...I think he was talking in terms of official supplements. I was talking in terms of taking a game and fixing it by houserules.
I understand, though I don't think it's a distinction that matters. Sure, if one's houserules consist of just a few simple rules, it's not going to add a noticable amount of complexity. If however, one's houserules are significantly more widespread... But when it comes right down to it, any addition is going to add complexity. It may not be enough to notice, but it's still more complexity. However, I agree with him that it's still easier to add that complexity, than subtract it (especially if it's a large and highly integrated mechanic).
And fixing by houserules is just simply adding one's own module, rather than a pre-designed one. It can be as simple as one line of a rule, or as complicated as multiple pages, but it's still essentially a module...just a self-written module.
I'm also fairly certain he's wrong, at least in the context of a game that will have an online character builder. It is pretty easy for me to tell my players 'don't take that feat' and not nearly so easy for me to get my homemade feat into the official builder.
It is a distinct possibility that he may end up being wrong in this context. They have talked about making a game that is houseruleable, and adding (at least to some extent) the ability to houserule on their digital support (DDI)...though
if and
how much that happens is still a long way off. We'll have to wait and see. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
At the very least, he was talking about "complexity". The theme/feat system itself would be complexity surely, but an individual feat?
It would still be a complexity, but one so small as to likely not be noticed. But I agree with you on this:
With something as simple as a Feat or Ability you don't like, sure. Just line through it and you're good to go.
The other side of the coin though is this:
But if this design idea becomes common throughout the core system...well that's a horse of a different color.
But I think Mr. Mearls reinforces the idea that it's generally easier to add to an RPG, than subtract. I know though that just because he thinks it's so doesn't necessarily make it so, and people are obviously free to (and will) disagree. But it does mean it's one of the guiding ideas in his and the design teams thoughts while designing 5E. Which means that advice like
"just line through it" is contrary to how the next edition is being designed.
