Mike Mearls comments on design

[Tquirky]

I too hate that some designer deemed elves and dwarves, barbarians and bards appropriate for my campaign, purely on their whim.

The difference between these and a tanglefoot bag, cleric or eladrin is that they aren't D&Disms. Do you understand the concept?

 

[Rechan]

The difference between these and a tanglefoot bag, cleric or eladrin is that they aren't D&Disms. Do you understand the concept?

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Elves and bards are being forced into my campaign.

 

[Tquirky]

And I don't seem to recall much mythology for plane of robots and air.

You assume I want to necessarily defend the Great Wheel, and that I want to defend old D&Disms and only attack the new. You assume wrong.

That said, I would venture that the classic idea of four elements is semi-mythological, and that that apocryphal system of the elements is echoed throughout D&D magic...so I'm not sure that a plane like that is totally without basis in "mythological resonance".

Note how they're not named with contrived proper nouns like Airtopia and Fireness, too.

 

[Rechan]

You assume I want to necessarily defend the Great Wheel, and that I want to defend old D&Disms and only attack the new. You assume wrong.

You assume that I'm distinctly referring to you. There's a huge outcrying on the destruction of the Great Wheel, but that's just as much of spoon feeding setting-specific info into the mechanics and core books as anything else.

I would venture that the classic idea of four elements supports a plane of air, though, and that that apocryphal system of the elements is echoed throughout D&D magic...so I'm not sure that a plane like that is totally without basis in "mythological resonance".

"Echoes throughout D&D magic" = planar system tied to magic system. You're arguing my point for me.

A Plane of Air makes just as much sense, and is echoed just as easily, by the Elemental Tempest.

 

[Tquirky]

"Echoes throughout D&D magic" = planar system tied to magic system. You're arguing my point for me.

Oh, get your own material already! There are planes for elements and alignments, and they're D&Disms. We agree. The elements themselves resonate in ancient science theory, though.

Now - where's your point? You're trying to dispute, but all you do is reinforce my argument.

A Plane of Air makes just as much sense, and is echoed just as easily, by the Elemental Tempest.

See? You assume I'm arguing Edition Wars, like you! I'm not. That's why you're having trouble here, you're making too many assumptions about your "opponent".

 

[Rechan]

Oh, get your own material already! There are planes for elements and alignments, and they're D&Disms. We agree. The elements themselves resonate in ancient science theory, though.

Now - where's your point?

My point is that the planar system has always been a bastardized mishmash sloppily ducttaped together. Removing the Planes for Alignment, you still have every mythological destination ever all crammed into one thing. If there are no vikings, how is there Valhalla? If there are no Buddhists/Hindus, how is there Nirvanha?

If you have a point, or a problem, state it. I have stated mine: that the planar system is not any less dumb now, then it has ever been.

See? You assume I'm arguing Edition Wars, like you! I'm not. That's why you're having trouble here, you're making too many assumptions about your "opponent".

I don't see it as having trouble. All you keep replying to is the stuff about alignment, not about my point: mishmashed slop of a planar system being shoe-horned in there from the git-to, just like it's forced in there with 4e.

In other words, the complaints are much ado about nothing because it's always been that way. Most of the fluff complaints levelled at 4e have always been present, the issue is that it's just new fluff as opposed to legacy fluff.

 

[Tquirky]

If you have a point, or a problem, state it. I have stated mine: that the planar system is not any less dumb now, then it has ever been.

All of which is irrelevant to what I've been arguing.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

I noticed.

 

[Rechan]

All of which is irrelevant to what I've been arguing.

Then state your premise, please.

 

[DaveMage]

He's saying the spells that stated that you use the Astral Plane (which is in the appendix) in order to travel are not in the appendix, but in the meat of the text.

Ah. Thanks.

 

[Tquirky]

Then state your premise, please.

The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.

I am almost certain that WOTC don't understand or don't agree with this argument because of setting design philosophies behind Eberron and Praemal, where "the simulation defines what is simulated" is a key design philosophy. This gets D&D's spirit so backwards (IMO) that it boggles me that this stuff ever saw print, rather than remaining experimental homebrew or thought experiment.

Then we've got classes without archetypes (e.g. mystic theurge), contrived names (e.g. warblade), handwaving of physics without magic to help explain (e.g. Mearls' rust monster creating rust which heals), even a core class with a name WOTC pretends it can redefine (i.e. warlord). Plus 3E's crunch-first-flavour-afterthought monsters and many other examples from 3E and what we know of 4E.

Not a good outlook IMO.