Will the real Mike Mearls please stand up?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I have to say, I really really like 2005 Mike Mearls. I wish WotC would hire that guy to work on 5E.

 

[darjr]

These are things I game for.

I did the same thing in a champions game. I suggested a course of action - the GM looked at me in shock, then theatrically buried his face in his hands. It completely sidestepped what he had in mind, but he went with it.

My wife has a great talent for short circuiting adventures like that. She just thinks like that.

Ha! I love this.

I ran an RPGA 4e game where the players were supposed to infiltrate an illicit drug manufacturing lab. They did, then they purchased the place right from the lab techs, who didn't really own it. That was great fun.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

It's easier, much easier, for magic powers to 'escape the box' for two reasons:

1) Although both magic and non-magic guys will be equally restricted by the rules text, non-magic guys are burdened by a further set of rules - the laws of physics, AKA realism.
2) It's easier for the DM to come up with counter-measures to the non-magic guys because he can look to real world historical practices for inspiration. We've had thousands of years of experience in countering what muscle and metal can do. The world, if it's based to any degree on historical reality, will do that. We don't have thousands of years experience countering charm person or invisibility. If we had, societies would employ a range of defensive measures.

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?

I think combat as war is absolutely fine in games where all the PCs have equal access to supernatural powers, but that's not the case in D&D. To remain balanced, combat-as-war D&D will need the DM to step in and use techniques such as giving the fighter-types more magic items, employing magic resistant monsters, or saying "that spell doesn't work here" - very popular in Gary's modules.

Amber takes combat-as-war a lot further than D&D ever has, because it has far fewer rules than any edition of D&D, and because the rules text describing supernatural powers is more open-ended. One of my Amber PCs ate the biomass of a whole planet, in an attempt to turn himself into a god. Another used probability manipulation to destroy an enemy base with a meteor strike, and sent mobile 'hunter-killer' trap dimensions chasing her enemies thru the omniverse.

Stealing mithril walls? Pfft.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Doesn't that favor the magic guys tremendously?

.

Just the opposite in fact - the mage is trying to find a spell that will fix the situation, and the fighter and rogue come up with something that uses planning and politics (like the Dwarf empire taking out the tomb in someone elses example).

Usually the players start trying to come up with ideas, and they get more and more inventive - with the players working on what ideas seem cool. Character stats or abilities tend not to come up much at this point.

During implementation that becomes a focus - but the mages don't dominate.

 

[Balesir]

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.

The trouble is, out-of-the-box only remains out-of-the-box one time. Many, many of the "tricks" become routine - as, in fact, is the case with real war...

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?

"Combat as war" is fine, but 99% of war is not "out-of-the-box" thinking - it's tactics. OOTB thinking is OK if you are desperate, but as a rule it tends to get people killed. It also, to work really effectively in real life, requires you to understand the circumstances of what you are doing in exquisite detail - the complete opposite of "rulings not rules".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think combat as war is absolutely fine in games where all the PCs have equal access to supernatural powers, but that's not the case in D&D. To remain balanced, combat-as-war D&D will need the DM to step in and use techniques such as giving the fighter-types more magic items, employing magic resistant monsters, or saying "that spell doesn't work here" - very popular in Gary's modules.

1. The game does not need to be balanced that way.

2. Magic needs to be usable in different situations and may be applied creatively, but the effect needs to be specified and there should be costs:

- MM only hits creatures. No possible damage to other things.
- Burning hand ignites combustible materials. Of course, it is fire. A molotov cocktail does the same.
- Magic should not be castable at-will. Even if a spell might be at will, it should be fueled by material components. About as expensive as a crossbow bolt.

3. Usually creative players don´t play straight fighters. They tend to be at least a rogue, but most probably play some kind of magic user

 

[GX.Sigma]

If anyone still wanted to know, Mike responded to this today:

This is an easy one - we have a maneuver system in process. Also, the tactical rules module I'm writing as a lot more detail and removes DM adjudication to some parts of the rules (cover) for groups that want that.

The key to that post is that different players like different parts of the game, and their mechanical needs are much different. If you like combat as a tactical challenge, it's irritating if the challenge becomes much more about convincing the DM to let you do stuff rather than using the rules to come up with tactics to overcome an enemy.

People who like combat like the rules as arbiter more than the DM as arbiter. OTOH, people who like interaction and getting into character probably want the DM to take an active hand in judging things, rather than manipulating rules.

So, my outlook has not changed, but what has changed is the idea that one person's outlook should shape how everyone else runs D&D. It really speaks to modularity - let people shape the game to fit how they want to play.

 

[hamstertamer]

If anyone still wanted to know, Mike responded to this today:

So he has not changed his mind afterall.

 

[Libramarian]

That's not a satisfactory explanation. He said in the blog post:

IMNSHO, mother may I abilities are bad for the game.

Then he said in the Legends & Lore about the DM packet:

The most interesting parts of D&D, at least in my experience, come into play when a DM must make a ruling rather than follow the rules to the letter.

He made comments in previous L&L articles implying that he personally prefers more of a DM adjudicated style. If he hasn't changed his outlook, then he's been pretending to in the L&L articles to give them more of a personalized feel.

He also says in the blog post:

The players have the rules to keep the DM in line. So, if the DM throws Tiamat at a 1st level party, the players can call out the DM for throwing a CR 20+ monster at them. After all, the rules explicitly say that's wrong.

Then yesterday he says:

It irritates me when people see DM tools for balancing encounters as a declaration that everything must always be balanced and safety padded. The idea behind XP budgets and CR is to give DMs a tool to judge lethality. What they do with it is up to the DM to build deadly fights or whatever. It doesn't mean that DMs can't do what they want.

How could he possibly reconcile this? Lol. This is more serious because it's not about his personal gaming preferences. It's about what encounter balancing rules do.

I think it's true that he hasn't changed his outlook. What bothers me is not his personal gaming preferences. I think they're peculiar but it's fully possible that he and his team could produce a game that I would like regardless. What bothers me is that his L&L articles are manipulative, patronizing crap. This bothers me because I liked them and they are the main reason I became interested in DDN.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I don't

see what the problem is...he said they're making combat maneuvers hard-baked in a rules module to avoid this type of adjucation and DM-may-I. Just play in a group where that's the norm, or ask it to be enabled once you realize it's annoying to keep having to adjudicate common things. If I were DMing, and not using that rule for expediency, and a certain fighter or rogue was always doing stuff like that, it would be LESS work for me, and easier, to just enable the rule, than to answer all those DM-may-I questions, which would get annoying after a while. (from both ends of the table, obviously).

that way you can play a fast-n-loose combat one minute, and the next have something come up that's got common solutions right there. Or put suggestions that gel well with the common things someone might do in the DMG, or even the PHB, without that maneuver module enabled, that would result in a similar if not exactly the same outcome and probability of success.