Mike Mearls comments on design

[BryonD]

Sorry, no I don't. Bigby & partners were just as much core fluff as Golden Wyvern.

Turning "Golden Wyvern Adept" into "Shaping adept" is more difficult than say "Tenser's Floating Disk" to "Floating Disk", sure. Just because they could be removed more easily doesn't change their status.

Really? Cuz I'm looking and I kinda see the words "floating disk" in "Tenser's Floating Disk". I don't see anything in GWA that says a thing in the world about what it does. Ditto for any 3E "core fluff". It is a whole world of difference. You may like the difference. And if so fine. But if you are going to claim that there is no difference then you just don't get the issue.

 

[BryonD]

The alternative is this.

Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.

Exactly. You can even say: "Taught by the Golden Wyvern School" right under the feat.

 

[Rechan]

To me, this is no different than having the Ethereal Plane, which is shackled directly to mechanics. Same sense of obligation since that fluff is tied to game mechanics, and requiring the same amount of work (very little) to change.

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just trying to succinctly explain the other side that you missed, before you get several paragraphs worth.

This topic has been debated to death in at least six different threads, and the point of the ethereal/astral planes have been brought up at least twice that I've seen.

There's also been the complaint that "The 4e PHB is going to dictate that elves live in forests and dwarves live in mountains". Much like the 3e PHB did.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

The alternative is this.

In a section on magic traditions, which would serve as readymade examples for newbies, you'd have the Golden Wyvern Adept. I assume they're going to do something like this anyway, so we're already halfway there.

Under "Golden Wyvern Adept" you have: Typical Feats: Spell Shaping, blah, blah, blah.

There you go. All the same flavor and hooks you asked for, but without hardwiring it. It's like the prestige classes in the 3.5 DMG. Easy to use, easy to toss out.

Not sure why Mearls didn't see that this was what the poster was going on about, nor why this isn't just as useful, cool, and flavorful an idea as the "we won't tell you anything about the Golden Wyvern, we'll just name a feat after them and let you do the rest" schtick.

Cheers,
Cam

It's how I feels the whole mini-setting will be made... Nothing directly hardwired, but an example, a ready-to-use package. Like Shadowrun's (arguably classless) way of making characters.

 

[DaveMage]

I read Mike's comments and I come away with these thoughts:

1) There will be some mechanical improvements to the game. (This is good)
2) They are trying to attract new players to the hobby and making it easy for them to learn to play (This is probably also good)
3) He used the subjective word "fun" repeatedly to indicate design philosophy (This is not so good, as it doesn't have any real meaning outside of his own personal definition.)
4) He asked the question "should we do what's better for you or better for gamers?" I don't see how the two answers are necessarily different - they might be, but they might not be.

I think there is a clear design goal of making the game easier to DM, which is a good thing for those new to the hobby or those who are burned out DMing 3.5.

I just wish there was more of an effort to bring those along who are happy with 3.5, though. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that the SRD will hold the most value to those happy with 3.5 to add some rules tweaks rather than invest in the new game.

 

[Rechan]

3) He used the subjective word "fun" repeatedly to indicate design philosophy (This is not so good, as it doesn't have any real meaning outside of his own personal definition.)

You don't think that a company designing a game shouldn't have a target goal of making it fun?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Good point.

But part of it depends on who you are and what you're reading.

For example, I've stopped reading a lot of stuff on the 4e updates because I'm not finding it real useful. So on some things I keep up, like the Forgotten Realms update, and on others, like the Quest article, I've skipped it entirely.

For me, I seem to have the opposite problem and see a lot of people hailing 4e for being, well, 4e. It's new, it's shinny and it's going to fix the 'bad' system even if it has to have Superboy Prime punch time to do it.

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.

I'm not entirely sure that 4e isn't being marketed properly, but the marketing is being hijacked and being purposively misread.

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!

 

[BryonD]

On the OP, I agree with others statements that this is vastly better than what has been presented in a lot of previews. Though some of it reads to me like Mike putting a positive spin on the core statement that they have elected to enhance simplicity in a gambit for new players from a different market over maintaining a the current level of support for established "advanced" players.

I don't even slightly resent their right to do whatever they think will sell the most. But I am disappointed for myself.

 

[Blackwind]

Curses upon thy name, Mearls, for thou hast caused me to feel an ever-so-slight yet painful twinge of optimism. Curse thee I say!

EDIT: And yet, although Mike has reassured me somewhat with his DMG quotes and discussion of the quest system (as well as overall design goals), he completely failed to address the Golden Wyvern problem, which I see as quite serious indeed, for reasons argued quite well by other posters.

 

[Rechan]

On the OP, I agree with others statements that this is vastly better than what has been presented in a lot of previews. Though some of it reads to me like Mike putting a positive spin on the core statement that they have elected to enhance simplicity in a gambit for new players from a different market over maintaining a the current level of support for established "advanced" players.

I don't even slightly resent their right to do whatever they think will sell the most. But I am disappointed for myself.

You also have to understand that it's a pragmatic move to keep the hobby alive.

There was a poll in the General forum that asked "How many played 1e?" and over 80% of ENworld had. WotC needs to be able to get new gamers in, or in ten years, the hobby's going to die. And trying to market to a younger crowd is going to alienate the older crowd - it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Also, 3rd ed brought many D&D players who had abandoned 2e back into the fold, so it's possible that 4e will bring old D&D players.