RPG Codex Interview w/Mike Mearls

[Tuft]

Regarding the whole MMO reference in the interview, what I find interesting is the lesson learned:

I think the difference speaks to one of the key things that people like about D&D Next. We’re definitely moving back to a more open game, where DM adjudication is more important and a DM’s individual skill plays a bigger role in how the game works. That’s a key, unique trait of RPGs that other types of games can’t duplicate. With gaming becoming more and more crowded, it’s key for us to emphasize our unique traits and strengths.

Computer games can do flashy combat much better than pen and paper. What they don't have is an interactive AI that can compete with a living DM, or the open, on-the-fly judgement calls that can be made jointly by DM an players when you go outside the box - off the map or outside the rules.

 

[Ratskinner]

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:


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...

Thanks for the link, I didn't see that the first time around. (Kinda funny reading all the "For sure this means they won't do a 5e anytime soon." posts.)

The part that scares me (at least as much as anything about D&D's market presence can, anyway.) is:

Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.

I have suspected for some time that 5e is actually the "Farewell Edition" that will be shelved until the other IP licenses revert to Hasbro, or they feel that they can revive it effectively. I will not be surprised if, in 10 years or so, we see a line of D&D toys (prolly monster and adventurer action figures aimed at kids 8-13 and collectors) that is a big tie-in to the newly rebooted D&D franchise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mostly this gem:



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

I'm kinda depressed if Mearls is telling the truth there. It means that the 3.0 and 3.5 design teams were much more insular than I'd consider competent. Or, and more likely, Mearls simply wasn't present at those meetings. I'm also depressed that Mearls seems to imply that looking otuside a small niche hobby is a bad thing.

And as for Pathfinder's growing dominance, Wizards have released a total of two and a half books for 4e this year. One was a disappointing adventure (Undermountain), one was the last of the real splats (Heroes of the Elemental Chaos), and one had more material advertising other D&D. In April (simply the first month I googled for), Pathfinder put out The Midnight Mirror (Adventure), Blood of Fiends (Player supplement), and an AP module.

This, of course, ignores DDI. But in terms of dead tree product, in one month Pathfinder put out as many books as WotC - and although the WotC books were thicker there was probably only twice as much content there. WotC aren't even trying to match Paizo right now.

 

[Campbell]

There's a big difference between using video games as a source of inspiration and designing the game to be a video game. 4e took it's inspirations from a number of sources including video games, Euro games, indie RPGS, other traditional RPGS, etc.

Frankly if 4e was designed to be an MMO the designers did an absolutely horrible job. There are way too many decision points, builds are too diverse, too strong an emphasis on conditions, healing too limited, etc.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I also found this one rather informative:Homogeneity. Nice plan there.

Put in the context of the gametable that never materialized and a push for organized play and such, it makes some sense.

 

[B.T.]

I was shocked and disgusted when I read the interview. Sick to my stomach, I closed the web browser and rested my head in my hands. It felt like I had been punched. When Mike Mearls said that 4e was largely modeled after MMOs, he was merely stating something I had suspected for years but could never quite admit to myself. Could it be that complaints comparing 4e to World of Warcraft held a sliver of truth? No. Impossible. And yet...plausible. I took a swig of whiskey to steady my nerves and logged into the thirteen different gaming websites I visited. It was going to be a long night.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm kinda depressed if Mearls is telling the truth there. It means that the 3.0 and 3.5 design teams were much more insular than I'd consider competent. Or, and more likely, Mearls simply wasn't present at those meetings. I'm also depressed that Mearls seems to imply that looking otuside a small niche hobby is a bad thing.

See, I don't think that's the implication at all. Although, I'm sure that sensitivity about the issue is up from the edition wars. Too me, the only implication is that "maybe that didn't work out so well." That and "Play to your strengths." In this case, the strength of tabletop rpgs is that there are living, creative, flexible, adaptive humans playing and running it. Taking that out of the equation (or trying to) wasn't the smartest move, I guess. Just to be clear, I see 4e as merely a continuation of 3e's direction in this regard. So, this isn't strictly an edition war thing, as I see it.

 

[Jester David]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are no bad sources of inspiration. Basing mechanics on a video game is just as valid as basing them on an older edition. It's the execution of the idea that proves its strength, not its source.

 

[Ratskinner]

There's a big difference between using video games as a source of inspiration and designing the game to be a video game. 4e took it's inspirations from a number of sources including video games, Euro games, indie RPGS, other traditional RPGS, etc.

I agree that there's a big difference, but looking at 4e, I think its obvious that those influences weren't equal. Personally, I feel the influence of Euro games and Indie rpgs is so minimal as to be academic.

The real problem, I think, is that they took too much in the way of mechanics, without looking at adapting other material. I know I lose grognard points whenever I say it, but I think its more important for 5e to be able to handle Airbenders and Jedi than it is for it to handle hobbits and polearms.

Frankly if 4e was designed to be an MMO the designers did an absolutely horrible job. There are way too many decision points, builds are too diverse, too strong an emphasis on conditions, healing too limited, etc.

They may or may not have done a terrible job, but I don't see how any of those points are problematic for a game where they intend the computer to do the accounting for you. To me, it looked like they were trying to leverage some of their design experience from Magic and use it for an rpg. I mean, really, the powers lists bear a stunning resemblance to a cardlist, as do the wordings of powers. Heck, didn't they even produce decks of the powers? Given that they intended the DM to still be scripting/running the adventure, the important thing would be to make sure everything fit the power structure in a way that could be implemented easily online. I think they succeeded in that. The constant condition toggling, tracking marks, triggered reactions, all would get easier if a computer is doing the accounting for you. The flavor or fluff, is just the graphics that happen on screen.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I didn't see anything objectionable in that article. If any of the usual suspects want to continue making stupid "4E is a MMORPG" statements, they've demonstrated over the last several years that they don't need a statement from Mearls that they can twist out of context, if you don't look at it too closely. So nothing has changed on that front.

I find it much more interesting that WotC, finally, seems to be really coming to terms with the differences between options, frameworks, and so forth in a game model. Even better, they seem to be reaching that through practical experimentation and analysis. This means that 5E will probably have some holes in it, as the first cut once that understanding is reached, but that it might be a more stable platform upon which to build going forward. That is, they'll mess some things up and get some things right, but the things they get right will be solid enough to build on.