# Mearls is the new manager of D&D



## Klaus (May 15, 2010)

He confirmed this on Facebook, so let's welcome Mike Mearls as the new man in charge of D&D R&D. 

Congrats, Mike! Fthang!


----------



## Pseudopsyche (May 15, 2010)

Great news--I like what he's done for the game--although I can't say I'm surprised. He's been a rising star in the company for a while.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 15, 2010)

deleted


----------



## darjr (May 15, 2010)

Yea, congrats and post. Any plans or ideas you can give us a sneak peak at ?

*speech*
*speech*
*speech*


----------



## DaveMage (May 15, 2010)

Who was in the position before Mike?


----------



## MacMathan (May 15, 2010)

That is great news for the game IMHO. I love Mearl's work. Congrats!!!


----------



## Tuft (May 15, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Who was in the position before Mike?




Among those seven listed as laid-off this week in Bad Week… « NeoGrognard , Andy Collins was listed as "Manager of D&D editing and development", so I guess it's his position.


----------



## Rechan (May 15, 2010)

Go Mike!


----------



## Filcher (May 15, 2010)

Note that, in 4 years or less, we will be wishing Mike well again, in a round of seemingly-random WotC layoffs.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 16, 2010)

You got the news in Brazil before we got it in the states? 

That's crazy! The books are always in Europe and Asia before they're available here, too. 

I think Klaus is working the inside deal on this one. I've had my eye on him for a while. I'm watching you, Pozas.


----------



## Sammael (May 16, 2010)

This changes absolutely nothing for me, since Mike's vision of what D&D should be is far, far away from my own. Still - best of luck and I'm sure he'll do what he believes is best for the brand.


----------



## Mark (May 16, 2010)

Best of luck to him in his new position!


----------



## doctorhook (May 16, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Note that [_early into the life- or development-cycle of 5th Edition_], we will [_probably_] be wishing Mike well again, in a round of seemingly-random WotC layoffs.



FIFY. But you're probably right. So it goes.

The best we can hope for is that Mr Mearls has a good run while he's there, and that "the next guy" breathes as much life into the game as Mike does!

PS: Congratulations, good luck, and Godspeed, Mike!


----------



## dmccoy1693 (May 16, 2010)

I'd said it on twitter and I'll say it again. Congrats sir.


----------



## malraux (May 16, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Note that, in 4 years or less, we will be wishing Mike well again, in a round of seemingly-random WotC layoffs.




FWIW, this is pretty good evidence that WotC doesn't have a 5e planned for the immediate future.  Now once Mearls leaves, that's probably the point I stop buying 4e books because 5e is going to be in development from that point on.


----------



## drothgery (May 16, 2010)

malraux said:


> FWIW, this is pretty good evidence that WotC doesn't have a 5e planned for the immediate future.  Now once Mearls leaves, that's probably the point I stop buying 4e books because 5e is going to be in development from that point on.




Depends. If 5e is effectively 4.5 with new art and a different set of races and classes in PH1, then Mearls could easily have a lot to do with it.


----------



## Jasperak (May 16, 2010)

Made my saving throw, congrats Mike.


----------



## lutecius (May 16, 2010)

*Folks, be sure to see the warnings later in the thread before responding to this. Thanks. ~ PCat*

I'm not a fan of what he's done to d&d so I can't say I'm thrilled.

at least i don't need to pay attention to new wotc products until the next guy steps in.


----------



## SteveC (May 16, 2010)

This is sort of mixed news for me. On the one hand, I'm happy, because Mike is a great guy and a fantastic designer.

On the other hand, it definitely means that the clock has started for him being let go from the company.

So, best of luck, enjoy the position for as long as you can hold onto it. I hope this means we'll have several more years of awesome D&D coming our way.

--Steve


----------



## Desdichado (May 16, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Fthang!



Huh?  Were you going for a fhtagn there?  As in Ia! Ia! Mearls fhtagn!


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2010)

I like how some can't even congratulate Mearls on a promotion without pointing out they don't like the work he's done there.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2010)

Welcome   We have the next contestant for The Running Man.


----------



## Henry (May 16, 2010)

Mike, I've enjoyed the work you've done with 4E D&D thus far, and wish you all the best in the world.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> I like how some can't even congratulate Mearls on a promotion without pointing out they don't like the work he's done there.




The backhanded stabs at 4E are pleasant, too.


----------



## Azgulor (May 16, 2010)

Congrats to Mr. Mearls.


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations, Mr. Mearls. Like a kid in a candy shop, I imagine.


----------



## Shemeska (May 16, 2010)

Mearl's views on what defines D&D are rather antithetical to my own, but I wish him good luck with the new position nonetheless.


----------



## mearls (May 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Congratulations, Mr. Mearls. Like a kid in a candy shop, I imagine.




It's funny, because it almost feels like I've won some sort of election. I'm acutely aware of the pressure of the position, the expectations, and the current atmosphere among D&D fans. I think I had a few minutes of ecstasy. Since then, it's been a long week and a lot of thinking.

This is also a new position in the department. I'm taking on a lot of Bill Slavicsek's responsibilities. Bill's responsibilities have broadened to include more things like boardgames, novels, Heroscape, and so on. There's a lot more to D&D than just the RPG. The RPG is my corner to play in, while Bill looks over the entirety of D&D.

Believe me, I realize how difficult this job is. There are far more paths that lead to my screwing up than to my doing a good job. It's the geek equivalent of running a professional sports team. Do well, and everyone loves you. Screw up, and you'll never hear the end of it.

There's something pretty basic to the job, though. The gist of it, when you boil it all down, isn't rocket science.

Way back in the misty days of the 1980s, when I first discovered D&D, I thought Gary Gygax, Tom Moldvay, Doug Niles, Tracy Hickman, and the entire TSR crew were demigods. I loved poring over Dragon magazine, reading through adventures like Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun again and again, and studying the DMG. I devoured the Dragonlance novels. I fought battles across our basement floor with legions of BattleSystem counters. I filled the few, precious pieces of graph paper I had with dungeons. I designed classes and monsters. I loved D&D.

Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.

As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.

I actually stopped playing D&D for a few years. I ran a grand total of one (terrible) campaign in college. I wasn't really sure that D&D was something I'd be involved with anymore. I bought a PS 1 and started playing lots of console games. I ended up sticking with RPGs, but I kept to games like Deadlands and Unknown Armies.

Then something pretty cool happened. In 1999, at my very first GenCon, I sat in the audience as Ryan Dancey announced 3rd edition. It was like a religious revival. One presentation and free t-shirt later, and I was a complete convert. My friend Nate called it a money grab, an appeal to munchkins. I think my exact response was, "**** you dude. This is the best thing that's ever happened to D&D."

For whatever reason, the entire presentation of 3e's announcement felt like it had been directed straight at me. I was a complete D&D goob again. Hallelujah, praise Gygax, my faith was restored.

A year later, my faith had been well-placed. 3e was awesome. D&D felt like the game I always had wanted it to be.

In looking back, I think that my job is fairly simple. I want people to love D&D. I want people to feel like the game is in good hands, that the hand at the tiller is confident, smart, and genuinely interested in the good of the game.

It's easy for me to look at this as the chance for me to make D&D into the game I always wanted it to be, but that would be disingenuous. It'd be the height of vanity, a monument to arrogance. D&D can't be a game that caters to a single person. It's bigger than that. It lives and dies by the collected spirit of every person that's ever picked up a d20, put pencil to graph paper, or leaned close to the table as the last character standing, clutching his last hit point, rolled his attack against the BBEG.

Of course, actually doing that isn't simple, but it helps to have a goal. I can't force anyone to love D&D. I can't legislate the game into popularity, or commission a survey that will tell me exactly what to do.

What I can do, though, is watch, listen, and learn. I can put everything I have into D&D and hope for the best. At the end of the day, you guys get to judge whether I'm doing a good or screwing up by buying or avoiding the products I help make. That gets back to the election thing. You guys didn't put me into office, but you sure as Hell get the chance to kick me out.

If you have any questions, the best way to get in touch is by dropping a line to my work email address (it's my first name dot last name at wizards dot com, or drop a line to dndinsider at wizards dot com). I can't answer everything, but I'll try. I'll also record answers to interesting questions on the podcast. I'm on vacation this week. I like reading web forums to see what's up, but they're not always the best place to answer questions.

Thanks!


----------



## Jack99 (May 16, 2010)

@mearls

4e is an incredibly robust and smooth system - what we need is better adventures and slightly more campaign settings. 

Of course, the above is just my opinion, and you know what they say about those...

Good luck, looking forward seeing what will happen to D&D.



TarionzCousin said:


> You got the news in Brazil before we got it in the states?
> 
> That's crazy! The books are always in Europe and Asia before they're available here, too.
> 
> I think Klaus is working the inside deal on this one. I've had my eye on him for a while. I'm watching you, Pozas.




He said it on twitter a couple of days ago. Wyatt was promoted too, iirc.


----------



## weem (May 16, 2010)

Grats Mr. Mearls.

I would be interested to know what you see are some of the immediate changes that need to occur that you can only institute now, after having earned this position.

Not that I have a list of things that need changing (and if I did, they would quite possibly be different than yours anyway) but I would imagine that you, like others who advance to a new position, have seen things you want to get working on right away. Whether they are things you have been against and now have the power to change, or things that you felt should have been done/instituted that never were (for whatever reason).

Anyway, you are on vacation and as you said this is not the best place for questions - I guess I am thinking out loud here - maybe a blog post about your immediate as well as long term goals/plans would be cool. I know I would be VERY interested.

Have fun on your vacation, and grats again to you


----------



## firesnakearies (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations on the promotion.  You're doing a good job with D&D so far, looking forward to seeing where you go with it next!


----------



## SPECTRE666 (May 16, 2010)

Congrats!


----------



## Windjammer (May 16, 2010)

First of all, congratulations on the position, and best of luck steering your  vessel through the 'Skylla and Charybdis' that are upper management and the fanbase respectively. 



mearls said:


> I'm acutely aware of the pressure of the position, the expectations, and *the current atmosphere among D&D fans.*




I'd be grateful if you could elaborate on that!


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 16, 2010)

weem said:


> Grats Mr. Mearls.
> 
> I would be interested to know what you see are some of the immediate changes that need to occur that you can only institute now, after having earned this position.
> 
> ...





I'd love to know what Mike thinks of the old V-shaped classes and how he and his crew intend to present them in the new D&D essentials line. 

In general, yeah, I'd like to know what Mike thinks are 4e's weaker points and how he'd like to address them. That would be an amazing podcast to listen to.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations on your new position, Mike! 



ppaladin123 said:


> I'd love to know what Mike thinks of the old V-shaped classes and how he and his crew intend to present them in the new D&D essentials line.
> 
> In general, yeah, I'd like to know what Mike thinks are 4e's weaker points and how he'd like to address them. That would be an amazing podcast to listen to.




Yes, that would be extremely fascinating. In general, I'd love to get a lot more "designer's notes". For instance, some time ago, an article was mentioned about the expertise feats, but it never materialized. Stuff like that would be very interesting to read, at least for me...


----------



## Henry (May 16, 2010)

First of all, congratulations on the promotion - I hope you have it for a long time.  That said, two opinions: 



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> It's easy for me to look at this as the chance for me to make D&D into the game I always wanted it to be, but that would be disingenuous. It'd be the height of vanity, a monument to arrogance. D&D can't be a game that caters to a single person. It's bigger than that. It lives and dies by the collected spirit of every person that's ever picked up a d20, put pencil to graph paper, or leaned close to the table as the last character standing, clutching his last hit point, rolled his attack against the BBEG.




It's a wise thought, but don't forget that "making it your own" has the benefit of creative direction and preserving inspiration in the face of "death by committee", too. Stan Lee used to say of his creation of such Marvel greats as The Fantastic Four and Spider-man, that he created them right as he was about to quit Marvel/Timely, and the comic biz, and said, "to hell with it, I'm gonna make comics that I want to see for a change," -- and to everyone's surprise, they ultimately triggered the "Marvel Age", if not the entire Silver Age Revolution in comics.

Granted, he also credits where credit is due, with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko for bringing the characters to life on the page, for basically "writing the story" in pictures and adding their talents to it. 

I've heard this same thing time and again, from other success stories; they were successes because they weren't afraid to "make it what THEY wanted", because they were fans, too, dammit.

As you said, no one does it alone, but don't be afraid to go ****ing crazy, because sometimes that's where genius lies, and disaster lies in mediocrity.




			
				mearls said:
			
		

> This is also a new position in the department. I'm taking on a lot of Bill Slavicsek's responsibilities. Bill's responsibilities have broadened to include more things like boardgames, novels, Heroscape, and so on. There's a lot more to D&D than just the RPG. The RPG is my corner to play in, while Bill looks over the entirety of D&D.




I just wanted to bring this out, because some of the responses seem to follow the "mearls as designer/developer" train of thought. It sounds like you're focused on the direction of the whole RPG line.



> In looking back, I think that my job is fairly simple. I want people to love D&D. I want people to feel like the game is in good hands, that the hand at the tiller is confident, smart, and genuinely interested in the good of the game.




One of the biggest things that I believe would help bring the proselytizers and ministers back into the fold I really doubt you could do anything with -- making a less restrictive GSL. I feel like it's one of the biggest issues that drove a bigger wedge into the fan base that I've seen in fifteen years, easy, and to use an image it's almost like a religious movement whose most prominent evangelists just up and left because the high priest reorganized the whole thing to make all the evangelists send the new converts straight to him instead of doing their own thing. The momentum is there, the movement is still doing good works, but a huge chunk of the grass-roots proselytizers are all gone because the "grass-roots" is no longer there. Even then, I don't know if it would be enough to heal the wedge.  D&D they feel is no longer their own game, but at least with an outlet like the OGL they could make it what they wanted it to be, same as they did with 3E.

Anyway, as I said, I wish you all the best, and don't forget to go ****ing crazy.


----------



## Jasperak (May 16, 2010)

mearls said:


> Way back in the misty days of the 1980s, when I first discovered D&D, I thought Gary Gygax, Tom Moldvay, Doug Niles, Tracy Hickman, and the entire TSR crew were demigods. I loved poring over Dragon magazine, reading through adventures like Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun again and again, and studying the DMG. I devoured the Dragonlance novels. I fought battles across our basement floor with legions of BattleSystem counters. I filled the few, precious pieces of graph paper I had with dungeons. I designed classes and monsters. I loved D&D.
> 
> Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. *When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.*
> 
> ...




Seriously, I have to spread XP around before giving it mearls again.

I'll make this short and sweet then let you get back to the congrats. Your first few paragraphs that I quoted above express very clearly how I feel about this new edition. You clearly understand why there are problems in our community. Like in your past, I have not been a paying WOTC customer for years and did try one (terrible) campaign in 4e. The only difference is that my money didn't go towards video games, but stayed in the hobby--as I suspect is the case with many others. You understand this. Your acknowledgment of this situation leads me to believe that you can have a positive impact on D&D and for that I wish you the best of luck.

To the above posters that have a problem with backhanded stabs while congratulating mearls on his promotion. Some people do not like this edition but still can wish mearls well in his new position. Last time I checked this board still allowed open discussion and I don't think anybody is served if this thread remains only a love fest for mearls. Granted I hope it doesn't turn into a jerk fest. This line couldn't be more literal: Hate the game not the players.

Again mearls, congrats and best of luck.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

mearls said:


> Then something pretty cool happened. In 1999, at my very first GenCon, I sat in the audience as Ryan Dancey announced 3rd edition. It was like a religious revival. One presentation and free t-shirt later, and I was a complete convert. My friend Nate called it a money grab, an appeal to munchkins. I think my exact response was, "**** you dude. This is the best thing that's ever happened to D&D."
> 
> For whatever reason, the entire presentation of 3e's announcement felt like it had been directed straight at me. I was a complete D&D goob again. Hallelujah, praise Gygax, my faith was restored.
> 
> A year later, my faith had been well-placed. 3e was awesome. D&D felt like the game I always had wanted it to be.




Congragulations on the New Job and good luck with it.

Let me start by being uprfront and saying I haven't bought a single WotC book since 4e came out except for some of the kids books for my daughters and a star wars saga book for one of my sons.  I am not a wotc hater, its just there are no books being released that appeal to me because 4e lost me when they ditched the OGL, threw over the 3pps (and coincidentally released a rules system that I was pretty meh about.)

That being said, your post resonates with me because, while I wasn't at Gencon, how you felt when 3e came out was exactly how I felt and while the strength of the feeling waned with time as all emotions do, it never died.  

I would very much like to see you revive that same feeling with your handling of DnD.  But I think the secret is, it won't be done with rules. And it won't be done with super great campaign settings; because the truth of the matter is great campaign settings are easy to make and good rules are already out there.  It will be accomplished byyou  when you can demonstrate, with actions not words, a love of the game that goes beyond editions and the need to sell the next "cool book;" a desire to bring others, not into your particular game, but into the hobby as a whole.  Dancy demonstrated that love and that desire with the OGL and that more than just the fantastic rules Monte and the others put together, is what made 3e great. And its part of what, in my opinion, makes Paizo great. I believe they are gamers first and salesmen second and I respect them for that. 

However, if you can, in your current position, bring the monolith that is WotC back into a position of actively supporting the hobby and not just the ruleset, then kudos to you and I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

@Mearls  Let me add too that if you want to generate a lot of instant good will on the part of even those of us who don't play 4e and don't really want to: release the older WotC material in some way where we can access it again.  Its a crying shame that WotC has all this wonderful stuff in their vaults and they refuse to share it anymore because its not 4e.  Whether as republished "classic" books, PDFs, or some new ebook form, I don't care but release it and watch the love blossom on our part.


----------



## Rechan (May 16, 2010)

Jasperak said:


> Some people do not like this edition but still can wish mearls well in his new position. Last time I checked this board still allowed open discussion and I don't think anybody is served if this thread remains only a love fest for mearls.



It's like showing up to a baby shower and saying "This food you made is awful and this house is ugly, but congrats on the newborn!" You have the right to say it, but it's just rude. There are things like _decorum_. Just because you _can_ say something doesn't mean you _should_, or at least that it's appropriate time and place to say it. 

Any other thread can be used as a place to complain about the current edition and make your opinions heard, but the one thread being positive about someone's promotion, folks can't hold their tongue long enough to say "Hey good for you" without being negative in the same breath. 

God knows there's no "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" rule on the internet. And it's not a requirement for ENworld either. But sometimes it should be exercised, and "there's no rule against not saying nice" isn't a retort to someone pointing out decorum. There shouldn't _need_ to be a rule, people should be able to show some kind of restraint.

"You don't talk about politics or religion in polite conversation" is a maxim of general etiquette. I'd add "Edition Opinions" to this list; this thread is polite conversation, and that's just dragging in unnecessary baggage for the sake of dragging it in.

I've all ready spent too much time derailing this thread by pointing this out and dirtying it up with negativity. This is the last I'll say on the topic. But _come on_, people. Is there no where we can look past which edition camp we're at and just treat one another like human beings who share a certain hobby?


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2010)

Wicht said:


> @Mearls  Let me add too that if you want to generate a lot of instant good will on the part of even those of us who don't play 4e and don't really want to: release the older WotC material in some way where we can access it again.  Its a crying shame that WotC has all this wonderful stuff in their vaults and they refuse to share it anymore because its not 4e.  Whether as republished "classic" books, PDFs, or some new ebook form, I don't care but release it and watch the love blossom on our part.




This'd be cool as I never got to read any of the 1st edition stuff (I got in at the later part of 2e, around when Baldur's Gate II came out).


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations.  Henri managed to post most of my thoughts earlier.  

I will be introducing my kids to the game today using the free Monster Slayers game.  I hope you manage to make D&D into an amazing game for many years to come so they have many opportunities to grow up with the same love of the game that I did.


----------



## lutecius (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> It's like showing up to a baby shower and saying "This food you made is awful and this house is ugly, but congrats on the newborn!" You have the right to say it, but it's just rude. There are things like _decorum_. Just because you _can_ say something doesn't mean you _should_, or at least that it's appropriate time and place to say it ...



but this isn't a baby shower or a "congrats Mike" page, it's a rpg news thread.

discussing what you think of M.Mearl's work and how this promotion could affect d&d in the years to come is very appropriate.
it's not like _he_ just lost his job either. there's no need to go easy on him.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2010)

lutecius said:


> but this isn't a baby shower or a "congrats Mike" page, it's a rpg news thread.



Well, then if it's alright to complain about 4E in the thread, it's alright to complain about the complaining.

Put me in the "We realize you don't like 4E, you don't have to mention it in every single thread" camp.


----------



## crazy_cat (May 16, 2010)

lutecius said:


> but this isn't a baby shower or a "congrats Mike" page, it's a rpg news thread.
> 
> discussing what you think of M.Mearl's work and how this promotion could affect d&d in the years to come is very appropriate.



Agreed. Well done to Mike on the promotion - heres hoping he can do good things for D&D in the role.

Opening up the GSL a bit for 3PPs and bringing pack the older edition PDFs would be a nice start, especially if WOTC are serious about rebuilding bridges with some of the non 4e parts of the D&D community.


----------



## Zaukrie (May 16, 2010)

Congrats Mike. I for one really enjoy DMing 4E, and I'm sure if I ever find more time in my life, I'll enjoy playing it also.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2010)

Folks,

Someone just had something good happen to them.  Dumping on that is kinda rude.  Getting into arguments over the dumping is also rude, as it derails the conversation something fierce.  

You're more than welcome to have your opinions on the man's work, but we expect you to express them in ways that don't make you look like a jerk - do remember that he's is not some distant entity, but a guy who sometimes posts on these boards.


----------



## BryonD (May 16, 2010)

First, big congrats to Mike.  I really like what you said.  And there are a lot of us that would readily to WotC if Wotc wants to come back to us.  I don't know if this role will really give you enough freedom to make that happen, but I'll certainly be watching with an eager and open mind.

Best of Luck!!





Rechan said:


> But _come on_, people. Is there no where we can look past which edition camp we're at and just treat one another like human beings who share a certain hobby?






Fifth Element said:


> Put me in the "We realize you don't like 4E, you don't have to mention it in every single thread" camp.



Does treating "one another like human beings who share a certain hobby?" somehow mean that your opinion counts and mine doesn't?

And I 100% agree that it doesn't need to be mentioned in every single thread.  And boy am I relieved that it isn't.

But, there certainly are threads where it is completely appropriate.  And a thread about changes in the person with his hand on the rudder of where D&D goes is most certainly an appropriate place to comment on hopes for a change in course.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 16, 2010)

*Congratulations*

I'm another one of those people who would like to like WoTC again.  

It's hard to know from the outside whether you getting this promotion will allow you to effect change, or what those changes would be.  But it's the best news I've heard regarding WoTC in a long time.

Good luck!
Ken


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 16, 2010)

I wish Mike Mearls well and hope he has great success.

In all honesty, my gaming circle has never really given 4th Ed a fair shot. I think we played a total of 2, (maybe 3 sessions?) -- in two separate campaigns -- of 4th Ed.

Four of the seven people in my circle own the D&D core rules for 4th Ed. Nobody among us have purchased more than that, exception (me) as I bought an extra copy of the PHB.

The interest just wasn't there and there was a lot of resistance in my group. My gaming circle had made a tremendous investment in 3.xx books. I'm guessing between all the members of the 7 people in my gaming circle, we probably own, collectively, between 380 and 400 3.xx hardcovers? Something very close to that -- and the book count might even be higher than that, too.

Explaining  the core reason for my group's resistance to 4E does not get much more complicated than that. The release of 4th Ed  was just too soon for my group. I expect in another year or at most, two years, that will change. At that point, we'll give 4E a serious kick at the can.  Right now, the group has "let go" of 3.xx and has move on to _Pathfinder_ as of a few months ago.

I say "let go" because we aren't using any of those 3rd edition books in our _Pathfinder_ campaign. We've started with the PF Core Rules and approached the game with a clean slate.

So that's just anecdotally my group's situation. Whatever it is that we did or didn't do in relation to 4E didn't have any real connection with the design of the game in terms of like or dislike. My group's reaction was rooted in the investment we had already made and was a reaction instead to the timing of 4Es release. My group's emotional reaction to the cancellation of the print editions of_ Dragon_ and, most especially, _Dungeon_ Magazine certainly didn't help though.  

When we get around to actually playing 4E and give it a fair shake, we might have something fair to say about the design of the game. Right now - we can't.

FWIW, my group has been recently playing _Star Wars: Saga Edition_ and has been enjoying it a lot.  Yes, even the skill challenge system has gone over reasonably well amongst the players of a group comprised of 30+ year veterans of 1st ed (and OD&D, too). 

Seeing as there is a lot of _SW:SE_'s DNA in 4th Ed, and the Skill Challenge system itself was retrofitted on to _SW:SE_ from 4E, that probably tells Mike Mearls as much as he can meaningfully discern from our group's tepid reaction to the release of the 4th Ed of _Dungeons and Dragons_. 

Sometimes, the reaction of D&D fans may be a genuine and informed reaction to the core mechanic of the game. In other cases, the reaction may be rooted in other marketing decisions which are beyond the control of a game designer.  For now, our group's reaction falls in the second category. We just haven't given the game enough of a fair shake to be able to comment meaningfully on the game's design itself.

_Other groups have other experiences which are necessarily different. I don't purport to speak for those groups. My comments are intended to sincerely reflect and deconstruct the reaction of the gamers/customers in my own gaming circle, only._


----------



## scruffygrognard (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations and, hopefully, you are able to inspire those who dropped D&D with the release of 4th edition to return to the fold.

I, for one, would love to see D&D return to its roots and get "back to basics"... but with new, innovative and flexible rules that make the game fun for DMs and players.


----------



## Windjammer (May 16, 2010)

Rechan said:


> "You don't talk about politics or religion in polite conversation" is a maxim of general etiquette. I'd add "Edition Opinions" to this list; this thread is polite conversation, and that's just dragging in unnecessary baggage for the sake of dragging it in.




I think you missed the gist of these posts - or at the very least, of some of those posts. 

Sammael and Shemeska, to mention but two, explicitly said that they were convinced Mearls would do his best in his new role and wished him best of luck for it _regardless of this happening in the context of 4E_ (a context they aren't super excited about). 

Suppose Mearls was dem... ahem.. _pro_moted to Pokemon brand manager - I think it perfectly polite to say, "congrats on the new job Mike, though I must say, I'm not _too _overly fond of Pokemon". You can congratulate a person without having to congratulate the product he's working on or even the company he's working for. 

Heck, there was a time before Mearls worked on 4E, before he went to WotC, and he gathered a lot of respect from people in the 3.0 era. If these people feel it's great that he got the new position it's perfectly ok to clarify that they're paying their respects for reasons that transcend 4E.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Does treating "one another like human beings who share a certain hobby?" somehow mean that your opinion counts and mine doesn't?



No, not at all. But if you believe that you should be free to state your opinion in this thread, shouldn't I be as well? I would prefer that such comments not be in the thread; that's my opinion about it. I don't expect said opinion to really change anything.

It is kind of a vicious circle though.


----------



## darjr (May 16, 2010)

Wow, great speech. Congrats again, and as a 4e fan with a love for the older editions and play styles, I think the future is bright.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (May 16, 2010)

The King is dead. Long live the king.


----------



## BryonD (May 16, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No, not at all. But if you believe that you should be free to state your opinion in this thread, shouldn't I be as well? I would prefer that such comments not be in the thread; that's my opinion about it. I don't expect said opinion to really change anything.
> 
> It is kind of a vicious circle though.



Sure.  Have I challenged it?

Now, if you think my expression of opinion that WotC can do things to appeal to players it has lost has no more merit to the thread than your expression of opinion that you don't like me expressing my opinion, then we would disagree on that.  And if that is a cause and effect, then *something* is certainly vicious.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2010)

Folks,

I thought "getting into arguments about the dumping is also rude" was pretty clear.  Apparently it was not.

So - if you have a problem with what someone says in this thread, report it, and leave it be.  Please don't get into an argument about it.  If this is in any way unclear, I expect you to e-mail or PM one of the moderators.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 16, 2010)

Congratulations, Mr. Mearls. I met you once at the Source for D&D Game Day in 2007, and while I didn't wind up liking everything 4E did, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and openness.



mearls said:


> Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.
> 
> As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.




  Of course, there are those of us who came to the game in that era and grew up with that 'feel' of D&D, and who feel a bit left behind in these new days. The pendulum swings . . . (Although 'points of light' can be traced back to the 2E DMG.  )

  However, I also accept that those of us who do feel that way are outliers and don't represent the best target audience for D&D. Any chance you could find a way to resurrect the SAGA Rules System to cater to that niche market?


----------



## Woas (May 16, 2010)

Hey, does Monte Cook need a job?


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 16, 2010)

mearls said:


> Way back in the misty days of the 1980s, when I first discovered D&D, I thought Gary Gygax, Tom Moldvay, Doug Niles, Tracy Hickman, and the entire TSR crew were demigods. I loved poring over Dragon magazine, reading through adventures like Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun again and again, and studying the DMG. I devoured the Dragonlance novels. I fought battles across our basement floor with legions of BattleSystem counters. I filled the few, precious pieces of graph paper I had with dungeons. I designed classes and monsters. I loved D&D.




Remember that feeling. Lets get it back. 



mearls said:


> Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.
> 
> As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.




This seems very familliar. Oh yeah, it's exactly how I felt shortly after the release of 2E.
This happens to some D&D fans every single time the game undergoes a major change. It happened then, it's happening now and will most likely continue in the future. 



mearls said:


> In looking back, I think that my job is fairly simple. I want people to love D&D. I want people to feel like the game is in good hands, that the hand at the tiller is confident, smart, and genuinely interested in the good of the game.
> 
> It's easy for me to look at this as the chance for me to make D&D into the game I always wanted it to be, but that would be disingenuous. It'd be the height of vanity, a monument to arrogance. D&D can't be a game that caters to a single person. It's bigger than that. It lives and dies by the collected spirit of every person that's ever picked up a d20, put pencil to graph paper, or leaned close to the table as the last character standing, clutching his last hit point, rolled his attack against the BBEG.
> 
> Of course, actually doing that isn't simple, but it helps to have a goal. I can't force anyone to love D&D. I can't legislate the game into popularity, or commission a survey that will tell me exactly what to do.




At the end of the day though, the feel and direction of the game is up to you right now. Do what you think is actually best and don't let yourself get second guessed by a committee. Too many cooks can ruin a dish. If you do what you honestly feel is best for D&D then people will respect that even if that vision differs from their own. 

Best of luck!


----------



## tuxgeo (May 16, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> < snip >
> 
> At the end of the day though, the feel and direction of the game is up to you right now. Do what you think is actually best and don't let yourself get second guessed by a committee. Too many cooks can ruin a dish. If you do what you honestly feel is best for D&D then people will respect that even if that vision differs from their own.
> 
> Best of luck!



Agree with the "Best of luck!" sentiment. 

Also, _*persevere*_, as you did with the Hybrid class rules: if your vision isn't implemented immediately, keep on working at it for another PHB or two, because you might be able get your vision implemented later.


----------



## DaveMage (May 16, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But, there certainly are threads where it is completely appropriate.  And a thread about changes in the person with his hand on the rudder of where D&D goes is most certainly an appropriate place to comment on hopes for a change in course.




Exactly.

However, I doubt there's anything that could be done to salvage the current edition to make it even remotely interesting to me (and likely many others who dislike 4E feel the same way).

Any leadership that could be shown at this point would only be relevant if:

1) The next edition changed things signifcantly; or
2) WotC began to make products designed to appeal to those who play earlier editions (w/o the 4E baggage).  

If those two aren't doable, then frankly it doesn't matter who is in charge of D&D - it won't be for me.


----------



## Azgulor (May 16, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Exactly.
> 
> However, I doubt there's anything that could be done to salvage the current edition to make it even remotely interesting to me (and likely many others who dislike 4E feel the same way).
> 
> ...





This is the camp I find myself in as well.

The disenchantment Mr. Mearls describes from the 2e occurred for me back then as well.  I left D&D in search of other RPGs.  What I learned: While D&D would forever hold a nostalgic place in my RPG library, loyalty to TSR had irrevocably ended.

The OGL & 3PP brought me back to D&D.  Coincidentally, some of Mr. Mearls' 3PP work were what showcased the flexibility of the d20 engine and that the system could be used for more than high fantasy D&D.

WotC essentially reproduced the 2e disenchantment -- on steroids.  I had arrived at the point where the amount of WotC product I was purchasing was effectively nil.  The 4e PR campaign, the form the rules took, the electronic focus of Dragon & Dungeon, and the half-ogre sibling of the OGL called the GSL, the pulling of older edition PDF products, and the regular firing of dedicated staff,  all combined, have effectively nuked the site from orbit rather than just burning the bridge.

As I stated earlier, I wish Mr. Mearls the best of luck in his new role.  However, I've moved on to other RPGs and other companies.  I have no use for 4e so I have no use for WotC products.

That said, I hope that Mr. Mearls' time at the helm of the D&D RPG is a golden age for 4e and its fans.


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 16, 2010)

mearls said:


> Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.
> 
> As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.




It's interesting you would say that, because it almost precisely mirrors my reaction to 4th Edition: By choosing a one-true-wayism style of design and deliberately changing and/or eliminating fundamental gameplay that had been part of D&D since 1974, WotC made it abundantly clear they were no longer interested in making the game that I had been playing (and continue to play).



> It's easy for me to look at this as the chance for me to make D&D into the game I always wanted it to be, but that would be disingenuous.




Which makes reading a sentence like this really, really ironic.

There will undoubtedly be some who choose to interpret this as a slam on 4th Edition. It's not, per se. Barring a few glitches here and there, 4th Edition is clearly a well-designed fantasy roleplaying game. Of course, so were Rolemaster, Runequest, and Earthdawn. They weren't the D&D game I've been playing since the '80s; nor would they become so if you were to slap the D&D trademark on them.

So when WotC goes back to producing a D&D game that plays like D&D played for the first 34 years of its history, that'll be the day I become their customer again.

Whether WotC is interested in having people like me for a customer -- or in producing a game that plays like the game designed by Arneson & Gygax -- is, of course, ultimately up to WotC.

And I'm not even particularly under the illusion that your new position will actually give you any actual ability to solve what I consider to be fairly serious problems. Even if you were so inclined.


----------



## Azgulor (May 16, 2010)

On another note, I do have a serious question - one that arose as I read through this thread in its entirety.

*Now that Mr. Mearls is running the D&D RPG - what are you expecting him to do?  The anticipation & hopeful wishes seem to be leaning in the direction of Mearls imparting a significant imprint or change in direction.*  I took the announcement as a good bit of news for Mearls & the idea it would result in some changes to the types of product produced but the hopes expressed in this thread seem to be much more significant/expansive than I expected.

Assuming an edition change is out, what are you hoping/expecting Mike to do?  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," does tend to hold if a business plan is successful.  I not suggesting stagnation but I think if folks are expecting a WotC revolution/revision of D&D you're going to be disappointed.  (That's what new editions are for...)

It's pretty tough to go a week without running into a thread where one or more of the following are posited:
1. 4e is a smashing success; on par or in excess of 3e
2. WotC is the 800 lb. gorilla.  Even their largest competitor isn't a true competitor in a market share sense.
3. 4e fans are happy with the DDI and it's benefits far outweigh things like in-print modules and a strong 3PP ecology.
4. 5e isn't even on the horizon.
5. The 4e "divide" is overblown.  The community represented at ENWorld and other forums are a miniscule element of the overall RPG market.  The vast majority of RPG players & GMs are playing/running 4e.
6. The 1 book setting approach is superior to extensive setting expansion like what was done in prior editions.

So if most or all of the above is true, what specifically are you hoping/expecting Mike to do to the D&D RPG?  Are these just highly expressive well wishes or earnest hopes for major product shakeups?


----------



## nedjer (May 16, 2010)

It's the guy's first week  If he's pummelled into a corner so early on it'll be all the harder for him to take a real step back and think about any meaningful change in any direction. Maybe give him a break for a fortnight or so?


----------



## Pour (May 16, 2010)

Congrats Mike! 

Ever since you started doing podcasts, I think you've been the right man for this sort of job. Your enthusiasm and game knowledge will undoubtedly be put to great use. 

In the last year or so, I've really be digging the direction D&D is heading, and I feel that 4e has begun to come into its own. Designers seem more comfortable in the system, the rules are being cleaned up even further, 3rd party is really turning out some quality stuff (especially fey-related), we're getting boardgames and Dark Sun and Orcus, just a good time. I have a feeling on your watch things will be taken to the next level.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (May 17, 2010)

Congrats, Mike!

Now, hows about you take that past love of Dragonlance and make a 4e version of it (also, persuade Bill to get some DL novels going)?  As for the rest of the D&D RPG, keep up the good work.  I am really looking forward to the Essentials line.


----------



## Celtavian (May 17, 2010)

*re*

Mike Mearls,

Congratulations on the new job. I'd love to love D&D again as well. Left the game at the 4E launch and haven't returned.

A big step in the right direction for me loving D&D again would be to get wizards, heck, casters period back to how they have been for countless editions of D&D . What 4E did to casters was like a dagger driven into my D&D loving heart. I had spent years mastering caster play to the point that my group acknowledged me as one of the best if not the best caster player in our group. Not because I crushed what I faced, but because I was great at spell strategy. 

I enjoy the concept behind boosting melees and giving them interesting powers and abilities. But there has to be a way to do that while keeping casters the imaginative, varied, and powerful beings they were before 4E. There's gotta be a way to make casters able to do combat buffs during the actual battle, do things other than damage that don't break quickly like _dominate person_ or _confusion_, and use transportation powers and other non-damaging but effective powers in combat on a scale other than personal like the _teleport_ assault or evacuation in 3D or _Mass Fly_ for aerial combats. Bring back some of the need for smart casters that know how to counter enemy caster spell strategy. Heck, bring back spell strategy period. Make it so a caster has to work to think out the best strategy to counter an enemy. Make it so everything isn't temporary and limited to once a day or encounter.

Good luck making D&D better. I hope one of you designers will one day bring me back into the fold. As much as I like _Pathfinder_, I miss my books with the D&D logo on them.


----------



## Umbran (May 17, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This happens to some D&D fans every single time the game undergoes a major change. It happened then, it's happening now and will most likely continue in the future.




Yes.  There is a very simple maxim that folks sometimes forget - you can't please everybody.


----------



## Lanefan (May 17, 2010)

First off, allow me to add to the chorus of congratulations... 



Azgulor said:


> *Now that Mr. Mearls is running the D&D RPG - what are you expecting him to do?*



I'd say it's not so much expecting as hoping.  Lots and lots of people want to see the game go in lots and lots of directions, and a new hand taking the helm gets their hopes up.

My question is this: though Mr. Mearls is now at the helm, how much control and-or influence over the game's direction will he actually have?

If it really is a situation of "what MM says, goes" and he truly has full creative freedom to shape the game as he likes, then over the next while we really should be laying out our hopes and dreams for the game and see if any strike a chord with him.  There was a recent thread somewhere 'round here about design goals for D+D, that might be a good place to start.

But I suspect that full freedom is not the case...and with that in mind, an invitation:

Mr. Mearls, please post here again and at least vaguely outline what you do and do not have control over (e.g. future edition design/release, 3rd-party policies, prior edition PDF/re-release policies, tweaks and changes to the current edition, etc.), both for our edification and to perhaps spare yourself from getting undeserved grief over things that aren't even in your domain.

Lanefan


----------



## Chainsaw (May 17, 2010)

Good stuff, Mearls. Appreciate how you took the time a while back to respond to a thread of mine about converting classic modules into 4E-compatible modules. Enjoy your vacation and best of luck with the promotion.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 17, 2010)

Henry said:


> It's a wise thought, but don't forget that "making it your own" has the benefit of creative direction and preserving inspiration in the face of "death by committee", too. Stan Lee used to say of his creation of such Marvel greats as The Fantastic Four and Spider-man, that he created them right as he was about to quit Marvel/Timely, and the comic biz, and said, "to hell with it, I'm gonna make comics that I want to see for a change," -- and to everyone's surprise, they ultimately triggered the "Marvel Age", if not the entire Silver Age Revolution in comics.
> 
> ....
> 
> As you said, no one does it alone, but don't be afraid to go ****ing crazy, because sometimes that's where genius lies, and disaster lies in mediocrity.




I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Mearl's dream of D&D turns out to be your nightmare.


----------



## Chainsaw (May 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes. There is a very simple maxim that folks sometimes forget - you can't please everybody.




For some reason I am also reminded of this great quotation.. 

"I don't know half of you half as well I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Shrug..


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 17, 2010)

Congradulations, Mr. Mearls, and I hope the job suits you.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 17, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Mearl's dream of D&D turns out to be your nightmare.



Why wouldn't he? There's an awful lot of D&D out there; hopefully everyone can find some that they enjoy.


----------



## Piratecat (May 17, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Mearl's dream of D&D turns out to be your nightmare.



I've known Mearls for (holy crap!) something like 17 or 18 years, back when he was in college and we co-ran a Call of Cthulhu adventure together. His vision of what makes a really fun D&D game tends to run fairly closely with mine. While I doubt we'd agree on everything, it's hard for me to picture a "nightmare" version of the game under his watch.

(Not that this should reassure anyone whose gaming style differs from mine, of course. But I'm happy about his promotion, and trust him to keep to a vision of what makes gaming fun. If not, he's _never_ going to live it down!)


----------



## Odhanan (May 17, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> While I doubt we'd agree on everything, it's hard for me to picture a "nightmare" version of the game under his watch.



Well that depends: would you consider 4e a "nightmare" version of the game? 

Not saying that to provoke people who like the current version of the game, but I'm sure mileages vary as to what constitutes a "nightmare" version of the game, and what doesn't.


----------



## Rechan (May 17, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> Well that depends: would you consider 4e a "nightmare" version of the game?



Psst.


----------



## Odhanan (May 17, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Psst.



I know, Rechan. Just pointing out that mileages vary on what consitutes a "nightmare" version of the game, and what doesn't. That's all.


----------



## BryonD (May 17, 2010)

There is a lot to compete with.  I don't think "nightmare" is really a valueable word to this discussion.

I've been officially designated a "H4TER".  4E is fine.  It is far from a nightmare.  It just falls short of dream game status. The bar has been set very high. 

There are a lot of great designers floating around.  But, for me personally, there are two names that I consider the absolute cream of the crop.  Mearls is one of those two names.

He will do a great job designing whatever he works on.  But WotC will set the strategy.  Like I said, I'm eager and open minded.  I'm looking forward to seeing what comes.  But I don't actually expect the marching orders to evolve.


----------



## Klaus (May 17, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I've known Mearls for (holy crap!) something like 17 or 18 years, back when he was in college and we co-ran a Call of Cthulhu adventure together. His vision of what makes a really fun D&D game tends to run fairly closely with mine. While I doubt we'd agree on everything, it's hard for me to picture a "nightmare" version of the game under his watch.
> 
> (Not that this should reassure anyone whose gaming style differs from mine, of course. But I'm happy about his promotion, and trust him to keep to a vision of what makes gaming fun. If not, he's _never_ going to live it down!)



I've known Mike for something like 8 years, since we did work together for Fiery Dragon. We talked a lot at GenCon in the few years I managed to attend, and he has a genuine love for this game and for this genre (being a fan of Leiber, Lovecraft, OD&D...).


----------



## Chainsaw (May 17, 2010)

BryonD said:


> The bar has been set very high.




Well, not to mention, at this point, there's no way WotC can make anything that will satisfy everyone - the game has developed several distinct and likely incompatible styles. For some, there's the new stuff. Others are perfectly happy using all the older material and all the new material that systems like OSRIC, S&W and LL have enabled. I think the best that fans of the old editions can hope for is that they're left to their own devices, that WotC doesn't decide to try to repossess or reverse what makes the clones possible.


----------



## BryonD (May 17, 2010)

Chainsaw said:


> Well, not to mention, at this point, there's no way WotC can make anything that will satisfy everyone



I'm not talking about "everyone".   I think they can appeal to a significantly wider range than they do now.


----------



## Henry (May 17, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Mearl's dream of D&D turns out to be your nightmare.




Yeah, I'm sure there are people who hate Stan Lee's work, too. 

There have been many things that, on paper, sounded like bad ideas to me, but in practice turned out pretty damned good when I actually saw them. The Alternity game from TSR was one such -- I bought it, tried to get my head around it , couldn't, and dropped it for a whole year, until playing in a convention game demo of it that made it click for me; I ended up running two year-long campaigns of it afterwards.

Also, 4E initially hit me in the same way. I was convinced I wasn't going to like it. After I saw the finished product, however, it clicked for me in a way that 3E hadn't for several years, and in fact not since 1st edition AD&D had clicked for me in that way. Many of the things others have said 1st through 3rd had but 4 didn't, I've likewise determined 1st and 2nd had, but 3 DIDN'T. So, there've been plenty of things I've naysaid on paper, but not in actual practice.


----------



## SteveC (May 17, 2010)

Chainsaw said:


> Well, not to mention, at this point, there's no way WotC can make anything that will satisfy everyone - the game has developed several distinct and likely incompatible styles. For some, there's the new stuff. Others are perfectly happy using all the older material and all the new material that systems like OSRIC, S&W and LL have enabled. I think the best that fans of the old editions can hope for is that they're left to their own devices, that WotC doesn't decide to try to repossess or reverse what makes the clones possible.



I think this is an excellent point. With 4E (and 3x to a lesser extent) D&D changed to a degree where it couldn't go back and the same game it had been earlier. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, because people can and do play earlier editions all the time. The genie has gotten out of the bottle, however, and the game isn't going back to where it was before.

I have a lot of faith in Mike's design ability, and his love for the game is without question, so I wish him well in this new role. I do think, however that even though he loves OD&D, the game is not going back in that direction.

Oh, and apparently I must spread some more XP around before giving Mike another one, so I'll just say "bravo, sir!"

--Steve


----------



## BryonD (May 17, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I think this is an excellent point. With 4E (and 3x to a lesser extent) D&D changed to a degree where it couldn't go back and the same game it had been earlier. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, because people can and do play earlier editions all the time. The genie has gotten out of the bottle, however, and the game isn't going back to where it was before.



I'd like to disagree.
However, I find it very difficult...   (Very Very    )


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 17, 2010)

Congratulations Mike Mearls. I have to agree with a earlier poster. If you really want to generate some good will from current and past fans. Then I would say release PDF's of all the books in the DnD vaults at a reasonable price(reasonable price for PDF's for the going rate on the market). I think that would buy you and WotC a lot of good will from just about everyone.

Also good luck with your plans what ever they might be.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 17, 2010)

*Mearls and 4E*

There was a time when I was quite upset at the direction 4E went.

But really, what do people like me have to complain about these days?  There's a game out there called Pathfinder, that is pretty much exactly what 4E would be like if it _hadn't_ gone through a radical change.  And most of the people who work on Pathfinder , just like Mike Mearls,  did significant work on 3E.  It's essentially like WoTC cloned itself so that it could better please all of us.

The two things I am still unhappy about with regards to Hasbro/WoTC these days are the PDFs and the GSL.  And really, the GSL has become a whole lot less important to me, since I'm not a 4E gamer anyway.  If anything, it probably gave Paizo a good kick in the pants in the right direction.

And I doubt that Mike's going to be in a position to change the GSL or the PDF policy -- I strongly suspect that both items were mandated from above, by people who aren't even gamers.

I _want_ the 4E gamers to have a great system.  And considering that Mike basically designed 4E, I can only think that this promotion will be good for 4E and people who play it. 

So, again, congratulations!

Ken


----------



## Blastin (May 17, 2010)

I have been reading this and multiple other RPG sites for Years. I'm mostly a lurker  (I was never one that felt the need to post something unless I felt it contributed more than just my opinion).
  I've heard and read a lot of what Mr. Mearls has done in gaming over those years. All of it shows how much of a GAMER he is, how much he loves RPGs and this hobby in general. I don't think there is a better qualification than that for this position and why I feel that this is great news.

No pressure at all huh Mr. Mearls?


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 17, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I _want_ the 4E gamers to have a great system.  And considering that Mike basically designed 4E, I can only think that this promotion will be good for 4E and people who play it.
> 
> So, again, congratulations!
> 
> Ken





How much control did Mike have over the initial design and development of the core 4e rules?  He is not listed as a designer for either 4e or the PHB I but rather as a developer. I take that to mean that he did not set the design goals for the system (the power system, rituals, skill system, the math, etc.) but rather worked to implement them/tweak them.

It is in PHB II that Mike shows up as a designer. Maybe he is responsible then for abandoning the clunky V-shaped class model, for starting to stretch the power system with stances and polymorphs and so forth, and for giving controllers more to do than simply lay down AoE blasts. 

I don't know that Mearls made 4e so much as he made it better (in my opinion of course) and has continued (in the PHB III, in dragon articles, etc.) to try to make it a more elegant and flexible. He is working within a system laid out by Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins and James Wyatt.

I can only wonder what the system would have looked like if he had taken a design role from the start.


----------



## pogre (May 17, 2010)

Mearls,

Congrats! Have fun and go crazy. I expect big things. 

Later,

pogre

PS - I would be jealous, but I know you are going to be working your tail off!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 17, 2010)

Congratulations, Mike! And a good "inauguration" speech, too! 

I've basically been a "fan" since Iron Heroes - the system's design goals resonated well with me. Ultimately, it was an imperfect system, but I can see a lot of concepts cropping up again in D&D 4. 

I am looking forward to see how D&D will evolve now. (Hopefully, the future will also contain more eBooks or PDF versions of D&D material - over all editions)


----------



## JeffB (May 17, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Great news--I like what he's done for the game.




+1.

Congrats Mike! I personally have really liked your work and what's been done with 4E. And I really thought I would HATE 4E (FROST GIANTS ARE NOT IN THE MM!?? WTH!!). Not EVERYTHING is perfect, but it brought me back to playing D&D again after I gave up on the prior edition in 2003. I like the "fresh take" on the game after 30 years of regurgitating the same ol stuff (not that I don't like the older material, but after awhile, I'd had enough of buying it over and over again).

As another poster mentioned, I think quality adventures is where the current game really lacks (barring the "plug & play stuff present in books like Open Grave, etc).

Good Luck, you're gonna need it


----------



## avin (May 17, 2010)

mearls said:


> When 2e came out, I was torn.




Now, that explains why my beloved Yugoloths were removed from game and I still don't have a Modron on Monster Builder... 

Can I bribe you to fix this?


----------



## TerraDave (May 17, 2010)

As both one of the few game designers I have had an extended discussion with and someone who's career I have followed for a while, I would like to say to Mr. Mearls...



......Get to Work! 






And try to enjoy it....


----------



## Scribble (May 17, 2010)

I loved book of iron might, and Iron Heroes... He really started to resonate with me though when he started doing the monster reworking stuff a while back.

I'm looking forward to seeing where he takes things.


----------



## Alphastream (May 17, 2010)

My best to you, Mike!

It is no surprise that 4E is both revolutionary and divisive... these tend to go hand-in-hand. From here on out it is likely that the game will continue to be this way and unlikely that it will return to the simplicity of the earlier editions. Anyone familiar with the financial realities of RPGs knows that new editions bring an injection of revenue and that too much similarity slows revenue. Quality is always important, but there must be innovation to stimulate revenue. One revolutionary aspect of 4E is that it extends the ways that a company can publish new material - in theory every sourcebook can feel like a new edition and raise much more revenue than the RPG sourcebooks from other editions or companies. This makes it unlikely that a new edition will be created for some time, and also more likely that it will resemble 4E when a new edition does come out.

What Mike will bring, first and foremost, will be his abilities as a manager. It is very difficult to manage a group that has creative talents. Creators dream and scheme and managers control. A good manager knows how to provide the creative outlet and encourage open thought while at the same time maintaining discipline and focus. You want the minds to be open but the work to be defined, on-mission, on-time, and on-budget. 

With 4E WotC changed to how it published. The mantra early on was clearly about setting-independent product with just two products for Eberron and FR. Single race or class-specific books were anathema. Somewhat surprisingly, it has tweaked those approaches this year. From just two books for FR we know see several products for DS. We see books for the Dragonborn and Tiefling. From MP2 we skip DP2 and now switch to Essentials. It is hard to know what these changes signal. Was the model in need of a tweak financially? In a big way, or in a small way? Is Essentials a clever attempt to make the game more popular with the new crowd I see (6 tables worth in my city at D&D Encounters games)? Or, is it an attempt to prevent the splatbook boredom that hurt 3.5? Are revenues sagging drastically, or is this a step taken early on, before revenues dropped? Do the layoffs signify more financial bleeding, or do they signal an attempt to stay fresh and continually bring in new talent and explore new directions? 

Mike likely has the answers to these questions and now needs to take the right managerial steps, even exploratory ones, to resolve the issues. We can only wonder whether Mike favored the earlier model or the changes brought in this year. And, of course, we can always wonder about why Andy left. 

Surely, Mike's personal view on D&D will matter. Any manager must approve what they see before them. Of many options only some can be followed. And, at times, they must speak to what they desire. In both cases, those signals transform what others will design. His will not necessarily be the loudest voice, but it will be the guiding voice if he is an active manager. 

Mike knows the game well. He stops and talks to gamers often. He gets how people feel. I am not concerned that he will be unaware of how gamers feel. He is also a capable game developer, arguably amongst the finest. I am not concerned about how he will develop D&D, even knowing that he may not develop the game in a way I would prefer. 

In my opinion, the most interesting question will really be around management and financial performance. While this edition seems to have been designed much more cleverly for revenue, and while the staff seems to be happier than in many eras, the layoffs and the inability to deliver Adventure Tools suggest prior mismanagement and financial struggles. I truly hope Mike is the guy that can manage these problems away. In all likelihood, it would be done by hiring experts in those areas, but also by making hard decisions. We all want a financially strong and smartly managed Wotc so they make great products we want to play.

My best to Mike. This must be a really exciting opportunity but also a very challenging time in his life.


----------



## EricNoah (May 17, 2010)

Congratulations to you, Mike!  And EN World, I think this will be a great opportunity - Mike has been and is one of us, on some level, and I think we will have his ear as long as we don't scream into it too loudly.


----------



## Falstaff (May 17, 2010)

Congratulations Mr. Mearls. Please make D&D feel like AD&D again!


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 17, 2010)

First off, congrats on the new job.  I wish you many long years at it at your own choosing.

I fully sympathize with your 2E feeling of void.  It is probably very similar to what many of us felt with 4E.
I know I did, a feeling that D&D 'left me'.

I think the biggiest reason for it is in it's own conversion from prior editions to this current one (4e).
It takes some bearing with if you have the time or inclination to read.

Basic to 1E
Conversion pretty simple.  
O look they added different classes for the races.  
Dual Classing Humans / Multiclassing Demi-Humans
Charts and AC stayed the same, spells translated quite well.

1E to 2E
Straight forward conversion
Only real difference are now Proficiencies.  And you lost a few classes Monk/Assasin.
This was a time of settings galore.  Though it eventually doomed TSR, it can be rightly called both glory years and doom years in the later part.

2E to 3E
Spells translated comfortable enough.
AC goes up now.  Well that makes since to most. -10AC was always a tough one to explain.
Proficiencies are now Skills are make a little more sense one difficulty checks.  
Rolling High on everything is now considered good.  Whereas prior editions was a mix mash of high or low depending what you were rolling for.  1's earned their rightful place in the Abyss and the 20's ruled from the Heavens.
A few name changes Thief to Rogue etc.  

3E to 3.5E
No real change, just a few clarifications.

3.5E to 4E
Converting nightmare.
What the heck is a crushing blow for my fighter, why can't my 5th level Wizard cast Fireball blowing up a 20' radius for 5d6, wait what do you mean he is a controller now.
Shift/Pull/Push/etc

You can see how many of us were lost.  While there are a few things I liked of 4E it fell into that realm of I didn't want to spend money on it.  And I haven't.  I've played it, had fun.  But it isn't something I'm drawn in to playing willingly.

That is the hurdle you have before you.  How to bring the ones like myself back into the fold.  
I feel like I wouldn't do ya justice though if I didn't tell you the things I do like of it.  It isn't a scrap it and start over that is needed.
1. LOVE the character builder.  I wish I had one that robust for all the prior editions.
2. I really like the current method of Campaign Setting Delivery WotC is using.  It allows the delve into us niches that love Darksun and other 'dead' settings.  I like Darksun 2E a lot.
3.  I like the removal of Vanican Spell Casting, though I miss it at the same time.  The current mages feel more like sorcerors vice wizards.

I don't mind the game moving forward with itself, I think it just leapt too far forward at one time.

Now if you want a leap forward, 4E does lend itself greatly to a computer game especially if you incorporate the Character Builder into it.  I think most of us would whole-heartedly gooble up a game that lets us build from scratch and play it.


----------



## doctorhook (May 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> I think the biggiest reason for it is in it's own conversion from prior editions to this current one (4e).
> 
> 3E to 3.5E
> No real change, just a few clarifications.
> ...



Part of why the conversion seems as difficult as is does is that you missed a step on your chart: the "hidden edition", called Tome of Battle, released towards the end of 3.5E. That book laid the groundwork for 4E, in part because it was a proto-design for 4E, converted back to 3.5E.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 17, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Part of why the conversion seems as difficult as is does is that you missed a step on your chart: the "hidden edition", called Tome of Battle, released towards the end of 3.5E. That book laid the groundwork for 4E, in part because it was a proto-design for 4E, converted back to 3.5E.




Many of us didn't allow Tome of Battle or Book of Nine Swords in our games.  Also being as they were near the end of the life cycle of the edition, I would wager a guess their sales were more of the completionist and the I want to know all of it players vice your introductory players.

My comparission was more Core to Core, which brings in another thing for the new edition.  Core is everything now. (Least IMHO)

You have to remember our hobby isn't a cheap buy in.
Even the 1E days wasn't a cheap buy in.  Around $45 during those days for PHB/DMG/MM1, what is it nowadays about $100 for all 3? (I'm looking only at a store price not Amazon for this.)
Yes I know production cost and all that, but not withstanding, a C-note is still a C-note to a newb seeking to join our hobby.


----------



## Gothmog (May 17, 2010)

Congrats Mike!  I've enjoyed your work since you were writing 3PP stuff for 3e, and from what I've seen of those works and 4e, your vision and mine of D&D is very close.  I know D&D will be in good hands with you- with someone that respects the roots and themes of the game (especially AD&D), but also wants to make the game accessible to new players and draw them in.  I can tell you sir, that you have accomplished that mission!  I've introduced more people to D&D with 4e than ANY other edition, and it just clicks for them- they seem to get it almost immediately and quickly come up with new and exciting ways to solve a problem many of us old hidebound D&D veterans seem to miss under the new edition.

That said, there are a couple of suggestions I'd like to make regarding 4e.

1.  Please give us more adventures!  The Slaying Stone is the sort of thing I'm talking about- 32 page adventures with a poster map.  Adventures with an interesting, coherent plot, not the Delve-style stuff.  Monsters and adversaries should make sense in the adventure, not just be there because a level 6 artillery is needed.  Harken back to themes of exploration, danger, and mystery- much like many of the classic AD&D modules.

2. Please give us an original 4E campaign setting!!!  I admit I'm not the biggest fant of Forgotten Realms or Eberron, although the Dark Sun setting this summer has me excited.  But I know a lot of folks would LOVE to see an original 4e setting- something PoL, and my personal preference would be something dark fantasy.  The new cosmology (which I love and find infinitely more accessible and compelling than the old one) begs for its own tailor-made setting.  

3. The Character Builder and Adventure Tools are a godsend- they make adventure and campaign design easy and fun.  I know WotC has to defend its IP, but having a way to enter in custom elements and have their mods calculated into the Character Builder would be awesome.

4. I'd love to see more background books like the Plane Above, Open Grave, etc.  I know the Demonomicon is coming out this summer, but I'd love to see books devoted to the Feywild, Shadowfell, Far Realm/abberations, Devils, more about the Primordials/titans/giants and Dawn War, etc.

5. Finally, a 4e book like Unearthed Arcana would be awesome to see.  Something with rules for long-term damage and healing, long-term conditions, and other optional rules.

Just keep on working the same magic you have been for the last two years with the D&D 4e brand.  I truly think its the strongest and most robust system D&D has had so far, and would love to see it added onto and used as the basis for future editions.  I know there are some loud detractors out there, but there are also a lot of folks who do love what WotC has done with 4e, and who appreciate your hard work!


----------



## malraux (May 17, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> You have to remember our hobby isn't a cheap buy in.
> Even the 1E days wasn't a cheap buy in.  Around $45 during those days for PHB/DMG/MM1, what is it nowadays about $100 for all 3? (I'm looking only at a store price not Amazon for this.)
> Yes I know production cost and all that, but not withstanding, a C-note is still a C-note to a newb seeking to join our hobby.




Our hobby is really really cheap to buy in.  Even assuming you have to buy the whole set at MSRP, when for most people they only need to buy the phb off of amazon ($23 bucks currently), that's still less than the cost of two games for a console.  10-20 hours is pretty good for a console game, whereas the DnD books will give many more hours of entertainment.  Moreover, you can share that entertainment across 4-6 people, yielding a very good cost per hour per person entertainment result.


----------



## Mad Zagyg (May 17, 2010)

mearls said:


> As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.
> 
> I actually stopped playing D&D for a few years. I ran a grand total of one (terrible) campaign in college. I wasn't really sure that D&D was something I'd be involved with anymore. I bought a PS 1 and started playing lots of console games. I ended up sticking with RPGs, but I kept to games like Deadlands and Unknown Armies.




Irony.

Congratulations on your promotion, though!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 17, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Part of why the conversion seems as difficult as is does is that you missed a step on your chart: the "hidden edition", called Tome of Battle, released towards the end of 3.5E. That book laid the groundwork for 4E, in part because it was a proto-design for 4E, converted back to 3.5E.



Not just Tome of Battle. Reserve feats in Complete Mage presage at-will powers, as does the warlock in Complete Arcane. Phased monster fights in MMIV. The Knight in PHB2 is a defender, able to force enemies to fight him rather than another PC. Star Wars Saga Edition is the real 4e precursor though - big wodge of hp at level 1, static defences replace saves, simplified skills (no skill points, they all give a +5 bonus instead.


----------



## Knightfall (May 17, 2010)

Mike,

Congrats on the new position.

Now, I have only one request...

_*Greyhawk!*_

And that's all I'm going to say...


----------



## Nikosandros (May 17, 2010)

malraux said:


> Our hobby is really really cheap to buy in.  Even assuming you have to buy the whole set at MSRP, when for most people they only need to buy the phb off of amazon ($23 bucks currently), that's still less than the cost of two games for a console.  10-20 hours is pretty good for a console game, whereas the DnD books will give many more hours of entertainment.  Moreover, you can share that entertainment across 4-6 people, yielding a very good cost per hour per person entertainment result.



This is all true, but on the flip side, a console game can be played without further effort once it is purchased, while all those hours of RPG require preparation and a much stronger commitment. Still, it is true that it is a cheap hobby...


----------



## doctorhook (May 17, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Not just Tome of Battle. Reserve feats in Complete Mage presage at-will powers, as does the warlock in Complete Arcane. Phased monster fights in MMIV. The Knight in PHB2 is a defender, able to force enemies to fight him rather than another PC. Star Wars Saga Edition is the real 4e precursor though - big wodge of hp at level 1, static defences replace saves, simplified skills (no skill points, they all give a +5 bonus instead.



Good points! I believe you are correct; obviously there was a heck of a lot going on between 2003 (3.5E) and 2008 (4E) that's hard to appreciate in a "0.5" difference.

I'm not certain, but I think that Mike Mearls was involved in a lot of this. IIRC, the first time I noticed his name was a Design & Development article on the WotC website, where he was talking about "the problem with Ogre Mages". I think this is around where I saw the first discussions about the design philosophy that would turn out to be behind 4E. At any rate, I'm confident that Mr Mearls is the right guy for the job.


----------



## Grimstaff (May 18, 2010)

Congrats, Mike!

I'm looking forward to seeing where your delightfully old-school-influenced direction takes the game. 



As an aside, I notice these three terms being thrown around a lot on ENWorld lately: "robust", "elegant", "the fold". What gives?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 18, 2010)

As long as Mike keeps running our semi-monthly AD&D game and stays away from killing my character's beloved linkboys, he can do whatever he wants to 4e and official Dungeons & Dragons! 

--Erik


----------



## Riley (May 18, 2010)

Yay Mike!

I've been rooting for you for a while, but especially since you wrote:



mearls said:


> I think the British D&D adventures are almost all forgotten classics. They had an inventive bent, combined with good stories, that you don't often see in American designs. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it was just the talent they gathered, but their work was consistently a cut above.
> 
> Stuff like Drums on Fire Mountain or Blade of Vengeance are forgotten classics, IMO.




My advice: run with that thought, and figure out how to make WOTC 4e adventures every bit as good as the old UK adventures.  Oh, and be sure to talk to Rodney about all the good advice he's gotten over here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-me-make-wizards-coast-adventures-better.html

I know you can do it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 18, 2010)

You could also just... congrat the person or not posts at all. Many options.



Windjammer said:


> I think you missed the gist of these posts - or at the very least, of some of those posts.
> 
> Sammael and Shemeska, to mention but two, explicitly said that they were convinced Mearls would do his best in his new role and wished him best of luck for it _regardless of this happening in the context of 4E_ (a context they aren't super excited about).
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 18, 2010)

I've never bought that arguement that our hobby isn't a cheap buy in. I had an Atari 2600. That wasn't a cheap buy in. And buddy, you could only play with that one button joystick so long before it broke. And it was a lot higher than $45 even back in the day.



TheYeti1775 said:


> Many of us didn't allow Tome of Battle or Book of Nine Swords in our games.  Also being as they were near the end of the life cycle of the edition, I would wager a guess their sales were more of the completionist and the I want to know all of it players vice your introductory players.
> 
> My comparission was more Core to Core, which brings in another thing for the new edition.  Core is everything now. (Least IMHO)
> 
> ...


----------



## Scribble (May 18, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> As long as Mike keeps running our semi-monthly AD&D game and stays away from killing my character's beloved linkboys, he can do whatever he wants to 4e and official Dungeons & Dragons!
> 
> --Erik




Fraternizing with the enemy?!?!?!


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 18, 2010)

Mike's a name I definitely trust at the head of the game. I pretty much always agree with the logic behind his ideas, even if I think his ideas need to be implemented in different ways sometimes (e.g.: rust monster's rust goes away!).

And this is a pretty interesting sentiment:


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Then, something happened. TSR dropped Gary. Greyhawk was pushed aside. When 2e came out, I was torn. There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.
> 
> As time went on, that feeling only increased. There were bright spots, most notably Dungeon magazine, but a lot of the stuff TSR put out didn't really speak to why I fell in love with D&D in the first place. I wanted to love D&D, but it wasn't really clear that the company behind D&D wanted to return that love.
> 
> I actually stopped playing D&D for a few years. I ran a grand total of one (terrible) campaign in college. I wasn't really sure that D&D was something I'd be involved with anymore. I bought a PS 1 and started playing lots of console games. I ended up sticking with RPGs, but I kept to games like Deadlands and Unknown Armies.




He gets it. He knows how people who aren't fans of 4e feel. Because he felt that way for most of 2e. There's gotta be a part of him that's sympathetic, a part that knows what it's like to see the game you love not returning that love, to ignore what made you love the game in the first place, to stop playing and go onto other stuff because something about the game had changed.

Mike Mearls knows what it's like to not like an edition. Mike Mearls was a hater. A grognard.  

Drawing on that experience, and with his goal to be making D&D broadly loved, I've got every confidence in his ability to heal some of the Edition Wars wounds. 

I'm looking forward to what the remaining years of 4e and, especially, the first years of 5e, will bring. Mearls is a fitting leader, a President of DM's. I'll be sure to let him know what I think by voting with my wallet.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 18, 2010)

I don't know Mike Mearls personally, I've never spoken with him or anything, but I have kept an eye on what he's had to say over the last couple of years.  I've listened to him on podcasts, watched interviews with him, read his blog and forum posts, and so on.  He's given me a good impression always, and has seemed to me to be the official WotC guy who most "knew what he was talking about" when it came to anything D&D in the 4E era.

One thing I will say about him, from my observations at least, is that this guy really seems to be very much "in touch" with the players of D&D, both old and new.  I do believe that he "gets" us, and understands what different kinds of players want, and enjoy, and how we think.

So that's a very good thing, and seems like an excellent qualifying factor for his new job.


----------



## Nightson (May 18, 2010)

Mike,

Make the Feywild book next or I drop the bag of holding into the portable hole!


----------



## darjr (May 18, 2010)

That nentir vale gazetteer on amazon? Crazryred is the illustrator, right?


----------



## Erik Mona (May 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Fraternizing with the enemy?!?!?!




So long as the linkboys live, Mike and I will be Friends Forever.

I am thinking of getting him one of those half-heart necklaces. 

We can write our names on them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> So long as the linkboys live, Mike and I will be Friends Forever.
> 
> I am thinking of getting him one of those half-heart necklaces.
> 
> We can write our names on them.


----------



## Falstaff (May 18, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> So long as the linkboys live, Mike and I will be Friends Forever.
> 
> I am thinking of getting him one of those half-heart necklaces.
> 
> We can write our names on them.




Hahaha, awesome! By the way, I prefer the term "torch bearer". Linkboy sounds like something illegal is going on.


----------



## Scribble (May 18, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> So long as the linkboys live, Mike and I will be Friends Forever.
> 
> I am thinking of getting him one of those half-heart necklaces.
> 
> We can write our names on them.




Erik loves MEarls and wants to have allllllll his Kobold babiessssssssssssssss


----------



## thedungeondelver (May 18, 2010)

Since you might be looking at this, Mr. Mearls, could you please set about to fixing the typo in the 4e PHB intro, and stop* converting *AD&D* modules over to encounter format modules with screwed up maps?

Thanks.

*=WotC.  I don't think you yourself are doing it.  But since you now have all the pull...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

What's the issue with the conversions? You don't play 4E, I don't see why you'd care.

*What's the issue with trying to hijack this thread with an edition war?

Folks, note what Fifth Element has done here - and then don't do that. Thanks. ~ PCat*


----------



## ggroy (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> What's the issue with the conversions? You don't play 4E, I don't see why you'd care.




Some old timers don't like to see their classic beloved 1E modules being "desecrated"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

Mike:

Each edition is what it is.  Just as I would argue that a good DM shores up his weaknesses and plays to his strengths, each edition must do the same.  Where does that show the most?  In the published adventures.

Kick ass, gotta own, gotta run, gotta play in adventures are required for any edition to have legs.  You need adventures that demonstrate the best ways to use the skill challenge system.  You need adventures that demonstrate how to make combats count for more than just grindy slogfests.  You need adventures that show how to use the elements of the game in the best possible ways.

People learn game rules from the books; people learn how to make the game breath from the adventures.


RC


----------



## Mark (May 18, 2010)

Erik Mona said:


> I am thinking of getting him one of those half-heart necklaces.
> 
> We can write our names on them.





Go with the half-spleen and use your WoW names. 




Fifth Element said:


> What's the issue with the conversions? You don't play 4E, I don't see why you'd care.





The rubric for sharing opinions with WotC isn't whether or not you understand.  Incidentally, I seem to recall your signature line during the first year of 4E mentioning that you didn't play 4E but that never seemed to stop you from posting opinions on 4E.  It is perfectly legitimate for people to want new, not recycled, adventures to use for 4E or even to convert to other versions of D&D (or even other games).  However, is it really that you don't understand or does "You don't play 4E, I don't see why you'd care" actually mean something else?


----------



## CleverNickName (May 18, 2010)

Congratulations, Mike!  That's a heckuva promotion, and I know you will do well.  About the only favor I could ask of you is simply this: keep up the good work.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

Mark said:


> Incidentally, I seem to recall your signature line during the first year of 4E mentioning that you didn't play 4E but that never seemed to stop you from posting opinions on 4E.



Not sure how that's relevant. Not yet having played the game, and having zero interest in playing the game, are rather different things.



Mark said:


> However, is it really that you don't understand



I think I understand, but I ask so as not to assume.


----------



## porpentine (May 18, 2010)

Thought about starting another thread, but since the title of this one isn't 'Congrats Mr Mearls!' I figure comment on the appointment is legit.

*Then you probably missed the bit up-thread where we asked people not to turn this thread into an edition debate. While I understand the sentiment, this isn't the place for it. Don't follow up on this please, everyone. ~ PCat*

As a longtime player who gave 4E many throws of the dice and moved away, this is not an appointment that fills me with expectation of a return. If WotC had an interest in healing the rift in the game - in luring back the exodus - they would not have promoted Mearls, whose design philosophy is well-expressed by that edition.

To me (for me), that's a shame. I believe the great game would be better served were the rifts healed, and this appointment suggests to me that WotC are resigned to the game's division.

Hope I'm wrong,

The Porp.


----------



## DaveMage (May 18, 2010)

porpentine said:


> Thought about starting another thread, but since the title of this one isn't 'Congrats Mr Mearls!' I figure comment on the appointment is legit.
> 
> As a longtime player who gave 4E many throws of the dice and moved away, this is not an appointment that fills me with expectation of a return. If WotC had an interest in healing the rift in the game - in luring back the exodus - they would not have promoted Mearls, whose design philosophy is well-expressed by that edition.
> 
> ...




The good news is, though, that even if WotC continues its present 4E course, there are still lots of alternatives from the OSR to Pathfinder that still continue the rules and/or spirit of the earlier editions.

I admit, it's still very weird that I'm not buying the latest Dungeons & Dragons official products anymore (after 28 years of doing so), but it is what it is.  Time to move on.


----------



## doctorhook (May 18, 2010)

Mark said:


> Go with the half-spleen and use your WoW names.



Isn't Mike the one who said something like, "I find _World of Warcraft_ about as fun and exciting as banging my head against the wall" in an early 4E interview?


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (May 18, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Isn't Mike the one who said something like, "I find _World of Warcraft_ about as fun and exciting as banging my head against the wall" in an early 4E interview?




I think I saw that in diaglo's sig.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 18, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> What's the issue with the conversions? You don't play 4E, I don't see why you'd care.



The conversions matter a lot in the scheme of things.  Not as much to a new player, but to your older established base of players.

Even the jump 2E to 3.5E is fairly painless.  Homebrewed innate powers translated well to various Feats (Custom in some cases), the proficiencies right to skills.  Really the hardest part to overcome was the fact higher was always better now.
So you didn't 'leave behind' too many players, heck you brought quite a number of older players back into the fold  of buying the products again.  And Mike, himself, is an example of that in his own words.

The jump to 4E brought a lot more change to the D&D world than many cared for.  The conversion becomes important in the fact if folks can't easily convert there characters into the new edition, guess what they are going to continue playing the older edition.

Personally I fine with admitting I was happily in the "I hate 4E" camp.  I checked out the PHB/DMG/MM1 when they came out, I didn't like them.
Recently I have played in a 4E game, there are facets I've liked about it.  But it doesn't hold me like the prior editions have.

As Brand Manager Mike will be tasked with three things primarily.
1. Bring new players in to buy WotC stuff.
2. Keep the players we have buying WotC stuff.
3. Bring older players back int and buying WotC stuff.
All boiling down to finding out what the market wants and trying to fill that need.

Personally I have a few ideas on various things that could be done, but most of it has been hashed out before.




Raven Crowking said:


> *...snip...*
> People learn game rules from the books; people learn how to make the game breath from the adventures.
> *...end snip...*



No they learn them from their fellow players.  I've yet to pick up a 4E book to learn the rules of the game.  Yet I've successfully handled playing just on the basises of my fellow players explaining a few finer points to me.


----------



## pneumatik (May 18, 2010)

Hey Mike:

Iron Heroes was awesome. Yeah, it needed a little more playtesting and editing, but all the PCs were awesome and spent time doing awesome things. Every session was awesome, so the game was awesome.

4E isn't quite as awesome. The rules make it too hard to do backflips off of chandeliers and land on your enemy's head, or to kill 15 people in one round with a dagger. If you could make 4E more awesome like that, I would like it more.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 18, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> The conversions matter a lot in the scheme of things.  Not as much to a new player, but to your older established base of players.
> 
> Even the jump 2E to 3.5E is fairly painless.



Sure, but I'm not sure of the reason for asking them to *not* do conversions. Converting from older editions to 4E is generally more difficult than conversions in the past, so it would seem to be a good thing if it's done for you.



TheYeti1775 said:


> The jump to 4E brought a lot more change to the D&D world than many cared for.  The conversion becomes important in the fact if folks can't easily convert there characters into the new edition, guess what they are going to continue playing the older edition.



We're discussing the conversion of older modules into 4E versions (_Revenge of the Giants_, for instance). It's not about converting characters.

*This is not the place. You may not have seen my warning in your previous post, but I suggest you go glance at it. ~ PCat*


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> No they learn them from their fellow players.  I've yet to pick up a 4E book to learn the rules of the game.  Yet I've successfully handled playing just on the basises of my fellow players explaining a few finer points to me.




Fair enough.

But the point I was making is that the adventures make the game come alive, whether those adventures are homebrewed or packaged.  The packaged adventures should make people eager to write their own.

I think that putting more energy into that direction would reap rewards.  It would also potentially give me something from WotC to spend my money on.  


RC


----------



## doctorhook (May 18, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> The conversions matter a lot in the scheme of things.  Not as much to a new player, but to your older established base of players.



I guess I'm not really sure why we're talking about conversions here at all, though I must echo Fifth_Element in that I'm doubly unsure why someone wouldn't want classic modules converted to 4E (unless it was to the total exclusion of new, original 4E modules, I suppose).

Ultimately, I just wanna see more adventures! New ones! Old ones remade for 4E! Put 'em in boxes! Put 'em in folios! Give 'em numbers instead of names! I said more or less the same thing on the WotC forums back in early 2007, IIRC, and I guess enough other people must've been saying the same thing, because WotC has gradually started doing just that. Keep it up, Mike! 



TheYeti1775 said:


> Even the jump 2E to 3.5E is fairly painless.  Homebrewed innate powers translated well to various Feats (Custom in some cases), the proficiencies right to skills.  Really the hardest part to overcome was the fact higher was always better now.
> So you didn't 'leave behind' too many players, heck you brought quite a number of older players back into the fold  of buying the products again.  And Mike, himself, is an example of that in his own words.
> 
> The jump to 4E brought a lot more change to the D&D world than many cared for.  The conversion becomes important in the fact if folks can't easily convert there characters into the new edition, guess what they are going to continue playing the older edition.



Remember that the jump from 2E to 3E was a mechanical one. Suddenly, D&D worked differently, but it still looked the same on top.

OTOH, the jump from 3.5E to 4E included a lot more superficial and flavour changes. This is what most irritated a lot of "haters". The mechanical aspect of that change was fairly subtle, especially for players who had been up-to-date with the incremental changes in 3.5E over its production lifespan. This gradual change is the "hidden edition" between 3.5E and 4E. If you used (for example) Complete Mage's Reserve feats, Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, and Player's Handbook II, the 3.5E you were playing was a lot more like 4E than core 3.5E ever was*, and as explained up-thread, Mike Mearls was a part of this. (*It's said SWSE was yet more similar to 4E even than these products.)




TheYeti1775 said:


> As Brand Manager Mike will be tasked with three things primarily.
> 1. Bring new players in to buy WotC stuff.
> 2. Keep the players we have buying WotC stuff.
> 3. Bring older players back int and buying WotC stuff.
> All boiling down to finding out what the market wants and trying to fill that need.



Is that Mike's new title, "Brand Manager"? I heard something about being "Manager" of D&D R&D, but are you sure you've got his new job description correct? I'm confused.



TheYeti1775 said:


> No they learn them from their fellow players.  I've yet to pick up a 4E book to learn the rules of the game.  Yet I've successfully handled playing just on the basises of my fellow players explaining a few finer points to me.



You mentioned that you were a "4e hater" earlier. Is it possible that your negative attitude towards it is due to attitudes that you learned from the people who taught you to play 4E?

I'll be less rhetorical: having studied some social psychology, I know that science says it's definitely possible that you did. Have you considered picking up the books? If you approach it with a fresh mind, you might find a new appreciation for Mike's work.

I'm excited about the way D&D is going these past few years! I think Mike is the right guy for the job today. And personally, as a 4E fan who is aware of Mr Mearls' strong influence on the recent direction of D&D, I'm growing interested in checking out this "Iron Heroes" thing he worked on previously. Since I like 4E, maybe I'll like Iron Heroes too.


----------



## mudbunny (May 18, 2010)

thedungeondelver said:


> Since you might be looking at this, Mr. Mearls, could you please set about to fixing the typo in the 4e PHB intro, and stop* converting *AD&D* modules over to encounter format modules with screwed up maps?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> *=WotC.  I don't think you yourself are doing it.  But since you now have all the pull...




If you don't mind me asking, what is it about the conversions you don't like? Are they not converting them in a way which you feel properly conveys the feel that the original AD&D modules presented, is it the fact that they are being converted in the first place that is the problem, or is there something else that I am not seeing, having not played anything prior to 3.5?


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 18, 2010)

Congrats Mike!

Thanks for the synopsis of your gaming history, it helps put the mindset of teh members of the D&D team into some perspective.

I'd love it if each of your group came online and told us about how they got into D&D, how they got into the business and their thoughts on the current gaming culture.  I want to see more personality put to the names and faces.



			
				mudbunny said:
			
		

> dungeondelver said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am genuinely curious about this as well.  I don't always like remakes or sequels (if done poorly) of other media, but adventure modules are a special case: The experience of DMing/playing the adventure module is much more unique per gaming group than the reading of a novel or watching a movie.  The encounters play out differently, power NPCs and groups are dealth with differently and the seque into the next adventure/game session/plot point/sandboxy-place-to-go is different with each group.

Which conversions irked you most?


----------



## avin (May 18, 2010)

Ok, enough congratulations, can you give me my poney, er, Modron now?


----------



## malraux (May 18, 2010)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am genuinely curious about this as well.  I don't always like remakes or sequels (if done poorly) of other media, but adventure modules are a special case: The experience of DMing/playing the adventure module is much more unique per gaming group than the reading of a novel or watching a movie.  The encounters play out differently, power NPCs and groups are dealth with differently and the seque into the next adventure/game session/plot point/sandboxy-place-to-go is different with each group.
> 
> Which conversions irked you most?




IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward.  It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).


----------



## TheYeti1775 (May 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> But the point I was making is that the adventures make the game come alive, whether those adventures are homebrewed or packaged.  The packaged adventures should make people eager to write their own.
> 
> ...



I can agree with that.  I would have just exp'd ya, but I have to spread it around some more.



doctorhook said:


> I guess I'm not really sure why we're talking about conversions here at all, though I must echo Fifth_Element in that I'm doubly unsure why someone wouldn't want classic modules converted to 4E (unless it was to the total exclusion of new, original 4E modules, I suppose).



I misread the initial talk of the conversions and thought it was was the Version Conversion vice Module ones.  Hence my arguement that way.



doctorhook said:


> Ultimately, I just wanna see more adventures! New ones! Old ones remade for 4E! Put 'em in boxes! Put 'em in folios! Give 'em numbers instead of names! I said more or less the same thing on the WotC forums back in early 2007, IIRC, and I guess enough other people must've been saying the same thing, because WotC has gradually started doing just that. Keep it up, Mike!



I have no problem with remakes of old modules to new versions.  In fact I would encourage it from both a player & DM standpoint.  Most of the very brand new players coming to D&D nowadays weren't even alive when ToEE came out.  They only know it as the heavily patched computer game.



doctorhook said:


> Remember that the jump from 2E to 3E was a mechanical one. Suddenly, D&D worked differently, but it still looked the same on top.
> 
> OTOH, the jump from 3.5E to 4E included a lot more superficial and flavour changes. This is what most irritated a lot of "haters". The mechanical aspect of that change was fairly subtle, especially for players who had been up-to-date with the incremental changes in 3.5E over its production lifespan. This gradual change is the "hidden edition" between 3.5E and 4E. If you used (for example) Complete Mage's Reserve feats, Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, and Player's Handbook II, the 3.5E you were playing was a lot more like 4E than core 3.5E ever was*, and as explained up-thread, Mike Mearls was a part of this. (*It's said SWSE was yet more similar to 4E even than these products.)



That probably is what threw me off more than anything on 4E.  But the Reserve Feats didn't throw me off much either.  I liked them as they gave me a better format for some things I had created custom feats for from old 1E/2E characters.



doctorhook said:


> Is that Mike's new title, "Brand Manager"? I heard something about being "Manager" of D&D R&D, but are you sure you've got his new job description correct? I'm confused.



I'm probably confused to.  I took it as Brand Manager when he said he was the manager of D&D.  I didn't read R&D.



doctorhook said:


> You mentioned that you were a "4e hater" earlier. Is it possible that your negative attitude towards it is due to attitudes that you learned from the people who taught you to play 4E?



Nope actually the ones teaching me to play it I meet only recently.  
My dislike of it came from seeing the books and just not liking them in general.



doctorhook said:


> I'll be less rhetorical: having studied some social psychology, I know that science says it's definitely possible that you did. Have you considered picking up the books? If you approach it with a fresh mind, you might find a new appreciation for Mike's work.



Pick up the books, don't think so.  Refuse to play in a game just because of 4E, nope.  I'm proving right now (5th session of it this Friday openminded enough for ya  ) that you don't need a book to play it.  The DM helped me create the originial character on the Character Builder he has, and helped me level him up after the last session.  



doctorhook said:


> I'm excited about the way D&D is going these past few years! I think Mike is the right guy for the job today. And personally, as a 4E fan who is aware of Mr Mearls' strong influence on the recent direction of D&D, I'm growing interested in checking out this "Iron Heroes" thing he worked on previously. Since I like 4E, maybe I'll like Iron Heroes too.



I would say pick it up than.  
After we finish this module, the group is going back to my comfort zone of prior editions.  While I agree with you, I think the changes are good for D&D some things still leave a bitter taste in my mouth with WotC.




malraux said:


> IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward.  It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).



I assume it's the T1 Moathouse?  If not forgive me.
In prior editions I've had to run that both as individual and as a single encounter.  I can see why '4E encounter power' wise it could become much harder as a single one though.


But really I'm just happy playing D&D of some sort.  And really that is what matters most to a believe everyone of us.  Enjoyment of a game/hobby that we all share.


----------



## Jack99 (May 18, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Isn't Mike the one who said something like, "I find _World of Warcraft_ about as fun and exciting as banging my head against the wall" in an early 4E interview?




Indeed


----------



## nedjer (May 18, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what is it about the conversions you don't like? Are they not converting them in a way which you feel properly conveys the feel that the original AD&D modules presented, is it the fact that they are being converted in the first place that is the problem, or is there something else that I am not seeing, having not played anything prior to 3.5?




Wheat from chaff comes to mind. These threads are more entertaining when they look at where RPGs and the brand are going/ can go instead of revisiting edition wars and various legitimate but relatively minor concerns.

Generally I'd kind of take the view that what's done is done and it's, seriously, time to shake hands over that dumb argument with good mates over 4e's pitiful lack of a Dishwasher subclass. So you can't hurl plates like you used to - get over it 

Perhaps we could suggest more than tinkering - without bickering. Maybe we could throw up some ideas and have them shot down with constructive criticism. Maybe I'm getting carried along away by the wave of coalition politics sweeping the UK . . . ?


----------



## Harlekin (May 18, 2010)

malraux said:


> IIRC, there was some upset at the Moathouse conversion sent out as a DM reward.  It used a different scale and collapsed a large number of separate rooms into a single encounter (ie, the entire first floor was one large fight).




Yeah, I recently reread it. it's a really nifty gift for players, it also makes a lot more sense than the 3.5 version of the Moathouse, where you had to assume that all the monsters were deaf and dumb, otherwise the PCs would be overrun in no time (happened in our game).

So I would love to see more conversions like that.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (May 18, 2010)

If mearls does anything, I hope he gets monster tokens published.

I've been playing the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the past three weeks and Fantasy Flight Games has made Wizards of the Coast look completely inept with regards to PC, NPC, and monster representation on the battlefield.

Of course, WotC's position is because of Hasbro and profit margin considerations and a failure of a strategy. But still...


----------



## Klaus (May 18, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> If mearls does anything, I hope he gets monster tokens published.
> 
> I've been playing the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the past three weeks and Fantasy Flight Games has made Wizards of the Coast look completely inept with regards to PC, NPC, and monster representation on the battlefield.
> 
> Of course, WotC's position is because of Hasbro and profit margin considerations and a failure of a strategy. But still...



The D&D Essentials Monster Vault comes with tokens.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 18, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Generally I'd kind of take the view that what's done is done and it's, seriously, time to shake hands over that dumb argument with good mates over 4e's pitiful lack of a Dishwasher subclass. So you can't hurl plates like you used to - get over it





Beautiful.


----------



## Varl (May 19, 2010)

mearls said:


> There were plenty of things to like about the game, but the attitude around it was off. It almost seemed like the people behind D&D didn't particularly care for the way I loved D&D. Maybe I was completely irrational, but the game felt changed in some insidious way.




The irony of this comment concerning your feelings towards 2e back in the day in relation to how old school gamers feel about today's "D&D" is particularly poignant and familiar.

Congrats on the promotion. It seems a rare thing in an economy such as this.


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> If mearls does anything, I hope he gets monster tokens published.
> 
> I've been playing the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the past three weeks and Fantasy Flight Games has made Wizards of the Coast look completely inept with regards to PC, NPC, and monster representation on the battlefield.






Klaus said:


> The D&D Essentials Monster Vault comes with tokens.



And thank the Lord! The D&D Essentials Dungeon Master's Kit also does, IIRC. From what I hear these tokens will be printed on the same cardstock that WotC's Dungeon Tiles are, which is great news. Hopefully the art will rock too!

Klaus, didn't you illustrate a set of tiles a while back?

At any rate, I'm excited that these are going to be available. It's too hard to continue to justify the cost of all those damned minis I've bought and still don't have enough of. And since I and others had been asking for tokens, I will consider this another instance of WotC doing what "people" said was impossible for them: listening to their fanbase. Bravo, WotC!


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2010)

It should be noted that the last Game Day and the D&D Encounters program have also come with thick cardboard tokens (albeit of a generic sort). And there were more in the current D&D Basic set (plus dungeon tiles).


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

The ones in the current 4E Starter Set are really nice, actually.  They're just like the dungeon tiles (same material/thickness/texture), and have full-color art from the Monster Manual pictures on them.


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

MerricB said:


> It should be noted that the last Game Day and the D&D Encounters program have also come with thick cardboard tokens (albeit of a generic sort). And there were more in the current D&D Basic set (plus dungeon tiles).






firesnakearies said:


> The ones in the current 4E Starter Set are really nice, actually.  They're just like the dungeon tiles (same material/thickness/texture), and have full-color art from the Monster Manual pictures on them.



This is encouraging!

Can anyone say what's on the back of them? I think it would be cool if the reverse side was reddish or had a red border, to show the Bloodied condition.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> This is encouraging!
> 
> Can anyone say what's on the back of them? I think it would be cool if the reverse side was reddish or had a red border, to show the Bloodied condition.





Actually, the tokens in the box that are intended for PCs do have this very feature, a red-tinged "bloodied" side.  The monster tokens, on the other hand, do not.  Instead, they have a different monster on the reverse side.  Which is great, because it's like doubling the number of monster tokens you have available.


----------



## Klaus (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> And thank the Lord! The D&D Essentials Dungeon Master's Kit also does, IIRC. From what I hear these tokens will be printed on the same cardstock that WotC's Dungeon Tiles are, which is great news. Hopefully the art will rock too!
> 
> Klaus, didn't you illustrate a set of tiles a while back?
> 
> At any rate, I'm excited that these are going to be available. It's too hard to continue to justify the cost of all those damned minis I've bought and still don't have enough of. And since I and others had been asking for tokens, I will consider this another instance of WotC doing what "people" said was impossible for them: listening to their fanbase. Bravo, WotC!



Not to derail the thread, but yeah, I did counters for Fiery Dragon's Counter Collections, covering every single creature in the MM1 and every Heroic-tier creature in MM2, and I did every PHB1 race/class/gender combination and a bunch of dungeon dressing tiles for BattleBox 4e: Fiery Dragon » RPG Products 

Back to the thread.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 19, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Not to derail the thread, but yeah, I did counters for Fiery Dragon's Counter Collections, covering every single creature in the MM1 and every Heroic-tier creature in MM2, and I did every PHB1 race/class/gender combination and a bunch of dungeon dressing tiles for BattleBox 4e: Fiery Dragon » RPG Products





Those are really nice-looking.  I'm seriously considering buying one or two of those collections in .pdf form.

Do you think you'll do a similar counter pack when the new Dark Sun monster book comes out?  I'd buy that in a heartbeat.


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> Actually, the tokens in the box that are intended for PCs do have this very feature, a red-tinged "bloodied" side.  The monster tokens, on the other hand, do not.  Instead, they have a different monster on the reverse side.  Which is great, because it's like doubling the number of monster tokens you have available.




In addition, the generic monster tokens from the Game Day do have the bloodied side on the other... except for the minions, which have "Hazards" on the other side.

Cheers!


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

MerricB said:


> In addition, the generic monster tokens from the Game Day do have the bloodied side on the other... except for the minions, which have "Hazards" on the other side.
> 
> Cheers!



Colour me genuinely amazed. If the tokens in D&D Essentials are like this, then I'm sold.

Klaus, do you mind if I ask how successful the product you worked on was? Do you think that WotC publishing tokens is an attempt to capitalize on that product's success?


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Do you think that WotC publishing tokens is an attempt to capitalize on that product's success?




I don't think that's the case: I think it's rather that they've extended the D&D Miniatures line as far as it would go, and it's now time to look at the alternatives. Given there aren't all that many alternatives, we have tokens!

This is done within the understanding that D&D has, for the last 10 years or so, been based mostly on representing the battlefield with _something_. So, although Wizards during 3.5e was able to produce a good array of surprisingly affordable miniatures, the current state of the market doesn't allow that. 

Cheers!


----------



## doctorhook (May 19, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I don't think that's the case: I think it's rather that they've extended the D&D Miniatures line as far as it would go, and it's now time to look at the alternatives. Given there aren't all that many alternatives, we have tokens!
> 
> This is done within the understanding that D&D has, for the last 10 years or so, been based mostly on representing the battlefield with _something_. So, although Wizards during 3.5e was able to produce a good array of surprisingly affordable miniatures, the current state of the market doesn't allow that.
> 
> Cheers!



Good point! Not to mention that the market is saturated with WotC's minis now, to a point where they're competing against their own previous releases on the secondary market.

Attempting to tie this vaguely back to the topic at hand: What does everyone think about D&D that's less dependent upon graphical representation? Does anyone think we'll see a resurgence of that within the foreseeable future? (...Acknowledging that D&D originated as a wargame, of course.)


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> What does everyone think about D&D that's less dependent upon graphical representation?




Roleplaying, exploration, puzzle and problem-solving; and they are areas that have been sadly neglected in Wizards adventures. Not to exclusion; certainly all the official modules have such sections in them, but they have somewhat wilted away under the combats and the (mostly) linear pacing.

However, supplements like _Hammerfast_ give me hope. I want to see more adventures from Wizards; adventures that allow for more flexibility in their structure and aren't dominated by the nightmare to pacing that combats can become.

Cheers!


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Attempting to tie this vaguely back to the topic at hand: What does everyone think about D&D that's less dependent upon graphical representation? Does anyone think we'll see a resurgence of that within the foreseeable future? (...Acknowledging that D&D originated as a wargame, of course.)




That's been my #1 wish for D&D for the last 10 years.

Yes, D&D originated as a wargame, but even in it's earliest days, minis were considered optional.  Check page 6 of OD&D - neither minis nor counters appear in the recommended equipment list.  In addition, there's this quote on the same page: "Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniature figures are not required, only esthetically pleasing; similarly, unit counters can be employed - with or without figures - although by themselves the bits of cardboard lack the eye-appeal of of the varied and brightly painted miniature figures."

I'd *love* to see minis, tokens, and grids once again made strictly optional.  I think that would dramatically speed up combat and put some of the focus of the game back on exploration, puzzles, and roleplaying.

It used to be that combat was something that happened while you were exploring.  Now, it feels like exploring is what happens between combats.  It's a subtle, but important, difference.


----------



## Lanefan (May 19, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Attempting to tie this vaguely back to the topic at hand: What does everyone think about D&D that's less dependent upon graphical representation? Does anyone think we'll see a resurgence of that within the foreseeable future? (...Acknowledging that D&D originated as a wargame, of course.)



While it'd be a fine development, it would also represent a *very* significant shift in overall design philosophy.  

3e and 4e have gone much more rules-rigid than earlier editions, a natural side-effect of which is a greater requirement for - to use your term - graphical representation.  To reduce or eliminate this would require a strong move toward rules-fluid, and while that would be great I suspect it is quite unlikely given current design trends.

Lan-"but we can always hope"-efan


----------



## jbear (May 19, 2010)

Given the advanced stage that 4e has reached and what must be the company imposed limitations on what Mr Mearls is going to be allowed to do (I very much doubt he will be allowed to change the company's policy on OGL issues, whatever his personal views may or may not be), I am very curious as to what new wind this change brings.

What Mr Mearls posted certainly deserves applause. What better motivation can one have then a desire to inspire a deep love for the game. The 'how' given the circumstances, rifts, warts and all, is the tricky part. 

Personally, I think that 4e is at a great stage. I have a clear, easy to manage solid rules set i can improvise with without barely needing to pick up a book. I have more character options and monster options than I could shake a stick at. I use adventures as the bones to build organs into and flesh and skin upon, so I haven't really felt their weakness professed on the boards.

What I am patiently waiting for is more than likely not even within Mr Mearls sphere of influence. (I'm not going to even mention the VTT because ... doh! Mentioned it)

So, I remain curious, and yet enthused that someone who is taking the reigns has such a positive and admirable veiw on what needs to be brought in to 4e. To think it might get even better, that bridges might be built to the entire gaming community, dizzying, wonderful, but we might be putting too much hope on the poor guys shoulders considering he will have to achieve his goals working within the limits of a pre established framework. 

All said and done, considering what he wrote, it is good news, fullstop.


----------



## BryonD (May 19, 2010)

jbear said:


> Given the advanced stage that 4e has reached and what must be the company imposed limitations on what Mr Mearls is going to be allowed to do (I very much doubt he will be allowed to change the company's policy on OGL issues, whatever his personal views may or may not be), I am very curious as to what new wind this change brings.



Scott Rouse was very pro-OGL and was in a much better position to push for it.
Mike may have a chance to fix the game.  But I agree with you about the OGL.  That is not even on the table for discussion.


----------



## Zaran (May 19, 2010)

Whenever I think of someone getting into a position because of the elimination of someone else I think of Empire Strikes Back.  Apology accepted, Andy Collins.


----------



## ggroy (May 19, 2010)

Zaran said:


> Whenever I think of someone getting into a position because of the elimination of someone else I think of Empire Strikes Back.  Apology accepted, Andy Collins.




Who got Moff Tarkin's old job?


----------



## Rolemancer (May 19, 2010)

Filcher said:


> Note that, in 4 years or less, we will be wishing Mike well again, in a round of seemingly-random WotC layoffs.




This.  

Mearls, Wyatt, etc., will past history dictate what this actually means, we are just seeing the next generation about to step up to the chopping block?  Some have survived, many have not.

I can sort of see why there would be a moment of excitement (hey, I am promoted) but then again I can see why one would ask what kind of "promotion" is this anyway?  Well, we're the ones who survived... this time... thus, a promotion.

I have been watching and this kind of lay-off, next up, churn like a slave, squeeze blood out of a rock, salary is too high, person is becoming too important, discard, next up scenario that has repeated itself over there bothers me.

Once I would have wanted to help produce D&D professionally.  That dream hasn't appealed to me for quite some time now.

I am not trying to take anything away here.  You all have contributed immensely to D&D and to the fans who play it and for that I am grateful to you all personally, especially Wyatt whom I have watched from the beginning.

At the same time, I cannot help but get this sinking feeling that we will indeed see some of these names in the next trials of lay-offs after the powers that be parasitically feed off of every drop they can get, make them and their families sacrifice long hours and endure heavy stress only to toss them aside when finished with them.

Welcome to the corporate world?  For D&D to thrive and recapture that magic again from the misty old days from decades ago, corporate needs to be welcomed to D&D.  It had such a spirit of fun and love and does in a lot of ways still in certain circles, but the taint of the harsh brutality within the mechanism of its production is appalling.

So, I guess what I am trying to say here is...

Congratulations!!!


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 19, 2010)

> Attempting to tie this vaguely back to the topic at hand: What does everyone think about D&D that's less dependent upon graphical representation? Does anyone think we'll see a resurgence of that within the foreseeable future? (...Acknowledging that D&D originated as a wargame, of course.)




DO WANT.



> Roleplaying, exploration, puzzle and problem-solving; and they are areas that have been sadly neglected in Wizards adventures. Not to exclusion; certainly all the official modules have such sections in them, but they have somewhat wilted away under the combats and the (mostly) linear pacing.
> 
> However, supplements like Hammerfast give me hope. I want to see more adventures from Wizards; adventures that allow for more flexibility in their structure and aren't dominated by the nightmare to pacing that combats can become.




Man, if I could get an artist to pair with me, I would write so many of these products for everyone to enjoy. I've got a lot just sitting on my hard drive. Old haunted mines filled with kobolds. City sewers overrun with wererat cults. Graveyards in which necromancers lurk. All ready to be spliced into whatever Generic Fantasy Campaign you have.

Maybe I'll whip up something for the boards anyway, with internet art.


----------



## xechnao (May 19, 2010)

@grid & combat

I am exploring possibilities of a tactical combat system without minis. Rather tactical actions that the way they will be described and structured they wont require minis at all. I am hoping to speed up combat and make gameplay more interesting and tactical on a roleplaying instead of a metagaming basis.


----------



## Caerin (May 19, 2010)

Congratulations, good luck, and I hope you have a chance to have some fun. ^_^


----------



## Herschel (May 19, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Even the jump 2E to 3.5E is fairly painless.




Presumptuous and, quite frankly, wrong. A large portion of 2E fans hated 3E, myself included. It is/was what it is/was. 

The great thing about this appointment is not only promoting a guy who has done good work but in his post in this very thread acknowledged the "schism" and feelings of players who may not like whatever edition from a real, first-poerson perspective. Like the product or not, a good person doing good work should be commended.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 19, 2010)

Congratulations.  I have enjoyed your previous work.  I hope you will be in a position to supervise the development of the next edition of D&D.  Soon.  Given the present edition’s advanced state of development, I don’t see much of an opportunity for you to change the state of the “current atmosphere among D&D fans” that you note, short of developing a new edition.  Good luck.


----------



## Uder (May 19, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Presumptuous and, quite frankly, wrong. A large portion of 2E fans hated 3E, myself included. It is/was what it is/was.




Regardless of what you, me, and a completely undocumented "large" portion of players think of this edition or that, Yeti was talking about ease of converting and using materials between editions and not whether anyone hated/loved/binned any particular edition.


----------



## Bluenose (May 19, 2010)

Uder said:


> Regardless of what you, me, and a completely undocumented "large" portion of players think of this edition or that, Yeti was talking about ease of converting and using materials between editions and not whether anyone hated/loved/binned any particular edition.




Mostly in the 80s I GMed (and sometimes played) with the BECM series, Basic D&D. Which isn't to say they're the only rules I have, but I've got a lot of adventures for that version. Converting to AD&D (1e or 2e) was sometimes mildly annoying but rarely particularly diificult. Converting to 3e is a lot more work. Converting to 4e is a lot more work. While I'm perfectly willing to believe some people can 'eyeball' it and get good results, I'm not one of them. And I don't believe that I'm in a small minority in believing there's not much difference in the difficulty of conversion, rules-wise.


----------

