Mike Mearls comments on design

[Firevalkyrie]

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?

Yes and yes.

He would have to be - as of 2007, RTG is Mike and Lisa Pondsmith, plus assorted freelancers. And you don't farm out the development of a new edition of one of your core RPG lines (Mekton was actually RTG's first RPG) to freelancers.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Which makes no sense to me.

Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.

Totally with you there. You can add and subtract discrete elements easily. The problem is when things are embedded in elements you want to use, and removing them is more difficult. Golden Wyvern is the case in point. If you want to use wizards, they come packaged with Golden Wyvern. You can remove the reference from your campaign, but it'll be there in the core books, and presumably in future publications. If you want to call them "Spellmaster Mages" or something, the likely response is "which ones are they again? Do you mean Golden Wyvern?" I expect that it'll be an uphill battle to strip it out.

However, this isn't the case with names like Mystic Theurge, which sound like they mean something, but don't. Golden Wyvern refers to an implied (but apparently not detailed, according to Mearls), organization. Mystic Theurge refers to the game element, and doesn't carry any baggage that you either have to shoehorn into your campaign or cross out and rewrite. Even if they replaced Golden Wyvern with "Gold Wizards" or "Wyvern Mages" (as part of a series of metal-themed or monster-themed names) and dropped all the references to an implied organization, it would be easier to overwrite the given name with your own organization name. The less implied baggage, the better.

That's why the Mystic Theurge was a better DMG inclusion than the Red Wizard was. The Red Wizard comes with a bunch of organization baggage that takes more dedicated effort to remove, since many players think they know what a Red Wizard is supposed to be like, having played or read FR material. And that organization isn't even a core organization. If Golden Wyvern is in the core books, it'll be more difficult to divest them of the association with the implied setting organization.

If the books are a toolkit, then why is there the complaint that the tools are being included in there in the first place?

It's kind of like if you buy a table saw, and plan to use it to cut metal rods. You take off the wood cutting blade it came with, and put on a metal cutting blade; but every time you go away and come back, the metal blade is gone and the original wood blade is back on, so you have to take off that blade and put on the one you want. It would be a great tool, if only you didn't have to worry about it reseting to the default all the time. To borrow, and misuse, an R&D-ism, Golden Wyvern has too much inherent traction. It needs less traction, so that you can scrape it off if you don't want it.

Obligatory Simpsons reference to finish:
"Spellmaster mage."
"Golden Wyvern?"
"No, Spellmaster."
"Golden?"
"S. P. E..."
"G. O. L..."

 

[Fifth Element]

You can remove the reference from your campaign, but it'll be there in the core books, and presumably in future publications. If you want to call them "Spellmaster Mages" or something, the likely response is "which ones are they again? Do you mean Golden Wyvern?" I expect that it'll be an uphill battle to strip it out.

"He's a cleric of Hundaggan."

"Which one is that again?"

"The god of the sun."

"Oh, you mean Pelor?"

 

[Rechan]

However, this isn't the case with names like Mystic Theurge, which sound like they mean something, but don't. Golden Wyvern refers to an implied (but apparently not detailed, according to Mearls), organization.

I doubt it's an "Organization". I really do.

Okay, let me put it like this.

Is there an Organization of Tai Kwan Do? How about an organization of Kung Fu? There are schools that teach Tai Kwan Do, and there are Masters of Tai Kwan Do, but there isn't a building somewhere that says "Tai Kwan Do Headquarters" or "Official The Tai Kwan Do School"*.

If that's too anime, then we could just talk about fencing styles, or whatever.

The point is: It's not an organization so much as a style, a tradition that emphasizes this or that. So you can have the wizard out in the middle of no where who teaches an apprentice, but he teaches him Golden Wyvern because His master was a Golden Wyvern and his... It's a list of techniques, and likely little else.

*This is different for Shaolin kung fu, because it's trademarked. But I hope you get my point.

That's why the Mystic Theurge was a better DMG inclusion than the Red Wizard was. The Red Wizard comes with a bunch of organization baggage that takes more dedicated effort to remove, since many players think they know what a Red Wizard is supposed to be like, having played or read FR material. And that organization isn't even a core organization. If Golden Wyvern is in the core books, it'll be more difficult to divest them of the association with the implied setting organization.

See, that's where I feel your argument falls flat. I just... I fail to grok that "Red Wizard of Thay" = "Oh god it's an implied setting". It's a PRC. Just call it a Red Wizard, or use the mechanics, or something..

How many times are you referencing 'Red Wizard OF THAY'? Even if that's your PrC, you're not at every turn saying 'Hey, I'm a red wizard of - oh right, no Thay'.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Yes and yes.

He would have to be - as of 2007, RTG is Mike and Lisa Pondsmith, plus assorted freelancers. And you don't farm out the development of a new edition of one of your core RPG lines (Mekton was actually RTG's first RPG) to freelancers.

You do after squeezing Cyberpunk v3 onto the market, in a complete inability to understand what made one's own games popular.

I mean, I'll grab the construction manual whenever it hits because I convert some designs to Interlock for a homebrew 'firm' sci-fi setting, but....yag.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

You do after squeezing Cyberpunk v3 onto the market, in a complete inability to understand what made one's own games popular.

I mean, I'll grab the construction manual whenever it hits because I convert some designs to Interlock for a homebrew 'firm' sci-fi setting, but....yag.

I'm not exactly certain how much of this I should be yakking about; on the other hand Mike did put this info out into the Mekton Z ML, so hey, if he didn't want it to be yakked about, he should have asked us to sign an NDA first.

At any rate: Mekton 0 is to be the first new edition of Mekton in, by the time it's out it will probably be a decade and a half. This is about 10 years longer than Mike originally planned, by the way; if he had not withdrawn from the RPG industry from 1997-2005, it would have been released (as Mekton Double Zeta) in 1999 or 2000. He said game mechanics changes are going to be rather small, primary difference being that the cinematic combat rules (Mekton Z: The Movie in the current edition) are to be more tightly integrated into core, tracking damage totals on six to thirteen different hit locations being a royal pain in the @$$. Algol will be again primarily integrated into the core rules but not as part of the crunch; the timeline is advanced again and it's now two decades after the flight of the Rimfire. The Axis are, as usual, up to no goddamned good and the Kargans after twenty years of relative peace are up to their old tricks.

 

[howandwhy99]

These DMG design notes are some of the most promising elements I've heard yet for 4e:

"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation....
In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."

"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.” Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the range of applicable skills."

"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll irrelevant."

The part that seems obviously incorrect, imo, is this: "We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be." 3e made its money selling supplements for every PrC, feat, and new cool power for the game. 4e says it will be adding these for every level and every class. How is this not needless complication? ...or is it a complication which makes the game profitable?

To keep the quote in context however, Mr. Mearls does go on:

Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.

The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.

That's definitely right on target.

 

[Greg K]

Is there an Organization of Tai Kwan Do? How about an organization of Kung Fu? There are schools that teach Tai Kwan Do, and there are Masters of Tai Kwan Do, but there isn't a building somewhere that says "Tai Kwan Do Headquarters" or "Official The Tai Kwan Do School"*..

There might not be one, but there are organizations for TaeKwonDo. The International TaeKwonDo Federation and World TaeKwonDo Federation are the two largest governing organizations of TKD and each has their own headquarters with schools in many different countries. The former was founded by General Cho, who organized the main kwans. The latter is responsible for getting TKD into the olympics (although the ITF also was pursuing the same). Then, there are other organizations like the American TKD Association, North American TKD association, and others (e.g., American Korean TKD Association) with their own associated schools.

 

[Rechan]

There might not be one, but there are organizations for TaeKwonDo. The International TaeKwonDo Federation and World TaeKwonDo Federation are the two largest governing organizations of TKD and each has their own headquarters with schools in many different countries. The former was founded by General Cho, who organized the main kwans. The latter is responsible for getting TKD into the olympics (although the ITF also was pursuing the same). Then, there are other organizations like the American TKD Association, North American TKD association, and others (e.g., American Korean TKD Association) with their own associated schools.

Actually, that does help my point, in a different kind of way.

See, you can have multiple organizations that still use the same dang thing: TaeKwonDo. So you can have 'The Wizardly Wizards of Wizen Asskickers" that practices Golden Wyvern, and the "Eldrich Education Emporium" that teaches Golden Wyvern - and neither has to call themselves "Golden Wyvern Inc".

 

[PeterWeller]

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.

All we know about 4E so far seems to actually encourage this more than earlier editions. There's a greater range of archetypes playable, and the lessened dependence on magic items creates a greater range of magic "power levels."

As for the Golden Wyvern thing, why is it so hard to just gloss over it? When it comes down to it, using the golden wyvern adept feat is no different than using power attack, cleave, or spring attack. It can be as behind the scenes as hit points and levels if you want it, or you can build something around the fluff the name implies; it's up to you, and it's not difficult to ignore the name and keep the feat if you find it so bothersome.