Mike Mearls comments on design

[Ty]

Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...


Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D. However, it's called a "campaign setting." That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc. This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I do not excuse Gary Gygax for throwing parts of his original campaign setting into 1st edition, etc., because "News Flash," there was only one official campaign setting back then; his. The argument here on the boards apparently is that because he did it first, Mearls and Co. can do it now. A substantial number of people are saying no, stick with the format of 3.X SRD and keep it the generic game system.

Can we rephrase the question as to which choice is better given the two listed above, with the goal as originally stated by Mearls that it is made in order to bring new players into the game?

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...


Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D. However, it's called a "campaign setting." That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc. This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I do not excuse Gary Gygax for throwing parts of his original campaign setting into 1st edition, etc., because "News Flash," there was only one official campaign setting back then; his. The argument here on the boards apparently is that because he did it first, Mearls and Co. can do it now. A substantial number of people are saying no, stick with the format of 3.X SRD and keep it the generic game system.

Can we rephrase the question as to which choice is better given the two listed above, with the goal as originally stated by Mearls that it is made in order to bring new players into the game?

One of the reasons identified by Mike Pondsmith for the failure of Mekton Zeta to catch on in the marketplace during the mid-90s anime explosion was its complete lack of a setting in its rules. And so the next edition of Mekton is going to use Algol as its default setting.

I have never played a single game using the Algol setting, my own homebrew setting doesn't even have the same assumptions as Algol. But who cares? If it gets the game a second look (or third), I'm all for it.

Gamers new to a game - and in this case, new to the hobby, since D&D is the hobby's gateway drug - seem to prefer it to have a setting, at least an implied one, to hang the crunchy bits on. "Golden Wyvern Adept" is actually a rather nice bit of implied setting: It implies there's something called the Golden Wyvern, that it's something rather important to do with magic, and that it relates to how spells are shaped.

Beyond that, it's up to you how it applies to your setting.

 

[Hussar]

Hmm, I'm going to have a hard time outbeating non-adopters with my bat in comparison to that thing...


Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with creating tons of fluff for D&D. However, it's called a "campaign setting." That way, see, it's all official for users of that one campaign setting as opposed to trying to shoehorn Eladrin, Dragonborn, Teiflings, and Points of Light into FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Homebrew, Dungeon Adventures, etc. This is not a "core game system" problem as I see it. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I do not excuse Gary Gygax for throwing parts of his original campaign setting into 1st edition, etc., because "News Flash," there was only one official campaign setting back then; his. The argument here on the boards apparently is that because he did it first, Mearls and Co. can do it now. A substantial number of people are saying no, stick with the format of 3.X SRD and keep it the generic game system.

Can we rephrase the question as to which choice is better given the two listed above, with the goal as originally stated by Mearls that it is made in order to bring new players into the game?

But, we've been over this time and again. 3.x has a great deal of game flavor hard coded into the rules. Probably even more so than 1e simply because 1e's more modular design makes ignoring elements easier. The wealth/level metric, being able to buy and sell magic items, cosmology, I can go on and on, but, the first two are very hard wired into the game.

Do you honestly think that being able to trade in magic items isn't flavour?

My problem is, I simply don't agree that any version of D&D has ever been a generic game system. D20 is generic, but, that's simply a task resolution system. D&D =/= D20.

 

[Ty]

Actually, I'd propose that D&D / D20 have an inherent game setting; whatever the heck is the popular fantasy literature/cinema at the time; be it LotR, World of Warcraft or the Golden Compass.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Yeah. And what makes you a Grognard is to state that the main inspiration in your preferred "period" of D&D should be the dominant one / is the one TRUE inspiration.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

One of the reasons identified by Mike Pondsmith for the failure of Mekton Zeta to catch on in the marketplace during the mid-90s anime explosion was its complete lack of a setting in its rules. And so the next edition of Mekton is going to use Algol as its default setting.

Woah there, back it up a sec.
There's to be a new Mekton Zeta edition? *deeply in forbidden love with his Advanced Technical Manual*
Now the kicker if yes: Is Mike Pondsmith actually involved in the writing or designing the game?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I hate to single this out, but, well, it's something I just don't like to read anymore and I think that is actively damaging the quality of a post for me, even if it is undeserved.

Don't "hide" behind using a shorthand like "video game" (or "anime"), or something like that.
Say what you think it's wrong, in as precise terms as possible to you. People use the term Video Game as a synonym for "inferior" or "something else I don't like much as the thing I really want". It is in danger of becoming a new variant of Godwyn's Law.

It is not in danger of becoming one. It has. I have written the definition (a year ago, I think), and Remathalis has put it into his sig. Video games, anime, and various other "I don't like this, but I either can't be bothered to explain why or I know that my reasons are spurious so I won't state them" placeholder terms are the new Hitler, as far as RPG messageboard posts are concerned.

 

[Ty]

Dr. Awkward,

I understand your theorem but you also missed the part of my original post wherein the shorthand was not used in a vacuum, nor my subsequent explanation, nor the proposition as originally stated, wherein I stated:

Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book. I'd rather play a video game.

I did not state that it was a video game. And the original poster citing me is a typical type of political attack by quoting a portion of a statement rather than the entire statement in it's whole or in the context it was written. But that would be a shorthand / placeholder argument backed by potentially spurious opinions correct?

 

[Ty]

Yeah. And what makes you a Grognard is to state that the main inspiration in your preferred "period" of D&D should be the dominant one / is the one TRUE inspiration.

I think D&D in whatever edition is served best by which the mechanics allow for the creation of a campaign based on whatever setting you want, be it LotR, WoW, Golden Compass, your own, etc.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think D&D in whatever edition is served best by which the mechanics allow for the creation of a campaign based on whatever setting you want, be it LotR, WoW, Golden Compass, your own, etc.

And as far as we know nothing in 4E will inhibit this any more than in previous editions. D&D has always had its own flavour built in to the rules. If your argument is that 4E has finally crossed the line (whatever that means), well, we don't have 4E yet so any assumptions of that kind are just that, assumptions.