Mike Mearls comments on design

[Wormwood]

I have a new sig...

Yep.

 

[Lackhand]

Yeah. Yet again, my belief that the dev teams shall inherit the earth is justified.

I actually haven't even liked Mike's games that much. They generally strike me as overly baroque and arbitrary; Iron Heroes was pretty cool, but delivered too much new rule per square inch (though I didn't buy it, I only flipped through a friend's copy).

This kind of thoughtfulness + someone else's (sorry Mike!) love of the simple, and I think there's a winning combination in there somewhere.

But marketing and the web-wranglers are facing a harder task, in some ways, and with less success. Poor guys

 

[Rystil Arden]

Although I'm not particularly happy with the marketing, I do wonder how much of our reaction to 4e is being affected by pure negativity on the forums. I mean, I found the Quest article rather good, giving an idea of how the structure of 4e XP awards would be changing, and also including a bookkeeping tip that some might find useful.

However, the reaction on the boards was suddenly this explosive "4e sucks - it's railroading you", and so forth.

My mileage varies, as it does for many (and before reading any reaction). But the thing is, the way they described the quest system, it seemed like it was an integral part of 4e that would be hard to remove. It came with a lot of positive spin in the article, but even so, from what they've revealed, I don't like it, and I don't want it in my games. The press release was designed in such a way that it would emphasise the importance and coolness of what was revealed, which makes sense on a surface level (they want to make you feel like you're seeing bold cool new things), but on the meta-level, it was very bad for damage control. Why? For the same reason that Mike's comments added in as an addendum or even as a replacement would have made the press release great:

As Mike told us in this thread, the true purpose of the quest system is to make learning to GM easier for newbie GMs, and it's just kind of sidebar suggested optional system in the DMG that experienced GMs can easily toss and ignore if they don't like it. While I would have been upset to hear that the quest system became an integral important part of 4e that I would have to remove, I am delighted, even though I would never use it, that they are making optional inclusions like this to help beginner GMs. My youngest brother is just starting to GM, and he could use this kind of help.

And that's why Mike's take on it is so much better for PR (in my opinion). It tells us what is in there without pushing it on us. Recent 4e marketing has had a fairly strong tone of 'we know better than you, so we've simplified everything for you and limited your options as a GM, replacing them with the one that we discovered is most fun for everyone'. It is refreshing to hear from Mike that this is not the case!

Mind you, any criticism of Gleemax is fully justified. They've now managed to miss the first patch update by 7-8 weeks, which is unacceptable.

Cheers!

Yeah, Gleemax is a big letdown (and DI too so far)--on that I completely agree. But I'm still hoping that 4e will be great.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Mostly good answers by Mearls, but I think he missed the core of the "Golden Wyvern" complaint. It's the same complaint I have.

On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world.

This is not a contradiction. The OP does not like [culturally specific, non-descriptive] feat names coded into the rules. He wants them to be specific to each campaign world or culture.

Don't those names encourage exactly what you want?

No; they are impediments to what he wants. Making a unique campaign world is much harder to do if you have to cross-out and relearn new, non-descriptive names every time. I think it's a valid complaint.

None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds.

But they do come with names that suggest fleshed out backgrounds, and the last thing I want to hear from my players if "Why is it called Emerald Frost in this game again? I've got it confused with the stretched justification from the previous campaign ..."

 

[Odhanan]

I think Mike sounds a LOT clearer than the previews we've been getting. But his arguments are far from being bulletproof to me.

It's definitely food for thought. I need to sleep on it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Mostly good answers by Mearls, but I think he missed the core of the "Golden Wyvern" complaint. It's the same complaint I have.

Mike's post was so long and so good in general that I forgot about this by the time I reached the bottom, but you're right--it looks like he missed Asgetrion's point here. Still, he had a lot of points to answer, probably in just a few minutes of free time, so 6/7 strong answers is pretty darn good.

As for me, I must admit that I strongly dislike many of those names, but I'm not worried about renaming them even if they make it in. It shouldn't be too much work. Of course, I would be delighted if I didn't have to.

 

[Xethreau]

I think Mike sounds a LOT clearer than the previews we've been getting.

I know! That was really informative!

But his arguments are far from being bulletproof to me.

True. I wish someone would really tackle the issue about Golden Wyvern and its "backstory." : /

 

[Reynard]

Great respond from Mike! I hope this post manages to ease some of the doubts some folks here have.

I am not going to say that I am a sudden convert, but Mearls' responses in the OP just moved me one step away from "Never!" toward "Maybe I'm being too hasty..."

I still hate the flavor changes, though, and the need to make sure everything is statted for melee, even when the creature doesn't need to be (*cough*dryad*cough*). But the DMG excerpts make me think that maybe there'll be more wiggle room inherent in the system that previous "sneak peaks" have made me assume there would be.

 

[Cam Banks]

No; they are impediments to what he wants. Making a unique campaign world is much harder to do if you have to cross-out and relearn new, non-descriptive names every time. I think it's a valid complaint.

Absolutely. If there's an interest in providing newbies with something meaty to sink their teeth into, having no pre-made world or whatever, then hardwired core rules elements with flavor names are not the best way to do this. It would be better to represent this with those paragon paths or the example gods or examples of play that namedrop things. Remember such classic nuggets of interest in 1e and 2e like Gutboy Barrelhouse and his buddies, the relics and artifacts with bizarre and unexplained backgrounds, etc? Somehow all of that was included in the rules without embedding it in something critical like character-building elements.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Irda Ranger]

As for me, I must admit that I strongly dislike many of those names, but I'm not worried about renaming them even if they make it in. It shouldn't be too much work. Of course, I would be delighted if I didn't have to.

This is where it would be really helpful if they sold the books in WORD format instead of PDF.

Step 1: Find "Golden Wyvern Adept"
Step 2: Replace All: "Spell Shaper"

And ... were done.