanted to, but I don't particularly. In all of those rules, thieves have d4 hit dice and fixed percentages, and all thieves are human by definition.

What kind of "evidence" would you like? Scanned photocopies of the copyright page and the thief rules? Physical copies sent to your house? An affidavit from Frank Mentzer?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

You know:

he really talks about my biggest problem of 3e+ (with 4e making it more obvious):

If you think in game terms, calculating your chances, trying to exploit powers, you are metagming...
Less powerful abilities, or abilities that can be combined with the terrain (like old school grease) increases your identification with the character you play and your feeling to be in an interactive world.
If you have powers and abilities, that are useful in a vaccuum, you stop paying attention to what is around you.
(This in no way means, that i want to go back to thief abilities with chances about zero, but maybe it is worth thinking about what is really important for a roleplaying game...)

 

[Matt James]

The issue of optimization existed in 2e when I played. The problem now is that it is way more prevalent since the dynamic of the community has shifted. Digital gaming and TCGs have accelerated and rewarded this type of gaming.

If you go into Dungeons & Dragons expecting a pure storytelling experience, you are betraying yourself. It is a tactical combat system that has secondary support for providing a backstory. It's been that way since Gary Gygax turned miniatures wargaming into RPGs.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, on to actually discussing the Mearls article...

Before you get too worried about what Mr. Mearls might do to D&D, please bear in mind that he was on the 4E design team--if you like 4E as it is, he had a hand in it! More to the point, he was the creator of "Iron Heroes." While Iron Heroes has a gritty sword-and-sorcery flavor reminiscent of the old editions, the mechanics are fairly modern, and obviously designed with the intent that playing within the scope of the rules should be fun and exciting. There are certainly no "intentionally crappy" classes in IH.

What I take away from this article is the understanding that rules aren't everything. Mearls isn't proposing to make deliberately bad rules, and if you think he is, you haven't been paying attention to anything he's done in the RPG industry. Playing within the rules should be fun. But D&D should also encourage players to think beyond the rules, to imagine and experiment, because the ability to do that has always been central to the appeal of RPGs. If the designers lose sight of that, they might as well apply for a job at Blizzard to work on WoW.

The fact that Mearls had a blast playing his thief by going beyond the sucky thief rules is an argument, not for having sucky thief rules, but for going beyond the rules.

 

[P1NBACK]

If you go into Dungeons & Dragons expecting a pure storytelling experience, you are betraying yourself. It is a tactical combat system that has secondary support for providing a backstory. It's been that way since Gary Gygax turned miniatures wargaming into RPGs.

I think that's a false dichotomy and I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&D doesn't have a "tactical" combat foundation.

But, there's a difference between combat rooted in what is happening in the fiction and combat that is rooted in what is happening on the table.

The original D&D largely focused on fictional combat with the real world elements (like minis and grids) being used as a rough sketch of what was happening in the fiction. Now, with 4E, we've gotten to the point where most of the action happens at the table, the moving of minis, selecting power cards, etc. What happens in the fiction (in our imagination) is largely irrelevant. It's like playing Chess and then going back and "describing" what happened when I moved my Knight and took your Rook. "My knight charges and thrusts his lance into your rook!" But, really, I'm just moving my piece up 2 and 1 sideways.

You can see this when people on 4E forums argue against basic fictional tactics (most recently, pulling a cloak off a vampire)...

Wtf?

What's largely missing (and I think what many people are actually referring to when they say 4E has no "soul" or that it's "not really D&D") is that aspect of creativity, imagination and fictional weight.

And, that's what Mike Mearls is saying that tabletop RPGs excel at. It's why even though he was playing a Thief with 10% Open Locks he could still make an impact on the game.

But, guess what? If everyone is rooted in the numbers, and the only thing that matters is the battlemat, minis and power cards... Well... You see where I am going, yeah?