Quote from: jormungand1What I thought while I was playing (the Paladin character) is that it seemed like the game mechanics came first in the design of the game...

I think that early D&D game design was the complete opposite: they decided that Paladins from the Charlemagne stories (like Roland) were cool and came up with the game mechanics to fit the concept.

It seems to me that the 4e approach might lead to better game mechanics -- having everything balanced, etc. - but it doesn't necessarily lead to a more fun game because too many things seem so random.  

I think you just hit the nail on the head. A mechanics first approach is going to lead to a very different sort of game than a theme first approach.

To put it in boardgame terms, 4E is taking a page from the mathematically elegant, perfectly balanced euro games, while D&D was originally a clunky but immersive Ameritrash game. While I recognize the impressive ludic design behind 4E (and 3E), I play RPGs for entirely different experiences than I play analytical boardgames like Puerto Rico and Power Grid.

Mearls is an interesting case. He was almost indisputably the most prolific and most interesting d20 designer. His list of credits is immense, and almost everything he touched has at least some new and useful insights into the d20 system.

And he understood his role as a craftsman, and was always looking critically at this past work with an eye toward future improvements. And he wasn't afraid to take chances with new mechanics.

Given all this, a Mearls book was almost always worth checking out.

But for all that, there was also an unevenness to much of his work, and a frequent sense that he had never *quite* run the ball all the way into the end zone. It was a little like watching a spectacular 80 yard return that resulted in a stalled out fourth and goal.

I had initially thought this was because he was doing so many damned projects and that the editing/quality control at many of his publishers was not quite up to snuff. Take Monster's Handbook, for example. One of my all-time favorite reference books, but also an incomplete and occasionally flawed work. His fundamental insight -- using the EL system to gage the effect of monster modification on challenge ratings -- is brilliant.

But the implementation was inconsistent and the editing substandard. It really felt like just a little more love and attention would have taken that book from an A-/B+ to an easy A++. I really wondered what MH would have looked like if published by Expeditious Retreat or Green Ronin.

So given this, I was ecstatic when I heard Mearls was joining the staff of Malhavoc. I thought that Mike would *finally* get a chance to focus on one project at a time, and he would be backed up by one of the best editing teams in the biz.

But I never quite saw the magic I had expected, and Iron Heroes is probably the most infamous example. Again, the book is chock full of brilliant insights and innovations into the d20 system, but the implementation is badly flawed.

And I don't think it was because Sue Cook didn't do a good enough job as an editor. His freelance work for Paizo -- for example, the Dragon Compendium -- suffered from similar issues. The stuff that was good was fantastic, but when taken as a whole, it just wasn't quite there.

So I'm not sure I would have quite called him the best d20 designer working. Steve Kenson and Robert J. Schwalb, while not as prolific and maybe not as daring as Mike, made d20 books that were, for my money, individually better than any individual work written by Mike.

That was a bit of a ramble. Did it make any sense at all?

Quote from: jormungand1It seems to me that the 4e approach might lead to better game mechanics -- having everything balanced, etc. - but it doesn't necessarily lead to a more fun game because too many things seem so random.  Plus, they'll eventually run out of things that sound even remotely reasonable ("Shielding Smite") and start naming things stuff like "Golden Wyvern Adept"

There is another fly in the ointment. In NERO Live-action and MMORPGs what works for Player versus environment doesn't work for Player versus players. They may find in extended play that some classes have a combo of power that allows them to dominate fights against NPC characters or heaven forbid other players. Leading to the inevitable cries of "This needs to be fixed".

Welcome to theRPGsite Paul,

I think you're absolutely right about the design process and where it's leads to. But since you got a chance to test drive Paladin 4E, would you mind giving us the details? Start up a new thread if you feel like it.

Go find your footage of people dressed up like monsters and post it to YouTube immediately! :haw:

I love that stuff! :woop:

Quote from: GarnfellowSo given this, I was ecstatic when I heard Mearls was joining the staff of Malhavoc. I thought that Mike would *finally* get a chance to focus on one project at a time, and he would be backed up by one of the best editing teams in the biz.

While I was waiting in line for the Dungeon Delve, Mearls walked up to someone in line 3 or 4 people ahead of me that he seemed to know.  The guy in line asked him what he was working on now, apart from 4e.  He mentioned about 5 or 6 different projects (most were 4e supplements, I think, but I don't remember what they all were.)  He commented that normally you're not supposed to work on more than 2 projects.  I can't remember exactly what he said the reason was that he was working on so many -- 4e, maybe?

At any rate, all this is to say that at WotC, Mearls is still not getting to focus on one project at a time.......

-Paul

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWelcome to theRPGsite Paul,

I think you're absolutely right about the design process and where it's leads to. But since you got a chance to test drive Paladin 4E, would you mind giving us the details? Start up a new thread if you feel like it.

Thanks.  I may start one up later today or tonight......

-Paul

Abyssal Maw and others -- thank you for your responses.

Quote from: GarnfellowMearls is an interesting case. He was almost indisputably the most prolific and most interesting d20 designer. His list of credits is immense, and almost everything he touched has at least some new and useful insights into the d20 system....

 (and more...)

....So I'm not sure I would have quite called him the best d20 designer working. Steve Kenson and Robert J. Schwalb, while not as prolific and maybe not as daring as Mike, made d20 books that were, for my money, individually better than any individual work written by Mike.

That was a bit of a ramble. Did it make any sense at all?

I actually agree with everything you said here, but I found the Mearls insight to be enough that I don't really fault the editing and the "he didn't take it far enough..". I would also like to add Steve Kenson to my own list personal favorites, but for only M&M2e, not the 1st edition. The 1st edition is great concept, but I had a lot of trouble getting things like the Protection power and the toughness saves figured out until I had the 2nd book.

Quote from: Consonant DudeAs far as as the Gaming Outpost, I wasn't there but when looking at all those names and what they ended up doing, I think it's really impressive, even if it's not all to my tastes. Must have been a fantastic community at the time!

There has never been anything like it. I miss the place. It still exists, but I don't go back.

That's a great point, jormungand1 and I think it neatly draws the line between roleplaying and roll-playing.  And may be a major distinction between 3rd and 4th edition.

Let me try this again.

If somebody were to say, "Mike Mearls is a textbook Forge "'gamist'": what would one say to clear up this misperception?

Assuming it is one.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNope. Because from what I played, not everything resets. For example, surges don't reset, and neither do hit points. (You can *spend* surges in between encounters). The daily power (which is the most powerful) also doesn't reset. The cleric ability to heal can only be used twice during an encounter.

If you blow through your good stuff at the beginning of an adventure you could end up overwhelmed at the end.

Again, the way you talk makes it sound like there are two totally different sets of rules or conditions: "normal time" and "4ncounter Time".  And that the former is really there just to be a vehicle between one and the other of the latter.

For example, can the Eldarin teleport outside of combat? Or is that something it only does during 4ncounters?

RPGPundit

"4ncounters"? You putz.

Quote from: blakkieA man sitting alone in his apartment puffing on a pipe :pundit: , reading tomes of arcane mystery over and over and over, spiraling down from humanity into paranoid madness?

EDIT: The really scary part?  Chris Parma, the Great Satan and defiler of all that is right in RPGs, agrees with RPGPundit that 4e just isn't D&D!  Now what is Pundit going to do?

I'm going to agree with him, to a certain extent.  I get the feeling Pramas doesn't play too many minis games; he made the CCG comparison, but really the closest comparison is to the D&D minis game. 4e isn't based on or mostly inspired by OD&D, or 1e or RC or 2e or 3e or 3.5; its main source of inspiration appears to be the D&D minis game (and WoW a close second).

The D&D minis game is basically a game that plays along CCG lines, right up to and including the collectible element of it. So Pramas' essential point in this is correct.

Quote[size=-2].... wait a second, they both have RPG system products they are hocking, games that could be said to be somewhat competing with D&D. Could there be a connection?[/size]

Not really. For Pramas and True20 this might be a real motive; I wouldn't doubt it: it was his motive for claiming year after year that "4e is coming!".

But I'm not quite so insane as to think that any significant number of people are going to check out FtA! SOLELY because they're unhappy with 4e. FtA! doesn't have that kind of coverage. I certainly hope people check it out, but that won't be what causes it.

RPGPundit