Mike Mearls comments on design

[TerraDave]

Yes, Mearls and Noonan seem to speak "my language" and come from a very practical place in regards the game (the desingers are more a mixed bag)...his quote from the DMG on traps and letting players improvise sollutions, why I just did that yesterday in a play by post...

Yes, of course life should be easier for the DM, given other constraints, this is good for new DMs, but it is also good for old DMs who have a life, or want to be able to focus their prep time on some stuff and not worry about the rest...

BUT, we don't really have examples of thing really being easier for the DM, just promises. I hope he is right...

AND, Cam Banks is right about those damn names. Golden Wyvern Adept as a name on multiple feats is just a mistake. If points of light is emphasized in the PHB, it is a mistake. You can have some of this in flavor text, you can tell it in the DMG, you can have less conspicous connections (staff of the wyvern...) but hard wire it into the "setting" and into PCs, you are doing a bad job and reflecting your own, random, prefrences. These are good examples of crap that makes DMs lives harder, not easier.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).

I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do," Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.

OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.

Well, I can certainly see that any GM wants players to be creative in interpreting their role in the party.

But, at the same time, this is like a teacher trying to help kids through a basic essay.

You want students to be creative when using the essay, but you don't really want an epic narrative poem. And since you don't want that you do have to provide students with some instruction.

Now, players aren't students - at least not when they're at the table - but they are co-writers and any group of co-writers needs a clear understanding of what everyone is working on.

So it's not that the guy who chooses Cleric needs to play the cleric certain specific hardcoded into the rules way, it's that the rest of the party needs to know what that choice means to them.

Mearls did say that the roles are there to help understanding and that they don't have mechanical reflection.

So I think you should absolutely hate what you should hate, but I hate it too. First party I ever ran for 3E had a paladin who's player left the table saying, "I cast detect evil on everything we meet, when I do detect evil I smite it, and I'll be back in a half hour." But I've also had players who just couldn't understand why we kept getting TPKed when his fighter would abandon the rest of the party. In both cases the player isn't being responsible.

I find some hope in what Mearl's was talking about versus what we would like to avoid, and some hope that that second player would now understand that playing a striker would suit that play-style better.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This point can't be emphasized enough. If some of the measures they're taking in the 4th edition core books seem "simplistic," or seem to be directing players toward a certain style of play, consider that perhaps those measures are directed not at you, the experienced player who knows the drill, but at new players who need to be told how to get started playing.

They don't need to write detailed instructions for us old hands. We know how to do it already. So I think that a lot of the core content aside from the game mechanics might just be kind of useless to us. I feel the same way about vast tracts of the 3E DMG. It's just part of writing for a broad audience. Not all sections are for all players.

I would be amazed to find anyone, no matter what their experience, who doesn't find some useful tips in general DMing advice. I would include in that some of the very best DMs who I've ever come across.

It seems to me that if someone were to dismiss elements of the DMG as 'simplistic' or 'aimed at newbies' and not for an 'experienced person' such as themselves, they could end up missing really useful stuff that could enhance their game. I mean, I remember Gary Gygax commenting on ENworld that he had picked up some useful tips from the 3e (or 3.5e) DMG!

I've got... blimey, 32 years or so DMing experience, but I love checking out new advice, because occasionally I come across a little gem that I'd not heard of (or once knew but had forgotten).

Cheers

 

[Fifth Element]

The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).

I don't think this comment adds anything to the discussion. The mods have asked that we try to be civil. You can disagree with the posters without this implication.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

AND, Cam Banks is right about those damn names. Golden Wyvern Adept as a name on multiple feats is just a mistake. If points of light is emphasized in the PHB, it is a mistake. You can have some of this in flavor text, you can tell it in the DMG, you can have less conspicous connections (staff of the wyvern...) but hard wire it into the "setting" and into PCs, you are doing a bad job and reflecting your own, random, prefrences. These are good examples of crap that makes DMs lives harder, not easier.

I wonder, though, could this be the only adept feat in the book?

As in when it shows up on the SRD stripped of all IP content could it just appear as Adept, as with Bigby's and Pushing Hand?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The first page or so of responses to this thread gave me the feeling I had stumbled into the Church of Mike Mearls (Reformed).

I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do," Merls said. That, to me, seems to be reducing the experience to a simple equation or computer simulation. And if it's a core design consideration, this edition is going to be very much different from previous generations.

OK, I'll use the words. I've avoided them so far, but what the hey: I hate that.

Player 1: Okay, let's play this new game. I'm going to be a fighter.
Player 2: I'll be a cleric.
Player 3: I'm a rogue.
DM: Great! Now, here's the introduction, a plot hook, and the first encounter: goblins.
Player 1: I hang back and try to move around to flank them.
Player 2: I search through my spells in a somewhat disappointed fashion, looking for a blasty one. Failing to find one, I grudgingly move up to the goblins and get swarmed.
Player 3: Yarr! I charge the biggest one!
DM: Wow, you guys got your butts kicked. Perhaps you should rethink you strategy.
Players 1, 2, & 3: If only there were some easy-to-understand index of what the various classes are capable of and good at so we could adjust our strategy accordingly and/or choose classes that suit our preferred playstyles!
Mike Mearls: Ahem...

 

[Imaro]

So it's not that the guy who chooses Cleric needs to play the cleric certain specific hardcoded into the rules way, it's that the rest of the party needs to know what that choice means to them.

Mearls did say that the roles are there to help understanding and that they don't have mechanical reflection.

So I think you should absolutely hate what you should hate, but I hate it too. First party I ever ran for 3E had a paladin who's player left the table saying, "I cast detect evil on everything we meet, when I do detect evil I smite it, and I'll be back in a half hour." But I've also had players who just couldn't understand why we kept getting TPKed when his fighter would abandon the rest of the party. In both cases the player isn't being responsible.

I find some hope in what Mearl's was talking about versus what we would like to avoid, and some hope that that second player would now understand that playing a striker would suit that play-style better.

This seems a little at odds to me. The roles help a player to understand what role they play...but they don't, mechanically, cater to the role. I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character, Please explain how this in any way makes sense.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I would be amazed to find anyone, no matter what their experience, who doesn't find some useful tips in general DMing advice. I would include in that some of the very best DMs who I've ever come across.

It seems to me that if someone were to dismiss elements of the DMG as 'simplistic' or 'aimed at newbies' and not for an 'experienced person' such as themselves, they could end up missing really useful stuff that could enhance their game. I mean, I remember Gary Gygax commenting on ENworld that he had picked up some useful tips from the 3e (or 3.5e) DMG!

I've got... blimey, 32 years or so DMing experience, but I love checking out new advice, because occasionally I come across a little gem that I'd not heard of (or once knew but had forgotten).

Cheers

No disagreement here. However, I think the level of sky-is-falling we see on the boards might be reduced if people would keep my comments in mind while reading previews.

 

[Cadfan]

This seems a little at odds to me. The roles help a player to understand what role they play...but they don't, mechanically, cater to the role. I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character, Please explain how this in any way makes sense.

You're reading it wrong. He's saying that there's nothing in the rules that forces a Striker to go strike, or a Defender to go defend. Sure, they have abilities that make them better at striking and defending respectively, but obviously no one can make your character do anything.

So everyone who's enraged at the roles talk because they want to play a wizard who charges headlong into melee or a fighter who hides in the back, well, you can continue to annoy the rest of your party far into the next edition.

 

[Slander]

I still disagree with the attitude that players stepping into a roleplaying game should have rules-assigned tasks from the git-go: "The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do," Merls said.

The alternative is having new players jumping into the game thinking Monks are awesome front-line combatants, that Spring-Attacking Fighters are a great idea, and the best types of spells for Wizards are blasting spells. In reality, none of those classes are supposed to be doing the examples I gave. Veteran players understand the consequences of making those decisions and can act accordingly; new players would likely end up frustrated with their choices.

The roles simply point out to new players "Hey, if your picking this class, you should focus on these things in battle". Experienced players will still be able to make characters that go against the grain.

I'm confused, that's like saying the name of your class is fighter, but mechanically nothing helps you fight better than any other character, Please explain how this in any way makes sense.

The mechanics come into play based on the choices you make. There are going to be Talents(?) and feats that cater to the Defender role, Striker role, etc. A fighter, to be a good Defender, should be picking the Defender Talents/Feats. But a player doesn't have to pick those abilities.

Will there be consequences if you don't pick talents/feats that go with your role? Sure, just like there is a consequence for a Fighter picking Spring-Attack in 3E. It might be an acceptable consequence for an experienced player who realizes what he's missing. But the fighter in our first 3E group certainly didn't realize that. Thus, the friendly role suggestions in 4E.