Was rummaging through old threads out of boredom, and came across this thread, and this post by Mr. Mearls:  

QuoteDefault
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGPundit
That's a pretty wild statement; but before I go off all half-cocked, could you please tell me WHY you think they're more fun? I suspect when you think about it that the reason will have far less to do with actual RULES as it will with format and structure.

Note that this includes the idea of having a single-resolution mechanic. This is a STRUCTURAL change, not a rules innovation, in the same way that making different pieces of software more compatible with each other is a structural change, not a change in how any given piece of software in and of itself functions.

I'll focus on D&D and offer the following. I'm planting my rule v. structure flag on the line of philosophy. If the thinking behind how to design the game changed, then that's a major rule change. So, reversing AC is a simple change in structure, but creating a level system for monsters in parallel to PCs is a rule change.

* Exceptions Based Mechanics for Everyone: It's more fun to play a fighter with Power Attack and Cleave than a fighter from an earlier edition. Feats give everyone special abilities. Before, only spellcasters sort of kinda got them.

* Challenge Rating System: It's easier than ever for a DM to create balanced encounters on the fly. It doesn't work perfectly (for reasons I still don't understand, the 3e designers never tried to standardized monster progression of AC/hp/attacks/damage by CR, instead opting to create HD-driven pseudo-character classes) but it's way ahead of everything else.

* Standardized Treasure: Another half-realized improvement, but 3e took a step toward making it clear what kind of magic items a PC should have at a given level. As with CR, these new mechanics added more order and predictability to the system, though they undercut themselves by breaking down at higher levels.

* Per Encounter Resources: With the warlock and material from Nine Swords, D&D creates its own mechanical, narrative framework, rather than relying on daily powers or other frameworks driven by fiction.

* Use Driven Skill System: I think this is an easy one to overlook, but 3e is the first D&D skill system driven by "What do the characters need to do?" rather than "Let's list everything that someone could do."

* Standardized Rules for Miniatures Play: This is another easily overlooked shift in thinking. Other versions of D&D sort of supported miniatures, 3e embraced them. I think this is important because it ties into the idea of building a game driven by what the end users were doing with the game and what they wanted to do with the game.

* Encounter Traps (Dungeonscape; Secrets of Xen'drick): IMNSHO this is the most overlooked advancement in D&D. Basically, these rules turn traps into complete encounters. This is much more than structure, but a completely new approach to non-combat encounters that could yield very interesting results if applied to other areas.

For the above to make sense, it really needs Mearls' initial -- and rather specious -- remark for context:

Quote from: mearlsIf innovation = more fun, then I think there's been a ton of innovation over the years. Across the board, RPGs and games of all types are more fun now than they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

Hunh. Really?

!i!

Here's another quote that seems relevant:

Quote from: mearlsA big problem facing D&D right now is that the gap between a weak character and a strong one is so huge. Even using the PH, it's way too easy to make an insanely inept character.

Current design assumes some skill in PC building, but I worry that it pushes things too far above the typical player.

The interesting thing to me is that most players would say it's bad to have characters who are too powerful, but I think the real problem lies on the opposite end of the bell curve. It's too easy to unwittingly create a useless character.

Edit:

Also

Quote from: mearlsStory games are basically about telling a good story.

D&D is basically a game that makes some concessions to modeling comic book/movie/adventure novel reality.

QuoteD&D is basically a game that makes some concessions to modeling comic book/movie/adventure novel reality.

Not my D&D. We started playing when we were 11 years old. D&D wasn't modelling anything to us - exploring labyrinths full of monster and treasure was its own genre and its own medium. That's what made it so great.

In fact, I'd say my dissatisfaction with state of mainstream D&D has grown as those external influences became more evident. First in the late 80s when every adventure and campaign turned into a lame-ass vanilla fantasy novel a la David Eddings or Robert Jordan, and more recently with the overt mimicking of superheroic anime and tabletop miniatures.

That's why when I hear advice to model game campaigns on television series, or how a mechanic is 'cinematic', I know that advice or that game isn't for me. I immersed myself in D&D and developed my own RPG themes and structures before I learned the themes and structures of other mediums. I aspire to make my D&D do D&D well, not do episodic television, action movies, or manga stories well.