Mike Mearls comments on design

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Allow me to add that most of WotC's IP names are stupid and I personally wish we had "high elves" and "Faerie"/"The Greening" rather than "eladrins" and "the Feywild." But that's more a matter of aesthetic preference than anything else.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

At that point, you're playing d20 Past.

Holy crap, WTB.

 

[Tquirky]

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.)

Never disputed that. Note that when Gygax trotted out his "warlords" like the paladin and cleric, he at least had the sense to redefine a disused english word rather than jar by trying to use one still in mainstream use (i.e. warlord) or contrived (i.e. "eladrin").

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

No. It just means try and have a mythological resonance to stuff in the core, and don't use poorly chosen, unintuitive names or contrived archetypes (again, "warlord") in the core.

You can go absolutely hog wild in the supplements: Half-celestial haberdashers for everybody! WAHOO!

 

[Rechan]

Holy crap, WTB.

I'm not familiar with that acronym.

 

[Rechan]

Allow me to add that most of WotC's IP names are stupid and I personally wish we had "high elves" and "Faerie"/"The Greening" rather than "eladrins" and "the Feywild." But that's more a matter of aesthetic preference than anything else.

And in that we are oddly in complete opposition. But I think that argument is for another thread (because gods above, I do not want to have yet another Golden Wyvern argument.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Never disputed that. Note that when Gygax trotted out his "warlords" like the paladin and cleric, he at least had the sense to redefine a disused english word rather than jar by trying to use one still in mainstream use (i.e. warlord) or contrived (i.e. "eladrin").

On the other hand, he subsituted "Magic User" and "Fighting Man" for more appropriate names like "Wizard" and "Warrior". And don't forget the level titles, like "Superhero" for a Fighting Man. Was superhero not in mainstream use in the 70s?

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Googling suggests "Want to Buy".

 

[Tquirky]

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

And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books? I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.

 

[Fifth Element]

No. It just means try and have a mythological resonance to stuff in the core, and don't use poorly chosen, unintuitive names or contrived archetypes (again, "warlord") in the core.

To be clear, are you suggesting things such as beholders and gelatinous cubes should be excluded from the core? Those are definitely D&D, and the game would be much less D&D without them. With so many generic games out there, what would be the point of another one?

 

[Fifth Element]

And pretend not to read them in the PHB and tens of other books? I'd really rather they just got it right the first time and not harm D&D's IP in an attempt to humour lawyers, but whatever.

Yes. Pretend to read them as something else. Just like pretending the Greyhawk gods are not in the 3.X PHB, or pretending Mordenkainen's spells are called something else. Not a big deal.

But whatever.