RPG Codex Interview w/Mike Mearls

[Harlock]

It's astounding. Truly astounding on levels I find difficult to describe.

The truth hurts, I suppose. Just because some of the design was based on video games and some people criticize that aspect of the game doesn't make it any less fun or playable for you, does it? Take a deep breath and let that tummy relax. 4e doesn't stop being whatever it was to you just because Mr. Mearls gave a peek behind the curtain, so to speak.

 

[SageMinerve]

This is going to be a bit harsh, but here it is: I think people that react the same way the OP does is far more harmful for our hobby than any perceived bashing by game developers or designers on previous editions. It's a seed that eventually grows into ugly internet debates.

You can disagree with what Mearls says. I happen to agree with him, but that is highly debatable. YMMV and all that.

But to feel sick to your stomach? Come on, such hyperbole doesn't help in the least when discussing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Nothing really too enlightening, in my opinion.

Also, as a side note, the four questions per "question" to Mike really bugged me. Just have them as separate questions if you want the answer to be focused enough to be more enlightening. As always, play what you like

 

[gyor]

I did find one part interesting, about the wizard and having an core option that could be school specialized wizards, war wizards, wild magic, red/white/black robed wizards. Previously I thought they they were going to,represent stuff like schools via themes, but it,sounds like the wizards theme has been freed up because it sounds like wizard's "Arcane Tradition" will be a core part of the class, but removeable for those that wish it.

I can see Waterdeep Guild wizard as another example, but stuff like Preserver and defiler would have to either be themes or universal arcane rules, because they apply all arcane users, not just wizards.

Arcane Tradition, Domains, Schemes and the like they can come up

I kind of like the sound of "Arcane Tradition", kind of like pact, domain, scheme and other specializing options.

As for the rest basically its just a rehash of design princples with a slight update. The comments of 4e have been verified and blaming Mike for saying is unfair, Pathfinders growing dominance says it all.

 

[Campbell]

I'm a little disappointed by Mearls lack of nuance on the MMO issue here as well as his willingness to conjecture on design meetings he was not a part of. I also take some issue with his characterization of narrative RPGs as intensely focused games not suitable for long term play when you have several games along the lines of Burning Wheel specifically designed for long term play.

 

[Keldryn]

Wait... responses on RPGCodex are actually more positive and less bitter than here?

What mixed-up world is this?

 

[erleni]

I don't see many problems in D&D borrowing from MMOs or from pure videogames. They are a big industry with a lot of money and ideas and have been developing a lot in the last decade.
The fact that 4e combat system has been developed taking into consideration an MMO possible conversion gave me the best combat system I have experienced in D&D (personal opinion, YMMV), precise, clean, solid, and full of options.
A couple of months ago I was playing Skyrim and got to the main quest final scene where all the dragons are meeting after Alduin's death. It was awesome, and felt really immersive. Clearly a videogame can just deliver a moment here or there where you get that immersion, but they are getting better and better every year and borrowing the good things while still keeping up the inherent qualities of a table-top RPG is not a bad idea at all.

 

[Gold Roger]

I thought it was clear that fourth took a lot from video game design and the big controversy was wether that's an inherently bad thing (just for the record, I don't think so).

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, which is the interview. Not to much new stuff, but I still found it a nice read. It's a good collection of current design statements and goals, none of which stood out to me as bad (obviously not everyones opinion).

 

[Ratskinner]

I did find one part interesting, about the wizard and having an core option that could be school specialized wizards, war wizards, wild magic, red/white/black robed wizards. Previously I thought they they were going to,represent stuff like schools via themes, but it,sounds like the wizards theme has been freed up because it sounds like wizard's "Arcane Tradition" will be a core part of the class, but removeable for those that wish it.

While I know that there were plenty of folks hoping for an "Illusionist" theme, I never bought it. If you compare the themes from the playtest with what you'd need to do to make an illusionist out of a wizard...themes just don't carry the right kind of mechanical weight for that. You'd still want to be able to have an Illusionist-healer, frex.

Personally, I like the idea that rogues have schemes, wizards have traditions, clerics have spheres(?), fighters have styles(?), etc. It would get rid of a lot of repetition amongst the classes, which would be a good thing, IMO. Especially in splat material, where it would help eliminate the need (and thus temptation to alter) the basic core of the classes.

I know some would object, but I'm really not sure why "I want to be able to play an X." implies "X must be its own class." If "traditional" barbarian = Fighter class + Barbarian background + Berserker theme, that seems totally acceptable to me. Double that sentiment for Assassins, Acrobats, Specialist Wizards, Druids, etc. (I'd love to put Bards in there, too, but they are so weird compared to rogues.)

As for the rest basically its just a rehash of design princples with a slight update. The comments of 4e have been verified and blaming Mike for saying is unfair, Pathfinders growing dominance says it all.

Agreed.

 

[Tuft]

Mostly this gem:

As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

It's astounding. Truly astounding on levels I find difficult to describe.

Meshes well with what was said in http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...ider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html, also, as I understand it, from an actual insider:

...

Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. ...

In the light of that, Mearls' reply is not surprising at all. If the big-money-dream is to make the game into a MMO, of course you take inspiration from MMOs...