D&D 5E Mike Mearls Interview with the Escapist

[SkidAce]

At this point, for most video gamers, "CRPG" means Shooter or Action-Adventure where someone talks to me and things blink at me to tell me to click on them. There isn't even a common ground of stats, abilities, character derived outcomes, or consequence from action today.

There are a lot of games like you say.

There is also Divinity:Original Sin

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem with kids today (I realize how this sounds) is that they're coming to D&D quite certain that they know what an RPG is, from video games and MMORPGs. They need to unlearn some of these notions, which is always harder than learning from a blank slate, and they need to do so with less focused rulebooks and much less published adventure support, and with a guy running D&D who would rather they tell him what D&D should be like rather than he tell them.

This is the opposite of true. Kids today have access to sandboxes that will crush D&D sandboxes. First the computer doesn't care. It can't be whined at, it can't be cajoled. Second there's far more in a computer sandbox world than any one DM would ever have prepared - or can keep up with. Mass Effect 1 is a better sandbox than the Isle of Dread. (Not that either of them are great sandboxes tbh). Skyrim beats out even Harn. The best sandbox in the history of any form of RPG is Eve Online.

It's not the kids who have unlearning to do. Adults need to learn from the sources the kids are.

While this is all true, 3.5 was also a far bigger game popularity wise than either it's predecessors or 4E turned out to be.

[Citation Needed]

The biggest edition in history was BECMI, followed by 1e.

Actually, he's right.

Today's "CRPG's" are really just shooters or action-adventure with the RPG label slapped on them. All events in game are resolved by Player skill, the Character's ability has no impact on outcome. The character's stats perform no real function, the character's "Role" is irrelevant as it has no impact on the game, and there's no consequence to any actions. Sure, you could "Roleplay" in Skyrim, but the game doesn't notice and it is really just you pretending at your screen.

Welcome to early D&D where the game was one of pure player skill and the concept of making decisions that weren't the best you could see was ... weird.

Same thing in Mass Effect, the game treats all "Roles" the same. In games like Mass Effect where there's dialogue, your morality is irrelevant, you can flip-flop without consequence, and no matter what you say you always get the same outcome.

Tell it to Wrex. Oh wait. You can't. I shot him on Virimire. Or tell it to Tali - assuming she survived both the Suicide Mission and Rannoch. Mass Effect is basically an adventure path, with ME1 being fairly hex-crawly with half a dozen dungeons you need to find McGuffins in, and Mass Effect 3 being extremely heavily railroaded (and the less I say about the Starchild and the ending the better).

Even if you kill a character, a new one is put in his place to issue his dialogue and quest. In Skyrim you don't even get that much interaction.

Which makes it different from Dinosaur Island/Isle of Dread how exactly?

It is a huge difference from an RPG where your decisions matter, your Character is what decides outcomes, and the world reacts to your roleplaying.

The NPCs react to the way you approach them as far as I know in all Bioware games. Your character isn't merely an alignment you write down on your character sheet, it grows over time. (And I play the Sheps differently simply because they have different voice actors).

If someone sat down and tried to play an RPG from a CRPG style: They'd resolve combat by whether or not they could punch the DM,

This is absurd.

their alignment/morality would be "Whatever I need to be to get the quest reward",

Or as my tabletop group calls it "Neutral/Pragmatic". The concept of greyhawking rooms didn't come from the CRPG world.

and they would expect that no matter what they do it wouldn't impact the game world.

And that's a wtf as far as I'm concerned. If my actions don't affect the game world I'll find another CRPG.

So he's right, there's *a lot* to unlearn.

Yes. But it's not unlearning by the kids. The kids need to learn one thing. RPGs came out of Tabletop Wargaming and people wanting to do things that the designers hadn't planned on.

Just the seperation of Character and Player in terms of resolving actions alone is wildly different today, primarily because the games that are labelled "CRPG" are actually some other genre because they don't implement the Character to simulate an RPG and they don't recognize roleplaying to simulate LARPS, they're not even trying to be anything out of the RPG genre.

And you're saying 9 point alignment does implement the character? Or that character is what you do - in which case you do that too in CRPGs.

Then you have Dragon Age 2, where the dialogue is so irrelevant that they put in a bunch of icons so you don't even have to read it, just click on the icon for "Nice" or "Mean" and don't worry about what the outcome might be.

Or you can e.g. break the diplomacy rules and resolve everything using dice.

There isn't even a common ground of stats, abilities, character derived outcomes, or consequence from action today.

Stats are not inherent to the roleplaying experience and nor are abilities. Some of the best RPGs I've played have been freeform LARPS. Character derived outcomes? Consequence from action? If there isn't a common ground there it's because D&D is light on them.

 

[pemerton]

Most times you just role-played out social interaction. If a check was needed for some reason, most often a plain old ability check was done. Simple, quick, and didn't disrupt play at all.

AD&D actually did have quite extensive rules for social interaction, set out in the DMG under Loyalty, Reactions and Morale plus in the PHB under the CHA stat, the Charm spell and the Suggestion spell.

One consequence of both your approach and the AD&D approach is that social interaction is something that you can't get better at by levelling your PC unless you are a caster who gets access to those spells.

EDIT: I'm talking about 1st ed AD&D. I don't know how 2nd ed handled social interaction.

 

[pemerton]

I'm thinking in terms of how everyone might contribute to a stealth encounter. The rogue sneaks, of course. Maybe the fighter wrestles someone and puts them in a sleeper hold.

"Sleeper hold"? What are the rules for that? Doesn't knocking someone out require reducing them to 0 hp? Which doesn't sound like it will be very stealthy, if the "someone" is an ogre.

If you're the DM, couldn't you see the number of HP rolled, compare it to the Ogre's HP, shrug and say it worked? Heck, why even roll at all? Just assume that sleep as written is its combat application. If the target doesn't "have his blood up", the spell is significantly more effective (double HP? auto?). Then it maintains its combat application, but it gets the exploration potential you're looking for.

I think this is the right way to go. It would benefit from being described and supported in the DMG (much as it was in the 4e DMG2).

In my own 4e campaign, my approach to this sort of thing, and to KM's "sleeper hold", is to allow minionisation on a successful skill check when the resolution context is appropriate (eg not in combat).

AD&D's approximation to the same thing was to allow all players to use the Assassination table against sleeping targets.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That may be true. But the massive success of Skyrim shows there's plenty of appetite out there for sandbox RPGs. WotC just needs to get ahead of the curve and stop chasing Paizo's model. One of the reasons adventure paths work so well with Pathfinder is the game itself is so crunchy and difficult to DM, that there's not much energy and mindspace left over for improvisation and sandbox play. With the plot and events completely handled by the AP author, a Pathfinder DM can focus all his energy on running the mechanics of the game (though it's worth noting that one of Paizo's most popular APs was Kingmaker, so maybe even Paizo fans want to hop off the rails now and then). With a lighter rules-set, 5E has more leeway to put adventure and campaign management in the hands of the DM.

And I don't think DMs need to be explicitly taught how to run a setting-based adventure. They just need top-notch examples of the format. That could mean updating classics (which the 5E playtest team has done already with Isle of Dread and other conversions). Even better would be to publish a new setting-based adventure that new players can make their own.

Very much agree. I'd never heard of isle of dread until the 5e playtest. AndI freakin' loved it. If they have more old modules in that sandbox style, bejezus, theyre sitting on a gold mine! Update those suckers to 5e and sell them (PDFs, paper modules, i dont care) and my $$$ will happily flow to them on a regular basis.

 

[Iosue]

"Sleeper hold"? What are the rules for that? Doesn't knocking someone out require reducing them to 0 hp? Which doesn't sound like it will be very stealthy, if the "someone" is an ogre.

I think this is the right way to go. It would benefit from being described and supported in the DMG (much as it was in the 4e DMG2).

In my own 4e campaign, my approach to this sort of thing, and to KM's "sleeper hold", is to allow minionisation on a successful skill check when the resolution context is appropriate (eg not in combat).

AD&D's approximation to the same thing was to allow all players to use the Assassination table against sleeping targets.

In 5e (and probably 4e as well), I'd have the fighter use one action to grapple, and then another action for the hold, represented by a STR vs CON contest.

 

[pemerton]

In 5e (and probably 4e as well), I'd have the fighter use one action to grapple, and then another action for the hold, represented by a STR vs CON contest.

I think if the fighter can bypass hit points and render a grappled foe unconscious via a STR check, it raises the question of why this can't be done in other contexts (eg knock a foe unconscious with a mace by clocking him/her on the head, blind a foe with a sword by slashing him/her across the eyes, etc).

That was always a weirdness (to me, at least) of the AD&D weaponless combat rules: you could stun a foe with your fist, but not with a heavier, harder weapon!

Also: I've got no general objection to non-hit point resolution (go Rolemaster!). But I think it's an odd part of the system to leave to GM discretion for fighters, when - for instance - it is so heavily codified for spell casters.

 

[Uchawi]

I think if the fighter can bypass hit points and render a grappled foe unconscious via a STR check, it raises the question of why this can't be done in other contexts (eg knock a foe unconscious with a mace by clocking him/her on the head, blind a foe with a sword by slashing him/her across the eyes, etc).

That was always a weirdness (to me, at least) of the AD&D weaponless combat rules: you could stun a foe with your fist, but not with a heavier, harder weapon!

Also: I've got no general objection to non-hit point resolution (go Rolemaster!). But I think it's an odd part of the system to leave to GM discretion for fighters, when - for instance - it is so heavily codified for spell casters.

I agree that is one thing where 5E has failed for me, in reference to continuing the stereotype (tradition) of simple fighters without a mechanic within the class to define ability, specialize, or expand their toolbox, while spells caster have always been granted the flexibility (schools, domains, pacts, oaths, etc.)

 

[drjones]

I agree that is one thing where 5E has failed for me, in reference to continuing the stereotype (tradition) of simple fighters without a mechanic within the class to define ability, specialize, or expand their toolbox, while spells caster have always been granted the flexibility (schools, domains, pacts, oaths, etc.)

You mean besides the entire subclass which includes a mechanic to define ability, specialize and expand their toolbox?

 

[Uchawi]

You mean besides the entire subclass which includes a mechanic to define ability, specialize and expand their toolbox?

Using subclasses is a different topic. I am talking about a mechanic that applies like
spells to martial characters regardless of the class or subclass.