Will the real Mike Mearls please stand up?

[dammitbiscuit]

This thread is awesome! Because Mearls has had two different opinions over time, we can find a way to crucify him regardless of which viewpoint we have!

Finally an issue that 4ers and 3.5ers can agree upon.

...because anyone who disagrees with us has personally harmed us!

 

[Herschel]

So Mike Mearls ruined the Edition Wars. Is that a case of a negative being a positive?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So Mike Mearls ruined the Edition Wars. Is that a case of a negative being a positive?

No, not the way he broke it.

 

[Herschel]

Great, so Mike Mearls ruined "Silver Linings" too. He really is all powerful.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Yeah, the problem is that, under the old school assumptions, pretty much all of the adventures are "fixable" using this sort of "engineering solution". It's fun for a while, but sooner or later you realise you aren't playing the game you set out to play, any more.

I guess that is defined by what game you want to play. I want to play the D&D that is "inventive players coming up with off the wall stuff to beat the challenge in any way possible, the more imaginative the better" - Next, so far, seems like that game.

When I want tactical precision and super detailed chargen with detailed rules I play HERO. (every week). So I don't need D&D to be that game for me. And the approach I described above is very much part of the history of D&D.

If modules, like the tactical module make things more detailed, great!

 

[B.T.]

Mearls gets flak because he's the face of D&D design and development. He was one of the "star designers" of 4e, so he becomes a target. We're nerds filled with nerd rage on the Internet, and the Internet acts as a focusing lens for hate. Thus, Mearls gets disproportionate rage directed at him in the same way that Hamburger Hepler does.

Think of it this way: in a way, Mearls is the "president" of WotC. He probably doesn't have that much effect on the decisions that WotC makes, but he is a sort of figurehead, so people hate him. Do you really think that Dubya or Obammy had (or have) that much power? No, they sort of go along with what everyone is doing and they make speeches and can help direct things, but, ultimately, they don't do much act as political punching bags.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I guess that is defined by what game you want to play. I want to play the D&D that is "inventive players coming up with off the wall stuff to beat the challenge in any way possible, the more imaginative the better" - Next, so far, seems like that game.

Doesn't that favor the magic guys tremendously?

The game I've played that does that the best is Amber. The powers are open-ended and you can get away with some really crazy stuff if the GM lets you run (away) with it. Problem is, that craziness really only applies to supernatural powers. Characters in Amber based on conventional fighting ability get the shaft under this play style.

We've never really played D&D in this way, we never used Destroy Water to kill people and the like, but it seems to me the same would hold, though to a lesser degree.

 

[Imaro]

Doesn't that favor the magic guys tremendously?

Wouldn't it favor the most creative, out-of-the box thinkers tremenndously? I mean regardless of whether they have magic or not, if someone doesn't think outside the box, then they will be at a disadvantage in the game.

Another thing I often fail to grasp is why it is ok for the game to favor tactical acumen in "combat as sport" but not creativity or out-of-the-box thinking in the "combat as war" situation? In other words why is it ok to favor one but not ok to favor the other?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Great, so Mike Mearls ruined "Silver Linings" too. He really is all powerful.

Dude, that joke isn't funny anymore.

...because Mike Mearls ruined it.

 

[Mallus]

Doesn't that favor the magic guys tremendously?

It absolutely does, in my experience. But it's also a big part of the fun -- the trick is to allow the 'magic guys' a limited, situational ability to extrapolate new, possibly clever, almost always murderous uses for their spells while reserving the right to never allow them to do it again, or to significantly nerf it.

It's the Daffy Duck school of magic. Impressive, but things tend to only work once. Nothing establishes 'precedent'. We're not playing Lawyers and Litigation. The price of loose, player-friendly rulings is the DM gets the final say on when and if the player can attempt wacky, rules-exceeding stunts.

The other necessary part of this is allowing the non-magic guys something comparable -- a reasonable chance to perform a jump off a 100 ft. tall tower on a dragon's back, for instance.

(it also helps if the non-magic guys have very high stats and favorable options on par with Unearthed Arcanas' version of Weapon Specialization)

This style does place a fairly heavy burden on the DM to be the 'last guarantor of game balance', and requires the players trust them in that role.

Like everything else fun and slightly risky, it's great until it periodically blows up in your face!