So what's next for Mike Mearls?

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:35 am

If he wants to play a simple game, why not design a simple game? Someone who wants to play a Dwarf Warrior because he liked Gimli in the Peter Jackson movies has already made the two necessary choices required to create a World of Warcraft character. He doesn't have to pick through a shopping list of feats, lifepaths, and other doodads.

With their cargo-cult worship of the past, its no wonder they have to bring on people who claim to be IRL shamans like RPGPundit to ship a product.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:46 am

That Schwalb article's really long and overly apologetic and I can't even tell what the fuck he's saying. Can someone translate?

I mean, at a guess he's complaining that having rules for things makes game design hard work and so they just gave up and now it's your fault if your game sucks because rose-coloured glasses and beer goggles and fucking unanalysed nostalgia mean less rules is awesome.

Was I close? As to mearls, he's just saying he doesn't speak to Pathfinder designers, because they're kicking his ass all over town and it's embarrassing when your giant brand name can't save your work from public scrutiny. Punk.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:00 am

You basically got it. The game should play like it did when he was a kid and (he explicitly admits) doing it wrong. The fact that people actually enjoy making characters is baffling and offensive to him, because if you enjoyed that, you can't possibly enjoy playing the game at the table with other people because... he didn't enjoy making characters. Also being mechanically mindful was only for people who played spell casters, real players got on with game playing fighters, and they liked it.

And pathfinder is a good point to raise, because they took 3.5 and added even more complex mechanical (even if often terrible) shit to it. And it is fucking unlikely that 5e is going to win back any appreciable market share, which puts the 'mechanical complexity is bad for games' shit we've been hearing from out to pasture designers lately pretty out of touch with the actual market.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:02 am

GnomeWorks wrote: Specifically, I found the apparent active hostility towards the types of people who enjoyed 3e and 4e to be interesting.

You mean inasmuch as it is precisely the active hostility towards the types of people who enjoyed 3e that was deployed at the onset of the 4e marketing push?

Voss wrote:The fact that people actually enjoy making characters is baffling and offensive to him, because if you enjoyed that, you can't possibly enjoy playing the game at the table with other people because... he didn't enjoy making characters.

I've never comprehended this mindset that character creation is somehow not part of the game. It would be like saying that in [real, i.e., American] football, someone didn't like that "defense" stuff and offense is the real game.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:10 am

NineInchNall wrote:
GnomeWorks wrote: Specifically, I found the apparent active hostility towards the types of people who enjoyed 3e and 4e to be interesting.
You mean inasmuch as it is precisely the active hostility towards the types of people who enjoyed 3e that was deployed at the onset of the 4e marketing push?

Yeah, but the thing is, I have no idea who this game is being marketed at (and I suspect they don't either). It is, as Schwalb confesses as the fucking flag-carrier for 4e, a complete abandonment of almost everything that happened during that edition. It isn't for fans of 3e, because they're critical thinking assholes who want sense, and are therefor the embodiment of all evil. It isn't even for 2e grognards, because the surviving members of that tribe will still just continue playing 2e. It isn't for pathfinder players, because the latent poisons will kill them if they try to drink non-Paizo brand Kool-Aid.

So... who the fuck is this aimed at?

phlapjackage · Post by **phlapjackage** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:22 am

Stubbazubba wrote:
Schwalb wrote:I know a great many people love to tinker, to build, and create. They see the character sheet as a blank screen, eager for new code, a canvas craving the brush. And that’s cool. But for me, I don’t want that experience anymore. I crave lighter fare. I want the thrill of discovery. The excitement that arises at the table. The hilarity of defeat and the thrill of success.
Sounds like he's burned out on actual design and just wants to play. That actually kind of sounds like the entire 5e team. So what kind of game does that produce? I guess we'll find out.

I don't think he was EVER cut out for actual (rules) design. His initial attempt at design was, according to him, "roll a d6, pass/fail" for everything. Then his parents bought him the red box, and

Schwalb wrote:I looked through the player’s book and discovered, to my dismay, D&D was nothing like the game I had made. It looked complicated and had all sorts of strange rules. I was disappointed.

So all his nostalgia about loving D&D, it being his first RPG love...it's all bullshit. The original D&D had no setting, so if you don't like the rules and there's no setting...you don't really love D&D. He simply loved getting together with friends and MTP'ing with some generic fantasy tropes like fighters and dwarves and stuff. He even says he had fun with his friends despite the rules.

Which is cool and all, but...he's not burned out, it's who he's been all along.

kzt · Post by **kzt** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:07 am

This sounds like hiring a guy who hates movies as the cinematographer for your $250 million dollar movie.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:52 am

kzt wrote:This sounds like hiring a guy who hates movies as the cinematographer for your $250 million dollar movie.

Well, kind of. From the sounds of things, he was involved early on (enough to get a writing credit), but as they (and he) moved away from 4e, they either marginalized him or he went home. He is, after all, just one of the three credited writers and not one of either of the rules designers or either of the lead developers.

Then again he isn't one of the thirteen additional contributors either.
Or the three project managers.
Or eight additional consultants

FFS.

ScottS · Post by **ScottS** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:00 am

Voss wrote:So... who the fuck is this aimed at?

Well I'm sure they've done careful demographic studies and targeted a particu... Oh hey look. The fucking Eagles going on 'final tour' AGAIN. This year. Because I guess technically they had a new album in 2007? And there are fans who totally want to spend $300 to see that shit live? And that it's not just sixty-year-old dudes doing a forty-year-old setlist for cash-farming nostalgia purposes. Oh wait.

D&D Next. Because Hotel California.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:25 am

Here's is my list of the non-Denners they could put in charge of 6e for me to start caring again:

Robin D. Laws.
Aaron Forsythe.
Rich Burlew.

That's exhaustive, and they all come with some caveats.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:29 am

ScottS wrote:
Voss wrote:So... who the fuck is this aimed at?
Well I'm sure they've done careful demographic studies and targeted a particu...

D&D Next. Because Hotel California.

Yeah, see. The thing is most of the nostalgia crowd wouldn't touch this with a 10' pole. It isn't 1e/2e/BECMI or whatever. Its new and different and does things they don't like and made by the trading card company, not like 'real' D&D.

The ones that aren't personally offended by different versions of D&D mostly don't know or care that anyone even makes it any more.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:14 am

OK, so I should also be positive in my criticism occasionally.

The OSR had some points. Not many, but some. Not great points, but they existed.

When you have a different rule for every damn thing there's thousands of rules and your rulebook is gigantic and you can't actually learn it all at once. The idea of reffing a game where it's impossible to actually know the rules is ... I guess very empowering to the players, assuming they can at least learn their part of it and you can learn the monster code. Which isn't necessarily true.

Like, contract bridge has about eighty rules, most people don't learn it beyond the abstract, and the people who do sometimes get things wrong. That's like three spell levels for one class in D&D. A game like Rugby Football sees people become international players without knowing all the rules that apply to their position, because no one they ever played with, were reffed by, or were coached by ever knew them either, yet it only has a couple hundred rules.

So, I think, the OSR notion that if you want people to play by the rules, you should be sparing in how many rules you actually have, is a good one. 5e took that notion and said "you hear that rules-people, this game isn't for you."

Damnit, and here I was trying to be positive. Because if you've got less rules, they've got to be really good ones. Quality's inversely important to quantity. Pathfinder again, enough chaff and there's bound to be some wheat. A bad rule in Champions or GURPS hardly matters at all because there's probably five other rules for that exact same thing you can use instead.

In Conclusion (TLDR): every bad rule in 5e is worse for the game than every bad rule in 3e, and they're telling us they don't even fucking care any more. That's a super bad vibe for a company to carry through a production run. I am saddened.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:25 am

NineInchNall wrote:I've never comprehended this mindset that character creation is somehow not part of the game. It would be like saying that in [real, i.e., American] football, someone didn't like that "defense" stuff and offense is the real game.

Don't agree. Better analogy would be someone who doesn't care about the line-up and pre-match banter.

I personally hate creating pathfinder characters, while I still can have a lot of fun playing the game (even though it is slightly worse than 3.x). You have to go through endless long wordy lists of trap options and narrow those down to just a few. Occasionally you get a good idea, that is either to broken to play, or doesn't work anymore due to errata etc.

Character creation can be a lot of fun, if you have lots of valid options. But usually you don't have any.

GnomeWorks · Post by **GnomeWorks** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:53 am

ishy wrote:Don't agree. Better analogy would be someone who doesn't care about the line-up and pre-match banter.

Hmm... I think the draft might be an even better comparison.

It has nothing to do with the actual game itself, not really. But people can get as into the draft as they do the game itself, because they understand the implications the draft has on how the game winds up being played.

sarcasmoverdose · Post by **sarcasmoverdose** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:54 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Here's is my list of the non-Denners they could put in charge of 6e for me to start caring again:

Robin D. Laws.

Aaron Forsythe.

Rich Burlew.

That's exhaustive, and they all come with some caveats.

Personally, I'd like to see:

Rob Liefield for the art, Gwendolyn F Kestral for the crunch, RA Salvatore for the Fluff, and Mike Mearls organizes everything.

That could suck so much it would turn around and become amusing, just like The Room.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:20 am

ishy wrote:I personally hate creating pathfinder characters, while I still can have a lot of fun playing the game (even though it is slightly worse than 3.x). You have to go through endless long wordy lists of trap options and narrow those down to just a few. Occasionally you get a good idea, that is either to broken to play, or doesn't work anymore due to errata etc.

The main reason I haven't gotten into PF is that every time I contemplate creating a character I realize that it involves a half dozen choices with a bajillion fucking options of which there are only one or two that are any fucking good. And I am entirely too lazy to dive through a brand new forest of splatbooks that are 99% shit anyway.

And also all the tiny fucking rule changes that I know will constantly have me wondering, "wait, is that 3.5 or PF?"

And also the sheer amount of outright harmful errata they shovel out. It's kind of hard to get excited about the game when they are actively shitting all over it because it isn't already awful enough.

And also everything about Pathfinder Society can burn in the lowest pits of hell, and fuck them for acting as though that pile of shit is something anyone should balance around ever.

Okay, nevermind, there are a lot of reasons I've never bothered with Pathfinder.

sarcasmoverdose wrote:Rob Liefield for the art, Gwendolyn F Kestral for the crunch, RA Salvatore for the Fluff, and Mike Mearls organizes everything.

That could suck so much it would turn around and become amusing, just like The Room.

Nah. Mearls is a lazy con man - you'll spend half a decade waiting for something he'll slap together in the last six months. You want someone passionate and stupid, not just stupid.

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:28 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Here's is my list of the non-Denners they could put in charge of 6e for me to start caring again:

Robin D. Laws.

Aaron Forsythe.

Rich Burlew.

That's exhaustive, and they all come with some caveats.

Rich "acid sharks" Burlew? Why?

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:30 am

Because acid sharks sound super metal?

GnomeWorks · Post by **GnomeWorks** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:33 am

darkmaster wrote:Because acid sharks sound super metal?

Can't really argue with that.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:44 am

Speaking of which, does anyone have an opinion as to Burlew's diplomacy rules? They are available on GitP somewhere. I thought they were better than 3.5 at least.

GnomeWorks · Post by **GnomeWorks** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:49 am

TiaC wrote:Speaking of which, does anyone have an opinion as to Burlew's diplomacy rules? They are available on GitP somewhere. I thought they were better than 3.5 at least.

For reference.

I read them, and they seem a bit more reasonable than core d20. I don't think I've actually used them, though; last d20 game I ran did not feature a whole lot of diplomacy.

talozin · Post by **talozin** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 10:55 am

Schleiermacher wrote:
Josh_Kablack wrote:Here's is my list of the non-Denners they could put in charge of 6e for me to start caring again:

Robin D. Laws.

Aaron Forsythe.

Rich Burlew.

That's exhaustive, and they all come with some caveats.
Rich "acid sharks" Burlew? Why?

I would care about a new edition written by Rich Burlew not because I think it would be good mechanically (though it would probably still be better than anything written by Mike Mearls), but because I think it would be funny. Dude has been playing with the tropes and memes and shit of Dungeons and Dragons for comedic purposes for like 10 years now, I would fully expect a postmodern version of the game that embraced all that shit while winking at the inherent humor of it.

And that would be interesting. Maybe not good, but I'd at least be intrigued enough to follow the development process until it became clear that it was going to suck after all.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:11 am

What I find really interesting is how closely Mearls' statement defending Schwalb matches Monte Cook's statement defending shitmuffin. Mearls doesn't literally use the word "asshole" but it's clear that the people they aren't writing for are the same.

We now have a lot of data points showing us what the corporate culture was among the designers, and it is not pretty. Apparently it was w bunch of old guys ranting about how written rules just fucking encouraged rules lawyers. And this was the fucking rules team. Writing rules was their actual fucking job, and they didn't think it was a thing that needed to be done. MC Killsalot makes a lot more sense now. The entire team was seemingly united in believing that the project was pointless and also that the fans were a bunch of assholes that they didn't respect and didn't want to make a product for.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:42 am

Oh, Jesus. I completely forgot that I was doing an OSSR of Torchbearer. I was offline for over a month preparing for final project + finals + graduation and it totally slipped my mind. Guess I'd better get started on it again, especially since that game seems designed at people like the 5E D&D design team.

Like I said, the game is comically pretentious at times and it introduces a lot of stupid shit in it but the engine is pretty salvageable. There are a couple of stupid shit in the game that are too tightly woven into the rules to ignore and there are also a bunch of things in the system that make it impossible for that implementation of the Burning Wheel system to be used for anything but Torchbearer (most specifically, the status effect system) but we'll get to those later.

THE REVIEW ISN'T DEAD, GUYS, I'M JUST A GIANT FUCKING IDIOT.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:13 pm

Rich is the Order of the Stick guy, right? I know he did some stuff for D&D (like one of the later Monster Manuals and... Dungeon and/or City Splatbook?), but were it not for the webcomic, I wouldn't really have much to go on for him being good at making stuff for games. Then again, he was able to identify problems ("Every specialist is a Diviner because they only ban one school and you can always find *one* spell per level that you want to cast that is a Divination"), even if his "plan to make Divination as good as the others" was dumb (Divination attack spells).