Mike Mearls comments on design
- Thread starter Lenaianel
- Start date
F4NBOY
First Post
Thank you Mike for the answers.
Twenty eight years hearing that whinnings... oh boy...It's good to know D&D is still in good hands. I hope all the people that complain and have been complaing, and repeting and actually believing in all that crap humbly understand, once and for all, that their butts were heavily kicked.
I know you need to be political correct, but we both know that the game is not designed for everyone, it's designed for us, gamers, people that play the game to have fun, grognards or fanboys, we all play the game for the fun, but not them.
Fun is such a simple word, such a simple motive, but after 3 decades they don't understand it, do they?
So don't waste your time trying to discuss or justify your decisions based on fun.
because those guys don't care about it, they don't play the game to have fun. They are players that play it so they can feel better about themselves, they are DMs that dm the game for themselves and not for their players.
How can you be reasonable with people like that? Well it doesn't matter, what's important is that it's our game, and even if we may allow them to play it, we will never allow them to change it, to turn it into something else so they can feel even better about themselves.
That day they put their freaking hands on D&D is the day D&D dies.
It's good to know this day has not come.
Thank you Mike Mearls, we win!
Long live D&D.
Twenty eight years hearing that whinnings... oh boy...It's good to know D&D is still in good hands. I hope all the people that complain and have been complaing, and repeting and actually believing in all that crap humbly understand, once and for all, that their butts were heavily kicked.
I know you need to be political correct, but we both know that the game is not designed for everyone, it's designed for us, gamers, people that play the game to have fun, grognards or fanboys, we all play the game for the fun, but not them.
Fun is such a simple word, such a simple motive, but after 3 decades they don't understand it, do they?
So don't waste your time trying to discuss or justify your decisions based on fun.
because those guys don't care about it, they don't play the game to have fun. They are players that play it so they can feel better about themselves, they are DMs that dm the game for themselves and not for their players.
How can you be reasonable with people like that? Well it doesn't matter, what's important is that it's our game, and even if we may allow them to play it, we will never allow them to change it, to turn it into something else so they can feel even better about themselves.
That day they put their freaking hands on D&D is the day D&D dies.
It's good to know this day has not come.
Thank you Mike Mearls, we win!
Long live D&D.
Although I appreciate the fact that Mr. Mearls took the time to provide an answer to questions posed to him, I don't think I would annoint him as the savior of D&D any time soon. I do take issue with one reason he implied for the rewrite:
"And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded."
The struggle to bring new players into D&D has been going on for a long time, well before Hasbro and WotC came into the picture. Each edition of the game has told people what to do to some extent and to varying degrees. There's nothing wrong with telling the players how the game is played or what they are supposed to do.
I believe he is off base however, in telling the players the specific "fluff" of the game, (ahem, here's looking at you "Golden Wyvern Adept" and "Points of Lights" campaigns). That, simply, is my main beef with 4th Edition. It's telling me the fluff of how I can play the game and not just giving me the mechanics of how to play it.
Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book. I may as well play a video game.
I can take a wait and see attitude with a revisions of the rules and evaluate them objectively. I lean against that approach when the game system is tied to a specific "world vision" or "campaign type." That's why I never got into Paranoia, Elric, Rifts, or Toon!.
I wish 4th Edition well but it's not for me as it is currently being presented to us. Maybe I'll change my mind after we finish our 3.5.5 Edition campaign and I read the newest rulebooks. I don't believe a "renaissance" of D&D is going to occur based solely upon the PnP version of the rules. If Mearls and co. wish to expand the D&D market, it's got to be through marketing and brand identification; not simple rule rewrites.
"And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded."
The struggle to bring new players into D&D has been going on for a long time, well before Hasbro and WotC came into the picture. Each edition of the game has told people what to do to some extent and to varying degrees. There's nothing wrong with telling the players how the game is played or what they are supposed to do.
I believe he is off base however, in telling the players the specific "fluff" of the game, (ahem, here's looking at you "Golden Wyvern Adept" and "Points of Lights" campaigns). That, simply, is my main beef with 4th Edition. It's telling me the fluff of how I can play the game and not just giving me the mechanics of how to play it.
Mandated Crunch + Mandated Fluff = Bad in my book. I may as well play a video game.
I can take a wait and see attitude with a revisions of the rules and evaluate them objectively. I lean against that approach when the game system is tied to a specific "world vision" or "campaign type." That's why I never got into Paranoia, Elric, Rifts, or Toon!.
I wish 4th Edition well but it's not for me as it is currently being presented to us. Maybe I'll change my mind after we finish our 3.5.5 Edition campaign and I read the newest rulebooks. I don't believe a "renaissance" of D&D is going to occur based solely upon the PnP version of the rules. If Mearls and co. wish to expand the D&D market, it's got to be through marketing and brand identification; not simple rule rewrites.
Shieldhaven
Explorer
In what possible sense is this fluff "mandated"? Did you feel that your campaign had to have a Bigby, Mordenkainen, or Corellon Larethian just because they were named in the rulebook? If you didn't want to hear frequent references to Melf and the rest, you had to change the spell's names in some way. Or you just decide that names here and there don't "ruin your fantasy" and you go about your merry way.
I am in the category of those baffled by the vast amounts of bandwidth spent bashing "Golden Wyvern Adept."
Haven
I am in the category of those baffled by the vast amounts of bandwidth spent bashing "Golden Wyvern Adept."
Haven
Shieldhaven said:
In exchange for a small stipend from WOTC, I lurk outside the local gaming stores where noncomplying games are run, and try to hit the players with my car when they emerge. They give me "objective cards" with "points" on them that I obtain when my "quest" is completed, and may redeem for WOTC swag.
Shieldhaven,
No. In fact, we often referred to a spell as "crushing hand" or just as "I cast Melf's." It mixed quite well as to the reference point depending on the person. If however, we played a Greyhawk game, you'd have to explain to me again what the heck the Simbul's Spell Sequencer did again. Or how dragonmarks operate. You know, crunchy fluff.
Maybe I should be a little more clear; campaign settings were sold for a reason. Ready-made fluff.
No. In fact, we often referred to a spell as "crushing hand" or just as "I cast Melf's." It mixed quite well as to the reference point depending on the person. If however, we played a Greyhawk game, you'd have to explain to me again what the heck the Simbul's Spell Sequencer did again. Or how dragonmarks operate. You know, crunchy fluff.
Maybe I should be a little more clear; campaign settings were sold for a reason. Ready-made fluff.
Hey, I don't think bad names are fun, nor classes that don't make sense and lack archetypes (like "warlord"). Healing by hitting people doesn't make much sense either, and after seeing Mearls' rust monster with rust that "gets better" I have little faith in his ability to suspend disbelief whilst reaching crunch goals. The track record is not awesome, their attention seems elsewhere. And what the heck is an eladrin? How about we just call them elves - you know, like in english?
Can we change that stuff and you can still have your revolution, or am I by default on the bad guy team?
Similar Threads
