Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot's Rob Rozeboom Interviews D&D Designer Mike Mearls (video)
Mike Mearls is the Senior Manager for the Dungeons and Dragons Design Team. He's been with D&D publishers Wizards of the Coast (a subsidiary of Hasbro) since 2005, Before that he was a free-lance game writer and designer. In this conversation with Slashdot editor Rob "samzenpus" Rozeboom, he talks about changes in the latest version of D&D and how the company interacts with players. (We'll have some more chat with Mike next week, different wizard time, same wizard channel, so stay tuned.)
First of all, thank you for doing this interview and releasing it for free for my enjoyment. However, I don't have audio on the computer I'm using right now, so I can't hear it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I hate watching videos of things that can be communicated faster and more efficiently via text (like interviews). A transcription would be appreciated.
Yes, because games are something that only children do. Especially games that use a significant amount of math and copious amounts of (admittedly often too) complicated rules. Games that encourage out of the box thinking. Games where you can include complex scenarios - and be able to handle them in any way you choose, assuming you are alright with the consequences. Not limited to combat, games with older players often include politics, economics, religion, and other social issues.
I know you're just trolling, but there's far more to pen and paper RPGs than many people think.
I'd take a half-assed PnP RPG game over an incredible computer RPG any day. Why? Because the computer gives me a very limited set of choices and makes a lot of assumptions. If I want to do X, and it isn't coded into the game, then I can't even attempt to do X. Not so in PnP games.
Love sees no species.
If I wanted everything equal, fair, balanced, I'd play a video game or watch fox news.
I playtested D&D Next this last weekend, and enjoyed it a lot. It's nothing like 4e, whatsoever. The mechanics go back to 3e, but are even simpler. Skills are simpler, there was no need for a battlemat, and we enjoyed 6 combat encounters in under 3 hours, and plenty of roleplaying. I encourage all D&D fans to check it out, if they ever played AD&D, 3e, or 4e. AD&D players will find it more balanced, and bereft of THAC0 insanity. 3e players will like the skill simplification, and overall feel of the mechanics. 4e players will... be glad to get rid of 4e's powers, forced movement, positioning, Opportunity Attacks, and all other combat clutter.
This is why you have a real live DM to correct for those times in which it is broken.
Is it possible to, by the letter of the rules, break 3.5? Sure it is. But in my group we have players who're more interested in having fun than in rules-lawyering, and a DM to ensure that that things stay balanced.
A good RPG system doesn't have to be balanced; it just has to be balanced to first order.
I love your constructive criticism
Sorry, that was sarcasm and I forgot the tags
Earlier D&D editions were hardly great - IMO, all editions had serious problems. I just started playing 4 and actually quite like it so far, but haven't played it enough to really judge it. It does, however, have a more epic feel where you start and you seem reasonably competent rather than building up from very weak characters with no power to a godlike beings. My group is more roleplayers, so really we don't get into dungeons all that often - it is more about working toward some goal (often political - for instance, we spent 4 years of realtime and about 20 in gametime usurping a kingdom by building up a false champion).
3.0/3.5 if you didn't design your leveling from the beginning for your specialty class, you were screwed. You have to point bash, and that takes the fun out of feats - your character is basically fully designed from the start or worthless later on and also makes feats practically worthless - you may as well give 3 choices and then fix the rest based on those choices and not bother printing the rest.
1.0-2.0 you could role crappy and have 11 hit points at 11th level. Most 11th level monsters would kill you in 1 hit. Don't laugh - I made it to level 5 and had 5 HP on a wizard once (game ended, but I spent a lot of time bleeding to death in that one), and level 8 and had 10HP on a thief. Thief died in a claw-claw-bite after a spectacular backstab on a Troll that left it with 1HP - it turned around (ignoring the half ogre fighter in front of it) and claw did 12HP, claw did 11HP, bite did critical 34HP (we were playing -10HP to death and DM decided troll ripped both arms off and then bit off my head... and was chewing it when the half ogre clobbered it for 20 more damage "killing" it). My replacement character was given max hits but was one level below the rest of the party (this was the DM's "death penalty").
Low level D&D wizards sucked. Not as much as the Rolemaster elementalist with first level spell "boil water", but cast one magic missile and have to sleep 8 hours really sucks (and that is about all I got rolling 3D6 and not playing with a point bash DM that let me roll 4D6-1die for stats where I may have additional spells). When the DM gives extra experience for combat you can't participate in because you are out of spells, it sucks even more. Then they make the experience curve worse for Wizards.
In first and second edition, multiclassing was cool early on, especially if you were working around the wizard's cast a spell and need to sleep 8 hours, but made the midgame difficult (late game was sometimes OK, especially if one class was wizard and got 4th and 5th level wizard spells). Human changing class had less of an impact later on, especially if they just put in 3 levels or so to get some beneficial thief skills and switched to something else.
In first and second edition you could have an unplayable starting character. The worst I ever rolled had 4 threes and a max stat of 6 (my D6s are cursed, I'm pretty sure). I rolled a character not much better than that in Call of Cthulhu (max stats were 8 and 9, most were between 3 and 6) and not only was he playable, he got the nickname deadeye after the GM penalized him for being drunk (it was by prescription) and then rolling 1s and 2s on percentile dice for critical hits in several sessions.
Personally I didn't like halflings or to some extent dwarves in most of the released versions (not sure about 4.0 because I rolled my race randomly and it wasn't dwarf or halfling). Dwarves were pretty much pigeon-holed into being fighters or clerics, but halflings were worse, being pretty much useless as anything but thief.
1.0-2.0 and maybe 3/3.5 low level wizards/sorcerers suck and you spend most of your time doing nothing (I never played a wizard/sorcerer in 3/3.5, and again didn't play either much, as I was in a long running Rolemaster game and our group fell apart shortly after that due to life happening and we're jus
Ah, 4th edition. You tried so hard, and you largely succeeded. You gave healers something to do other than cast heal spells every turn, and a day of dungeoneering was able to continue past the first battle instead of everyone going, "The cleric's used up his spells - we're going back to base!"
You gave defensive builds a place in the world without making them boring. You took away a wizard's level 1 crossbow and gave him all the fireballs he wanted. You gave every class something to do other than basic melee attacks. You made characters interesting right from level 1 instead of forcing people to pray for an interesting character 10 levels down the road.
You took away multiclassing, and there was a gnashing of munchkin teeth, but you gave us arcane swordsmen and holy assassins and psychic healers. You broke up the age-old racial tradition of just elves, humans, and dwarves by sticking tieflings, dragonborn, goliaths, and devas into the main books. You got rid of prestige classes, those wonky things that forced people into specific build types, and instead gave us multiple builds for the base of a class and paragon paths for later on. Your flavor was more focused on the character than on the class min/maxing.
But, in your certain rush to fix everything that was wrong with D&D, you forgot the feel. You felt that you could discard the very makeup of the game and craft something new from scratch. Despite the interesting things that happened to a new character, your demand for balance forced you to keep everyone the same beyond level 1. While many people rallied behind you, you split the community as the players who had been in the game for years threw up their hands in disgust and went to a fork of your previous system, preferring an imperfect system that felt more like something from their youth and less like those infernal MMORPGs.
I've seen the playtest, and at first glance it looks like something that tries to bring the two groups together. But the PnP RPG faces a diminished audience from the outset, what with kids all distracted by their new-fangled machine, and the audience that you drove away has come to call you a heretic and isn't bound to return even if you pander to them again. Godspeed to you, Wizards, but I fear there's not much more you can do.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.