Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Herschel]

There is no agenda, I just call it like I see it.

Maybe I can be of assistance.
LensCrafters - Eyeglasses, Contact Lenses, Prescription Sunglasses & Designer Frames

 

[Herschel]

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.

Would you rather have had him love the rules as they were even though they sucked and never made changes once he was in a position to do so?

When he talks about how he was inspired to do things which in turn made him want to make rules that allowed characters to do the cool things is exactly what I want out of him.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Maybe I can be of assistance.
LensCrafters - Eyeglasses, Contact Lenses, Prescription Sunglasses & Designer Frames

Nah, even a blind man can see the crap that's going on.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Musicians, Athletes, Presidents, Actors, Writers, Game Developers have all brought us some wonderful things, and yet they have also brought us utter crap at times. Just because Mearls had a hand in some things and came up with good ideas in others doesn't make him flawless. The excuse, "to err is human" is fine, but it doesn't get you anywhere in business. Looking at someone's achievements doesn't always forgive them for their failures. Mearls is rocking the boat on this one and I don't understand why is even talks about the basic thief. Hell when you compare the thief to what we have now, yes it sucks major.

I think the problem is looking at D&D now and looking at it then. Now all characters start out heroic, back then you didn't. You were a novice and you had to work your way up to being a hero. Some of you talk about how long basic D&D lasted, well did the 1st level thief change all that much during those years?

What makes you think outside the box are things the rules don't cover and situations that present themselves. I wouldn't say the thief was a product of bad rules, its just that it was a weak character.

Now I am looking at the Basic Thief and while his skills are low at 1st level, I understand why.

First off yes his HP is 1d4 but that's 1d4 + Constitution bonus. Now mind you the highest HD classes were d8.

The thief gains levels faster than any other class.

Let's give the thief a 16 Dex with leather armor and that gives him a 5 AC which is the same as Chainmail. Not bad for a class that is supposed to rely on hitting from behind.

The magic-user could cast one spell and then that was it for him.

I see nothing wrong with the Basic Thief aside from being a little weak at 1st level, well so were the other classes for that matter.

I can see player's from each of those classes thinking outside the box at times, more so with the magic user.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nah, even a blind man can see the crap that's going on.

If you say so...

 

[Dausuul]

Musicians, Athletes, Presidents, Actors, Writers, Game Developers have all brought us some wonderful things, and yet they have also brought us utter crap at times. Just because Mearls had a hand in some things and came up with good ideas in others doesn't make him flawless. The excuse, "to err is human" is fine, but it doesn't get you anywhere in business. Looking at someone's achievements doesn't always forgive them for their failures.

I said nothing about forgiving anybody for any failures. I said Mearls obviously does not buy into a "make bad rules to encourage players to go beyond them" philosophy and you can see this by looking at his work. Sometimes he screws up--Iron Heroes is a brilliant piece of work, but its flaws are considerable--but you don't lavish that kind of effort on rules you don't mean to be used.

 

[generalchaos34]

so what the heck is all the hubbub about? ive meandered through all your crazy and often off topic posts and i do not see what the issue is.

Let me put this in the most basic terms possible, or at least why im not overly concerned....

Think about in terms of your first car, for alot of us it was a total piece of crap (1988 Nissan Sentra that spewed toxic black clouds and had mystery stains). For some reason you cant explain, even if you own a sexy Mercedes or some equally awesome car, you still think of that junker fondly. You dont know why, but you do, and sometimes often enough that you question it. But heres the deal, you dont go around buying crappy cars to relive your glory days, or you try to find a car with the same kind of stains on the back seat. You get a nice car you can afford and show off to your friends. That first car represented freedom, adulthood, and possibly late night runs to taco bell. Thats why you think of it that way.

This is what i see is the same deal with the legends and lore article. Mearls is pointing out that he remembers that old game fondly, it inspired him, it made him happy in odd and wonderful ways, it taught him to think. Remember, before Dnd the average person didnt have any access to fantasy type stuff, especially not in a way that worked the ol noggin and fired the imagination like an RPG, it was a revolution of sorts! Now that dosent mean hes going to design 4e to mirror 1e like he remembers, like he said, it was crap! However, he is going to remember what got him into playing RPGs and ultimately into writing, it was those experiences.

Seriously though, the point of the L&L is to reminisce and talk about the olden days, usually making a connection to the modern game. If you take it too seriously you probably didnt listen to your grandparents rumble on about how much better things were when they were younger. Did you actually expect your grandparents to go around making people segregate or wearing poodle skirts after that? Not really, unless they are really crazy, which I do not think Mearls is. He may be alot of things to alot people, but I think you guys are thinking waaaay too deep into this whole thing.

And once agiain....its a game, i come here to get ideas on how to make mine run smoother, not read you guys going at each others throats over a silly interpretation.

 

[wedgeski]

I hope that's what's in Mearls' head, but it certainly didn't come out through his fingers.

Clearly it did when I read it.

 

[P1NBACK]

Remember, before Dnd the average person didnt have any access to fantasy type stuff...

I just have to take exception to this part of your post. I mean, come on:

[FONT=verdana,arial]The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all of their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as any other imaginative writing or screenplay, you will be able to pluck kernels from which will grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading![/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial] Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS; THE HIGH CRUSADE; THE BROKEN
SWORD
Bellairs, John: THE FACE IN THE FROST
Brackett, Leigh
Brown, Frederic
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: "Pellucidar" series; Mars series; Venus series
Carter, Lin: "World's End" series
de Camp, L. Sprague: LEST DARKNESS FALL; THE FALLIBLE FIEND; et al
de Camp & Pratt: "Harold Shea" series; THE CARNELIAN CUBE
Derleth, August
Dunsany, Lord
Farmer, P. J.: "The World of the Tiers" series; et al
Fox, Gardner: "Kothar" series; "Kyrik" series; et al
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series
Lanier, Sterling: HIERO'S JOURNEY
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series; et al
Lovecraft, H. P.
Merritt, A.: CREEP, SHADOW, CREEP; MOON POOL; DWELLERS IN THE MIRAGE; et al
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS; "Hawkmoon" series (esp. the
first three books)
Norton, Andre
Offutt, Andrew J.: editor of SWORDS AGAINST DARKNESS III
Pratt, Fletcher: BLUE STAR; et al
Saberhagen, Fred: CHANGELING EARTH; et al
St. Clair, Margaret: THE SHADOW PEOPLE; SIGN OF THE LABRYS
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; "Ring trilogy"
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al
Weinbaum, Stanley
Wellman, Manley Wade
Williamson, Jack
Zelazny, Roger: JACK OF SHADOWS; "Amber" series; et al[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana,arial]

The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. [/FONT]

 

[Balesir]

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...

Sure, but why is this badwrongfun? My experience is that you are typically also thinking for and about your character in their current situation, so it's still roleplaying - just a specific and "gamist" style of roleplaying.

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.

I don't recognise the lack of situational importance in the play of 4E. My experience is that players are still thinking very much about the terrain and situation surrounding their characters as they play. They may be doing so in a more "game system" way than a "world physics (as I see it)" way, but that is a style issue, to me, not a right way/wrong way issue.

If you have powers and abilities, that are useful in a vaccuum, you stop paying attention to what is around you.

Maybe that is so for you, but flanks, sight lines, terrain effects and the inbuilt interactions between character abilities seem to keep me and those I play with just as engaged as our individual characters' abilities.

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.

Yes, I recognise this difference, too, but I think we need to be very careful to think about what is really going on, here. "The fiction" does not actually have any independent existence. It resides in our imaginations - often there is assumed to be a "master copy" residing in one person's imagination. Imagining things that have no independent existence is commonly called "making stuff up". So, actually, the 'system' in use in these games is actually "we make stuff up". There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - I love it as a game style, as one among several - but it can lead us astray in our thinking if we forget that this is what we are doing and ascribe the adjudications to any external "reality".

Often there are strong guidelines that shape the "making stuff up". A particular world concept, personal aesthetic sense ("taste") and personal beliefs about how the "real" world works are common influences. But to assert that "the fiction" itself dictates anything to us, as an independent entity, is in my view both erroneous and dangerous.

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.

Actually, to begin with, I don't think that was how D&D was originally intended to focus. Both Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were wargamers, and initially that was how they viewed the game. Pretty soon, people did start focussing on how combat (particularly) "should" work - and building a fiction ("making stuff up") to suit their own tastes and beliefs. It was really this train of development that led me away from D&D in around 1980, because I was convinced at the time that "realism" was essential and D&D didn't have it. What I see now is that what "realism" really meant was that D&D didn't fit with my personal beliefs about how the world worked; it was when those beliefs were gradually challenged and had to be changed that I realised that the "realism" my 20-odd year old self found was actually not significantly more "realistic" than D&D...

Don't get me wrong - there is definitely a place for collaborative world building according to a group's aesthetic preferences, demands for consistency and beliefs about existence. I have been a fan of the Hârn setting (and system) since around 1983 or 4, and that is a place I still constantly revisit to dream of an alien world I can almost touch. But D&D doesn't do that for me - never has. If it does for you, then I understand your annoyance with 4E - it must feel like an intruder on sacred land peddling profane and over-boistrous 'fun'. But, we are at an impasse - because that boistrous fun is just what I like about 4E D&D, and it has not been generated half so well anywhere else.

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.

Different strokes, I think. To me, the system description plus a little 'fluff' is what is happening in the game-world. I don't need much of a sense that it is "realistic", nowadays, so it's just an "alien" world that works differently. If you haven't seen the webcomic "Erfworld", that is a graphic story that deals with just this concept really well. It's also very funny...

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.

Tabletop RPGs excel at a lot of things, in my experience. Sadly, not all of them can be done at once, or with one mode of play. That doesn't make any of them "wrong" or "suboptimal" - it just means that roleplaying is a broad and complex medium, like music or visual arts. You can't improve Mozart by adding a driving beat and you won't get a better rock anthem by performing it with an orchestra in six variations. Both forms are fine as they stand - mixing them to get "the ultimate piece of music" won't ever work.

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?

Yes* - you get a playstyle that you don't care for. Fair enough. But that doesn't make that style invalid or wrong.

* I'm deliberately ignoring that this exclusive focus does not accurately fit any session of roleplaying I have ever been involved in, here - I understand it as exaggeration to make a point.