Mike Mearls Answers Questions About "Dungeons and Dragons Next"

[Morrus]

MTV has asked Mike Mearls a few questions about the next iteration of D&D. Some interesting parts:

• It was late 2010 that WotC first seriously started thinking about a new edition. This was prompted by divisions in the RPG community: "First, we had a divided audience. Second, if we kept altering the core of 4th Edition, the division would only become more apparent."
• The Ravenloft board game taught WotC that they didn't need to worry about the latest trends in gaming, but that they could focus on the existing strengths of RPGs.
• The basic concept of D&D Next came from an [unnamed] employee's home game.
• "I can say that starting with the simplest base possible is likely a given, as it’s far easier to add complexity to a game rather than take it away." It sounds like the core game will be very basic, with optional add-ons.

 

[Henry]

Most great RPG innovations seem to come from home games. Many of Pathfinder's changes started as Jason Buhlman's home doodling for his personal use.

 

[Alzrius]

That second bullet point strikes me as odd. It wasn't until the Ravenloft board game that they realized they should focus on the strengths unique to RPGs, rather than what's popular in gaming-in-general?

Why didn't they realize that sooner? Why did it take a board game to remind them this about role-playing games? Why was it the Ravenloft board game (as opposed to other ones; I can't remember if there were D&D board games prior to that one) specifically?

I don't mean to be cynical, but that really sounds like they're showing up late to the party of conventional wisdom. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard on the internet over the last few years that RPGs should focus on what RPGs do best, and not try to compete with other types of gaming (e.g. video gaming).

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

That second bullet point strikes me as odd. It wasn't until the Ravenloft board game that they realized they should focus on the strengths unique to RPGs, rather than what's popular in gaming-in-general?

Why didn't they realize that sooner? Why did it take a board game to remind them this about role-playing games? Why was it the Ravenloft board game (as opposed to other ones; I can't remember if there were D&D board games prior to that one) specifically?

I don't mean to be cynical, but that really sounds like they're showing up late to the party of conventional wisdom. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard on the internet over the last few years that RPGs should focus on what RPGs do best, and not try to compete with other types of gaming (e.g. video gaming).

My online experience with 4E only D&D players (the ones who post that all other D&D versions are old and outdated) really want D&D to use the most current RPG ideas/rules/designs and slaughter any and all sacred cows to do so. Bringing back anything from previous editions is seen as a step backward to this type of poster.

My take on what Mike is saying is that some "retro" mechanics are fine if it works the best out of all the editions of D&D. If nine alignments works well, even if other RPGs have dropped the idea, then maybe D&D will go back to it.

I like all editions of D&D and I agree with Mike. Any idea from 1E, for example, should be fully considered and not simply dropped in favor of the latest RPG fashion. D&D Next should use the best pieces from every edition and not strive too hard to match up with other RPGs.

The reality is, other RPGs have to compete with D&D. D&D shouldn't try to copy other RPGs. D&D can stand on its own merits (and rich history). At least, that is what I read into what Mike is saying.

 

[BluSponge]

That second bullet point strikes me as odd. It wasn't until the Ravenloft board game that they realized they should focus on the strengths unique to RPGs, rather than what's popular in gaming-in-general?

Why didn't they realize that sooner? Why did it take a board game to remind them this about role-playing games? Why was it the Ravenloft board game (as opposed to other ones; I can't remember if there were D&D board games prior to that one) specifically?

More than likely it means that WotC's designers discovered that they didn't need to make DnD play like a European board game to attract that audience. Rather, they could just make a DnD board game that played that way. So now the RPG is free to go its own way and DnD branded board games will continue going another.

That's my take on it anyway.

Tom

 

[Griego]

More than likely it means that WotC's designers discovered that they didn't need to make DnD play like a European board game to attract that audience. Rather, they could just make a DnD board game that played that way. So now the RPG is free to go its own way and DnD branded board games will continue going another.

That's my take on it anyway.

Tom

My take as well. While it might seem obvious to a veteran D&D'er that an RPG should stick to its roots, I would think that if a company thinks it can expand its audience beyond the core, it would definitely try to. Good news for the grognards is Wizards apparently failed at that, and are now trying to cater to that core audience a bit more.

 

[William Ronald]

That second bullet point strikes me as odd. It wasn't until the Ravenloft board game that they realized they should focus on the strengths unique to RPGs, rather than what's popular in gaming-in-general?

Why didn't they realize that sooner? Why did it take a board game to remind them this about role-playing games? Why was it the Ravenloft board game (as opposed to other ones; I can't remember if there were D&D board games prior to that one) specifically?

I don't mean to be cynical, but that really sounds like they're showing up late to the party of conventional wisdom. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard on the internet over the last few years that RPGs should focus on what RPGs do best, and not try to compete with other types of gaming (e.g. video gaming).

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will win a thousand battles" -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Self knowledge and knowledge of one's own field is crucial. Dungeons and Dragons must play to its strengths. The board games are one thing and RPGs are another.

I have found that a lot of good ideas can come from home games. So, I am not surprised by this part of the news.

 

[Rechan]

"The D&D Fantasy Roleplaying Game Starter Set in the red box has also been a real success for us. It highlights the importance of having a good intro product—something that is definitely on our radar as we plan for the future." Mearls

It's a success, really? Because, and I say this as a f4nboy, the 4e Red Box is a lousy product. I really hope that is not how WotC is defining a "good intro product".

 

[howandwhy99]

Mearls: We don’t have specific plans yet, as we’ll be running stuff through play testing to make sure it resonates. I can say that starting with the simplest base possible is likely a given, as it’s far easier to add complexity to a game rather than take it away.

There are really two paths. Player complexity comes down to how you present and organize character options. In some ways, the idea of letting people make 4e, 3e, AD&D, or Basic D&D style characters is the easier challenge, as we can tackle it by creating flexible structure for classes and options. For DMs, it comes down to something similar: a simple but robust core, built from the beginning with an eye toward extension and flexibility.

For DMs, this sounds a little like AD&D if you see most of the game as supplemental additions to a very simple core game. This is going to be interesting. For players I would guess it's like most games. It's about picking an option already in place (race, class, equipment, spell, etc.) or creating a custom design of one's own. That sounds a lot like D&D to me.

 

[Roland55]

A core game that's "very basic." And then "add-ons."

I can live with that.