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

[Zardnaar]

Right. As I said, nobody has taught them how to do it right, so they do it wrong and just try to make it about fights. You're just proving my point here.

I've run dozens. Just not pre-written ones, because they generally aren't very good.

Then why dont you write it. DM Guild is literally there for that.

 

[Maxperson]

Then why dont you write it. DM Guild is literally there for that.

Two reasons, one of which I just gave to not far back in the thread. The other is that the DM's Guild is horrible for getting the product out to the overwhelming majority of D&D players, who don't use it. It needs to come from WotC in an official product or it will be of no use.

 

[Zardnaar]

Two reasons, one of which I just gave to not far back in the thread. The other is that the DM's Guild is horrible for getting the product out to the overwhelming majority of D&D players, who don't use it. It needs to come from WotC in an official product or it will be of no use.

Well dont hold your breath. Not sure they've got anyone left there good at writing adventures let alone high level.

 

[Maxperson]

Well dont hold your breath. Not sure they've got anyone left there good at writing adventures let alone high level.

I'm not holding my breath, or even arguing that they will do it(poorly or well). I'm simply saying that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy not to provide guidance for high level play and then say, "Look! No one is playing high level!" They've created that situation through their lack of high level guidance. And then it gets circular. "We shouldn't create high level rules, monsters or guidance, because no one plays high level, because we failed to provide guidance for high level play."

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not holding my breath, or even arguing that they will do it(poorly or well). I'm simply saying that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy not to provide guidance for high level play and then say, "Look! No one is playing high level!" They've created that situation through their lack of high level guidance. And then it gets circular. "We shouldn't create high level rules, monsters or guidance, because no one plays high level, because we failed to provide guidance for high level play."

We have had decades of high level product not selling very well.

 

[Maxperson]

We have had decades of high level product not selling very well.

And? How does that in any way contradict what I just said? There have been just as many decades with no guidance for high level play. More in fact. There has never been guidance on how to run high level games.

 

[Zardnaar]

And? How does that in any way contradict what I just said? There have been just as many decades with no guidance for high level play. More in fact. There has never been guidance on how to run high level games.

There has some of it was even good.

 

[Maxperson]

There has some of it was even good.

Perhaps in 4e. 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e have had crap for high level advice. I didn't play 4e, so I suppose there could have been some there.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps in 4e. 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e have had crap for high level advice. I didn't play 4e, so I suppose there could have been some there.

2E high level book had some good advice

 

[MichaelSomething]

Once again we see the essential conflict over what D&D is and should be. In this thread we have posters saying that D&D is a high fantasy game, so the problems come from trying to make that game appealing to fans of low fantasy, while others say that the problem comes from trying to make a dungeon crawl game into a superhero game. Both sides can support their preference with evidence going all the way back to the days of little brown books and white boxes, because D&D has always supported different play styles at different levels. The “zero to hero” dynamic may be intrinsic to levelling game designs, as opposed to skill-based systems where your character learns lots of new stuff but stays squishy and combat-averse.

I think the best way to split the difference and keep more people happy is to emphasize differences between tiers of play, not smooth them out so everything feels the same. I like the low levels where your gear is second-hand ring mail and a homemade morning star, and you definitely need to worry about what is behind that locked dungeon door. But I also like the high levels when your party soars across the sky on their pegasus steeds, ready to battle dragons, as the soundtrack blasts “Ride of the Valkyries”. Early editions acknowledged that low and high level play were different by urging PCs into semi-retirement at name level, although domain play has always been a tough sell and not really supported much by official materials.

D&D is of course the overwhelmingly dominant force in the TTRPG market, and a corporate IP owned by a toy conglomerate. There is strong pressure on the designers to make the game be all things to everyone, and as always that approach risks making something that is not much to anyone - “everybody’s second favorite RPG”. It is a tough nut to crack. I think the best solution would be to let the different tiers be different, so people who only like the gritty lower levels can just stop at level 10 or 12, but have more high power options available for those who want to start at level 3.

Gygaxian naturalism in action! May the best play style win!