D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary

[doctorbadwolf]

His thoughts on 4e and the DM pipeline, on the other hand, don't baffle me.

So, try and picture this difference.

In one game, you have a system that removes more work from the DM, such that the DM is more of a neutral combat referee. As such, it is easier to transition from player to DM and vice versa. Because the divide between player and DM isn't that large. That has a lot of advantages (most players can DM), but it also has a certain disadvantage- if there is nothing about the edition itself that drives growth, then it will be harder to find more DMs. Every table might have a DM, and the players might be able to rotate among themselves, but you're not creating new DMs.

There is certainly a comfortable middle ground between 4e DMs (player plus+) and Gygax-style EXTREME DMing (every DM is responsible for 20-30 players, on many nights, with hours of prep time and so on). But I can certainly understand his point.

I guess I don't see how 4e put DMs in the position you describe?

The DM still very much has to do more than "referee". They run the world. They decide what exists where, who is doing what, how the world responds to the player characters, and create or facilitate (depending on game style) the unfolding story. Just like in 5e, just like in 1e.
The 4e DM just doesn't have to correct mechanics on a regular basis, has better tools for creating encounters that do exactly what they want, and doesn't have to memorize character sheets (bc the game is balanced), or spend hours and hours doing mechanics-side prep, in order to know what will be a challenge vs a cake walk.

4e has downsides, but IMO, none of hem have anything to do with DMing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Pauper]

Nope. Your table isn't the general norm.

Between our two scheduled sessions, we have 14 tables at our FLGS. I can re-check, but to the best of my knowledge, none of them has a Ranger who is eager to take on the Beastmaster option, while I know three people who have said in so many words that, once the UA Ranger is legal, they'll be retraining into Stalker Conclave if it's allowed.

I'm guessing my info is more generally applicable than yours.

The BM ranger was badly written in the phb, and now it works fine. Nothing at all to do with power gaming.

Well, I'm glad you managed to read your own review of the class, but the discussions I've seen and been involved in express concern over the restriction on beast type, the loss of Multiattack, and the eventual need to choose between using the companion's reaction for offense or defense (starting at 11th level) make folks leery of jumping feet-first into the class, especially when comparing those options to the entirely unchanged Hunter Conclave (which was already considered the stronger PH subclass), and the obviously potent Stalker Conclave. I'm sure if I pass along your completely undetailed reassurance that the class is 'fine', they'll change their minds.

And thanks for the chance to finally use the word 'ultracrepidarian' in an ENWorld post!

--
Pauper

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No worries! Differences are the spice of life. Or cayenne pepper. One of the two.

Anyway, I was just noting that I agreed with Mearls on that point. Even if not all 4e DMs are staying DMs, it would seem that there are more 5e DMs at this point. More DMs in the pipeline.

If nothing else, it might have something to do with older gamers bringing in younger gamers and those younger gamers going on to DM. *shrug*

Well, I'd say there are more groups playing right now than 4 years ago, with a smaller % of those people DMing, but at that point we are heavily in anecdote land!
[MENTION=17607]Pauper[/MENTION] a few things. First, your experience definately isn't more broad than mine, or involve more players.
Second, I never claimed that my personal experiences were the norm.
Third, your local game store does not represent the community as a whole. It's one store.

On a side note, searching people's post history from many months ago to try and make some kind of point (not even clear what your point is, here) is kinda weird. Please stop interacting with me on this forum, from now on.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

There, fixed that for you.

The only people I've ever heard who dislike the beast master ranger's design are power gamers.

--
Pauper

Please don't do that. It's rude and against board rules.

And, fair enough. You just need to talk to more people.

 

[Hussar]

His thoughts on 4e always baffle me.

The DM pipeline was closed? Or the new player to DM pipeline was closed? Either way, false. 100% false.

I haven't seen so many players try out DMing in any other game, much less edition of DnD. As fairly easy as 5e is, I've seen 4e DMs stop DMing in 5e because they don't want the hassle or figuring out CR, especially since CR will never actually be accurate. And all the work they have to do to make things work beyond that. I've got a player who won't dm 5e, but loved DMing 4e, and the main thing for him is magic items, and improvising in a balanced way, both of which he felt he had more freedom with in 4e.

I can grok most complaints about 4e, but it definately was the most new DM friendly ttrpg I've ever played.

No, DBW, I can kinda see his point. Look, you know that I'm a big 4e fan. But, that wall of text in the PHB was a baaaaad idea. And that's all a new DM was going to see. This massive wall of text in the front of the book for each character. Never minding the EXPLOSION of material for players after the initial PHB.

Think about it, how many powers were available to, say, a fighter by the end of 4e? 500? 1000? More? And that was available to every class, and there were some 40+ classes. There was just no way for a DM to keep up. The release rate was really, really unconducive to introducing new players. Simple or not, it didn't look simple. It looked like a stereo instruction manual.

And, add to that, the number of DM's who either stayed with 3e or moved over to Pathfinder, and the hobby lost about 1/2 to 2/3rds (depending on who you ask) of the existing DM's within the first six months. That, right there, sank the game. There was just no way it was going to recover from that. Not with the sales numbers that WotC required.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, DBW, I can kinda see his point. Look, you know that I'm a big 4e fan. But, that wall of text in the PHB was a baaaaad idea. And that's all a new DM was going to see. This massive wall of text in the front of the book for each character. Never minding the EXPLOSION of material for players after the initial PHB.

Think about it, how many powers were available to, say, a fighter by the end of 4e? 500? 1000? More? And that was available to every class, and there were some 40+ classes. There was just no way for a DM to keep up. The release rate was really, really unconducive to introducing new players. Simple or not, it didn't look simple. It looked like a stereo instruction manual.

And, add to that, the number of DM's who either stayed with 3e or moved over to Pathfinder, and the hobby lost about 1/2 to 2/3rds (depending on who you ask) of the existing DM's within the first six months. That, right there, sank the game. There was just no way it was going to recover from that. Not with the sales numbers that WotC required.

Ok, so, a lot of that is about the effect of the 4e layout and number of options on people who were already part of the hobby, particularly as DMs. I've made no statements contrary to the idea that 4e lost DMs from previous editions.

What 4e did, that I commented on, was encourage players of 4e who had never been DM, to take turn in the DM's chair. Including people who had never played before.

4e DMing just isn't hat intimidating, unless you come in with previous edition expectations, imo, and IME. I met plenty of DnD players who didn't want to dm 4e because of "player entitlement", or because they didn't like the textbook layout, or "bc MMO LOL". But getting people who started with 4e to try DMing was remarkably easy.

They didn't care how many plyer options there were, because they were playing a PC, and nothing about 4e suggests to the new DM that they need to read the powers available to the PCs in order to run the game.

In fact, when you do need to read a specific power that a specific PC has, you can just read that specific power, relate it to the situation at hand, and be done with it. If you make your players print or write out their powers, you don't even need to crack a book. I've never opened books for rules reference less in any edition of DnD. That isn't totally fair to 5e, because for some reason people don't want to print or write out their damn spells and class abilities in 5e, which I blame on players, not the system.

But what if we math-ize our anecdotes!?!?!?!

So, let us assume that the average table has five players.

Let us further assume that the average table has one DM.

We will then postulate that 4e creates 2 hybrid player/DMs per table, while 5e does not.

Then, is it necessarily true that the ratio of 5e tables to 4e tables must be greater than the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow for there to be a net increase in DMs?


See, it is indisputably true that there are no anecdotes that you cannot make more confusing yet believable with maths.

There are few things better than confusing maths.

 

[guachi]

In fact, when you do need to read a specific power that a specific PC has, you can just read that specific power, relate it to the situation at hand, and be done with it. If you make your players print or write out their powers, you don't even need to crack a book. I've never opened books for rules reference less in any edition of DnD. That isn't totally fair to 5e, because for some reason people don't want to print or write out their damn spells and class abilities in 5e, which I blame on players, not the system.

In my current long-term campaign, I have three of five players who have everything written down/printed out/or spell cards of every spell or ability they have. Darndest thing as I didn't say anything about doing that. Surprised me as at the AL tables I DM I find players all the time like you mention who don't print or write down anything.

The monk doesn't have his abilities written down but he has so few he can memorize them. Ironically, the elven ranger has none of his spells or abilities written down and he's the oldest player and a Warrant Officer in the Army!

 

[Hussar]

Oh, I don't particularly disagree [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION].

Thing is, that's where the pipeline was closed. Most DM's learn from other DM's, rather than starting cold. When you lose 2/3rds of your DM's, that pipeline gets a lot smaller. And, couple this with a system that is not particularly inviting - walls of text, text that is written in a very specific voice, and, again, a MOUNTAIN of supplementary material, the odds of new DM's coming in gets smaller and smaller.

Think about it, by the end of the first year of 4e, we had the core 3 plus, what, ten more supplements? Plus Dragon magazine material. Plus whatever else. There are entire game lines that have less material than that. Never minding that we had double that by the end of the second year. That's incredibly intimidating to someone who is new to the hobby. Plus, which book are they supposed to buy?

While I 100% agree that running 4e is probably easier than any other version of D&D, it doesn't look like it is. And appearances are 90% of marketing. It's not a ding on 4e, particularly, just a recognition of the market which is going to look at a game with 15 hardcover books and give it a pass.