Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't think there's a simple answer to that. I'm not sure what bearing it has on the discussion at hand. I've played D&D a lot, for a long time. I've never really been that big on 'disliking' things. I've never played PF, wasn't very excited by 3.x in general, but I think the specific game, the table, is far more interesting a question than the version of D&D that is in use. Likewise with 5e, its not my most favorite D&D, but again, so what?

So what? It is in fact a major question. If you don't like 5E or Pathfinder and don't play them, then you have no vested interest in their success and a more than likely interest in their failure insofar as you can actually affect dissent. Same as occurred with people that don't like 4E when it was released. So a guy that doesn't like something spending his time on a 5E forum (a game he doesn't like) making negative posts might very well...and with good reason...be viewed as pushing a campaign of negative attacks on the game system he doesn't like. A guy that isn't focused on negative attacks and has an edition of D&D he likes spends his time talking about that game system with players that like the same system he likes.

I was in a similar situation when 4E released. I tried it, didn't like it, and spent time complaining about it because 4E felt shoved down my throat by a company telling me they didn't care what a thirty year D&D player liked. I stuck around complaining for a long time sowing dissent in a similar fashion to yourself using negative attacks veiled as well-reasoned debate to vent my dislike of the new version of D&D. Eventually, I found Pathfinder which gave me a preferred version of D&D with a different name. I hung out with other people that preferred what I preferred. I found that much more to my liking.

Maybe you're in the early stages of disappointment and venting. It's pretty obvious at this point you are out to paint WotC and 5E in a negative manner. If you don't have a vested interest in the success of 5E as in you are playing it and planning to support it by purchasing new products, I'd like to know so I don't waste my time discussing the game with you. It's a waste of time for someone that doesn't like a game or plan to play it to spend time on a forum where that game is being discussed by fans as they will never be of like mind and will only cause foolish debates as someone that dislikes 5E refuses to acknowledge its successes and the fans refuse to acknowledge any weaknesses.

I'd advise you as a person in a similar position in 4E not to waste your time attempting negative debate of a game you don't plan to play. Your time would be more productively spent playing and discussing an edition of D&D you like than attempting to sow the seeds of dissent on a forum of 5E fans. At this point you seem to be a person that doesn't like 5E and your posts sound like unsupported and speculative criticism of 5E with the sole intent painting a negative picture of a rather positive one. I have no idea why you believe WotC wouldn't move carefully to ensure a carefully plotted and successful launch of a new game system intended to retake the top TTRPG slot wouldn't require slow and careful management. You seem to be confusing WotC and Mearls moving slow with giving up on TTRPG. Why would Mearls give up on something he has spent years of his life planning? 5E is four years or more of Mearls life? He helped write the rules, carefully play-tested them over years using a painstaking survey and playtesting process, and you expect him and the D&D team to suddenly rush things? Pretty odd viewpoint. If this is coming from a person that doesn't even like 5E, I can only say caveat emptor to anyone that responds to your criticisms.

It's pretty obvious why Mearls is doing things the way he is doing them. He has been nothing but slow and careful since he took over as head guy overseeing TTRPG D&D. Why do you expect him to change now?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

In their defense, it's also somewhat unfathomable in that it has always been the strategy before. And it's reasonable that such a significant change in strategy would lead many to believe that WotC has gone "off course and into the weeds".

That is true, but WotC has explained that those earlier strategies wasn't that viable and that is why they are trying something new. It is not a case of them just rolling a result on the "Random Business Strategy" table.

 

[Remathilis]

I have a feeling that many people simply cannot fathom, that WotC would take a strategy so far from what they themselves consider an obviously better one (i.e. releasing plenty of splat books to make a quick buck). They keep waiting for the "just kidding, of course we will release 10 books per year as usual" announcement.

I think a fair amount of us cannot fathom "Feast or Famine" being our only two options.

Why is our only options "10 books per year" or "two modules. Period." Why ISN'T there are least one new rulebook, sourcebook, campaign guide, or somesuch per year?

There are plenty of people who don't want the book of the month club but don't want Princes and Abyss to be our only choices for new content either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why is our only options "10 books per year" or "two modules. Period." Why ISN'T there are least one new rulebook, sourcebook, campaign guide, or somesuch per year?

You say this in a year that has seen the release of Eberron and Seafaring playtest material, class modifications including spell-less rangers and favored souls, mass combat rules, four new races, and about 10 pages of new spells. All for free.

How much of that have you used in your games so far?

 

[Doctor Futurity]

You say this in a year that has seen the release of Eberron and Seafaring playtest material, class modifications including spell-less rangers and favored souls, mass combat rules, four new races, and about 10 pages of new spells. All for free.

How much of that have you used in your games so far?

I'm not the guy you're responding to and I don't have much of an issue with WotC's slow release strategy, but I do feel compelled to point out that all of the UA content has now seen play in my games, suggesting especially for players in my groups who are running warforged, favored souls, minotaurs, seafarers, storm sorcerers and also the players who snagged stuff from the Player's Companion that maybe there is a bit of a desire/need for this stuff.

As GM I am cool right now because I grabbed Fifth Edition Foes and Book of Lost Spells from Frog God Games. I've already used quite a few monsters from FFF and my players are also abusing the hell out of Book of Lost Spells. I personally would really like a MM2 by this time next year but doubt I'll get it.

 

[Corpsetaker]

You say this in a year that has seen the release of Eberron and Seafaring playtest material, class modifications including spell-less rangers and favored souls, mass combat rules, four new races, and about 10 pages of new spells. All for free.

How much of that have you used in your games so far?

Serious question.

Why are you assuming in all of your arguments like this that we all are somehow supposed to like what has been put out so far?

I DO NOT like Eberron so coming out with stuff for Eberron is of no use to me. How about you put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to imagine stuff be putting out that you don't like with no alternative? Why would I use something I don't like?

Please stop telling us there is stuff there to use when it's not liked by some of us.

What happens if you go to a party and they offer nothing but cheese and you don't like cheese. Now mind you they are offering lots of different cheeses. Are you going to sit there and eat it anyway or are you going to want something else?

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'm hearing the same voices that said 5e would be a big flop, because they didn't see what they wanted from the playtest... those voices were proved resoundingly incorrect with the release of 5e. [Edit: I want to rephrase that -- the voices I'm hearing now *sound* like those that claimed 5e would be a flop at the offset. And to be clear: it is not. The books provided are a complete game that will give many, many people years of entertainment, as others have already explained.] It might not have what you and your friends want at your table, but it's a very popular product. I think the same people who were wrong then are still wrong now, and that's why I don't trust the doom and gloom you're selling. I'm sorry you don't like what you see; like I said, I hope in the future you see more that you like from 5e, but if not, there's no reason for you to waste your time waiting for a horse to turn into a camel. They're different beasts and they (likely) always will be. Might as well play a game you enjoy now. I do hope that we see more of WotC's plans, and at the very least, you and those in your position can have either some satisfaction or release.

The problem here is you aren't looking at the whole picture. 4th edition wasn't a flop coming out of the gate neither but it's run was eventually cut short.

There seems to be this narrow notion that if it hasn't flopped yet then it's smooth sailing from here which is not a fact.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not the guy you're responding to and I don't have much of an issue with WotC's slow release strategy, but I do feel compelled to point out that all of the UA content has now seen play in my games, suggesting especially for players in my groups who are running warforged, favored souls, minotaurs, seafarers, storm sorcerers and also the players who snagged stuff from the Player's Companion that maybe there is a bit of a desire/need for this stuff.

As GM I am cool right now because I grabbed Fifth Edition Foes and Book of Lost Spells from Frog God Games. I've already used quite a few monsters from FFF and my players are also abusing the hell out of Book of Lost Spells. I personally would really like a MM2 by this time next year but doubt I'll get it.

I don't know how common your story is, but I think you give a shining example for who would benefit if 5e went truly OGL. That's an active game (or maybe several games?) with high character diversity and an eagerness to embrace new things. I think if every table was like yours, WotC could probably get away with publishing monthly or quarterly splatbooks.

WotC has better data than any of us, but IMXP, the more common group is like my in-person group (or maybe slightly more frequent): at the rate we're going, we won't finish Tyranny of Dragons until probably well into 2016, assuming we don't splinter into sub-groups due to time constraints before then.

Serious question.

Why are you assuming in all of your arguments like this that we all are somehow supposed to like what has been put out so far?

I'm not. But "I don't like what you're offering" and "you aren't offering anything!" are two very different problems. I've been trying to contextualize the latter complaint. We can shift the goalposts if you'd like.

Please stop telling us there is stuff there to use when it's not liked by some of us.

What happens if you go to a party and they offer nothing but cheese and you don't like cheese. Now mind you they are offering lots of different cheeses. Are you going to sit there and eat it anyway or are you going to want something else?

I enjoy myself without eating cheese and then leave and remember to eat a big lunch before I go to that person's party again.

What do you do? Get angry about only being offered cheese and complain that the party is getting stale with only all these cheese and make a great show of how you don't like cheese and tell the hosts that because you're offered nothing but cheese you don't feel supported and want more than just cheese?

You do not come across like a great guest in this analogy.

 

[SigmaOne]

If you go to a cheese party and you don't like cheese, you're bound to be disappointed. The party next door has sausages, I hear.

 

[Corpsetaker]

He meant social media. It has an extremely strong presence on social media amongst fans of this type of game.

Mearls acts like 5th edition did this. It's actually just coincidence because if 4th edition had come out a year ago then it would be all over social media as well. This edition has no direct impact on the social media aspect. Mearls is trying to claim this was all their strategy when it wasn't. Facebook and Twitter are hotter than they have ever been. D&D hasn't changed the playing field, they are just along for the ride like everything else.