Chat stream with M. Mearls and M. Cook on D&D

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Chat stream with M. Mearls and M. Cook on D&D

Post by OgreBattle »

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... dxpseminar


9:25
Welcome to the D&D XP Seminar: Charting the Course!
9:26
Comment From Guest
Hello
9:56
Sorry for the lul there - we're up and running and everything should be moving along now.
9:57
Monte: Every edition of the game "breaks down" at a certain level. I don't think it breaks down, I just think it changes.
9:58
Monte: I think 4E does the best of highlighting that high level change and being clear that things are changing.
9:58
Monte: I think that we can run with that for the future and have a list of options for classes/characters that open up when you hit a certain level
9:59
Monte: We can also have other options, like building a castle, having followers and vassals. We can build that into what high level characters get.
9:59
Mearls: I think Monte hit on the really important point with saying that different people mean different things when they say the game breaks down at high levels.

10:01
Mearls: Some people are excited that their characters get really powerful. The question is what should that change really be? How should the game change at high levels? What should it look like and how should we build the breadth of options to cover that? Those are the real questions we're trying to answer when addressing high level play.

10:01
Moving on to talking about having monsters be relevant at low levels, and then have those same monsters remain relevant at higher character levels.

10:02
Monte: Instead of the figher getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate.

10:03
Comment From Malien
Hello everyone! Excited to hear about the new D&D!

10:04
Monte: I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.

10:06
Jeremy: The Monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.

10:07
Comment From Patrick
I actually kind of really like the idea that inflated numbers at higher levels don't stratify monsters into tiers (kobold-goblin-orc-hobgoblin-bugbear-gnoll...) but that's kind of a radical change for the game. Isn't it? I hope we get more details on that.

10:07
Trevor: Just for clarification for everyone following in chat, there is still room in there for fighting a slew of orcs at higher level - that is part of the scaling.

10:08
We're talking about different tastes in the game and building the game in general.

10:09
Jeremy: It's been great to see in playtesting how many different playstyles and desires have come up. The thing that's been driven home for me is how important his modular approach is, and the big tent to bring everybody in to play the same game.

10:10
Comment From Guest
I am of two minds about this. Stratification is part of the usual D1D long-term campaigns, and it's quite interesting in terms of making the interest remain as you change adversaries. That being said, one thing that I liked a lot about 4E is the easy scaling, whereas it was horrendous with 3.(x), especially at the higher levels.

10:10
Comment From Tedium
Patrick: Go look up Tucker's Kobolds, in older editions creatures didn't have to be at-level to be challenging (in 4e, a party could probably obliterate them with autodamage zones)

10:10
Comment From Dan
I like the division that 4th edition seems to focus on in that heroic tier is saving a town/area, paragon tier for saving a country/region, and epic for saving the world

10:10
Comment From Kerri
I think that's an interesting concept. What's wrong with change? Everrything needs to change sometimes in order to keep things interesting. You wouldn't want things to stay the same, otherwise you'd get really board after awhile.

10:11
Comment From mpiikge
i'm tryin to start DMing when next comes out

10:11
Jeremy: We know that the standard D&D game falls into the middle of all roleplay and all combat, but the feedback so far really drives home all the diversity and difference in desires and playstyles. When one person wants X and another person wants Y and they're both on opposite ends of the spectrum it's important that we take into those ideas and adding it in to our modular approach.

10:12
Comment From Audra
One of my least favorite things about the leveling system in DnD is the widespread jump every level. I ended up determining values for feats, skills and such and using a merit based point system similar to Karma in Shadowrun. A Bard at 10th level whose never picked up a blade should not be better at sword fighting than a 4th level fighter. Also I don't like how certain classes are blocked from certain skills. I think the classes being blocked off and segregated as much as they are isn't realistic and it keeps people's characters 2 deminsional and role based.

10:12
Monte: Making sure that a D&D wizard, or a D&D ranger feels like a D&D wizard/ranger is really important.

10:13
Capturing that feel is one of the more difficult challenges because it's more ephemeral. It's difficult, but I think we've done a good job. When you get a chance to help in the playtest, hopefully you can let us know.

10:13
Moving on to how these guys design an adventure that is satisfying to players.

10:14
Comment From Dan
Looking back on 3rd edition, I feel like it did a good job of capturing the unique feel of each class. In 4th edition all classes feel similar, because in the end you're just using x daily powers. Sure, the effects are different, but since the mechanic is identical, it didn't really matter what you played, it still felt the same.

10:15
Jeremy: We have talked about having advengtures that cater to very particular tastes - political intrigue or classic dungeon crawl. You can also have the sandbox adventure that is an environment with hooks, fleshed out NPCs, evocative locations, And it really becomes a canvas for players and DMs to paint on. Sometimes, I think that's the best approach for people who want to choose their own way, but sometimes it's better to give a more directed approach for people who need that.

10:15
Greg: What's the targeted game that you would make for your table?

10:17
Monte: I would probably use miniatures, but I wouldn't necessarily want to get too tactical. For example, I would want rules for using a grid for movement around an encounter, but I wouldn't want to worry about too much detail. I would want there to be a lot of social interaction in my game and exploration. I would want those interaction to focus on player/character ingenuinity and descriptions of what they're doing instead of just rolling their dice and telling me what they got.

10:17
Comment From Jeremy V
I think that a game that focuses on storytelling and has streamlined combat is the one that would be best for me. It's really hard to tell a good story with the characters when combat takes and hour when it's being done fast

10:17
Comment From Onyxman8
I always start low levels campaigns very directed, then give the players more options as they get more comfortable with the environment.

10:18
Comment From Sentack
Personally, some of us liked the AEDU mechanic. It allowed everyone to do something cool and/or special at the table every fight. Not all of us enjoyed the "And I make another basic melee attack" of the fighter or the "And I'll cast another heal for this round" of the cleric.

10:18
Mike: I like changing things up from session to session based on what's going on. I really want that flexibility.

10:19
Jeremy: I would want to have the flexibility to swing back and forth between mass battles and normal sized encounters, and for the rules to cover those kinds of things.

10:19
Comment From Malien
I'd like a modular system that provides me mechancs to resolve rolls that could be simplistic (ie a yes/no result from a simple die roll) to the complicated (lots of modifiers, multiple rolls) that I could pick and choose between depending on the situation.

10:21
Comment From Onyxman8
Good NPCs help plot development in ongoing campaigns. Especially if you can get players to interact separately with different NPCs. Relationships to match their classes.

10:21
Comment From jks
im hoping this new edition of D&D coming up will have lots of options and support for players who prefer anti hero characters

10:23
Opening it up to questions from the floor now. First one is about multiclassing.

10:24
Comment From Tanks
Hw will multiclassing be handled? Will it go back to previous editions or be a feat tax?

10:24
Answers: We want to make it simple, but iconic class features need to be important as well. There are also packages we're looking at where characters can gain certain featuers or qualities that helps them branch out and feel like more of an individual or a real person.

10:25
Comment From Austin
As a long time DM I liked the idea of multiclassing that came up in 3.5 and the feat options that came up in 4th editon but the idea of a hybrid character is just a terrible option for players.

10:26
Question: In the recent editions it looks like a lot of the player options have been narrowed down to things they can/can't do in the rules. Is this next iteration going to get away from that.

10:27
Monte: While having options in the rules is great, we want to open things up so players can get creative and ask to do things that are specifically covered by the rules. We want to empower DMs to with information in the DM guide and others resources to be able to handle those out of the box situations. So basically better gaming through better DM tools and DMing.

10:29
Question: Are the random tables going to make a return to D&D?

10:29
Comment From scott
I hope so

10:30
Monte: There are a few different groups that most DMs fall into, and one of those groups wants to have randomness or at least an easy way to drop something into the game. I do want to make sure that we have those random tables for support for those kinds of DMs.

10:30
Comment From Qucalion of Celene
I'd like to use my percentile dice more often . . . ;)

10:30
Comment From Stirling
Random tables are nice, but they really seem at odds with the DM's balanced approach to encounter design. I remember in 3.5 ignoring basically almost all the random rolls because they where pitting monsters way outside my characters' abilities to face.

10:30
Comment From Malachy19
The random treasure tables were half the fun for me as a DM

10:30
Question: Is there a timetable as to when we can start playtesting?

10:31
Greg: The open playtest starts up sometime in the spring, and that's about all the information we have at this point.

10:31
Comment From Weem
I loved random tables - even if you don't want to roll on them, you could use them for "at a glance" selections

10:31
Quesiton: How easy is it to switch to different styles of gameplay with this modular approach depending on the play groups mood or progression of the story?

10:32
Mearls: The idea is that, hoepfully if we do it right, that you can switch on the fly if you need to from one encounter/story bit to the next. Like maybe you can use miniatures and grid rules for this fight, but switch to some social modularity for the next bit. If we do it right that should be fairly easy.

10:33
Question: How are you addressing the specific needs of organized play, and how are we going to see that in the future.

10:33
Comment From Josh
I hope they have a whole lot more. I really like encounters and lair assault. More more!

10:34
Mearls: What I imagine what you might see us doing is, so for our organized play game, here our the standard rules that characters and DMs will be using. It's important for us in an organized play environment that people know what we're getting in to. It's like what you've seen in LFR where there are accepted character options and players and DMs know what to expect.

10:35
Question: Do you expect one player to have fun with really stripped down rules and another player to have fun with controlling and doing bigger effects at the same table, or will those players migrate to different tables?

10:36
Comment From Alex
One of the negatives of essentials for me was that the simple classes were great for new players, but they often got bored with them as they leveled up and gained experience. Hopefully players will be able to switch between different styles of playing as their experience level and wants change.

10:37
Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.

10:37
Comment From Alf
On the other hand, Essentials gave a better feel for the iconic characters (versus the sort of cut-and paste of 4e)

10:38
Mearls: The players will have the flexibility they want at the tables, so the other goal is to make sure the DM has the tools he needs to make sure the different characters/players have a chance to shine with whatever options they choose.

10:38
Comment From TheOldDragoon
Re: Alex - Essentials is what got me to buy into 4e. As an old-school player, "Defender Aura" made a lot more sense to me than "mark" ever did. The Warpriest played more like an old-school Cleric. Basically, the snozberries tasted like snozzberries to me and my grognard friends, and we had a blast with it - and never got bored.

10:39
Jeremy: You can have two fighters that are very different at the same table, based on picking from the spectrum of complexity and options. You can have someone who is more just a sword and board, and another guy who focuses on combat maneuver options on the other end of complexity. It's about taking that spectrum we already have in the game and making it broader.

10:40
Comment From Ben
I preferred the detailed controls of 3.0 and 3.5 over the more generalized 4.0 mechanics.

10:41
Question: Sometimes you have arguments at the table causing lulls or a character who has too many options and takes forever to act. Any plans on addressing these issues?

10:42
Comment From Guest
I'll have to concur with that. While we've all heard of 4EE's simpler structure boring 4EAEDU guys, that has personally never occured in my gaming table. The 3.5 newly-converted guy especially continued to have a blast with his cavalier even if some options were locked on, while the slayer, well, slew stuff.

10:42
Comment From Elle
I agree! Please find a solution to the combat-that-takes-forever!

10:42
Comment From KingOfChaos
Too many options? Sounds like a problem with the player, not the rules set.

10:42
Monte: For the first one, we're going to give the DM a lot of tools to address players actions as well as rules discussions. We want to keep play moving quickly. The same goes for the player with too many options - we're planning on DM and player help to address as much of that as possible.

10:43
Do you think D&D started taking itself to seriously?

10:43
Comment From Lanethan
That's what I'm talkin' bout. This chat is making me grin from ear to ear.

10:44
Mike: I think D&D needs to have elements of chaos in it. Sometimes that can be funny, or weird or off the wall. I think that's one of the places where the randomness fo the d20 can come into play. I think that some of the recent history of the game has the designer buttoning down and eliminating some of that chaos, and we want to get away from that. It's the interactions between the DM, the players and the game that make it was it is, so we shouldn't stifle that.

10:45
Comment From Bret
How about a 'Frequently Looked Up' page in the back of the new DMG? The index is nice, but there are some charts and information that a DM frequently looks up AT the table. And sometimes I find myself hunting for that one sentence about how much gold a higher-level character starts with in 4E (example).

10:45
Jeremy: the idea that this game is taking itself to seriously has crept into our art as well. I'll give an example - in the last two editions if you look at the art, I think you'll see a lot of characters that look like super heroes. They all look like they've been to the gym recently, they don't have backpacks for traveling through the dungeon - the guys are well shaven.

10:45
Comment From Josh
As long as I the Dm can choose which chaos I want I can be fine with that. But too much chaos makes it hard to tell my story.

10:45
Comment From Thanatos
I think it's not a factor of taking itself too seriously, I think it's a factor of it playing too much like an MMORPG. This is a problem I had with both 3.5 and 4th editions

10:46
Comment From Rupert DnD
Mike, that´s amazing. I think chaos and randomness in some degree brings a lot of fun to the game.

10:46
Comment From Stirling
I admit the best memories of dnd where when something off the wall happened or something horribly went wrong. Never cared about doing 500 damage in one hit or stuff like that. No I remember when I leaped to save the princess, rolled 1, and nearly crushed her as 350 lbs of platemail fell on top of her

10:46
Comment From KyleH
I think D&D as a game should have the flexibility to be serious or silly. It's up to the group how they want to play.

10:46
Jeremy: in our recent art we've added a more diverse, modular approach - you've got people that look vastly different. You'll have the halfling who's a bit overweight with some food stains on his clothes along side the more heroic look dashing sort.

10:46
Comment From TheOldDragoon
@Mike : As a long-time DM, I kinda concur with what you're saying. The players, due to the current rules for encounter generation, *know* the encounter is equivalent to their abilities. There's no situations like there were in the old days where a random encounter might clearly outclass the PCs, and they may just have to retreat... or outhink the situation... That was part of the fun!

10:46
Comment From KingOfChaos
Chaos in D&D is where I excel. I am not happy unless my DM is wearing that 'you gotta be insane' look on their face.

10:47
Comment From nothingxs
Dungeons and Dragons has always, for the most part, focused on the combat. It essentially came from modifications made to a war game, and so it will probably stay forever. What I would like, however, is for a better, cleaner and more interesting way to resolve encounters that are not "physical" (combat) in a sense. I want chaos and randomness, sure, but I want to be able to resolve mental and social encounters as well, in a way that's not just "oh okay I rolled diplomacy and made the check, w00t"

10:47
Comment From Devrial
Insanity is just part of the game

10:47
Comment From gnarwhal
If combat takes a long time, it should be due to chaos and hilarity. Players can be too worried that they'll make the wrong choice, spend the wrong powers or move to the wrong square.

10:47
Question: How are you guys going to provide iconic D&D experiences or having some awesome and interesting longer combats.

10:49
Mike: The first step there is defining what those iconic D&D experiences are, which is what we've been focusing on in a lot of these playtests. There's a lot of room there between roleplay and smash and grab combat, and tactics.

10:49
Comment From KingOfChaos
DMs ultimately determine how a roll affects the game, pass or fail. If you want the NPC to react negatively even when the player passes a check, do so...just make sure there is a reason or make one up on the fly. You don't need a rule for every single situation that arises, that takes the fun and creativity out of the game that is the cornerstone of its foundation.

10:49
Comment From Drowbane
Well, back before all the skill checks, you actually had to role-play out all the social situations that now can be resolved with a die roll. It kind of takes away a lot from the game. Although, in a timed game (like LFR), I can understand how the role-playing gets pushed to the side.

10:49
Comment From ranthoron
@nothingxs well, that would mean that skill challenges would probably fill many pages and not a paragraph...

10:50
Jeremy: we've seen a great range of tactical style and combat length in the playtest's so far, so our plan is to definitely have DMs and players be able to determine what kind of combats they want to have and have the right options to support those.

10:50
Comment From Nosfecatu
Yeah. I love 4E, but one thing that bothers me is that I always tend to go to earlier editions when exchanging "war stories." It's because earlier editions generally saw some guy doing some crazy thing, whereas 4E tends to stick to their powers even though, as a DM, I judiciously remind them to be creative.

10:51
Question: What are you doing to make sure that each character/player feels useful in each part of the game?

10:51
Comment From Ben
I think a lot of players expect the DM to provide the roleplay, when really they can do it much easier. Don't just roll the dice, give it context.

10:52
Comment From JamesL
I think the older editions weren't afraid to throw extreme challenges at the players, and let them figure it out. This version has all solutions be combat or skill challenge ones, that are all level appropriate with a 90% chance of success.

10:52
Mike: It goes back to the three pillars and supporting the different kinds of play - we definitely are working on having DM and player tools and optoins in place so that characters are engaged. Example - you can have that master climber, but you want others to feel included and involved in whatever thing when that master climber gets to show off.

10:55
And that wraps up this chat. Tomorrow we'll be having a seminar on class design at 12:30 Eastern time, so make sure to keep your eye on the feeds and join us again. Thanks much to everyone!

10:55
Comment From Luke
Thanks for chatting with us Mike

10:55
Comment From mbeacom
Thanks for doing this everyone!

10:56
Comment From Dusty
thanks for posting my questions... it was awesome....

10:56
Comment From Alf
::thumbs up::

10:56
Comment From Thanatos
Thanks. Looking foreward to it

10:56
Comment From Craetwin
Thanks for the chat!

10:56
Comment From Yohen
Thank you guys!
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

Monte: I think 4E does the best of highlighting that high level change and being clear that things are changing.
CapnTthePirateG
Duke
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Post by CapnTthePirateG »

We are SO fucked.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Image
ModelCitizen
Knight-Baron
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:53 am

Post by ModelCitizen »

Eh, Less than a minute later he mentioned handing out castles and stuff for high level characters, so I'm willing to chalk that up to miscommunication. It sounds like he likes that there are well defined tiers, but not necessarily what the tiers mean.
Last edited by ModelCitizen on Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

CapnTthePirateG wrote:We are SO fucked.
That was 80% less fucking retarded as I expected it to be (on the designer side) so I'm not sure what you mean. There was enough flashes of not so much brilliance, but the absence of idiocy that I'm willing to give their gladhandig the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: In the context of who he was responding to, I'm pretty sure that means 4e spelled it out that you went from shit-covered peasants to proper heroes to world beaters in the tier progression. Hopefully they realize the mechanics didn't follow.
Last edited by Mask_De_H on Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17350
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

Supposedly, according to my much older friend who has strange unknown connections in gaming, and literally makes his living with a booth at cons and so often gets a chance to talk to those chuckleheads, Hasbro was the ringleader of 4e, telling wizards "We need a new edition. Make something like WoW, we give you all the money you can goddamned carry. Make something else, and we... don't." And has told Wizards this time around "Make something more like 3.5"

My biggest concern at the moment is that they'll use the setting of 4e.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

I don't anything here that's really new. There are some high-level ideas that could be implemented well or poorly, and that follows the pattern of 4e.

Still, no heavily offensive ideas is probably reason for hope.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Monte: Instead of the figher getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate.

Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.
These two statements cannot be reconciled. If you are not getting more options and you are not adding more numeric bonuses, you are not going up in level.

This really is just a jumble of confused market-speak. There is no actual design here, as is explicitly demonstrated by the fact that they are giving incompatible visions back to back in an effort to mollify different factions of fans. Horizontal and vertical advancement both have their proponents and their problems. But you can't simply declare that you are obviating the problems of both through game design sorcery. Either you're gaining something or you're not. If you're gaining something, then it is going to either add more options to the character or it's going to push that Orc off the RNG or both. It can't do neither.

-Username17
Swordslinger
Knight-Baron
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm

Post by Swordslinger »

Prak_Anima wrote:Supposedly, according to my much older friend who has strange unknown connections in gaming, and literally makes his living with a booth at cons and so often gets a chance to talk to those chuckleheads, Hasbro was the ringleader of 4e, telling wizards "We need a new edition. Make something like WoW, we give you all the money you can goddamned carry. Make something else, and we... don't." And has told Wizards this time around "Make something more like 3.5"
Not quite. It seems that the they told Wizards this time something similar to "I want a really complex game to attract the people who stuck with Pathfinder/3.5 but we also want it to be simple enough to attract the 4E/2E/1E players who want very few options."

This edition is going to try to be an attempt to make every game, with this modular rules approach and the idea that some people are playing with feats/skills/spells and others are not.

We may actually end up with another 3.5 type game by default, because it seems the only "solution" to the design goal they have is to say fuck balance and have weak, low-option fighters traveling with awesome, high-option spellcasters. Only unlike 3.5, in this edition, the fighter doesn't get skills or feats. And apparently his numerics don't improve much either. So I have no idea what he's supposed to be getting. Maybe he'll just be a fuckton of HP.
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

FrankTrollman wrote:These two statements cannot be reconciled.
But they don't have to be. Mearls is confusing and confused, because his design process is seriously fucked, and he isn't enough of a prodigy to create the new edition whole-cloth (not actually a knock on him; almost no-one is. That's why successful people have design processes).

What he has actually established though, is a number of separate requirements:
- include a class that stays relevant without adding complexity
- include a class called 'fighter' that stays relevant by gaining more options, without precipitous improvements in any options.
- include at least one enemy which is recognizably an 'orc'
- must include the ability for enemies which are recognizably 'orcs' to present a challenge at any level
- etc.

Those are the things he mentioned, just presented differently. This isn't even a good presentation, it's out of my ass and in forum format. It still makes it suddenly achievable, just because I wrote it down in a halfway-ordered manner.

Seriously, this is why he should be fired. System design is a well-studied field. We know how to do it. We can use SE processes for everything from moon-shots to ad campaigns, and it makes them work. He should either be in the requirements development stage (in which case, his talks should look a whole lot more like "I have no clue what we're doing yet. What are all the things you want to do?"), or he should have his requirements solid, and be presenting lists of design goals, which look like the above.

This isn't rocket surgery.


Edit: and to SS, here's something that is simple, has no options, and still plays the same game as 3.5 wizards:
http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_W ... #Barbarian
Last edited by fectin on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

ModelCitizen wrote:Eh, Less than a minute later he mentioned handing out castles and stuff for high level characters, so I'm willing to chalk that up to miscommunication.
No, I think it means that (because of their "everything complicated is optional" philosophy) there will be a splatbook on castles and armies and junk (which will probably be a shitty system that someone whipped up in about 5 minutes, because that's how splatbooks work) and that in the core rulebook, everything will be disappointingly similar to 4E (where going up in level means you fight bigger and bigger orcs guarding bigger and bigger pies).
Last edited by hogarth on Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

FrankTrollman wrote: These two statements cannot be reconciled. If you are not getting more options and you are not adding more numeric bonuses, you are not going up in level.

-Username17
Not to mention the fact that a simple orc is supposed to stay a relevant threat and at higher level you are also supposed to be able to fight a horde of orcs.
Last edited by ishy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Monte: Instead of the figher getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate.

Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.
These two statements cannot be reconciled. If you are not getting more options and you are not adding more numeric bonuses, you are not going up in level.

This really is just a jumble of confused market-speak. There is no actual design here, as is explicitly demonstrated by the fact that they are giving incompatible visions back to back in an effort to mollify different factions of fans. Horizontal and vertical advancement both have their proponents and their problems. But you can't simply declare that you are obviating the problems of both through game design sorcery. Either you're gaining something or you're not. If you're gaining something, then it is going to either add more options to the character or it's going to push that Orc off the RNG or both. It can't do neither.

-Username17
First, fuck you for making me want to defend these clowns.

Second, what they actually said isn't irreconcilable at all, just poorly worded and marketing speak-y. Advancing through gaining options while curtailing numerical expansion, as well as having simple characters that can be advanced through modular abilities (which they're probably just bullshitting us and mean "feats") is not only reasonable, but something you talked about doing back in the Fantasy Kitchen Sink/Lago's Kickass D&D Marketing thread.

Maybe I'm giving these assholes the benefit of the doubt/extrapolating too much, but if attack bonus is based on stats and stats go up slowly, then what they're saying might hold. And then there's this:
10:06
Jeremy: The Monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.
Which is exactly what we were going to do for the Fantasy Kitchen Sink heartbreaker. Granted, they'll probably fuck it up like 4e monsters, but it isn't a binary thing. These irreconcilable things are things that you've gotten behind once upon a time, Frank.

If they aren't dumb about it (fat chance), then the basic orc thing probably means that there's going to be hordes of the things at higher levels. There's not enough to go on to ensure that they'll get it right, but there's not really enough to castigate them yet outside of because fuck 'em. Get back to me when they really put their feet in their mouths or their heads up their asses.
Last edited by Mask_De_H on Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.



Says he's joking, the joke is that he's being serious.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.


And there goes the last shred of hope.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Monte: I would probably use miniatures, but I wouldn't necessarily want to get too tactical. For example, I would want rules for using a grid for movement around an encounter, but I wouldn't want to worry about too much detail. I would want there to be a lot of social interaction in my game and exploration. I would want those interaction to focus on player/character ingenuinity and descriptions of what they're doing instead of just rolling their dice and telling me what they got.


It seems like fighters are going to get screwed again.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

MDH wrote:Second, what they actually said isn't irreconcilable at all, just poorly worded and marketing speak-y. Advancing through gaining options while curtailing numerical expansion, as well as having simple characters that can be advanced through modular abilities (which they're probably just bullshitting us and mean "feats") is not only reasonable, but something you talked about doing back in the Fantasy Kitchen Sink/Lago's Kickass D&D Marketing thread.
Staggering and alternating vertical and horizontal advancement can give people more instances of tangible advancement without hitting your project's wall of projected complexity limits or RNG divergence. It's a good idea.

But that's not what he's saying. Read it again: he specifically calls out the gaining of options as being optional for the simple character. But he also said that gaining options was something that was going to be done to keep the RNG from breaking. This quote:
Monte: Instead of the figher getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate.
Says that the intention is that character growth will be staggered and alternated between numeric bonuses and new options. That's a fine idea. I support that notion. But look at the next quote:
Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.
This is bullshit, and completely incompatible with the previous quote. If gaining options is the thing you're doing to keep the RNG from breaking, gaining options can't be fucking optional. It can't be something you "might" do as your character progresses, because that entails that gaining options is something you "might not" do instead.

Since we already committed to having the numeric bonuses going up slowly, if we make new options optional, we have empty levels.

-Username17
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun in and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Seerow wrote:Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun in and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.
I meant two things:

1) Sticking to a grid tends to hurt mundane people more because it becomes obvious when they're moving too fast; their options get limited. If you keep it more free-form or abstract, they tend to be able to reach more targets.

2) Exploration and social interaction tend not to be the fighter's fortes.

Now, both of these might not be problems if they design the fighter to have more mobility options and out of combat options; he just didn't say it.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

I didn't post that as a response to you. That was a quote from the chat. They're apparently getting rid of defined status effects.

Sorry for the confusion.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Whoops!

That's too bad. Once I got used to them, I liked 3E's conditions.
Last edited by RobbyPants on Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

FrankTrollman wrote: This is bullshit, and completely incompatible with the previous quote. If gaining options is the thing you're doing to keep the RNG from breaking, gaining options can't be fucking optional.
You're saying that every use of the word "option" is exactly equivalent, when obviously it isn't (e.g. you have the option to play a wizard vs. playing a fighter and you have the option to use a sword vs. using a mace, but that doesn't imply that you have to choose between playing a wizard vs. using a mace).

My take is that there will be a "vanilla" fighter who gets a variety of powers (combat "options") as he goes up in level. But you will also have the choice (character "option") to switch out some of those powers (combat "options") for others, if you like.
Seerow wrote:I didn't post that as a response to you. That was a quote from the chat. They're apparently getting rid of defined status effects.
Then use the quote tags, that's what they're there for.
Last edited by hogarth on Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

Seerow wrote:Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun in and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.
This sounds like an utterly terrible idea. It sounds like taking the 4e 'Evil Eye' issue and then making it even worse because when something does stun, you have no idea what that actually means without referring to the specific ability.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

Previn wrote:
Seerow wrote:Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun in and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that.
This sounds like an utterly terrible idea. It sounds like taking the 4e 'Evil Eye' issue and then making it even worse because when something does stun, you have no idea what that actually means without referring to the specific ability.
I think the intent is that it wouldn't ever reference a stun ability. Any ability that wants to stun will instead of saying stun will say "You can't take any actions, lose dexterity bonus to AC, and drop any items held"
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Seerow wrote:I think the intent is that it wouldn't ever reference a stun ability. Any ability that wants to stun will instead of saying stun will say "You can't take any actions, lose dexterity bonus to AC, and drop any items held"
The downside of that is stuff like errata. Also, on the off chance that one of the 50 "stun entries" is slightly different, is it a typo or a slightly different ability on purpose?
Post Reply