Dungeons & Dragons Next Interviews

I’m sure many of you are as interested in hearing about where Wizards of the Coast plans to take the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons as I am, so I thought I’d point you over to a couple of recent interviews with Mike Mearls from the D&D research and development department on Critical Hits and Wired that fill us in on some of the design goals they have for the next iteration. Here’s a snip from the former:

CH: There’s still those pieces that you’ve identified as being (core) to D&D, through whatever process. If the playtest feedback comes back, and wanted to change something you consider core, would that be doable? For one example, the Ranger design goals were posted, and the question came back if ranger really needed to be a class, instead of a theme or something similar. Is changing something like that still on the table?

MM: There’s something that’s really core like the fighter and it’s going to be in the game. However, as long as there’s something in the game called a Ranger, it doesn’t really matter so much how we express that, as long as it’s in there and the people playing it say (yeah, that’s a Ranger.) For example, we saw feedback that said (we want more themes. Cut down the number of classes and just give us more themes.) That’s something we could do. I don’t think we’d go down that way because the feedback has been pretty consistent that people like them as classes. But if that’s where the feedback was going, we’d go that way.

That sort of cuts to the essence of my job, as the guy in charge of the R&D team. What matters for us is to think of D&D as a collection of tropes and stories. It’s not really just the rules, right? What’s really important in D&D is that there’s something called a Paladin who does X, Y, and Z things. If you look at a video game, and you needed a Paladin. Let’s say it’s a Skyrim-type game and you meet a Paladin NPC. What’s really important in that context is that you know what this guy is like, and hits these three or four key points. Whether it’s a Paladin of Pelor or whatever, you say (oh yeah, this is a Paladin, I get it.) Then if you’re playing a card game or one of our board games: you get it. This is a Paladin. If you’re playing him in an Adventure System game, or it’s a Lords of Waterdeep quest to recruit Paladins, you understand it. This quest requires a bunch of clerics and a bunch of fighters. Or I’m sending people who fight alongside Paladins.

In the RPG, how you express things mechanically, isn’t as important if it feels like a Paladin. If he starts as a Fighter and adds something to become a Paladin, it’s only important that it feel like he’s playing a Paladin. You have X, Y, and Z, and these mechanics are expressing that element.

I think there’s a lot more on the table than people expect. There’s still some trust we have to win back and earn back with people, and the only way we can earn that back is by showing people we take the feedback very seriously.

…

CH: Do you find that you’re getting a lot of feedback that’s more about the (feel) of rules, or are you getting a lot of responses that are specific like (you should just go back to the attack of opportunity rules from 3e?) Are you getting more people that are providing feedback, or more people who are trying to design the game for you?

MM: That’s what’s really been interesting about it and what’s been really been making me happy. People seem to have really embraced the idea of the playtest. We do sometimes get people who say (here’s exactly what we should do) but the clear majority has been (this happened, and that sucked.) (It was lame that the fighter could just walk by the monsters to attack the evil cleric.) People have been really descriptive, which helps a lot. Again, it helps us narrow in on the actual problem.

And an excerpt from the latter:

Gilsdorf: Can you talk about which older editions were most inspirational and what about them did you like or try to incorporate into D&D Next?

Mearls: Basic D&D, the version released in 1981 and assembled by Tom Moldvay, is a big inspiration. It’s a complete game in 64 pages and covers the essence of D&D in a compact package. The original game has the basic concept of an RPG, with the idea of the DM as a combination world builder, storyteller, and umpire. AD&D added more flexibility to characters, 3e created a logical framework of rules, and 4e created a math framework for the game. All of those things are steps forward for D&D and every edition has contributed to this new iteration.

…

Gilsdorf: Can you tease some of the major changes for D&D Next? (e.g. Is combat super complex with feats and super powers, or is the system more streamlined? Class? Races? Spells?)

Mearls: Here’s something people might like we’ve created a new mechanic for rogues called schemes. Schemes tell you what sort of rogue you’re playing. You might want to be a thief, the classic D&D rogue who can sneak, steal treasure, and disarm traps. Or, you might want to play a charlatan who excels at deceit and, through trial, error, and practice, learns how to use scrolls, wands, and other magic items.