If you talk about D&D on the internet, you aren't a part of D&D 5e's demographic. 5e is for people that actually play the game, nerds.
Get out of here with your silly theories and 'wizards are too powerful' nonsense. It's never like that in real play and real play trumps theory.
It's time for the players to take back D&D from the talk-about-it-on-the-internet nerds!
Good luck with that.
Yeah because hard evidence in videos and podcasts are better than anecdotal evidence. (???)
I want to disagree with him, but in this instance he's absolutely right. Online discussions about D&D are shit and cancer. People miss or ignore the obvious and get super autistic about things that do not matter.
And even when they aren't, actually seeing people play is a good cross-reference point. Josh Sawyer (the Pillars of Eternity guy) did several interviews and a talk at GDC calling out forum fags like us for being retarded and pretending to understand complex mechanics.
Yes. First hand evidence is much better than secondhand stories where the teller is going to skewing the facts to suit their agenda.
>arguing about D&D on the internet is stupid
>let me post this boring opinion about D&D on the internet so people can argue about it
??????????
What I object to in the series of tweets is the dumb false dichotomy, that theorycrafting and designing 'for the table' are different things.
They're both part of the design process, and they're both important and intimately connected. Running the math and ensuring the theory is sound is part of avoiding snags at the table, while the table-design side sometimes requires compromising on exact mathematical perfection to make the experience more fun. Denying either side is just excusing the weaknesses of your game.
>theory is useful, but it has to be used in service to actual, repeatable results in play.
He's definitely not arguing for a perfect in-the-middle balance (which I agree is best), but a dichotomy isn't being suggested
You're not wrong, but optimization discussion and guides easily accessible via google did badly compound the brokenness of 3.5/PF. I think this is part of what he's trying to get at.
That said, I have zero interest in let's plays even for tabletop games. The best way to learn is to sit down at a table with experienced players.
Mike Mearls is a worthless hack and all the excuses in the world won't make his work worth a damn.
Yes, hard evidence > anecdotal evidence
in the court room, in real life, in D&D
you fucking idiot.
>putting words in people's mouths
It's not like you can argue people making overpowered builds online improves the hobby any. If you make a "hey Veeky Forums how do I make as broken a 3.PF wizard as possible" thread you'll get shit on
>It's never like that in real play and real play trumps theory.
why use Twitter for this? It's a terrible medium to discuss anything.
>optimization discussion and guides easily accessible via google did badly compound the brokenness of 3.5/PF
Optimization is going to always happen at some level though. Just like MtG, Pokemon, fightan games, 40K... some options are good for certain character builds and campaigns, others are disastrous. Talking about them with other players helps us avoid the disasters and design mistakes and focus our efforts on building characters that will be effective.
Because believe it or not most people don't like finding out that the character they've brought sucks at everything they're trying to do at the table.
That's why people shouldn't play terrible systems
We're talking about Mearls here, there's no hope for that.
I agree with him whole heartedly. There's a bunch of tacit rules and checks in play in any in person game that simply can't be conveyed in an online discussion. On the whole, gaming shifted towards theory crafting for very little gain (can it be said that gaming improved substantially from the constant dissection and nitpicking, or that any great advances in game design sprung of it?), and it made the whole matter into a tedious unpleasant mess basically only appealing to asocial pedants.
Yeah, I don't get why someone would use Twitter if it requires fourteen fucking posts to get your point across.
I agree with Mearls too. 3E and 4E were made for rules lawyers and it made the game worse. 5E swung back towards simplicity and I love it, and sales are through the roof. Most people prefer simpler games.
Humans do learn faster by watching/replicating than following complex instructions.
Somewhat unrelated, but it's funny seeing these comments from the guy who wrote Iron Heroes (about as crunchy as possible) 10 years ago.
As a forum fag that's actually capable of understanding complex mechanics, I've also played each edition of D&D from 2e to 5e, that still doesn't mean I automatically or quickly understand them. I've seen editions fix problems that people had with the books, while the biggest hurdles for actually playing the game get ignored or fixed at best by accident. Mechanics really benefit from being individually clear, simple, and easy to use. 4e's monster on a business card is great. I love 5e's stance of you can just use your movement and just try to trip someone, nothing special about that. When your game gets more fun the more you ignore what the book said, the book is saying the wrong things.