Mike Mearls comments on design

ZombieRoboNinja said:
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.
Which makes no sense to me.

Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.

So the only way that the Dragonborn being in the book upsets your campaign is when a player says "I want to play a Dragonborn". Well, the thing to do is tell that player "No."

What am I missing?

If the books are a toolkit, then why is there the complaint that the tools are being included in there in the first place?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tquirky said:
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.
So your problem is that you just don't want to look at it?

Dude, I am sick and tired of elves and dwarves. I want to take the 5' tall bearded scotsmen out to the chemical shed and shoot them in the back of the head, in hopes they'll disappear just for one year.

But I'm not going to yell at WotC for putting them in books and continually referencing them and such, because I'm aware that too many people like them. Their perpetuation doesn't upset me; I just move on.
 

To be clear, are you suggesting things such as beholders and gelatinous cubes should be excluded from the core?
It's a matter of screentime. Core races and classes will turn up in all campaigns, whereas there are hundreds of monsters to choose from. Beholders are thus much easier to ignore (if you choose) than a core class, which NPCs will belong to in published materials even if you go to the bother of banning them from PC use every campaign. And there are many alternative foes to beholders which you can put in your world.
 



Nothing stops you from saying "Hey, no dragonborn. They don't fit my campaign." I mean, the race isn't forced on your setting. I highly doubt a party can't function without the dragonborn present.
They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them. The core permeates the game.
 

Rechan said:
Dude, I am sick and tired of elves and dwarves. I want to take the 5' tall bearded scotsmen out to the chemical shed and shoot them in the back of the head, in hopes they'll disappear just for one year.

THis would be the point at which someone would tell you to play another game -- pretty much what happens to people that say they don't want Dragonborn or whatever in the core. It's a reasonable suggestion in either case, of course, but it totally ignores the fact that we like D&D and we want to play D&D.

Here's the thing about the changes in flavour that 4E is presenting: at this point, they seem so pervasive, so random and so extreme that it suggests that 4E will in fact not support playing D&D in the manner that [any given person] has been playing for 30 years. It isn't that D&D hasn't undergone change before, it is that it has never undergone such drastic change before, particularly in both "fluff" and "crunch" simultaneously. While the mechanical changes to 3E were significant, for example, the flavour changes weren't particularly significant. The 4E changes probably aren't as significant as they feel to some of us neo-grognards for those that have been buying and liking the last 2 years worth of (IMO only; totally subjective) drek that has been put out by WotC -- since it has all been testbed for 4E. But if you have been playing even 3.5 by the core in Greyhawk or FR or Krynn, 4E looks hella different and not in a good way.

Ultimately, what D&D "is" is entirely subjective and varies from group to group and person to person. That said, though, I think it is an entirely acceptable opinion that it "won't be D&D anymore" if 4E -- and no one can know this yet, but we can make as educated guesses as WotC allows us given they are the ones educating us -- doesn't allow a person or group to continue playing in their hombrew world or in their preferred playstyle without massive amounts of effort. I mean, if my understanding is correct, FR is going to require an event on par with the Crisis on infinite Earths to make the transition to 4E. If you have to do that with your flagship setting, which is probably more recognized and beloved a brand than D&D itself, it is safe to say that you are "doing it wrong".

When it comes down to it, the massive flavor changes are wholly unneccesary. The proposed mechanical changes alone would have warranted a new edition and would likely have not caused such a rift in the existing fanbase. It is a strange thing to imagine why it is that they are making such sweeping flavor changes, and what benefit they think they will get out of it, and who exactly is going to replace the existing-customer attrition, no matter how large or small, that is going to inevitably follow.
 

Tquirky said:
They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them. The core permeates the game.

Hrm, you might have some issues anyway then, because WotC is now pushing the PHB2+ as "core" too. So you may well be seeing psionic warforged NPCs a couple years down the road...
 

Where do we go from here?
Traditionally, a duel with pistols at dawn, but I think you're too far away for a glove slap to get proceedings underway. And too far away for roh sham bo, tiddlywinks, mud wrestling or rock-paper-scissors...hmmm...
 

Tquirky said:
They'll turn up as NPCs all through published material anyway, even if you ban them. The core permeates the game.
And? Do you get upset when a cleric of Pelor pops up in a module as an NPC? How do you handle that?

You swap out the God for the one that suits your game the most. Or, if the module deals too much with that God that doesn't correlate with any in your setting, you don't use it. I mean, if there are no dragons in your setting, you're not going to buy a module that revolves around fightin' dragons, are you?
 

Remove ads

Top