Mike Mearls comments on design

[JohnSnow]

As much faith that I have that the game itself will be solid, I've seen nothing to convince me that this stock of writers has the ability to put together a charismatic colour for the new edition. I sort of wish they had hired it out to the Paizo guys, or another company known for their great fluff. Of course, I've always thought that the fluff in WotC books was kind of gorpy. Just look at Races of Destiny. Tome of Magic is a notable exception, but most of the time I feel like the flavour text is just filler.

To be fair, Paizo is only known for their great fluff if you happen to like the fluff Paizo writes. The "goodness" of fluff is highly subjective. Paizo has spent a few years getting people used to their kind of fluff while they ran Dragon and Dungeon. There are people who love the fluff Monte Cook writes (Ptolus, anyone?). But if you're not fond of it, then it's not so great.

Personally, I find the Great Wheel, the Blood War, Sigil and a lot of the rest of D&D's legacy fluff pretty crappy. I haven't seen a whole lot of inspiring fluff in Paizo's works, and, nice artwork aside, Pathfinder doesn't really "do it" for me. Eberron, on the other hand, which was done by Rich Baker and James Wyatt, among others, has some awfully nice fluff. Now I know some of that is Keith Baker, but he's had a lot of help from the other guys at WotC who are the "story team" for 4e. So I'm optimistic.

I think where they occasionally have trouble is being original while treading the line between "evocative" and "non-cheesy" - a not insignificant task.

 

[La Bete]

It is when the method of introduction is still to be taught by existing players. Let's face it, so long as WotC holds on to the 3-book model, getting new players is going to be largely depoendent upon induction.

TBH, As an experienced player who has introduced a number of newbies to D&D, I'd LOVE for the default rulebooks to have a moderate implied etting (ala Basic/Expert). It's hard enough for me to get players to read the rules, let lone read any relevant bits of a campaign setting. If they can absorb the setting via osmosis, so to speak, yay!


edit - Duh...

 

[Nebulous]

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!

As much as i dislike the GWA, you're right! If that's the worst 4e has to offer, we are in for a Golden Age of Gaming -- that's GAG to the rest of you.

 

[AllisterH]

In a way I do think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. But then, as players/critics, we only focus on the outlying targets.

Similar to the cries of "D&D is becoming too anime", while there are D&D images that do have the anime look, the VAST, VAST majority of it is "normal". You can look at Bo9S as well. Many decry it is too supernatural/wuxia but of the schools presented, only 2 of the 9 were wuxia-derived schools.

Same thing with this feat. There _WERE_ 4 other feats presented. IF that holds true, then in a list of 20 feats, only 4 of them will be like GWA.

 

[rounser]

Sounds like a good fit for me

It's a terrible fit. An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war". It simply doesn't fit. The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

It's a terrible fit. An adventuring party is not an army, not a military organisation, not a nation, and doesn't "declare war". It simply doesn't fit. The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.

It is no more comical than stating they "need another rogue, wizard, druid, fighter, sorcerer, paladin and druid ". Not only that, some "adventuring parties" are not parties; they're mercenary companies, they're robber-barons, they're a group of princes and royalty. There isn't any single definition of what a party is (unless the game centers purely around module-driven dungeon romping).

Levels, class names, feats, abilities and the like are abstractions to define game mechanics. In-game, the characters can call it whatever they want, whichever they will.

"We need another resource, someone who can help lead us in combat! We need someone strong of mind, not too shabby with a sword but sensible and logical to help coordinate our fight. We need a seasoned veteran; we need a young and fresh captain to lead our crew".

 

[rounser]

It is no more comical than stating they "need another rogue, wizard, druid, fighter, sorcerer, paladin and druid at seventh level".

Actually it is, because none of these are purely battlefield/political archetypes. They have precedent in fantasy literature for turning up in dungeons and meddling, vigilante heroics as individuals akin to Indiana Jones (well, except for paladins by name, but their "holy knight" archetype fits the adventurer role, and "druids" by borrowing from Merlin and nature spellcasters in general as being meddling free agents - maybe Radagast?)...without an armed force at their beck and call, nor fighting by proxy through soldiers or guerillas for political reasons or genocide.

As for "warlord" in fantasy? If you were being generous, an example of "warlord" is Conan at the end of his career, a king, leading an army, and arguably his adventuring days were over then, except in a political sense. Or Aragorn at the gates of Mordor. And that's being generous - these guys were kings, not "warlords". Look to orc horde chieftans for a much better fit. Most fantasy warlords are villains, because frivolous declaration of war implies evil or chaos...effectively, the guys who our party of rag-tag adventurers should be taking down, mostly.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.

I will once again assert that the name of a rules element does not, and in most cases should not, correspond to its name in the setting.

Fighters don't learn "Power Attack" in-character. Rogues don't learn "Open Lock" in-character. They learn to make powerful, yet less-accurate attacks, or they learn to open locks of various types, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that these characters think of these things as discrete, capitalised phenomena from which they must pick and choose.

After all, the reason it's funny when the Order of the Stick makes in-character reference to game mechanics is because that's not how it bloody well works!

Likewise with class names, including the warlord. It would be ridiculous to refer to characters of the fighter class as "fighters" only, as opposed to "warriors" or "mercenaries" or "soldiers" or "knights" or whatever other in-character term would be appropriate to a given fighter character. The same applies to rogues (thieves, scouts), clerics (priests, templars), wizards (mages, witches, sorcerers), bards (troubadours, minstrels, lorekeepers) . . . any class you can name.

If you honestly play a game where fighters are referred to as "fighters" in-character, then I have to say I'm shocked and somewhat appalled, because it's a terribly stupid term for that purpose.

So the name of the warlord class doesn't matter one damn bit. Your own warlord PC will probably be called something which reflects his background and experiences; when I played a member of the armsman class in a d20 Wheel of Time campaign, I referred to him as a "cavalryman" because that's what his military experience was, or a "mercenary" because that's what he did now, or a "captain" when he entered the service of a border noblewoman and led her household guard. Calling him an "armsman" would have been really silly.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I'm mostly with this guy - ooc terms are not always to be in game. Use common sense.

Albeit a fighter is avery generic term, it could be used.

 

[Epic Meepo]

The idea of PCs sitting around a tavern table saying they "need a new warlord" is comical.

Na. My PC won't have that problem. He'll take Leadership and start an entire army of nothing but warlords. Dozens of 'em. Hundreds. With all those warlord peons, he'll never "need a new warlord" again.