D&D 5E Neuroglyph's "30 Minutes with Mike Mearls" Interview

[wedgeski]

I think it is more implied than directly stated. And of course I'm taking what Mearls said, reading between the lines, and comparing it with my own observations. Even this "leap ahead" idea can be interpreted in this manner - as leaping away from traditional RPG design into a form that incorporates "video game-like" elements.

Out of curiosity, do you disagree that 4E has more "video game-like" elements than 5E? That hardly seems like a controversial statement, especially considering that 5E was clearly an attempt to hearken back to a more traditional game.

Oh please just STOP. Every damn thread is dropping into this tired, exhausting refrain.

 

[Iosue]

Out of curiosity, do you disagree that 4E has more "video game-like" elements than 5E? That hardly seems like a controversial statement, especially considering that 5E was clearly an attempt to hearken back to a more traditional game.

I think just about every "video game-like" element that's in 4e is also present in 5e. I would say the prime difference is that 4e openly embraced the MMO idiom. That is, they said, "Video game players are used to this kind of approach into the game (tanking defenders, healing leaders, crowd controllers, mobile strikers, cool down periods, monster PCs, etc.), so if we make these characteristics -- long part of the game -- more salient, it will be a smooth transition for them to get into the game."

5e's approach is more like, "We're going to make these part of the game for people who want to approach it that way, but we're not going to make it the default. People will naturally play the game in the manner they prefer."

 

[DaveMage]

Yeah, I think we're getting a very small bit of the story re: 3E --> 4E in that interview.

There was a lot more going on than it simply being a PHB to PHB issue. To frame it the way he framed it was, well, questionable at best. And a bit disappointing.

But, hey, most of the folks involved in the initial 4E decisions are no longer there, so it really doesn't matter (unless WotC doesn't learn from its mistakes, but it appears they have).

Moving on....

 

[Manbearcat]

Out of curiosity, do you disagree that 4E has more "video game-like" elements than 5E? That hardly seems like a controversial statement, especially considering that 5E was clearly an attempt to hearken back to a more traditional game.

I think just about every "video game-like" element that's in 4e is also present in 5e. I would say the prime difference is that 4e openly embraced the MMO idiom. That is, they said, "Video game players are used to this kind of approach into the game (tanking defenders, healing leaders, crowd controllers, mobile strikers, cool down periods, monster PCs, etc.), so if we make these characteristics -- long part of the game -- more salient, it will be a smooth transition for them to get into the game."

5e's approach is more like, "We're going to make these part of the game for people who want to approach it that way, but we're not going to make it the default. People will naturally play the game in the manner they prefer."

I won't speak for pemerton, but I will speak for someone who is really tired of that edition war salvo (intentional or not) because it's dismissive and also flat out wrong. There seems to be some urgency to frame 4e in the light of the context of either a video game or a board game. The implications therein are abundantly clear; not part of the trad d&d club or somehow less of an RPG (if even one at all). If you don't mean it that way, I would suggest being plain about it or just staying away from it altogether. It's history of being willfully incendiary doesn't perpetuate a good faith dialogue, especially when it's your lead.

With respect to its "wrongness", I think Iosue has a pretty good handle on the issue with his post above, specifically the "long a part of the game" (but now transparent and coherently engineered) statement. But there is more to it, including melee control being a real life "thing" so actually more "fiction-first" than a combat engine that doesn't include it. From a WoW perspective, I played the game at the cutting edge of content from its release through Spring of 2009. Actual 4e play by proficient GMs and players who grok it bears absolutely 0 resemblance to WoW or any other MMO.

4e did a few things that are regularly trotted out (typically by edition warriors) as "video gamey":

1) Transparent, coherent, codified combat roles.

2) Defender mechanics, specifically Marking.

3) The "level treadmill" and the feedback system that you've correlated to a Skinner Box phenomenon in a prior post (thus alluding to MMO operant conditioning being intrinsic to 4e).

I don't care to break out a longer dissection of these 1-3 until I'm sure I've nailed down the telltale video game markers that you feel are intentionally embedded into 4e (which move it away from the TTRPG segment and toward the MMO or CRPG segment). Does that cover it?

 

[Haffrung]

I think just about every "video game-like" element that's in 4e is also present in 5e. I would say the prime difference is that 4e openly embraced the MMO idiom. That is, they said, "Video game players are used to this kind of approach into the game (tanking defenders, healing leaders, crowd controllers, mobile strikers, cool down periods, monster PCs, etc.), so if we make these characteristics -- long part of the game -- more salient, it will be a smooth transition for them to get into the game."

That was my experience. The terminology of strikers, controllers, marking, etc. was absolutely baffling to my players. Not only were the terms alien, but we had never thought of classes in terms of their tactical role (we never used a grid). Wizards use magic. Fighters fight things. Thieves sneak around and steal things. When a player wanted to create a Ranger, I explained to him there were two kinds - a Hunter, who was a controller (we were playing Essentials), and a Scout, who was a striker. He didn't know what I was talking about. And when I explained it, he still didn't really understand, being unaccustomed to thinking of classes in terms of a tactical combat role. He ended up taking the striker (Scout) because it looked easier.

I can't speak for people coming to 4E from MMOs, but a group of players coming to the game (even the more traditional Essentials version) with 30 years experience found it a jarring transition. In the end we quite enjoyed it, but as a game with a different focus and mindset than we were accustomed to. We played for eight months, and none of my players ever bought a 4E book, more or less relying on me to run the mechanics of the game. But after an introduction to the 5E PHB and a couple hours going over character generation, they all went out and bought the PHB.

 

[Plaguescarred]

What I found most interesting was the talk about PDFs. It sounds like they have ideas of what they'd like to do, but no solid plans. In fact, that seems to describe much of the future of the edition. They're taking a slow, deliberate approach to whatever they do.

I agree i also found interesting the approach to PDF by breaking down book contents, which may better suit DungeonScape a-la-carte buying model.

 

[Wrathamon]

I still find 3e to be more video game like in the massive amounts of "buffing" before a boss fight and giant inventory of items I collect to sell to the vendor.

4e felt more like a boardgame ... which is probably why it works so well as a boardgame with the boardgames based on it.

 

[GSHamster]

In other words, both 4e and 5e are designed under the assumption that new players coming to them have played online/computer RPGs.

The influence of WoW on 4e was that, like WoW and Halo, 4e tried to be ahead of its time.

The influence of WoW on 5e is that, like WoW and Skyrim, 5e has "pew pew" magic.

Did I miss something?

My take on this issue is 4E tried to compete with WoW by emphasizing similarities and the more structured mechanics in MMOs.

5E is trying to compete with WoW by emphasizing the differences, the human factor of the DM.

 

[pemerton]

do you disagree that 4E has more "video game-like" elements than 5E? That hardly seems like a controversial statement, especially considering that 5E was clearly an attempt to hearken back to a more traditional game.

Well, the only video-game-like element that Mearls identifies is "pew pew" magic, which is in both.

I don't play video games, but I have friends, including RPG friends, who do. When I think of the elements that are characteristic of video games I think of images on screens, inputting commands via a keyboard, and the absence of meaningful fiction (there is flavour text, and there are superficial tropes, but no genuine theme or plot). In both 4e and 5e representation is primarily by way of the spoken word (ie no screens), input is primarily via the spoken word and resolution is either free-form RP or via manually executed maths (ie no keyboard inputs to a computer), and at least in my 4e experiences meaningful fiction is the order of the day.

The terminology of strikers, controllers, marking, etc. was absolutely baffling to my players. Not only were the terms alien, but we had never thought of classes in terms of their tactical role (we never used a grid). Wizards use magic. Fighters fight things. Thieves sneak around and steal things.

<snip>

I can't speak for people coming to 4E from MMOs, but a group of players coming to the game (even the more traditional Essentials version) with 30 years experience found it a jarring transition.

As someone who has never played a MMO, and who never used a grid or tokens as part of combat resolution prior to playing 4e, I can report that I didn't find the terminology baffling, nor the "transition" jarring.

In all the fantasy RPGs I've played, wizards also fight things (using spells like magic missile, fireball, etc) and thieves also fight things (by ambushing/backstabbing, and also as light skirmishers). So fighters aren't distinctive in their propensity to fight. And it was clear to me that a striker was a skirmisher (a bit like the classic D&D fighter/thief, kensai or warrior monk), a leader was a healer/buffer (the classic D&D cleric), a defender was a front-line combatant (one version of the classic D&D fighter, paladin or fighter/cleric) and a controller was a classic D&D wizard (using AoEs and conjurations).

These different character types were all familiar to me from playing D&D and other fantasy RPGs for a couple of decades, and certainly don't depend for their definition on the use of a grid.

Maybe this was because I've played and GMed a lot of Rolemaster, and so was more familiar than some D&D players with the idea that a single wizard can't be good at everything but has to focus somewhat, and also with the difference between skirmishing warrriors and front-line warriors (RM's movement, armour and ambush rules make this distinction more important than it is in AD&D). But that has nothing to do with MMOs: Rolemaster reached its 25th birthday as an RPG before the release of 4e.

4e openly embraced the MMO idiom. That is, they said, "Video game players are used to this kind of approach into the game (tanking defenders, healing leaders, crowd controllers, mobile strikers, cool down periods, monster PCs, etc.), so if we make these characteristics -- long part of the game -- more salient, it will be a smooth transition for them to get into the game."

That's probably right - because I'm not an MMO player, I can't really tell except via the reports of those who are.

What I can say is that having the designers state what they think a class is good for - and, as a corollary, trying to ensure that no class was good at everything - didn't seem to me to do any harm. And from the get-go I've never experienced roles as "straitjackets".

The sorcerer in my game is a damage dealer who also controls (mostly via forced movement) and does the occasional party-wide buff (bard multi-class).

The fighter is a martial controller (lots of close bursts and polearm stuff) which means that he also deals quite a bit of damage (but spread over multiple targets).

The ranger is mostly a "pew-pew" archer but has important debuff capability (Disruptive Strike) and is also a hybrid cleric for healing and a bit of AoE.

The wizard/invoker is the party "skill monkey" and ritualist, who in combat does very modest damage, facilitates party mobility (teleports, invoker slides, etc) and has a few big control/debuff abilities (blinding, domination).

The paladin is tough, helps out with healing and a bit of buffing and debuffing, and engages single foes with quite good damage, especially vs bloodied targets. He's probably the least focused PC overall.

 

[Raith5]

I can't speak for people coming to 4E from MMOs, but a group of players coming to the game (even the more traditional Essentials version) with 30 years experience found it a jarring transition. In the end we quite enjoyed it, but as a game with a different focus and mindset than we were accustomed to. We played for eight months, and none of my players ever bought a 4E book, more or less relying on me to run the mechanics of the game. But after an introduction to the 5E PHB and a couple hours going over character generation, they all went out and bought the PHB.

Yeah I remember not really understanding 4e when I first read it. But when I played it I really enjoyed it. The things that stand out for me about why I enjoy it was the ways 4e mechanics reward teambased play - roles are a part of that - but many of these roles reinforced existing practices across the history of D&D rather than being totally new ideas. I (and my group) also really liked the increased options for martial classes. For sure I still find PC generation and leveling up to a bit of a chore sometimes - too many fiddly powers and feats, but I still like more options rather than none.

FWIW, I dont understand the narrative of 4e is board game/ computer game. For one far more computer games stemmed out of earlier editions of D&D (including the Eye of the Beholder series in the 80s and the Baldurs Gate series later on) than 4e. Also I have played with miniatures and tokens since 1e so I have understood the idea that "the grid" was some new innovation that has become almost a slur for some. I just dont understand how the mechanics of 4e hindered, undermined or limited the capacity of players to roleplay.