RPG Codex Interview w/Mike Mearls

[Zaukrie]

Why is taking ideas from video games bad or good? I really don't understand the angst over using ideas from other successful genres.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I saw the "power card" structure of 4e as well-suited for a card environment, like the one that made WOTC rich in the first place, and hey look! They actually did print up cards for 4e.

4e has absolutely been interested in the fobs, be it cards or minis or cards and minis or more minis or different minis or also different cards or dungeon tiles or whatever. 3e wasn't markedly different, especially late in its life. And it's smart business generally, I think, to offer that additional functionality. But like with the digital element, when you mistake the fobs for the point of the game, and design towards the fobs, things get messy, be that card-like powers or grid-based combat as the essential D&D experience, or whatever.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Why is taking ideas from video games bad or good? I really don't understand the angst over using ideas from other successful genres.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

It's just a consequence of the escalating hyperbole of the edition wars- people who disliked 4e said silly things like 'it's just like WoW, it's a video game now', which caused fans of 4e to up the ante by saying things like 'it isn't anything like WoW, in fact it doesn't borrow any ideas from video games that weren't put there by pen and paper games.'

I'm sure next week opponents of 4e will claim that it can only be run by a processor with little endian byte order, and fans of 4e will claim that not only do you not need a battle grid, you don't need books, dice, limbs, or the ability to communicate to play the game. ('it's the first tabletop RPG actually capable of being played by tables!')

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why is taking ideas from video games bad or good? I really don't understand the angst over using ideas from other successful genres.

A lot of rather brain-dead comparisons, by people that apparently hadn't played either the table top or video games being compared, or least thought about the game much, tended to drown out the more reasoned, useful comparisons. It reminds me a lot of how high school "discussion" worked, come to think of it.

 

[n00bdragon]

It's just a consequence of the escalating hyperbole of the edition wars- people who disliked 4e said silly things like 'it's just like WoW, it's a video game now', which caused fans of 4e to up the ante by saying things like 'it isn't anything like WoW, in fact it doesn't borrow any ideas from video games that weren't put there by pen and paper games.'

I'm sure next week opponents of 4e will claim that it can only be run by a processor with little endian byte order, and fans of 4e will claim that not only do you not need a battle grid, you don't need books, dice, limbs, or the ability to communicate to play the game. ('it's the first tabletop RPG actually capable of being played by tables!')

For anyone curious this is exactly what the topic was about. I wasn't at all mad about what 4e may or may not have been inspired by or play like. I was (and still am) mad that Mr. Mearls is clearly playing the aforementioned "It's just like WoW, it's a video game now" card and it seemed terribly unbecoming of his role.

 

[Harlock]

For anyone curious this is exactly what the topic was about. I wasn't at all mad about what 4e may or may not have been inspired by or play like. I was (and still am) mad that Mr. Mearls is clearly playing the aforementioned "It's just like WoW, it's a video game now" card and it seemed terribly unbecoming of his role.

I must have read a different article. Your hyperbole is indicative of some underlying issue you have, not what other people see or perceive.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your hyperbole is indicative of some underlying issue you have, not what other people see or perceive.

stating something I had suspected for years but could never quite admit to myself

A brief reminder for everyone in the thread ('cuz these ain't the only examples): Let us not practice generalizing, flaming, or internet mind-reading. Try to stay on the topic of the interview and your own reactions to it and the conversation around it, without musing on what your fellow posters might be thinking. It doesn't make the conversation any better. If you'd like to know what they're thinking, ask nice.

 

[Ratskinner]

You don't think it's important to be able to do Game of Thrones and ninjas and samurai? I hardly think fantasy is lost as a genre.

If you're saying that the D&D system should be flexible enough to handle multiple genres, such that we can get a better version of d20 Modern/Future/Past, then that I agree with. The hobby as a whole is way too focused on fantasy.

I do feel its important to handle "grittier" fantasy as well. However, I think that fantasy has evolved a lot over the intervening decades since D&D's inception. So much so, that I think it would behoove us to examine what it means to the audience as a whole (thus my losing grognard points). Being able to expound the differences between a Glaive and Vulge is probably less relevant than it once was.

I don't have any objection to your second point, even though it wasn't directly what I was getting at.

 

[Harlock]

A brief reminder for everyone in the thread ('cuz these ain't the only examples): Let us not practice generalizing, flaming, or internet mind-reading. Try to stay on the topic of the interview and your own reactions to it and the conversation around it, without musing on what your fellow posters might be thinking. It doesn't make the conversation any better. If you'd like to know what they're thinking, ask nice.

So I should simply say "Nice hyperbole, that's not what Mr. Mearls said at all?" Curious, as that post certainly seemed to muse on what Mr. Mearls was thinking rather than focusing on what he said. Which was rather my point. I'd like to know so I am not reported and accused of passive aggressive behavior again by someone who thinks I am edition warring.

 

[tomBitonti]

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

That there is wishful thinking. A non-plan. Moving a "moderate fraction" seems fair. However, expanding "over time", while desirable, is an empty goal without a concrete plan to drive the expansion. As well, planning to move a moderate fraction contradicts an expansion goal: Getting a moderate fraction to move means losing a majority of players, with a view of that as acceptable losses. Hard to turn a downward trend upwards. Hard to get back the graces of the folks who were lost.

TomB