D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition

[Lanefan]

What if we designed a game such that those two motives lead to the same outcomes? Designed it so that trying to keep your character alive (while, I assume, accomplishing their goals) is entertaining the audience--namely, the other players and the GM.

Unfortunately, I don't think the latter part of that can be designed. The entertainment piece has to come from the people at the table, and will or won't do so pretty much regardless of the system design.

For your group, I certainly believe that. But conversely, if that were to be consistently the outcome, I'm fairly sure even your group would grow bored with it.

Agreed.

Other groups have a lower tolerance for anticlimax. Indeed, I would say most players appreciate anticlimax as a sometimes food, in part because its presence is evidence that their choices really do matter and that they can (in a limited, local sense) "win" when they believe they shouldn't have. (And, likewise, being forced to retreat--which is something I support being included in a game's design, believe it or not!--is good because, again, it can show that their choices matter in the other direction, and that they can "lose" when they believe they shouldn't have.)

Again agreed. I'm not after anticlimax all the time; I just want it to be able to happen, just like I want the opposite - flee for your lives and leave the fallen where they lie - to also be able to happen.

D&D design (in 4e and 5e anyway) has been trending away from both these extremes in pursuit of the middle, which also gets boring after a while.

The great majority of folks generally want decent-to-good pacing and satisfying conclusions. Anticlimax as a sometimes food can be a satisfying conclusion. Having it as a staple leaves a bad taste. And that, right there, is also a fact of life--and one no quantity of rules or design or style will ever alter.

Three for three on agreement - hell must be getting cold!

You don't see the experience of play as resembling the experience of cinema or story.

Not in the moment, no. In hindsight, sure, the game logs will end up telling a story of some sort. In the moment, though, I don't want to have to even think about that meta-side of it as a player and prefer to pay, at most, wave-in-the-distance attention to it as DM.

That's fair. Unfortunately for you, most people do see at least some similarity between those experiences, and as a result, they want certain components, like pacing, rising and falling action, satisfying conclusions, and a perceptible (but not necessarily obvious) "arc" or "direction" for how things went.

The main problem I've found with "satisfying conclusions" is that it can be hard to get rolling again after one occurs. Things tend to stall, which isn't a good thing for an ongoing campaign. There's ways to mitigate this, but it can take a lot of trial, error, and recognition to figure out what they are and how to implement them without using too big a hammer.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I know this is 20 pages back but I wanted to address it.

As noted several times in this thread, control spells are not innately OP, they just tend to be OP against single monster encounters.

So from a design perspective, it makes all the sense in the world to target the boss monster for chance (which directly addresses the boss monster issue) instead of the changing the spell (which impacts all encounters, some of which needed no change).

It’s scalpel vs hammer

Then Legendary Resistances must stay because the single enemy boss encounter is, quite frankly, a much older and deeper part of core fantasy experience than all these control spells, it goes as far as they mythology, where usually big monsters were indeed singular - Typhor, Tiamat, Ymir - and/or taken down in one on one duels. If you hate Legendary Resistance, then all these spells need to be nerfed.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then Legendary Resistances must stay because the single enemy boss encounter is, quite frankly, a much older and deeper part of core fantasy experience than all these control spells, it goes as far as they mythology, where usually big monsters were indeed singular - Typhor, Tiamat, Ymir - and/or taken down in one on one duels. If you hate Legendary Resistance, then all these spells need to be nerfed.

Yup. Or legendary resistance, 4,5,6 12?

 

[Flying Toaster]

I keep saying that you can only speed up combat by severe restrictions on available actions. You would have to cut bonus actions, reactions, pets and summons, and a large chunk of class features to make combat fast enough to finish a character turn quick. Unfortunately, that would also mean characters don't have much more to do than attack, cast a spell, move, or use a class feature (like turn undead) and it would be very boring and repetitive.

Yep. In other words... B/X and AD&D combat! Or OSR games designed to recapture that spirit.

What you describe sounds a lot like the repetitive loop of “swing magic long sword” that had me complaining about boring 1E combats circa 1988. It did not help that some of the stricter DMs I played with back in the day saw attempts to try creative combat moves as “cheating”, because they had read Gygax’s stern advice in the 1E DMG or Dragon editorials and interpreted it to mean “if it is not in the official AD&D rules, you cannot do it” (ironically, a far cry from the freewheeling spirit of 70's OD&D and EGG’s actual Greyhawk campaign). Ironic that the kind of swashbuckling maneuvers we learned not to bother trying are now part of the official rules.

2E introduced more character customization options in both the core rulebooks and the splatbooks, so there were more decisions to make during Session Zero, but retained the core of the AD&D rules. In my group’s experience 2E streamlined some of the clunkier rules enough for combat to actually flow a bit faster than it did in 1E, even when using the optional d10 individual initiative system. We had never even tried to use the excruciating official 1E initiative rules, but had used the side-based d6 that most groups seem to have retained from B/X or BECMI.

I missed the edition wars during a long hiatus from tabletop games, but even I can tell that the biggest difference between early and recent editions is the introduction of feats and combat options that are obviously popular with players, but slow down combat and introduce lots of complexity for DMs trying to run boss monsters and NPC spellcasters. The OSR was at least in part a direct response to the long, slow combats of games in the D&D3/PF1 family of games. I am actually interested in learning PF2 in order to see what a game is like when it has been designed with a finely tuned action economy that is (AFAIK) more complex than 5E, but less complex than 3E. I have seen PF2 compared to D&D 4E, but do not know how accurate that comparison is.

Over the last half century D&D has evolved from relatively light rules (B/X, BECMI, AD&D) to very crunchy rules favoring optimized character builds (3E), and now the current D&D5 family of games (including Level Up, Tales of the Valiant, etc) seems like a compromise between two opposing camps. The 5E compromise has been very successful in recruiting lots of new fans to the TTRPG hobby, but compromises will rarely satisfy purists of any type. So it is good that those purists have other games to play, because I do not expect to see D&D return to either the rules-light OSR style or the high crunch of 3E. But who knows! Prediction is hard.

 

[Flying Toaster]

The idea that players will optimize the fun out of a game is an old one. For a TTRPG, the design challenge comes in finding ways to give DMs the tools to keep their games fun. If the DM is bored, the game probably ends.

Competitive games have solved that adjusting the environment. A video game might introduce a balance patch. In a card game like Magic, a new set comes out and strategies shift to account for the new cards.

D&D is really weird compared to other games in that the company publishing it has never acknowledged the metagame. Instead, we get new editions that throw out the old game and replace it with a new one. On balance, a new edition usually introduces as many problems as it solves. Sometimes it solves more than it breaks, or vice versa.

I think it would be a lot healthier for D&D, and probably a lot better for its business, if the game evolved slowly, rather than asking its audience to dump its old content in favor of new stuff every few years.

This comment reminds me again of the Civilization games. In a 2014 interview with Ars Technica, franchise creator Sid Meier said that the Civ team at Firaxis had a “rule of thirds” design philosophy for new Civilization entries: one-third traditional gameplay, one-third improvements on the last entry, and one-third brand new ideas. Each new edition has introduced features that have been hailed by some as just what the franchise needed, while proving to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for players who were mostly satisfied with what they had. The arguments between the various camps on the CivFanatics forums were remarkably similar to those seen in the D&D Edition Wars, because they involve the same core tension between fixing problems and leaving well enough alone (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”).

But what happens when people disagree about what is broken and needs fixing? Even if the game designers have a coherent philosophy, there will always be disagreement among fans about what the game should be. Designers may not be able to accommodate all preferences even with optional rules. Instead of chasing trends, second guessing themselves, or giving up on new editions altogether, designers ought to think about what they really want to do, because balancing different imperatives is never easy.

It might well be beneficial for the D&D design team to be more forthcoming about their goals. I have not read them yet, but apparently the Daggerheart rules go into a surprising amount of detail about exactly what they intended to do with their game design, what kind of play you can or cannot expect from the game, what other games they drew on for inspiration, and even an admission that the game is not for everyone (something which really ought to be routine, but instead feels like bracing honesty).

I was first drawn to EN World by M.T. Black’s ongoing series of articles on old Dragon magazines, and one of the recurring themes is the evolution of Gary Gygax’s ideas on game design. There was an editorial in an early issue from the late 70’s (wish I could remember the number...) in which he expressed deep ambivalence about how the gaming hobby was turning into an industry. He even asked whether game companies should be chasing profits by cranking out an endless series of new variants and supplements, requiring players to choose between shelling out money indefinitely or jumping off the treadmill. He almost sounded like an old 60’s hippie, or one of my fellow 90’s Gen-Xers complaining about rock stars selling out! Deeply ironic considering how early this was in the history of the RPG hobby, and the very commercial direction that TSR would take just a few years later. Of course without new editions or supplements, every game would be a one-and-done, and most likely no one could even make a living making games, let alone make profits.

I sometimes wonder what it is like in that alternate Prime Material Plane where mellow 70’s Wargamer Gary chose not to polymorph into uptight 80’s Corporate Gary. Did D&D continue to dominate the industry, or did it fade into a historical footnote as some other game took over? But then I love counterfactuals.

 

[Distracted DM]

It might well be beneficial for the D&D design team to be more forthcoming about their goals. I have not read them yet, but apparently the Daggerheart rules go into a surprising amount of detail about exactly what they intended to do with their game design, what kind of play you can or cannot expect from the game, what other games they drew on for inspiration, and even an admission that the game is not for everyone (something which really ought to be routine, but instead feels like bracing honesty).

We had this kind of personalized writing in 3.Xe, where the designers would speak to the reader and tell them what their intent was and why they did things they way they chose to. I couldn't tell you which books it was in, because I'm sure it wasn't in all of them, but the ones that had it like Red Hand of Doom were the books I ended up going back to repeatedly.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I sometimes wonder what it is like in that alternate Prime Material Plane where mellow 70’s Wargamer Gary chose not to polymorph into uptight 80’s Corporate Gary.

My personal experience is that zero war gamers are mellow. They are the most meticulous and uptight types I have ever met. Statistics says they must exist, but my mind boggles at the notion of a war gamer saying "just move 12 inches, 13 inches, whatever. No biggie. We're just here to have fun, don't let the rules get in the way."

 

[I'm A Banana]

But what happens when people disagree about what is broken and needs fixing? Even if the game designers have a coherent philosophy, there will always be disagreement among fans about what the game should be. Designers may not be able to accommodate all preferences even with optional rules. Instead of chasing trends, second guessing themselves, or giving up on new editions altogether, designers ought to think about what they really want to do, because balancing different imperatives is never easy.

It might well be beneficial for the D&D design team to be more forthcoming about their goals. I have not read them yet, but apparently the Daggerheart rules go into a surprising amount of detail about exactly what they intended to do with their game design, what kind of play you can or cannot expect from the game, what other games they drew on for inspiration, and even an admission that the game is not for everyone (something which really ought to be routine, but instead feels like bracing honesty).

I'd love it if the designers were more open about how and why they make some of the decisions they do.

In part, I'd appreciate that because I think that D&D's competing goals are actually one of the good things about the game. D&D is serves many masters "well enough" that folks with many different goals can come and gel around the same table. This means that the game is not optimized for a particular play experience, and that this lack of optimization is ultimately a good thing, even if it is ALSO the reason that certain segments of the D&D fandom will never truly be happy with it.

If the designers were more transparent about what they were doing, it could help people choose the right bits of modular design that would work best for their tables.

 

[Stalker0]

Then Legendary Resistances must stay because the single enemy boss encounter is, quite frankly, a much older and deeper part of core fantasy experience than all these control spells, it goes as far as they mythology, where usually big monsters were indeed singular - Typhor, Tiamat, Ymir - and/or taken down in one on one duels. If you hate Legendary Resistance, then all these spells need to be nerfed.

Well again, the idea that boss monsters have to be designed to withstand these powerful control spells would have to remain. Whether its LR or some better system is of course the debate.

I do like A5e's take on it, where LRs work as they do, but it usually results in the monster getting weaker in some way, shape, or form (often tailored to the flavor of the monster). That's a pretty solid way to make LRs still provide the protection but lets the caster feel they are still contributing to the team's success rather than going "well just blew a spell slot for nothing".

However, A5e's system doesn't address the scaling problem that has already been mentioned. LRs are VERY strong against a party of a single caster (to the point where its questionable if I should even try saving throw spells), and more of a speed bump when you have a party of 3+ casters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I'm out of action for an uncertain length of time, I have several options. In rough order of best to worst in terms of what I could do next:
<snip>

Did you notice that not one of those things is participating? Because I have been very clear about this being about gameplay and participation.

Becoming part of the audience is, by definition, not participation. You even used that very phrase in that very line! Your first, allegedly "best" option, was to "seamlessly slip from participant to audience". Meaning, you stopped being a participant. If you stop being a participant, that means you aren't participating. I have been talking about participation the whole time.

I gave up on adblockers once too many sites started insisting I whitelist them as a condition of using/viewing the site, thus defeating the point.

They're still quite effective, and I rarely, if ever, have that problem with websites I actually want to use. It's unfortunate that you have had to use websites that do this. But I can say, from my experience, they are quite effective, and in particular YouTube remains quite thoroughly tamed in terms of ads.

As written that wouldn't appear in the rules, and nor should it.

I mean, it's literally the actual truth of what's going on. I am personally of the opinion that rules text should be direct, specific, and unvarnished when it is describing the actual experience the player is going to have. Shoot straight, no pretense.

However, something along the lines of "As a player, be aware up front that certain game effects, die-roll outcomes, and in-character choices may put you out of play for a while. This is normal, and to be expected in a game where characters can be knocked out or killed and where players can choose to have their characters act alone, or not act at all." should very much be in there, front and centre; and if it's not that's a flat-out failure on the part of the rules-writers.

It isn't, and any game that had a disclaimer like that would instantly get a significant negative hit. That you don't want to understand this is not relevant to whether it is true or not.

And, as I just said above, no amount of rules-text will change that. No amount of adult conversations will change that. For precisely the same reason that no amount of rules-text, adult conversations, video, audio, or any other presentation method, will change you so that you would say "okay sure, my desire for 100% retrospective storytelling isn't important".

If you can't be persuaded to stop wanting what you want by the book having a disclaimer or different rules text, why would others be persuaded to stop wanting what they want and instead start wanting what you want?

For all I know, a player busting out a phone at my table could very well be doing game-related stuff; as all our spells, pantheons, game logs, and setting maps are online along with about 95% of our rules.

Don't be disingenuous. You know why the vast majority of players would pull out their phone during a session. It's because they're bored and looking for stimulation elsewhere.

Metaphorically, yes; that being the times when the player's character is out of action, or away from the party, or dead awaiting revival, etc.

No, it doesn't, for precisely the same reason that the bench IS NOT the penalty box. I know you know these things are different--enormously so. Being put in the penalty box is a punishment you endure because you screwed up. Being on the bench is a necessary break so players don't get completely worn out. Or, simply put...

Same difference.

No. Not same difference. Do you get upset when a player you think did nothing wrong is sent to the penalty box by the referees? (I believe you've mentioned you enjoy hockey before; if not, substitute whatever sport you do prefer watching.) Do you get the exact same amount upset when the coach sends a player to the bench for, say, health reasons? If you do not, then by your own lights, the two are not and cannot be "same difference". They're different in critical ways that actually do matter for your claimed analogy.

Game played as war or game played as sport, then. Semantics.

No. You aren't getting what I'm saying. Games are not sports. Games are not wars. They are games. Trying to pretend that a game is either of those things leads to problems, because games--at the very least, TTRPGs where you have a defined Game Master-type role and other such things typical of D&D-type play--fundamentally do not and cannot work the way either sports or war does. In sport, if the referee were also the head coach of one of the teams, that would be an instant scandal. If the referee is even slightly too friendly with one of the teams' coaches, that would be a flagrant violation of ethics (and possibly laws!) Conversely, the purpose of war is not survival (generally speaking; few wars are wars of extermination, for a variety of reasons). The purpose of war is completion of objectives. That's why Sun Tzu said, "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." A war where not a single person dies, not a single city is besieged, not a single building is destroyed, is the most successful war possible.

Both "war" and "sport" are fundamentally inapplicable to a game environment. As you yourself already said, the duty is entertainment, not survival:

the number one job of a player is to be entertaining and the number two job is to be entertained.

Which means that neither war nor sport actually captures what a game is about. You can certainly use it to indicate the type or kind of entertainment you personally seek! But that type or kind is still merely a leaf on the tree, whose trunk is entertainment.

I'm not, at all, making a semantic argument here. I am specifically rejecting the entire "sport/war" dichotomy as doubly wrong-headed.

As others in this thread have noted, oftentimes the most effective play (in any game, not just D&D) is also the most boring. I'm not sure there's a way to design that out without at the same time making everyone play exactly the same.

There definitely is. That's the whole point and purpose of designing games.

This is like saying that there's no way to make a car that is both safe and comfortable, so we should just stop bothering with making cars comfortable. Of course there is! It's just challenging to make cars that are both safe and comfortable. (Or, more accurately, to be all four of safe, comfortable, affordable, and fuel-efficient--and yet automakers still find ways to achieve this.)

Or, if you want a formal way of saying that: This is the lack-of-imagination fallacy. That you personally don't believe it is possible does not mean it is not. I have seen it done. It's done quite frequently in video games, for example, and it is a known and longstanding problem that it is bad game design to allow your game to contain boring, obvious solutions that players are thus massively incentivized to take.

Murderhobo play is the reason for doing this, isn't it? As such, how can it ever be disruptive?

Uh...no?

What on earth are you talking about here?

As for private in-character conversations, your original take very much did come across as "they should be shut down in general and merely assumed to have happened without being played through", hence my response.

Absolutely not. I...thought I was quite clear that such things have merit. They just are not part of gameplay.

I'll respond to the second post later, possibly as an edit to this one.