D&D 5E Open Letter to Mike Mearls from a pro game dev

[Alzrius]

If D&D doesn't have the mechanical tools to provide for such things, then I assume you haven't come across any spells or magic items which cause permanent or temporary debilitating effects. Let me assure you that those spells/items do exist, and provide mechanical support for just such debilitation.

You've misunderstood what I was saying there. I was saying that D&D does not go to that level of granularity with regards to combat, not that it cannot. Obviously it has the ability to do so, as there are effects that can slow someone down or make them feel physically weakened. However, the game deliberately eschews having those effects crop up regularly in combat, saving them for things like spells or magic items.

I may have needed to word my reasoning there better, though.

 

[Mercurius]

Hanging out on Enworld is not a credential. (hint : credentials are those things where others consider your opinions and talents to be worth actual currency)

As with all communities, reputations (and credentials) are built up over time. Post-count is a kind of credential, as is "xp level"; I'm not saying they are good credentials, but they do mean something - namely that a user has put in the time and been around long enough likely to have accumulated some understanding and respect. Furthermore, this is a hobby where we're all game designers to some degree, and it goes beyond armchair quarterbacking. The nature of the game is that it is a toolkit that can be modified, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an experienced DM who hasn't house ruled, or tinkered with their own game design. This doesn't make them (us) "professional," but it does mean that you can't write them (us) off so easily and create an artificial bifurcation between the credentialed and non-credentialed.

I've made all types of games, including RPGs. Table-top RPGs, no, but those obey the same set of logic and narrative consistency rules as do many other computer-based ones. Logic is universal, game design is not strictly limited to what type of processor it's run on (the human mind vs a multi-core GPU). Sure, the human mind is vastly superior in many ways, but what I can make a computer do in real time would make most DMs feel like the Reaper kicked in the door to the bathroom stall and said "time's up" while they were on the throne.

See, here you both make a good point and almost get to another, but perpetuate a mis-understanding that, well, led to a lot of the issues around 4E. It is an over-simplification to say that computer and table top games "obey the same set of logic and narrative consistency rules." But more so, the human mind is not a "processor" in the same way that a GPU is. The main difference is kind of important: imagination. Computer games are, by and large, designed as replacements for the imagination, not as ways to stimulate it.

I mean, I get and agree that all stories are stories, and logic is logic, but we run into big issues when we treat the human mind as a computer processor. That's what I'd call a gross reductionism.

snip

Morrus wins the thread.

Man, I hate these "trust me, I'm awesome" posts that appear once in a while here and in some other message boards I follow. Why people feel it's necessary to ground their opinions in this kind of fake authority? It's terrible.

LOL, I hear you. Its sort of like saying, "Sleep with me, honey - because I'm really a super hero."

Seriously though, I think the larger point is that one shouldn't have to ground one's opinions in any kind of authority or credential. An opinion or viewpoint should stand on its own merit. Now if Mike Mearls popped in and offered a view on D&D, I'd perk up and take it seriously partially because of who he is, but the view expressed wouldn't necessarily hold more merit than a random bloke with only a handful of posts on EN World.

If anything I'd suggest that shouting "I've got credentials, thus you should take my opinion seriously!" actually hurts the opinion of the person shouting it, or at least obfuscates it with false bravado (which is what happened in this thread).

Damage on a Miss really hits all of the great gamer debates in a single massive swing.

It's a bit if gamist design, so it impacts gamist vs simulationist debates.
Because it's giving martial characters something spellcasters have long had, it's bringing in QWLF and the complaint "martials can't have anything nice."
Because reaping strike was a PHB1 power and most dailies dealt some damage, DoaM was a big part of 4e design, bringing in edition wars and tension between OSR and modern design.

It's pushing all the buttons at once.

Good point.

 

[Obryn]

Despite problems with the tone of the OP, he does list a staggering number of examples and problems with DoaM in the first post and not a single poster here has replied to them or tried to address them. There are almost not quotes of the first post. It's actually an impressively comprehensive summary.

Because anything interesting has already been said. Repeatedly. Loudly. Before the OP. I find it almost incomprehensible anyone cares enough to put words together about it anymore.

The only thing interesting - if that's even the right word - is the arrogance and condescension. So there's no surprise that's what this thread has become about.

What I can say for certain - threads like this make me a whole lot less likely to play 5e if this is the sort of thing that drives change in the rule set.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Damage on a Miss really hits all of the great gamer debates in a single massive swing.

It's a bit if gamist design, so it impacts gamist vs simulationist debates.
Because it's giving martial characters something spellcasters have long had, it's bringing in QWLF and the complaint "martials can't have anything nice."
Because reaping strike was a PHB1 power and most dailies dealt some damage, DoaM was a big part of 4e design, bringing in edition wars and tension between OSR and modern design.

It's pushing all the buttons at once.

The funny thing is, I don't remember 'damage on a miss' being a part of the edition wars during the transition from 3x -> 4e. People got upset over lots of things that, in retrospect, seem quite silly (and occasionally things that were legitimate). So you'd think someone would have honed in on the cardinal sin that is DoaM. But I don't recall it being a hotly debated issue.

Despite problems with the tone of the OP, he does list a staggering number of examples and problems with DoaM in the first post and not a single poster here has replied to them or tried to address them. There are almost not quotes of the first post. It's actually an impressively comprehensive summary.

The problem is, it is a little TOO comprehensive, and poorly written to boot. I skimmed the first couple of paragraphs, said "This goes on for HOW long???" and skipped the rest.

Someone said somewhere below that if you want to write persuasively you have to trim down to your best arguments. This is true. It also helps to make you arguments readable and of a reasonable length.

 

[Dausuul]

One of the HUGE problems with the DoaM debate is that everyone knows their lines. I think half the posters here just saw this thread was about DoaM, skipped reading the rest of the thread, and jumped right into their usual rebuttal.

Despite problems with the tone of the OP, he does list a staggering number of examples and problems with DoaM in the first post and not a single poster here has replied to them or tried to address them.

Not true. I addressed a bunch of them; they range from reasonable to hyperbolic to flat-out wrong. And I'm on the anti-DoaM side! Sometimes the fail is so strong that you have to repudiate it even when you agree with the conclusion. Nor am I the only one--I've seen a couple of other anti-DoaM folks joking that they were going to switch sides because of the OP's post.

Re-posting my response (since it got added in an edit because I prefer not to throw out a bunch of posts in a row):

• The higher level you get, and thus better accuracy, the less the fighter will benefit from his fighting style. As you gain levels, you can expect to fight more foes with high AC, so the benefit remains.
  
• Thrown versatile weapons such as warhammers, spears and tridents can never miss a prone, invisible target when thrown. This is absurd. GWF only applies in melee.
  
• All objects being attacked, no matter how small or well guarded, will be automatically destroyed. This has nothing to do with GWF. 5E doesn't have damage reduction for objects, so if you take enough whacks at anything, you'll destroy it no matter what. I would like to see this remedied, but changing GWF won't help. On the other hand, if Gorgoroth means "destroyed in one swing," then s/he's simply wrong; objects have hit points and most of them have more than 5.
• No human is so perfect that he can never fail to harm his opponent any time he attacks them. No human is so perfect that s/he can count on being able to survive a hit from a longsword, either. This is irrelevant.
  
• If used against PCs, they will not appreciate the DM being able to kill them without any input or agency from either D20s or damage dice. Automatic unavoidable damage hits PCs all the time. If you're caught in a fireball and don't have some kind of Evasion-type ability, you take a minimum of 3 damage no matter what. This complaint is just silly.
  
• It ignores which weapon you're using, so a longsword used two-handed has the same effect as a greatsword or greataxe. Removing the importance of weapon selection is something feedback rejected. GWF does not "remove the importance of weapon selection." It just means weapon selection doesn't matter to the amount of damage you do when you miss. Hey, you know what? If you don't have GWF, your weapon selection still doesn't affect the amount of damage you do when you miss.
• It completely negates all defensive fighting styles : AC +1 ? Useless. Granting disadvantage? Useless. Investing into 30 AC, with artifacts, spells, buffs, invisibility, disadvantage? Useless. Bollocks. If your opponent has GWF, you are still better off not being hit (taking only Strength mod damage) than being hit (taking Strength mod plus weapon damage plus other bonus damage).
• There is no point in rolling to-hit or damage when a fighter attacks a foe he knows has less than his GWF damage. This can be
  20, or it could be 50, 60 per round. Insta-kill terminators, here we come! This is just completely off the rails. The highest Strength score a PC can ever have in 5E is 29, and that's using an artifact! The absolute highest you could ever possibly deal with GWF is 36 per round, and that's at 20th level. Without the artifact, it's 20. 50-60 is flat impossible. If you're going to say stuff like this, I don't see how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Deset Gled]

My guess is much more precise: Zero. I don't believe any tabletop RPG developers pull down six figures for RPG development.

The more I think about it, you're probably right. I started thinking of a list, and every example I could come up with was actually a manager, marketeer, or corporate/owner of some type.

 

[Umbran]

Plug your ears, and while you're doing that you'll miss out on the realization that talking about these bugs for months has resulted in MM and his team arguing amongst themselves, and an iminent L&L article to be published.

We have already had months of discussion on this.

You claim that these months of discussion have already had their impact.

Mearls (your stated intended audience) has not posted here in nearly a year - he isn't an active user, so I don't see how this is a good venue or method for attaining your desired goal.

So, really, this thread is superfluous. In addition, the presentation has had an inflammatory effect, so that folks are rude to you and you are rude to them.

That seems to place the thread in the realm of "source of acrimony, but with little other value" box. Thread closed.

 

[Morrus]

So, we've discussed this. We feel the "how" of playtest feedback is a topic worth discussing, and so the thread will stay open for now. But everyone - please mind your manners.

 

[Cadence]

The thought of something like this appearing as a petition on whitehouse.gov just came to me and refuses to leave without being typed out. (Sorry).

 

[Savage Wombat]

Boy, you don't check the forum for one day...

I don't think anyone minded 4e having DoaM because it was for specific attacks at limited usage/day. Having an "always on" feat option might have raised the same hackles.

And I agree with the remark about this topic and pre-rehearsed scripts.