Miniatures and Madness - Legends and Lore by Mike Mearls

[frankthedm]

I'm thinking that Mearls can only really say this now that the DDM have been canceled. It may even be that this is the first sign that WotC is (hopefully!) moving back to a "minis optional" approach. If they aren't going to produce their own minis, they almost have to.

I like using miniatures, but I don't like having to use them (without major rules revision/ignoring).

After spending years hoarding minis, I too am starting to feel this way.

 

[Mark CMG]

And in my experience you'll find that eight or nine of those gamers will agree with the others, even if they all stated different things.

Consensus - it's what's for dinner!

(. . .)

Knowing the rules to an old-school game is not the same as understanding why those rules are what they are and how they're intended to work together; judging from many of the things Mr Mearls wrote over the years, and an exchange I had with him directly on these boards, I've found that he's woefully ill-informed.I can't imagine how hard it must be to have one's icons crticized on an intreweb message board.

One need only read any number of threads on these boards of some early RPG experiences, and how the rules can be misinterpreted and misapplied, to know how easy it is for someone to play an entirely different game with the same rulseset than someone else. However, a trip to GaryCon III in Lake Geneva in March would get someone on the right track, as well as confirm that most Old School players have the same things in mind about old school style play even if they sometimes express things somewhat differently.

I've read enough of Mike Mearls d20 stuff and more recent offerings, particularly essays, to believe that he has some unusual ideas in regard to how to bring an old school feel to modern game rule sensibilities. The two essays most recently quoted/linked in threads here on EN World and other design concepts like monsters being stripped down to just what they can do in a single combat, as well as the extreme balancing of classes in the most recent version of the rules from WotC, all lead me to believe that he and I do not share the same sense of how a D&D experience manifests.

Granted, some of what has become his vision of D&D is restricted by the WotC mandate to move away from the OGL and protect IP from possible game-cloning, but those even with those directives set aside, gameplay is substantially different enough under Mearls D&D than under any edition I have played since 1974, and 3.XE was already a rather expansive rules evolution.

Mind you this is from someone who has played countless other RPG systems and finds many of them fairly close to a D&D experience despite some pretty big rules differences. And also from someone who has played countless wargames, minis games, card game and boardgames over four decades of hobby gaming. (The big tent I believe exists isn't just a D&D tent but moreso a tabletop RPG tent or even a larger tabletop gamer tent. Trying to narrow it to enclose all of D&D doesn't really work, IMO.)

I'm running a 3.XE this week without minis to see how it plays. I've done this before with decent results but have had some ideas about how to do it more effectively since that previous attempt, so I'll see how that goes. I'm wondering how many of the rules that some believe are tied to the grid alone can be put forth in a prose context and remain meaningful and useful. We'll see.

 

[Dausuul]

*shrug* Fine. I'm not particularly attached to the term "old-school," so I'll revise my statement: Mike Mearls is up-front about his enjoyment of TSR-era D&D.

 

[Mercurius]

I can't imagine how hard it must be to have one's icons crticized on an intreweb message board.

Really. I can't imagine it.

Ummm....OK, Shaman. Mike Mearls isn't my "icon" (do you mean idol?) and my comment has nothing to do with him. What it has to do with is the snobbish attitude about old school gaming, as if it is an elite club that only those who have smelled E Gary Gygax's body odor are part of. What's the secret handshake?

 

[RandallS]

Mearls does a good job laying out the two extremes, but I prefer the 3.0 approach of defaulting to no miniatures while rewarding miniature use.

Same here, I really don't like having to use minis in RPG combat. As an option for those who like that level of detail in combat (and the resulting longer combats), they are great. As a practical requirement to play, they just just turn me off to playing the game at all.

This is the one place I think GURPS got it right with a set of "basic" combat rules that did not need counters/minis and grids and a set of "advanced" combat rules that required them. This allows both groups who like abstract combat and those who like minis skirmish combat to play the same RPG.

 

[Herschel]

I think I understand teh 5E direction: WotC is tired of fickle buyers and wants to get away from needing a DM. No minis, no pogs, but ladies and gentlemen, I give you 5E:

LARP

 

[S'mon]

GM's judgement, definitely. The official 3.5/4e approach is ok for an adversarial wargame, but terrible in an RPG.

 

[The Shaman]

Ummm....OK, Shaman. Mike Mearls isn't my "icon" (do you mean idol?) . . .

No, I meant icon.

. . . and my comment has nothing to do with him. What it has to do with is the snobbish attitude about old school gaming, as if it is an elite club that only those who have smelled E Gary Gygax's body odor are part of.

It's not snobbery to point out that someone who claims Alfred Sisley is an Expressionist is simply wrong.

That's an analogy, btw. I don't know if I've ever read anything on pleine-aire painters from Mr Mearls.

I've searched and searched without luck for a series of posts and replies between Mr Mearls and myself on this board years ago; I think they may have been swallowed by The Great Board Crash back on ought-four or ought-five. Seriously, the depth and breadth of his lack of understanding on some fundamental issues of early D&D was breathtaking, and I really wish I had the links to share with you.

Until or unless I can turn up those posts, you can acquaint yourself with Mr Mearls' tenuous grasp of old-school gaming by reading his essays on the rust monster and wandering monsters, among others.

 

[Fifth Element]

Until or unless I can turn up those posts, you can acquaint yourself with Mr Mearls' tenuous grasp of old-school gaming by reading his essays on the rust monster and wandering monsters, among others.

I think the problem is the idea that old school gaming means one thing and one thing only.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I'd be really interested to see what Mearls would come up with if he was given free reign to design his ideal version of D&D - without having to take into account the market, WotC, other designers, etc. Just starting with a blank sheet of paper and creating the game that he'd want to play. I'd be really curious to see the result.