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

[pemerton]

I'm primarily an MMO player. Here's how I see 4E moved closer to MMOs (at least those of the WoW generation)

1, More defined roles.

<snip>

2. The encounter as the central unit.

<snip>

3. Powers for all classes, especially non-magic ones. Before 4E, warriors just attacked. In 4E they used specific powers.

<snip>

4. More emphasis on tactical movement, including positioning and things like knockbacks, etc.

I'm mostly a RPG player.

As I think I already mentioned upthread, the idea of "roles" - front-line fighter, skirmisher, wall-caster, etc - was something I was already fairly familiar with from RPGing (Rolemaster emhasised it more than AD&D, except for the buffer/healer which is a straight-down-the-line cleric).

The idea of "powers" rather than basic attacks was also something I was familiar with from Rolemaster. And it was present in 3E, too, via feats. Not to mention different forms of implementation in non-D&D RPGs like eg The Dying Earth. The innovation in 4e, from my perspective, was not giving fighters powers, but recognising that rationing schemes that had been part of the game since 1974 could be extended beyond spell casters to solve the problem of giving players of martial PCs interesting options while avoiding either low success chances or spamming. The insight here is that rationing of powers can be on a metagame logic rather than an ingame (Vancian) logic. This design insight is something I associate with indie-RPGs (though "plot points" existed in games like James Bond going back to the mid-80s), not MMOs.

The encounter as the central unit of play was a feature of indie RPGs since at least Maelstrom Storyteling in 1996. I discovered it, by accident and evolution of my GMing style, in the mid-80s, but became more consicous of it since reading the Forge in 2004.

For me, the only new feature of 4e was the tactical movement/positioning, although there were earlier RPGs that made positioning a central element of melee combat (eg Burning Wheel).

I think if someone was familiar with developments in RPGs since the mid-90s (especially outside D&D/d20) then 4e would be less surprising. To me, it basically read as the version of D&D you would write if you had read the Forge essays, the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and like fiddly mechanical options in combat (and so had a history of playing Rolemaster, Runequest or a similar rules-heavy game).

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I think if someone was familiar with developments in RPGs since the mid-90s (especially outside D&D/d20) then 4e would be less surprising. To me, it basically read as the version of D&D you would write if you had read the Forge essays, the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and like fiddly mechanical options in combat (and so had a history of playing Rolemaster, Runequest or a similar rules-heavy game).

You know, just because you saw those same things evolving from other RPGs, it doesn't mean that they were the source that 4E designers were using as inspiration.

In fact, between the thesis that WotC designers were trying to make D&D interesting to WoW players and the thesis that WotC designers were trying to make D&D interesting to players of a bunch of RPGs that never came near the popularity of D&D, I believe the first completely tramples the second.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Interesting interview. Thanks Neuroglyph.

I wonder when Morrus' interview with Ryan Dancey will be posted.

 

[ppaladin123]

I think that's a pretty good insight. Assuming you're right, the 5E strategy is much better. An RPG is never going to be a better MMO than an MMO and trying is a losing proposition.

I don't honestly understand how there's a debate about about WoW's influence on 4E. At the time4E came out, I'd played every edition since 1980 and I played WoW for about 2 years, so I was pretty familiar with both, and when I read the 4E books I saw stuff that looked like WoW to me all through it. I know it's controversial and I don't care to debate the particulars, but that was definitely my impression.

When I started playing WoW I remember saying, "Hey they took a lot of stuff from D&D," too.

 

[pemerton]

You know, just because you saw those same things evolving from other RPGs, it doesn't mean that they were the source that 4E designers were using as inspiration.

But the fact that Rob Heinsoo said that they were drawing upon indie RPG design seems relevant. Mearls also had a long connection to the indie RPG scene before he went to WotC.

The reason they included indie RPG elements wasn't because they thought people would recognise them. It's because they thought they make for good games.

Similarly, I'm sure that most people who love Backgrounds and One Unique Thing in 13th Age don't recognise their origins in Tweet's 20-year old game Over the Edge. That doesn't mean that Tweet wasn't borrowing from his earlier design. He's recycling what he regards as good RPG design.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

But the fact that Rob Heinsoo said that they were drawing upon indie RPG design seems relevant. Mearls also had a long connection to the indie RPG scene before he went to WotC.

What I'm seeing from that quote is that Rob believes that 4E shares some traits with indie games, which I agree. On the other hand, we have statements by Mike Mearls, and also other designers at WotC at the time that all agree that 4E was designed thinking about what would catch the attention of people with a WoW or WoW-like (not an indie game) background.

I know that 4E supporters feel that's almost imperative to defend against this kind of comparison, because it has frequently been used in an aggressive manner, but, as I've said earlier, I love WoW and I don't believe being influenced by one of the most successful videogames of all time is a demerit at all. Also, of all things "non-D&D" about 4E, no WoW similarities make the list of the offenders, if you ask me*.

That said, it's hard to defend that WoW was not a big influence and that the similarities between the two games (I mean, those that start with 4E) were not intentional. Maybe you got it right and a lot of people got it wrong, but as long as we can't be certain either way, I'll still believe all similarities were very intentional.

Cheers!

*Ok, maybe the 4E redesign of tieflings made them too draenei-like for my own taste.

 

[Uchawi]

It is hard not to defend that roleplaying games and RPGs have a dual, symbiotic relationship, ever since the computer and RPGs existed. There is no way to remove how each has influenced each other. That is just a constant backdrop.

 

[Iosue]

What I'm seeing from that quote is that Rob believes that 4E shares some traits with indie games, which I agree. On the other hand, we have statements by Mike Mearls, and also other designers at WotC at the time that all agree that 4E was designed thinking about what would catch the attention of people with a WoW or WoW-like (not an indie game) background.

I know that 4E supporters feel that's almost imperative to defend against this kind of comparison, because it has frequently been used in an aggressive manner, but, as I've said earlier, I love WoW and I don't believe being influenced by one of the most successful videogames of all time is a demerit at all. Also, of all things "non-D&D" about 4E, no WoW similarities make the list of the offenders, if you ask me*.

There are also a few examples where Andy Collins admits that they took from many sources, including MMOs, CCGs, and Euro boardgames. Here's an example of Rob Heinsoo saying, "WoW players coming to Fourth Edition will probably be comfortable with the idea that Fourth Edition player characters get to make an interesting choice of a new power or ability every time they go up a level. That was missing from earlier editions of D&D."

I agree 100% that this is not at all a demerit. It might not be to someone's taste, and certainly I enjoy the innovations of 4e while also feeling that in many ways it doesn't scratch the same itch that B/X does. I can't fault 4e for reaching for the stars, and attempt to create a version of D&D that was easily accessible by all kinds of gamers, be that MMO players, CCG players, indie RPG players, or Eurogame players. They took a chance. Even if in retrospect, it didn't work out like they hoped, I have to respect the attempt. Heck, that kind of innovation is what gave birth to RPGs in the first place. Nor do I consider those design innovations themselves alone to blame for it not working out. There's a lot luck involved, too. What if the recession hadn't hit just as 4e came out? What if 4e had been OGL? What if 3e hadn't? What if the marketing had not been perceived so negatively? What if the Digital Initiative had worked out as originally planned? Change any or all of these factors, and 4e might have been a mainstream success, vindicating the innovations.

Slightly changing the subject, Mearls' talk of players going PHB to PHB, rather than through all the splats of an edition, reasonated very much with me. When I got back into D&D after a long hiatus, a lot of the discussion surrounding 3e and 4e was completely alien to me. At first I resented it, thinking that WotC changed the game a bridge too far with 3e. But as I got more caught up, I realized that a lot of 3e came from late 2e (which I was not familiar with). When I first looked at the 3e rules, my first impression was that it seemed like a mashup of 2e and 4e. Had I not gotten involved with a 4e group and enjoyed playing, it's possible I wouldn't have looked further, and stayed with older editions. I don't think it accounts for all the blowback 3e or 4e got from fans of previous editions, but I do think it's a thing.

 

[Haffrung]

I think if someone was familiar with developments in RPGs since the mid-90s (especially outside D&D/d20) then 4e would be less surprising. To me, it basically read as the version of D&D you would write if you had read the Forge essays, the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and like fiddly mechanical options in combat (and so had a history of playing Rolemaster, Runequest or a similar rules-heavy game).

That may be the case. But a very large part of the D&D fanbase has no interest in - or even knowledge of - indie RPGs. That makes them far more conservative than the hardcore RPG crowd who play a half-dozen games a year and eagerly seek out the newest and most innovative games. I know the conservatism of the hobby's most successful game is frustrating to hobbyists who love innovation. But it's a fact on the ground that WotC simply can't ignore. 4E showed that D&D isn't simply a marketing label that can be slapped on any game. It really is an actually game to a lot of people, with limits on how much it can be changed without sparking a backlash. And I believe it's a game that has remained so popular in part because of the mechanics, not in spite of them. The indie game design revolution isn't going to be carried out by the flagship game in the hobby.