Mike Mearls on stuff... (Tome Show interview from GenCon)

The Tome Show has a fascinating interview with WotC's Mike Mearls from Gen Con. He covered release schedules, licenses, conventions, errata, and more. He tells us that there has been an enormous influx of new players, and that the design philosophy is to "make fewer but bigger decisions." He also mentions that third party licence is still on the cards, but it's not what we expect (though I not sure what we allegedly expect!)
A few highlights:

* The release of two full levels 1-15 adventure paths within the first year of the new edition is very new for them. (Previously, only a few adventures would be released in the first year).

* Sword Coast Legends is the big release for Wizards coming up, which is very exciting for them.

* The slow release schedule is driven by Wizards' desire to learn what the players want and are using. If Wizards do something with D&D, it's driven by player feedback. They're starting smaller, because they've consistently seen that players weren't able to absorb the volume of information that was released in a short space of time.

* One of the effects of this is that DMs aren't being overwhelmed trying to stay on top of player options, although the PHB does support a lot of character types, with the subclass allowing a lot of unique mechanics; for instance, the mechanical difference between the Evoker and the Illusionist means both have something unique no-one else has.

* "Do fewer mechanics, but each of those mechanics having a much bigger effect on a character." "Make fewer but bigger decisions." There's a lot more variety within character classes.

* The game can become unmanageable with too many options; Organised Play has the idea of only one expansion book allowed per season, which is somewhat analogous to Magic: the Gathering set rotation. The designers will try to make things compatible, but "one expansion book per campaign" is likely to be a better way of balancing things and guarding against unforeseen combinations.

* They've seen a huge influx of brand new players. Mike thinks a lot of that is because, at launch, you could buy the Tyranny of Dragons campaign and just start playing.

* The feedback they've got from reading reviews on Amazon or on blogs is that instead of people just playing one or two sessions (as in the 3rd or 4th edition launch), Wizards are more consistently seeing that they're still playing Tyranny 3 months later. The utility of running the published campaigns is huge for people in their 40s with kids who don't have enough time to prep their homebrew games. So more people are playing, more people are playing more often, and because the accessibility is higher, we're getting a lot more younger people playing the game.

* There will be more generic options not tied to campaigns or settings. (Mike gave Psionics as an example). They're building the foundation for the game; getting a backlist that is very accessible, then later becoming more adventurous. They want to make sure a new player has the material they need before the expand too much.

* The way things get announced and the role of conventions has changed. They noticed that if they gave a seminar at PAX they'd get a much bigger turnout than at GenCon, so they're moving to announce things and give seminars at PAX, while GenCon is becoming a more gaming-based convention (the gaming is much less at PAX). So GenCon has (for example) the DDAL Epics... It's based very much on what people are actually doing at these conventions..

* Unfortunately, the D&D release schedule doesn't correspond very well with GenCon, especially when GenCon moves around so much in the month. And they don't have a booth selling product at GenCon because their emphasis is on game stores.

* They're paying a lot of attention to what people want - one advantage of the slower release schedule is they can do more analysis and more playtesting.

* There's more liking for sandbox than narrative adventures, but not by that much (55/45).

* Wizards won't use errata while Mike is there to fix something that is otherwise fine; only if something is horribly broken will they alter it. The idea is not to fix with errata, but give new alternatives instead.

* Mike's biggest regret is the fighter: the subclasses don't have the identity that the subclasses of other classes have. What's a battlemaster or a champion? They were so involved in the mechanics (for simple and complex fighters), that the names don't mean anything.

* The ranger (beastmaster) has issues - over 50% like the ranger, but the subclass has problems. The ranger lost its identity in 3E, because all its stuff could be done by other classes. (2E had a good identity). There may be a new version of the ranger in UA, but they encountered problems during the playtest with changing the flavour of a class (warlock, sorcerer - people liked the classes, but they didn't fit what they though the classes were, based on previous versions).

* The Player's Handbook might change, but only based on a lot of player feedback, because a revised version was popular.

* D&D Movie still has legal issues. Mike actively stays away from legal matters if he can do so!

* Hasbro has been really great; allowed the 2-year playtest of D&D. The CEO of Hasbro came to visit Wizards, and was very happy with what Wizards are doing with D&D, especially all the fan feedback/playtesting they've been getting. No other company could have gone two years without product to do the playtest. Hasbro's experience with Transformers has really shown them how a product can enter the mainstream. Hasbro are very hands-off with the decisions regarding D&D.

* D&D is a very stable business - a lot of fan speculation magnifies small events beyond what they warrant.

* Mike won't talk about the reduction in staff.

* Wizards collaborate with their partners on the products. If you like or don't like a product, Wizards had a hand in it.

* Studio partnerships evolved out of the freelancer system. Instead of going to a disparate number of freelancers, going to an established team of writers and editors.

* This also meant all material could be submitted at the same time, rather than just waiting on freelancers to finish their bit. So, they saw all of the player material at once for the SCAG; they also could make changes based on Player's Handbook feedback and then communicate them back to the studio. It's not without problems, due to the extra layer of communication, but it's been working well so far. It's one of a number of approaches they can use; it's not the only one. (The early adventures were worked on when they were still doing the core books, so it made more sense to have a studio handle them).

* The license for Fantasy Grounds is not exclusive, so potentially other platforms can license the content from them.

* The 3rd party license: The plans are big and complex. Mike is excited about it, but it's not ready yet. It's probably not what people are thinking of. One of the things they really wanted was for people to be very familiar with the rules before doing more material. (If someone tries to sell you something that ignores the concentration rule, they haven't played the game enough to be familiar with what the rule does, as its a very important balancing tool.)

There's a bit more, but that's the bulk of it!

Cheers!

 

[redrick]

*I know it is at least somewhat irrational, but I get irritated at the emphasis put on D&D video games. I know a lot of people like and play them, but I simply don't care and find myself feeling a bit protective of my beloved tabletop game.

I hear your frustration, though I would like to say for encouragement that the video games have brought many sincere and wonderful players to D&D. Many of the adults I know who play D&D started with Baldur's Gate as kids. Two of the people in my group played as kids, but came back to the tabletop game after playing the Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition game. So it's a bummer to think of them giving all this attention to a video game that I probably won't play, but it's encouraging to think that that video game, if successful, could feed back more players into the hobby and towards my table!

Listening to the actual broadcast, which is almost an hour long, that's probably not a completely accurate impression of what was said. What he says, which roughly starts around the 32.5 minute mark (though refers back to discussion that starts around the 30 minute mark or so), is that IF they were ever to do a revised Player's Handbook (not when, but if), it would be many many years down the line, and it would have a very high bar for changes, and those changes would have been well vetted in playtesting and would be very popular and obvious ones. Ones which the entire player base would say. "well, of course, that's how we're all using it now already, it's super popular, it's the thing we all do now so the Player's Handbook should reflect it". The tone definitely never implies "a couple of years". In fact at the rate they are going, I would say the tone is closer to a decade or two rather than a year or two.

He also says the more typical "changes" would instead be to release additional content for classes, not change existing content. In fact he refers back to that concept and basically says they would only change the PHB if the additional content became so popular that it was, in essence, the only real content people were now using for that class.

Merric does a great job of summarizing, but I think the full broadcast is worth a listen if you have the chance. There is a lot more context in it than a summary can really do justice to for finer details like the one you highlighted.

I still need to listen to the actual show — the summary is just so fast! But I like this general approach to a revised PHB. Mike seems to be suggesting that he wants revisions to be descriptive, rather than proscriptive, where the written rules of the game are updated to reflect the way that actual players, as determined through surveys, are modifying the rules at their own table. I think that's a great approach.

 

[ZeshinX]

I want a 5e incarnation of Tome of Battle. Basically I want maneuvers and stances for martial characters, some of which are distinctly supernatural but are not "spells". And no the Battlemaster doesn't cut it. Frankly, I think the Battlemaster is totally underwhelming. There should be an in-battle refresh mechanic that isn't tied to short or long rests.

Also I think short rests are too long in general but that's a different gripe.

What you want is 4e. That is exactly what 4e is.

 

[Magistus71]

I'm just wondering if there will be any "official" 16-20 content for this edition.

I kind of want to see 16-20+ content, I would like to see Epic levels expanded a bit more from what is mentioned in the DMG.

 

[Jiggawatts]

Whats interesting is no one really complains about the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, which is on like the 6th printing and has had errata and small changes with most of them. But Wizards says there might be a few changes in the PHB at some point in the future and it gets blown out of proportion. I dont think it would be a new edition, or even a new .5 edition, just errata.

 

[Mercurius]

To be fair, only one poster in this single thread, thoroughly inconsequential in a geo-political sense, blew his comment on a revised PHB out of proportion.

 

[Staffan]

Pathfinder does not have much in the way of "power level errata" which is what Mike is saying they're not going to do either. The Pathfinder errata is mostly along the lines of "this ability uses spell X instead of spell Y" (usually when spell Y doesn't exist due to some other change) or minor clarifications. The closest I think Pathfinder has come to power-level errata are the alternate Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner classes in Pathfinder Unchained, which is clearly marked as optional content.

Similarly, Mike isn't saying they're not going to do errata. He's saying they're not going to use errata to do things like buff the Beastmaster ranger.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What you want is 4e. That is exactly what 4e is.

Actually I would love to see something that would amount to 4e with bounded accuracy and scalable powers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually I would love to see something that would amount to 4e with bounded accuracy and scalable powers.

from your mouth to god ears buddy...

 

[Remathilis]

Pathfinder does not have much in the way of "power level errata" which is what Mike is saying they're not going to do either. The Pathfinder errata is mostly along the lines of "this ability uses spell X instead of spell Y" (usually when spell Y doesn't exist due to some other change) or minor clarifications. The closest I think Pathfinder has come to power-level errata are the alternate Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner classes in Pathfinder Unchained, which is clearly marked as optional content.

Similarly, Mike isn't saying they're not going to do errata. He's saying they're not going to use errata to do things like buff the Beastmaster ranger.

Which is the correct way to handle it. Errata should be use to correct errors or clairify rules, not re-write broken stuff. Even 3.5 era errata rarely re-wrote things (Polymorph being the only one that crosses my mind) but instead patched through new rules (Fighter to Warblade).

However, Pathfinder and 3.5 did run into the problem of eventually having so much stuff of varying power levels that the PHB stuff seemed out of place to the new stuff. 3.5 fixed it by rolling up the edition number. Pathfinder is trying to do it via Unchained and optional rules. It sounds like 5e wants to eventually take the more popular content and put it in theoretical new PHB years down the line. (In essence, replace the Core Rulebook rogue with the Unchained Rogue, to use Pathfinder as an example).

 

[Minigiant]

* Mike's biggest regret is the fighter: the subclasses don't have the identity that the subclasses of other classes have. What's a battlemaster or a champion? They were so involved in the mechanics (for simple and complex fighters), that the names don't mean anything.

Yeah. He mentioned fighter subclasses like knight, gladiator, brawler, berserker.
These used to be subclasses in the playtest. I missed them. He's right too, the only subclasses without a real flavor are the champion and battlemaster. They are "mechanics as character" mostly.

Now the playtest fighter subclasses were wonky. However their names invoked flavor and their mechanics enforced it. Those would be cool as UA and bonus subclasses.

A knight who excels at using the better armor, arms, and education of a noble warrior.
A gladiator who has better usage of "exotic" weapons like nets and tridents, terrify foes, and can fight well using any equipment they find.
A brawler who can fight well unarmed and unarmored but is still good with any weapon and can mix it up a bit.

* The ranger (beastmaster) has issues - over 50% like the ranger, but the subclass has problems. The ranger lost its identity in 3E, because all its stuff could be done by other classes. (2E had a good identity). There may be a new version of the ranger in UA, but they encountered problems during the playtest with changing the flavour of a class (warlock, sorcerer - people liked the classes, but they didn't fit what they though the classes were, based on previous versions).

He's kinda all other with this one. Mearls pretty much says the "What is the Ranger's thing" thread is discussing. The ranger is a mix of Fighter/Rogue/Druid. In the pre-3e days, you couldn't do this (without being certain races and being lucky as all heck with stat rolls). When 3e and now 5e being looser on snagging stuff, being an efficiently mutliclass isn't unique and then you contend with the various thoughts by fans of what the ranger is

It sounds like they might make a whole new variant ranger (maybe with a new name) with a new exclusive mechanic. Then give the fighter a "ranger-like" subclass for those who want a nonmagical ranger.