Mike Mearls comments on design

[ThirdWizard]

I can say this: The amazing amount of heated debate over "Golden Wyvern Adept" means that if that is the biggest thing getting people riled up about 4e at the moment, then this game is looking to be great!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can say this: The amazing amount of heated debate over "Golden Wyvern Adept" means that if that is the biggest thing getting people riled up about 4e at the moment, then this game is looking to be great!

True enough!

It's just an easy target, though, a symbol of a lot of things that people don't like about 4e summed up in three little words.

It stands out, which means it gets knocked around. At least until something else rears it's head.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It stands out, which means it gets knocked around. At least until something else rears it's head.

Until the next design and development article, I bet. They're about due for another controversial one (not that they aren't all).

 

[Hussar]

Well, playing as a dark elf has some weight. People know what drow are, the concept isn't alien, and it's an easily grokked archetype.

People know what Drow are now. Way back when, before Drow appeared in the modules, if you asked a player what a Drow was, they'd likely have no idea. Drow are about as far removed from dark fairy as elves are removed from light fairies. Drow are almost entirely an invention of D&D. Other than a very, very basic veneer that is.

Right, but D&D was more than just it's own IP. The more heavily D&D leans on it's own inventions, excluding the richness of the fantasy worlds outside of it, the more obtuse it becomes. Golden Wyvern Adept references NOTHING in ANYONE'S mental database. Yet.

Neither did most of D&D in any edition. Either people were a hell of a lot more classically educated than I was when I started playing D&D or there's some creative history going on. Most of the artifacts, none of the proper nouns, large swaths of the monster manual, gnomes, clerics - that's just a few things that are purely D&D. Yeah, they might have their genesis in obscure Western Civ classes, but, for the most part people had no idea where they came from.

The most iconic elements of D&D are pure D&D, not drawn from anywhere else. The Rust Monster, the Beholder, on and on.

This idea that D&D has ever been generic fantasy role play is just strange to me. D&D has always been its own thing. It works best when you let it be its own thing. That's not edition dependent. Why not start from that baseline then? Every other edition did. Yes, D&D has always borrowed heavily from various sources. But, there is no evidence that 4e won't as well.

People complain about the Feywild (to pick an example). If you cannot see the existence of a dangerous, fairy "otherland" sort of plane in fantasy, I gotta wonder what kind of fantasy you read. It certainly draws as heavily on the sources of D&D as Mechanus or the Astral plane.

 

[rounser]

The most iconic elements of D&D are pure D&D, not drawn from anywhere else. The Rust Monster, the Beholder, on and on.

These things are indeed iconic D&D monsters. But monsters are a different kettle of fish from core races and classes: They get nowhere near the screentime, and influence the tone and feel of the game far differently from the make-up of your heroes.

As a thought experiment, the logic of your argument suggests rust monster as a core PC race. Rust monsters in taverns all over the D&D multiverse, squeaking out orders for ale, just as dragondudes now will be (well, hissing out orders for ale). That's how much "doesn't apply here" the comparison is.

 

[Rechan]

You, on the other hand, did say that shifting from 3e to 4e wouldn't even be inconvenient. So now I showed that it is. I shall expect your apology for propagating this gross misinformation to come in the form of cookies, promptly, or I am forced to assume you are a cad and a knave.

I was using inconvenient, I guess, in the way Reynard was. I didn't mean that it would be as smooth as diving into a pool, because changing from one system to another is going to be a bit bumpy.

But from the way it's being portrayed, 4e is like going to a new planet. I don't think the transition will be at all hard. None of it looks problematic to me.

You done bein' silly? I'm aaaaall outta cookies.

 

[Hussar]

These things are indeed iconic D&D monsters. But monsters are a different kettle of fish from core races and classes: They get nowhere near the screentime, and influence the tone and feel of the game far differently from the make-up of your heroes.

Ok, ignore monsters for the moment, I was only using that as an example anyway. How about classes? I mean, cleric doesn't appear anywhere in fantasy as "Dude with a mace that can heal you while wearing armor". Heck, the archetypes for a priestly character are pretty bloody far removed from the cleric as written.

Or, go even more basic - the arcane/divine split. There's a solid piece of flavour that's entirely D&D and has its roots in pretty much pure gamist terms. Yet, no one is up in arms about the fact that clerics and wizards MUST have separate spell lists.

The entire cosmology, which is locked hard and tight into the rules in all editions, is a purely D&D creation. It's a mash of a bunch of different cultural concepts. After all, look at the tap dancing they have to do to shoehorn gods and arch devils into the same planes.

Pretty much every aspect that makes D&D well, D&D is rooted pretty solidly IN D&D. Monsters, classes, magic, cosmology, you name it. This idea that D&D used to be this generic game ignores how much of D&D is hardwired into the game.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Pretty much every aspect that makes D&D well, D&D is rooted pretty solidly IN D&D. Monsters, classes, magic, cosmology, you name it. This idea that D&D used to be this generic game ignores how much of D&D is hardwired into the game.

But you can just ignore those parts of old editions, so they're generic games.

Unfortunately, every copy of the 4e PHB will now come with a WotC-Approved Co-DM who will oversee flavor issues in the game.

"HALT. Unauthorized refusal of Dragonborn. You have 20 seconds to include them in your setting."

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Unfortunately, every copy of the 4e PHB will now come with a WotC-Approved Co-DM who will oversee flavor issues in the game.

If that's included in the $35 cost of the DMG, I'm buying twelve.

 

[Hussar]

But you can just ignore those parts of old editions, so they're generic games.

Heh, I know that was tongue in cheek, but I'd like to take it seriously for a second.

Some of the flavor stuff you can ignore. That's true. But, some of it is pretty solidly hard wired. Take 1e thieves for a second. Here's a totally non-magical class with no magic training that can suddenly use scrolls at a certain level (or at least try to). Now, I know the source material for that, fine, but, that's beside the point. That's hard coded flavor in the classes. No other class can do that. Could rangers, who actually COULD cast Magic User spells at some point, use magic user scrolls? Someone with better 1e rules fu can tell me.

Think about it for a second. People are jumping up and down about fighters having the possibility of slightly fantastic effects - not really magic, but, magical. Yet, thieves get to pick up wizard scrolls and blast away with fireballs and no one bats an eye.