Mike Mearls comments on design

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What do you guys think?

Well, your post sounds well-thought out and is written in a good tone, but (there had to be a but), but I don't agree.

To encourage players to do something, it's better to have rules for it.

I fundamentally disagree with this,

I am definitely a child of the 3rd edition, which might mean that I have different experiences.
Rules serve both as a reminder for what you can do as well as a contraint for what you can do.

If there is no rule for something, the DM is forced to make it up. The player doesn't know beforehand if the DM finds his idea reasonable and little idea on whether he can try and succeed or if the thing he came up with is impossible. A player can now fall into two related traps: First, he might not even think of something, because the option isn't presented anywhere. (This probably is most likely to happen in the more rules-heavy games - if there are no options presented at all, players will go by their real-life, book or TV experience). Second, he believes that the idea he has won't work because the DM won't let it. It depends a lot on the player and the DM in question whether he falls into that trap, but I think it is not unlikely.

Enforcing rules has the primary drawback of the first trap - thinking outside the box. But without the rules, too much hinges on guessing, which can lead to an unsatisfying experience.

I think a game is always more effective on an enjoyment level when it is designed around a notion of the type of fun it provides.

So, tell me, what type of fun does D&D (pick your edition, if required) provides? (Maybe the first question could also be: What are types of fun, but I am going to make a few guesses
Is it the "Kill monster and take their stuff"-fun? Is it the "build a powerful character"-fun? Is it the "immerse yourself deeply in your character and the setting"-fun? Is it the "Anything Goes"-fun? Is it the "Explore the World"-fun?

Personally, I think it is a bit of all of these "funs". Which is a great feature of D&D (and maybe why it is so succesful and has so many players with so many different play styles), but it's also what can make the game so difficult, because you can easily have a group of players with different goals of fun in mind.
I am not even sure that this only applies to D&D (maybe D&D was just the first, or the best, to mix these types of fun).

 

[tomBitonti]

Out of all the stuff i've heard about 4e, this is the only thing that really, really bothers me. It is forcing the term into the game, and it means nothing in and of itself without having the mechanical rules to explain it. I hope it is not too late for them to change this aspect of the game.

Ya ...

Player: I'm playing a Golden Wyvern Adept!
GM: What?!?
Player: It's a new core class in 4E, it's lot's of fun!
GM: Oh, let me see. What are they good at doing?
Player: They wear armor and are good at killing things with swords and stuff.
GM: Oh, a fighter!
Player: No! A *Golden* *Wyvern* *Adept*. (Pouts.)
GM: (Writes "Fighter" next to the player on a handy reference card.)

But also ...

Player: I'm playing a Golden Wyvern Adept!
GM: I see. The adepts are an ancient order, maintaining the immortal teachings of the Golden Wyvern for many years. They have strict standards. Are you up to it?
Player: Yes! My family has maintained the traditions for many generations. Our bodies are as steel, and we are able to stand unafraid face-to-face with mortal foes.
GM: Yes, you are fit to be a Golden Wyvern Adept. None of the orders can give you the training you seek. (Writes "Golden Wyvern Adapt" next to the player.)

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

What do you guys think?

I think you would do well to make a clear thesis statement, for the sake of both summary and clarity.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Not to sound elitist, but are you sure every newbie player are familiar enough with the words 'Cleric' or 'Rogue' to attach meaning to them?

They aren't. I've touched D&D 2002 the first time... and rogue (stealing, backstabbing) was clear. Wizard = magic guy was clear... but cleric? That was the first time I've ever seen healing clerics in fantasy.

And roles are no different than "fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue", just put into non-class terms that describe better what they're doing.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Singing Smurf]

I think you would do well to make a clear thesis statement, for the sake of both summary and clarity.

Yes indeed. I'm having some trouble parsing what you posted, which is a shame as you obviously put some effort into it.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They aren't. I've touched D&D 2002 the first time... and rogue (stealing, backstabbing) was clear. Wizard = magic guy was clear... but cleric? That was the first time I've ever seen healing clerics in fantasy.

And roles are no different than "fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue", just put into non-class terms that describe better what they're doing.

Cheers, LT.

You know, they did something similar in 2nd edition. You had your classes, and then you had your class categories. Fighters, rangers, etc. were Warriors. Magic-users and illusionists were Wizards. This new system just breaks it up differently, along the lines of "am I a skirmisher or a tank?"

So if you want a tank, look at the tank classes first. If you pick a fighter, you know you probably won't be nimbly flitting between enemies in a fight. If you want a guy who appears from the darkness and takes down an enemy in one shot, don't be a warlord. Etc. After playing the game for a while, these things become evident and in the past they took the form of advice from old players to new ones. Now they've been written down so you don't need as much hand-holding when building your first few characters. And us older players will know, at a glance, what a new class is about. Will the new shapeshift-heavy druid be a striker or a defender? Or both? I can imagine several different angles they could take, and when I crack open PHBII (or whatever druids show up in), I'll know which direction they took the class without having to deconstruct the powers.

 

[Odhanan]

Mustrum, I'm going to answer to you.

Merlin and Smurf, first off, thanks for clearly stating that you didn't understand. That's a great help for the discussion. Now, in an effort to foster further discussion about this, I'm not going to just summarize my stuff into a single sentence. From experience, it just creates nitpicking about this or that term of the thesis.

Instead, let me borrow from Mike's response, and return the question: what would you guys need me to clarify, specifically? From there, I hope to be able to make my commentary more comprehensible to anyone reading it. Thank you!

 

[Rechan]

Or, perhaps just learn to work with the roles, rather than trying to buck them.

It seems to me that much of that issue is the tendency for people saying, "I want to play a fighter who does X" (choosing the class first, and the role second), instead of saying, "I want to play a character who does X, and I'll do it by taking fighter levels" (choosing the role you want to play, and choosing the class to suit).

It's interesting. I actually experienced the opposite. I expressed what class I wanted to play, and the DM Said, "Okay, I haven't seen that class. Let me look at it. In the mean time, can you pull off that concept with any Other classes?" I was looking to fill an archetype, and he was asking if there were other classes which could facilitate the archetype I wanted to fill.

I think when people have a more concrete idea of what they want, then you can adapt to it with the class. If its "I want to blast the crap out of my enemy", you could go with wizard, sorcerer, warmage, etc.

 

[Singing Smurf]

Instead, let me borrow from Mike's response, and return the question: what would you guys need me to clarify, specifically? From there, I hope to be able to make my commentary more comprehensible to anyone reading it. Thank you!

Okay - I'll give it a shot. It seems like you have 2 main points here:

Which brings us back to the advice provided in a PHB and DMG. These are critical bits of information destined to provide the seeds of this critical thinking on the parts of players and DM. Advice, contrarily to what Mike suggests here, IS input. Players and DM then choose whether they want to follow the advice or not. Whether they build on it or dismiss it. What we've got here is the notion that since a part of the users of the game dismiss the advice, it isn't worth a damn in terms of input on how people play the game. I think this is a symptomatic generalization that demonstrates a leveling of the design of the game by catering to the lowest common denominator (those who don't follow the advice). I just can't agree with that.

It sounds like you are concerned that 4e will not offer adequate advice for players and DMs.

You sure can't force people to be "good" players. The question of standard is important. Basically, Mike here tells us that there is no standard of what a "good" player is and there shouldn't be, because however you enjoy the game, it's the purpose of the game, and that's it. I think this is problematic on a design point of view. I too think you can't force anyone to use a game this or that way, but a game surely is designed around an idea of what sort of enjoyment it provides. Then, you can give advice on how to achieve the enjoyment the game is supposed to provide (which brings us back to the notion that advice is worthless according to Mike). I think a game is always more effective on an enjoyment level when it is designed around a notion of the type of fun it provides. If there is no definition of the type of fun the game's suppose to provide, then there is no target for the design. No thematic. No bull's eye.

Here it seems that you are saying that 4th edition should attempt to foster a certain style, or styles, or play. On a related note, you appear to be concerned that the absence of a specific "notion of the type of fun it provides" will make for a weaker design.

Am I even close?

 

[Slander]

I think this part shows a clear definition of what the input into a DM's or player's abilities ought to be on the part of the written game. Advice as far as game design is concerned is worthless.

...

What we've got here is the notion that since a part of the users of the game dismiss the advice, it isn't worth a damn in terms of input on how people play the game.

Mike was commenting on the vocal negative reaction to some of the published info on message boards. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. That vocal reaction has been strongly negative, and view the advice given as either useless or railroady. I didn't get the impression Mike shared the negative opinion on the inclusion of advice in the books. Why would he write it if he thought it was garbage?

The only way to have an input on a group's enjoyment of the game is to codify intents into rules. This design philosophy is confirmed later on: "There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests."

To encourage players to do something, it's better to have rules for it.

I fundamentally disagree with this, from experience. Rules need provide some measure of fairness around the game table. They sustain the suspension of disbelief going on around the table by providing laws by which the actions in the game are resolved. No more, no less. By their very nature, rules are inhibitors of certain behavior. Rules frame. They don't open horizons unless the user knows what the intent behind the rule is, and understands from there how to use them, tweak them, change them, and build on them.

I agree rules need to provide a measure of fairness at the table. I don't believe that all rules are laws. Rules (in an RPG) serve to provide a practical expression of a particular concept or set of advice. There was a whole article on quests; a small portion of that article provided rules on implementing those suggestions in [the collective] your campaign. If that is the general tact the developers are taking, giving advice and then providing a sample set of practical rules DMs can use right away, I think that is a good thing.

We've seen a clear effect of this with Third Edition's feats. Many players and DMs out there have been repelled by them because they seem to be on/off switches: either you have the ability to power attack an opponent, or you don't; if you don't have the feat, you can't power attack an opponent. If you don't have the Acrobatic feat, that means you're character is not acrobatic. And so on. This of course is not true if the users choose to use some critical thinking and adjudicate situations based on circumstances and believability. But the rules are to be circumvented to achieve that enjoyment of the game.

Except Mike specifically addresses this. "Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that? ... We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that."

That, to me anyway, implies they are doing the opposite of what you think they are doing; or rather, they are doing exactly what you imply they should. Specifically, it sounds like they want DMs to think about the rules framework Wizards has provided, and make sure it fits in with the players expectations of the game. And when it doesn't fit the expectations, the books are providing guidance on how to change the game (at least, it sounds like they are). All good stuff from where I am sitting .