Miniatures and Madness - Legends and Lore by Mike Mearls

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) which player choice should be encouraged?

This phrase is problematic in a philosophy that strives for meaningful choices to be made by players, and when the former is hardwired into adventures it runs the risk of becoming railroading.

 

[pemerton]

Mark CMG, you've slightly misquoted me. The phrase from which you've extracted that quote reads:

the dimension of significance in respect of which player choice should be encouraged

In the phrase I actually wrote, the pronoun which refers to the dimension of significance. As you quote me, though, you create the impression that the pronoun which refers to player choice.

So you create the impression that I was talking about encouraging one particular player choice - ie railroading. Whereas the point I was making is that different approaches to writing an adventure open up different dimensions of significant choice. The three dimensions that I contrasted were those of operations, of tactics and of moral/political allegiance. I'm sure that there are other dimensions to be identified also.

An adventure doesn't become a railroad because it makes one or the other of these dimensions more salient. In fact if it did, then most of the classic TSR modules would count as railroads, because they all make the operational dimension highly salient, whilst offering nothing, or virtually nothing, in the dimension of moral and political allegiance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I linked to that review on the recent B2 discussion thread and didn't get any responses. This is more like what I was expecting! (And yes, I think it is a serious review. And like I said on that other thread, I think it gives a reasonable account of the limitations of that module for an inexperienced GM.

I find that many reviews of B2 do not adequately acknowledge what is plainly printed on the front cover within a highlighted stamp that draws the eye:

Special Instructional Module

B1 and B2 were both designed primarily as an aid to new DMs. B1 was a fully fleshed out dungeon environment awaiting monsters and treasures to be placed. The DM was expected to practice the placement of things. Lists of creatures and treasures in the back of the module showed the new DM what sorts of threats and rewards were about right for the setting and scope of play. The "fluff" as it were, was fully detailed and very rich letting the new DM concentrate on designing the meat and potatos of the module.

B2 was different. In a way it was a great companion to B1 as an instructional module. B2 was overflowing with meat and potatos. The "fluff" was sparse to allow new DMs to generate as they wished. This module was a lesson in setting design. The people in the keep? Name them yourself, make the place your own. I don't understand how a module that does all the thinking and detailing for a new DM is supposedly helping him/her out. If the objective is teaching, then the student must be allowed to grasp the subject matter and work with it a bit. Modules that detail everything are great time savers but they don't teach anything.

An instructional module should be sparse in those areas that a DM is supposed to gain strength in. Teaching is supposedly going to make the DM better at the role. Remember that modules like this, and the rules-light systems for them produced some strong DMs. If anything kids have gotten smarter over the years. Why wouldn't they benefit from adventures that require more DM input?

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark CMG, you've slightly misquoted me. The phrase from which you've extracted that quote reads:

In the phrase I actually wrote, the pronoun which refers to the dimension of significance. As you quote me, though, you create the impression that the pronoun which refers to player choice.

So you create the impression that I was talking about encouraging one particular player choice - ie railroading. Whereas the point I was making is that different approaches to writing an adventure open up different dimensions of significant choice. The three dimensions that I contrasted were those of operations, of tactics and of moral/political allegiance. I'm sure that there are other dimensions to be identified also.

An adventure doesn't become a railroad because it makes one or the other of these dimensions more salient.

Yes and, as said, the "phrase is problematic" no matter what you tack it onto because it suggests a design preference (regardless of which preference) which steers rather than merely presents. Drop that phrase and I think the rest of the philosophy (plus the addendum) has stronger legs.

 

[Puggins]

I don't understand how a thread discussing Mike Mearls' preference regarding the use of miniatures in D&D, which is in line with a majority of BECMI/1e players' experience, transitions into people arguing about whether Mearls' views in general are old school.

He's advocating opening a door that old-schoolers have been yelling about for years- what's the problem?

 

[Mark CMG]

Leaving aside the "majority" claim . . .

He's advocating opening a door that old-schoolers have been yelling about for years- what's the problem?

Which "old schoolers" have been yelling about what now? I'm not sure I am following you.

 

[Herschel]

I don't understand how a thread discussing Mike Mearls' preference regarding the use of miniatures in D&D, which is in line with a majority of BECMI/1e players' experience, transitions into people arguing about whether Mearls' views in general are old school.

He's advocating opening a door that old-schoolers have been yelling about for years- what's the problem?

Mike Mearls didn't study slavishly at the feat of one E. Gary Gygax and sign his praises in every post, memo and signature he writes.

Yep, Mike Mearls ruined slavish devotion and political blindness.

Or worse yet, if he actually throws a bone to the grognards, Mike Mearls will ruin the term Old School!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Mike Mearls didn't study slavishly at the feat of one E. Gary Gygax and sign his praises in every post, memo and signature he writes.

Yep, Mike Mearls ruined slavish devotion and political blindness.

Or worse yet, if he actually throws a bone to the grognards, Mike Mearls will ruin the term Old School!

Why do you have to be so mean to the guy?

 

[Herschel]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/290165-mike-mearls-ruined-everything.html

 

[pemerton]

it suggests a design preference (regardless of which preference) which steers rather than merely presents.

Can you give me an example of an adventure which is neutral as between its support for meaningful player choices in the dimensions of operations, tactics, and morality/politics?

I don't know any off the top of my head.