Interesting post by Mike Mearls
Marcel Beaudoin
There are quotes interspersed, so I will separate them with /////
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
Well, you assume that *every* player considers the rewards (treasure and
XP and magic) to be the “most important” thing in D&D, but this is not
actually inherently true. Some players (and DMs, too) might actually
think that *role-playing* or the *story* in itself is the "greatest"
reward in D&D (or in any RPG, for that matter).
/////
(Mike Mearls)
This is the heart of the matter. I can't write rules that say "And as a
reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good
roleplaying."
I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his
abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on
reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on
how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card
*suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.
What I can do is stick XP and treasure at the end of the mouse maze du
jour, be it combat, social encounters, or bringing a pizza to the game
session, and hope that's enough to get most gaming groups moving in the
same direction as the rules.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
I don't see how this "card thing" would be a better system (i.e. more
organized) than players taking notes (in a character sheet, diary/book or
separate note papers). That way (by taking notes), your *players* decide
which names or facts or pieces of flavour are relevant and need to be
written down -- i.e. you encourage them to *think*, instead of relying on
your cards to tell which things are important. As for my group, we have
two “record keepers” in my group who both write down stuff in their
notebooks –- usually just shorthand notes on events, but sometimes even
on a round by round basis (including each character’s combat actions). As
I already said, I fail to see how any kind of card system would work
better or be “more organized” than this. By using cards, I think some
players (especially beginners) may become even more passive in
contributing to the story -- they *expect* the DM to guide the
story/campaign with the cards, and do not truly interact (role-play) with
the setting or pursue any character goals because they won’t be rewarded
for that. Hence, it is a “metalevel” effect that has a negative impact on
role-playing –- just as much as the “clearly defined” character roles do
(“Dude, stop talking with those NPCs –- they are not important and we
don’t get any XP for that. Lord Lightspear is already waiting for us to
give us a *Quest*!”). Another aspect of this system that troubles me is
that you need to *very* carefully think about where to draw the line –-
let’s assume that Baron Blacksword (an ally of the PCs) slyly mentions
that “the world would be a lot happier place without that cursed Duke
Duskshield meddling in everyone’s affairs”. Was that a subtle hint and
did he just offer the PCs a Quest? What if they ask him and he denies it
-- if you don’t give them a card, they automatically know that this is
not a Quest, although perhaps you intentionally tried to subtly guide
them to do the dastardly deed. If they kill the duke, should they be
rewarded although the baron mentioned no reward (assuming that none of
them are of good alignment)? Especially beginners –- both players and DMs
-- might have a lot of problems with this system, unless it is presented
in a very coherent and “clear-cut” manner in the Core Books.
/////
(Mike Mearls)
First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the
quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of
how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit
points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a
mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.
Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?
Third, I think there's something of a cognitive dissonance at work here.
Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn
how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it
logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address
that?
The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun
for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear.
Work with the players, not against them. True, a DM who mindlessly
applies the quest mechanic can cause problems, but that's not what anyone
wants.
From a purely mercenary POV, it is in WotC's best economic interest to do
whatever it takes to make more good DMs. Good DMs create interesting
worlds and fun adventures. They work with the players to create a fun
game. They listen. They adopt a funny voice when portraying a kobold.
They bring the game to life.
We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we
do what we can to help that.
As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force
on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who
leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be
entertained while bashing monsters.
Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want
to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't
force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we
want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and
force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try
this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it.
See, here's the thing. Down below (and I'll get to this) you ask if we're
making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask
you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or
do you want us to make a game that you want?
We all have different styles of playing D&D, and that's the beauty of the
game. I'm not going to design a game that forcibly evicts anyone from
playing it. If a bunch of mindless couch potatoes can now enjoy D&D, I
don't mind. They're not going to effect how anyone else plays the game.
If Joe in Peoria doesn't roleplay, that doesn't stop Barbara in San Jose
from playing her character to the hilt.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
And it’s not just the Quest Cards that make me feel very concerned about
4E. I don't fear *change*, because I was *very* excited when 3E came out.
Why don't I feel the same way now? Why I only feel *very* disappointed
about everything we've seen of 4E? I'll try to point out some things that
I feel are either mechanically or thematically "wrong" in my opinion.
First of all, it's not just the DM's story *only* that matters, because
players are "co-authors", too, so what about their preferences and
contribution? How will the changes presented in 4E affect "Player input"
in the game? I understand the concept of “story” in D&D to roughly mean:
“A campaign consisting of a storyline/script written by the DM, which is
then influenced and altered during the game by the DM and the players
improvising through their characters as it is played in separate
sessions”. We should also note that mechanical and thematical “metalevel”
effects are also important, because it’s not just about the rules or the
flavour or the story –- it’s about how *players* (consciously and
subconsciously) feel about and react to them. If we’re discussing
characters and player and DM roles and responsibilities, and their
influence on the story, I have a suspicion that 4E won’t address these
issues in a very *coherent* manner. Perhaps it will offer a mix of
different “tools” to deal with them, but so far I have seen a bunch of
articles that have (in my opinion) contained only half-hearted attempts
at trying to convince us that 4E will be about more than just combat and
encounters (and how *cool* and *fun* 4E will be -– especially when
compared to that “horribly broken 3E”, which was, incidently, designed by
the same guys ).
My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing
“coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and
role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly
manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and
requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in
4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play
prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as
“fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind
this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it
discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills
are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s
first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that
the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas
and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d
call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling
example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having
to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view
DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and
this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a
deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you
some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E
contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified"
special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always
played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game
mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play
D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want
to play it? That is the central question here.
/////
(Mike Mearls)
See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like
putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us
is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups
have fun.
There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in
3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players
to make up their own quests.
You want to encourage players to think? Here are some quotes I've pulled
from the DMG. I hope they stay in, because if they don't I'm going to
look really stupid in a few months:
"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure
for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and
a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure
doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation.
...
In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes
to traps and hazards."
"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players:
reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for
skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.”
Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make
the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think
about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the
range of applicable skills."
When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they
want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it
good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a
world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like
me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?
D&D is not a religion or a social movement. We're all just DMs and
players doing our own thing in our own way. Not every D&D player is a
good match for every D&D group. There are groups that I'd never want to
game with, yet they have an awesome time every week, and vice versa.
I cut the paragraph about mechanics because no one outside of playtesters
have seen the full mechanics yet. A lot of people are assuming that we're
adding X or Y without counterbalancing it, or they don't see everything
in the context of the full system yet.
Suffice to say that there are still plenty of hard choices to be made. If
the game was easy, no one would play.
What is easier is all the bookkeeping and mechanics that had a poor
return on fun. If you think that ability score loss a la 3e is the only
possible way to model a weakening effect, then I think that 3e is the
only game you'll like.
I'm serious. If you look at 3e and think that its mechanical definition
of various effects is the only valid expression of those effects, just
stick with 3e. We are not going to hold on to mechanics for the sake of
holding on to mechanics. When we can achieve the same goal with less
work, we will always do that.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
Another aspect I’m very leery about in the game is the “clearly defined”
character roles –- I just don’t see this concept encouraging role-playing
or “character introspection”. I wouldn’t mind it if they were just
briefly mentioned in the books, but I’m a bit alarmed about these roles
being “integrated” into the game mechanics as well (e.g. into the
character “powers”). Why don’t I like them? Because you’re effectively
telling your players how they should behave in the game (i.e. how to
role-play that type of character –- at least in combat) and which types
of abilities/feats they should prioritize (e.g. “Dude, you’re a defender,
so don’t take that ‘Rain of Blows’, because ‘Waterfall of Parries’ is
more fitting for you role and gives the rest of us some cool and nice
bonuses!”). All in all these “roles” make me feel like we’re not talking
about an adventuring party in a “pseudo-medieval” setting but a modern
military “special ops” strike team (“Hey, fighter, stop fooling around
and step into your role! You should be covering the strikers and the
tanks!”). Then the concept of ‘Social Challenges’ –- while I’m not
against them as such, they need to be carefully thought about. Can I
state that my goal in the Challenge is to make the Guard Captain break
down in tears, drop his magical sword and run away? Should I get XP for
that, since I kind of “defeated” him? What is the difference between
“small intent” vs. “big intent”? Can I just waltz into the King’s Throne
Room and convince him with my uber-high Diplomacy skill to step down and
crown me as the next king? These are tricky issues and should be taken
into consideration, because even mid-level PCs may run amok the campaign
world if you can use the social skills in such “creative” ways. And how
do the existence of this system influence role-playing in general –- will
it de-emphasize its meaning, because you’re allowed to “just roll” or
does it actually encourage it? If you always need to at least *try* to
role-play the situation “in character” (whether you roll before or after
you deliver your “speech”), it probably *will* encourage it –- if not, at
least beginners may shy away from it, telling their DM: “I’m gonna insult
that captain – do I get to roll now?”.
/////
(Mike Mearls)
The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they
are in 3e. Social challenges, and other non-combat challenges, are
mechanics added to the game to make skills more useful and to broaden the
types of encounters DMs can have in adventures.
Essentially, a non-combat challenge turns skills from a pass-or-fail
check into a series of checks made toward achieving a larger goal. Rather
than make on Diplomacy check, the group needs to make a number of
differnet skill checks, including Diplomacy, to forge an alliance with
the dwarf king. Players can't simply say "I want to do X with a skill"
without the DM saying that's OK.
I'll let the DMG design notes speak on the issue of roleplaying and skill
challenges:
"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would
absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on
the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll
irrelevant."
I don't think your example for party roles holds water. Whether a role is
there or not, if the fighter stands at the back of the party the rest of
the group will yell at him. The roles are there so that players have a
better understanding of what they are supposed to do. Mechanically, it
simply calls to attention the reason why wizards in 3e can't cast healing
spells. Every class needs a unique role to foster teamwork and to give
everyone a chance to shine. It also helps enforce class balance in
design.
And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get
more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded. Roles have
no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about
a class and help people make clear, understandable choices.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
And I also wish to mention the “flavour” about the classes being
integrated into the game mechanics (or actually being "force-fed” to us)
–- what if I just don’t want to have Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost
Wizards in my homebrew setting? Yes, I don’t need to use them. but it’s
not just that I have to rewrite the whole class (probably changing their
powers as well) but Feats (‘Golden Wyvern Adept’) but other sections of
the book that contains any info about the ‘traditions’ (I’m guessing the
‘Magic’-chapter, at least) as well. Not to mention that I have to think
about where all those previous edition “specialist” mages just suddenly
vanished to. I understand that this system may actually benefit *some*
beginners in defining their character backgrounds for them, but how about
encouraging them to write their own? Sometimes, the best adventure hooks
come from character backgrounds -– i.e. if I want to create a cleric of
the God of Justice and tell my DM that “he was originally born in the
Slave City of Adaran-Kesh, and sold to slavery as young boy, before a
friendly servant helped him escape from the hands of a cruel and powerful
master –- eventually he was rescued from the wilderness by a wandering
priest and was then trained by him”. Even with such a brief and simple
background, I am actually giving my DM a lot of potential story hooks to
use in the campaign, instead of just being “trained by the clergy of the
God of Justice” (this would work especially well with the ‘Slavers’-
modules). That produces better stories, too, and with a strong pre-
campaign input from the *players* with adventure ideas that *matter* to
them and their *characters*.
/////
(Mike Mearls)
I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you
don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to
create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly
what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds.
They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get
players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from
somewhere or something.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
I also don’t have very high hopes about the ‘Points of Light’-concept,
and certainly didn’t feel assured by Mr. Wyatt’s article (as I already
noted). It’s a good concept for a campaign, but I wouldn’t want my every
campaign being about “flickering points of light in monster-filled
Darkness” –- especially as it feels like a very shaky concept without
reasoning why these tiny and isolated settlements have managed to avoid
being wiped out (something that James doesn’t apparently even think about
in his article). Some people have compared the ‘PoL’-concept with the
Dark Ages (or some other historical RW era) but that’s a poor analogy,
since I don’t recall a time when monsters and magic threated the
existence of known civilization. All in all, this is a very “black-and-
white” concept about PCs being the most important beings (i.e. the only
heroes) in the world –- of course a story is *always* about its
protagonists, but (as I have said before) I feel that there just should
be some powerful and interesting NPCs, too. If not, how come the Darkness
has not already triumphed? Why must the PCs be the only “heroic”
characters in their home town/village? If I were a player in such a
campaign, I’d want to hear answers to all those questions.
/////
(MIke Mearls)
Again, this is purely subjective. Nothing in the rules stops you from
running whatever campaign you want. The core background is in the game to
give beginners something to start with. If anything, it encourages DM and
player creativity because it sets up the core D&D world as a huge, blank
cavnas waiting to be filled with ideas.
I think at times your thoughts are a little contradictory. You want a lot
of player input, roleplay, and DM creativity, yet you don't like the
steps we take to help foster that. Maybe there's a better way to do it,
but I'm not sure it makes sense to want DMs and players who are creative
world builders while dismissing the point of light concept.
The core thrust of the PoL is pretty simple: it lets the DM invent what
he wants. It gives room for players to create stuff in the world, with
the DM's OK of course. If I sit down at a DM's table and say, "I want to
play a Thor-worshipping Viking-style cleric" it's a lot easier to
accomodate that if the DM hasn't detailed every inch of his campaign
world.
/////
Originally Posted by Asgetrion View Post
Summa summarum: I feel that 4E is not actually a new edition of D&D --
it’s a whole new *game*. It has vastly different ("simplified")
thematical emphasis and mechanical differences to previous editions, and
it is very clearly marketed at a whole new consumer base. As for us
“older” customers, some like the changes and some don’t –- I feel that my
arguments and concerns are echoed by many fans on these boards and
therefore are valid. If we're talking about beginners, this system may
actually remind them strongly of boardgames, CRPGs or MMORPGs -- and
consequently de-emphasize role-playing because they might play D&D the
same way they would play those games (again I refer to those “metalevel”
effects –- e.g. those Quest Cards that may be seen functioning a bit like
Quest Logs in CRPGs and MMORPGs). I guess we will see how 4E turns out,
but my intuition already tells me that I’m not going to pick it up –-
unless a lot of things we’ve seen glimpses of will be radically different
in the end product.
/////
(Mike Mearls)_
We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be.
Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or
creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the
world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.
The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as
creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that
we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome
advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be
insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.
EDIT: I wanted to add that I think your original post was very
interesting and well thought out. It's good to have a dialogue with
someone that doesn't become mindless anger or frustration. You ask a lot
of good, hard questions, and you have many of the same concerns that I
would have were I not in the seat I currently occupy.
--
Marcel
Malachias Invictus
"Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0266AD9A5E7ma...@130.133.1.4...
Marcel, you are scooping everyone on the new info!
> From http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14491016&postcount=129
I might comment on this later, but I definitely feel better about 4E with
Mike at the keel.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Marcel Beaudoin
wrote in news:9bqdncz8H48ks8Pa...@comcast.com:
>
> "Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A0266AD9A5E7ma...@130.133.1.4...
>
> Marcel, you are scooping everyone on the new info!
Work allows me time to access the Wizards forums, plus ENWorld has their 4e
stuff on an RSS feed, which makes it even easier.
>> From http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14491016&postcount=129
>
> I might comment on this later, but I definitely feel better about 4E
> with Mike at the keel.
I was really impressed with how in-depth he went into the discussion with
this guy.
--
Marcel
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>(Mike Mearls)
>The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they
>are in 3e.
So that's all right then. Diplomacy in 3e isn't unbalanced at all. No
sirree.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Blackheart
wrote:
> I was really impressed with how in-depth he went into the discussion with
> this guy.
>
yes.. he was fairly straight forward..
that doesn't change the fact that they ar eturning D&D into a table
top MMO.
drow
> that doesn't change the fact that they ar eturning D&D into a table
> top MMO.
the only one who can turn your game into a table top MMO is you.
and MMOs have a lot of good aspects. i'm all up stealing some of that.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey doesn't *do* anything. He's got epic levels in
|_|_[T]_|_| psion. He simply wills people into action."
-- der_kluge
aaronbourque
Bah, MMOs all WISH they was tabletops.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
decalod85
I read this and don't feel as bad about 4E.
At least the guy is passionate and intelligent.
Malachias Invictus
"drow" <dr...@bin.sh> wrote in message
news:4760e605$0$1114$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alien mind control rays made Blackheart <blackhear...@yahoo.com>
> write:
>> that doesn't change the fact that they ar eturning D&D into a table
>> top MMO.
>
> the only one who can turn your game into a table top MMO is you.
> and MMOs have a lot of good aspects. i'm all up stealing some of that.
I feel the same way. If an idea or tool enhances the game, who gives a fuck
from where it originated?
Malachias Invictus
"decalod85" <deca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c8584a5a-dc22-4c64...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> I read this and don't feel as bad about 4E.
>
> At least the guy is passionate and intelligent.
He is also big on hanging out with "the regular folks." Before he went to
WotC, a bunch of us used to chat about Iron Heroes ideas with him on the
Malhavoc forums. He readily admitted to weaknesses in his system, and was
always willing to discuss ideas for house rules. I really found him to be a
great guy.