Mike Mearls comments on design

[Rechan]

I honestly DO look to the core rulebooks for character/RP ideas sometimes. For example, the fluff we've gotten about the warlord really makes me want to play one, more than I've ever wanted to play, say, a bard.

Yeah. Let me tell you, when I first heard about the Warlord I knew that was going to be my first character. Because at the time I was looking at the Dragon Shaman and the Knight and thinking, "These are nice, but..." A class that buffs other party members as they kick ass, or at least while not losing any actions, really pleases me. I like the support role of the bard, but I felt utterly useless in combat. A Warlord is much easier to stick in my head as an inspiring warrior then a bard who stands on the sidelines playing minstrel to Sir Robin.

The fact that Dragonborn are inclined towards Warlords makes me want to play a Dragonborn all the more, too.

 

[Tquirky]

There's the rub. Who gets to say that it's too much? Why is eladrin "too D&D", when it could just be called a high elf? Why is a tielfing "too D&D", when you can just call it a cambion?

I'd be fine with high elf and cambion. That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.

 

[Rechan]

It shouldn't - it has an implied setting that does a lot of the work for us. There's such a thing as implying too much, though, and so far most of what it's implied has had mythological resonance, which works in many worlds. It's shades of grey, but 4E seems to be reaching a tipping point.

Except that I haven't seen anything in 4e that doesn't have some mythological resonance.

 

[Fifth Element]

The need for focus is real, but D&D has been unfocused and scatter shot for it's entire existence, and working against that is working against a real benefit of D&D (vs., say, WoW): that it can be what you imagine it to be, because it contains a little bit of everything.

A bit of everything - including, for instance - Golden Wyvern Adepts?

 

[Rechan]

I'd be fine with high elf and cambion. That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.

And as discussed earlier, it appears that WotC is keeping to words that they hold rights to. Cambion, high elf, Faerie, the Underworld are all free range; Tieflings, eladrin, Feywild and Shadowfell are all WotC's property.

It's been a theory or suggestion that this is to keep with their IP.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'd be fine with high elf and cambion. That would effectively un-D&Dism them, IMO, and think they'd be much more appropriate in the core were that the case.

They're just names. Call them whatever you want.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Your meaning is less than clear, I think.

I believe he means that he sees D&D as a good "high fantasy" RPG construction set that allows you to build your own homebrew "high fantasy" world with the usual elements (elves, dwarves, battleaxes, etc). He thinks the bits that are specific to D&D-branded worlds - stuff like "tieflings" and "dragonborn" that nobody would recognize without picking up a TSR- or WotC-branded book - should not be embedded into the core rules, so that people who want to use the core rulebooks as a basis for their own gameworlds have an easier time of it.

The counterargument here is that "generic high fantasy" is really pretty largely inflected by D&D, going back 30+ years. I'd argue that paladins and (D&D-style) bards are just as much "D&Disms" as clerics and warlords, but we've had a couple extra decades to absorb them into "mainstream" fantasy. (Yes, paladins and bards have historical/mythical background to them, but so do clerics and warlords and part-demons and dragon-people.)

So "cut back the D&Disms" really ends up translating to "don't add anything new," which I have a hard time getting behind.

 

[Tquirky]

And as discussed earlier, it appears that WotC is keeping to words that they hold rights to. Cambion, high elf, Faerie, the Underworld are all free range; Tieflings, eladrin, Feywild and Shadowfell are all WotC's property.

It's been a theory or suggestion that this is to keep with their IP.

I know.

 

[Fifth Element]

So "cut back the D&Disms" really ends up translating to "don't add anything new,"

That's what I suspected.

 

[Rechan]

D&D is positively dripping with references to places, events, religions and concepts. If I wanted to run a properly medieval European game I'd have to cut about 90% of the PHB.

This confuses me. D&D has always felt like European Fantasy 101 to me.

Unless by "Proper Medieval European game", you mean "Historical fiction Roleplaying Game". At which point, well yes. But that comes with the territory of neglecting all magic and sticking to fighting humans.

At that point, you're playing d20 Past.

Besides, I don't think D&D's ever intended to try and simulate realism. Look at the economy. Look at it. It's not supposed to simulate an actual economy, it's just a metagame mechanic to designate what loot you got off the evil wizard can be spent on. It's a reward system. Any game that has multiple attacks worked by rounds isn't very lifelike - it's abstract. That's not very simulationist.