Theory From the Closet

A punk perspective on tabletop RPG’s, their theory, and design.

19
Aug

Show044: Interview with Mike Mearls

by clyde
Interviews, Shows

Show044: Interview with Mike Mearls

This is the first interview coming out of Gen Con ‘08. I’ve wanted to talk to Mike for a bit, but didn’t catch him at Origins. Fortunately I caught him at Gen Con. I questioned him about Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition’s design principles. It was a really interesting interview, and I think gives a good perspective of what’s going on under the hood.

I have to thank Rob Donoghue for giving me many interesting questions for this interview. He posts quite often about 4th Edition, on his blog.

Comments
, , , , ,
140

Comments

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Great stuff, Clyde! This is one of the more insightful post-4e interviews with Mearls that I've heard.
    • ^
    • v
    Great interview Clyde! This is definitly one of your better ones, lots of good crunchy design content in here. You know, it'd be really cool if you could interview Monte Cook and get a comparason of the design philosphy between 3.0 and 4.0. Keep up the good work!
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Buzz,

    Thanks. Rob also deserves a good deal of the credit for giving me additional things to talk about. I wish I wasn't so sleepy at the time as I think Mike had another half hour in him.

    Hey Kevin,

    Thanks. That's a good idea... I may look at doing that at Geekkon, (a con in Madison) if Monte shows up again.
    • ^
    • v
    Obviously, I was really looking forward to this interview and it did not disappoint! Thank you Clyde, that very much rocked.

    -Rob D.
    • ^
    • v
    Best D&D 4e podcast to date. Great insights into the design process. Good for all listeners, whether they are interested in D&D 4e or not!
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Rob,

    Thanks, and thanks again for helping me out with additional things to think about.

    Hey Doc,

    Thanks, glad you liked it.
    • ^
    • v
    hey Clyde. What a great interview. I have to echo earlier comments and say again that this is the best Mearls interview on 4e that I've heard so far. Some really inciteful stuff. For someone who is just beginning to learn about game theory, it was really helpful to hear it applied to a game and context I'm so familiar with. The segment on simulation as it relates to resting and regaining powers clarified a lot of things for me. So anyways, thanks.
    • ^
    • v
    Great interview. Very thought provoking for me. Mike's answers about how the group dynamic was developed and how game mechanics no longer attempting to mirror reality were great.
    Best yet.
    • ^
    • v
    Clyde (with thanks to Rob), this was, and I don't think I exaggerate, the most important interview on 4e out there, period. Especially for those who instinctively did not like 4e, Mike's explanation of the design philosophy behind it, his elaboration of the way the game was built up and how it's meant to work, sheds a ton of light that was simply not made clear at any previous point. If this kind of information had been released prior to 4e's release, a lot more people would have been able to make the transition in full understanding of the differences in design and mechanics inherent in the two rules systems (3e and 4e). I, for one, found many of my complaints with the system answered once I realized what the design conceit behind them were, and I know I wouldn't be alone.

    I'd love to see more episodes with "mainstream" designers in the future. I think it would do wonders to break down the incorrect perception that "trad" and "indie" games exist in two different worlds.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Sam,

    Thanks. If your interest in RPG theory ends up turning into an interest in designing something, I hope you realize my ears would be totally open.

    Hey Paul,

    Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. I think it certainly is a high bar for my future interviews.

    Hey Daniel,

    While I'd like to help with breaking down that divide, I certainly can't afford it. I don't consider my show to be Indie per se, but my interests are the compass for generating content. I can only look at systems I buy, or that are free. This means finding interesting developments in larger press games is difficult. That I won't take free stuff makes it even harder. Heh. I'm not sure I can be the knight to cross that bridge.

    Edit: Well that's not completely true. I did trade my ashcan for a couple of games of somewhat similar production value (Poison'd, and a JeepForm scenario), and I accepted a book of fiction (GameNight) from a friend, that friend having purchased it. Maybe I should re-examine my accepting freebies stance.
    • ^
    • v
    Clyde, do you have to have the book in order to interview the designer, or does it merely help? What about if I (or another listener) gives you the book? As an example, I have an extra copy of True20 and Steve Kenson's email right here, if you want them.

    I understand your position regarding your compass for content, and I respect it 100%. I personally find that you have some of the most driving interviews out there, and I'd love to let Clyde loose upon the more mainstream population in order to get the great content that results from your interviews.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Daniel,

    Short answer, no. Long, long answer follows.

    As I see it there are several types of interviews I do; game deconstruction, instructional, theory, and issues.

    The interview with Mike was purely game deconstruction as I was fascinated with the decisions made in the new edition. That fascination was borne out of buying the game and reading it. If I bought it and wasn't interested I'd never contacted Mike, at least not for game deconstruction, there are other interesting reasons to contact Mike for an interview, I think.

    It may be I can find interesting design decisions in most any game. My first interview with Fred Hicks was a game deconstruction based on reading the SRD for Spirit of the Century. I was rooming with Fred at Origins and figured it was a good opportunity to talk to him. To my knowledge that was the first game deconstruction I did. It occurred because I didn't have my normal goal of rooting out some question, addressing some issue, or detailing something a game designer needs to learn but might not have had access to the ideas. It was basically a flailing that bore fruit, as I found the result of the interview interesting.

    So maybe I can find interesting things in most games, or maybe Evil Hat is making interesting decisions and I got lucky. To do this kind of interview I need to read some kind of text.

    Sooo... a few more issues. I do my interviews in person at conventions, although I may do a few at my apartment. Anyway, I do them in person. I could likely Skype, but I don't want to, not for interviews. This means an interview is going to be with folks who attend conventions I go to. I go to Dreamation, Forge Midwest, Origins, and Gen Con. Sometimes I go to Lake Geneva Con, Osh Con, and Geekkon which are Wisconsin conventions. I'm also hoping to work Go Play Northwest and PAX into next year. As you can see this limits how many folks outside the Indie sphere I can talk with. Add to the fact that I might be trying to find people outside the gaming industry to talk to on these trips as I'm planning on starting a interview based podcast where I talk to whomever I think would be interesting to talk to in whatever sphere....

    What does all this mean? I don't know. I think it means it's difficult, and I'm not sure what the answer is. It's also possible that there are other interesting reasons to talk to someone other than design decisions. If someone can point to something interesting that I can learn from someone, then that is a vector of attack for interviews also. For instance why do you choose Steve to bring up? Is it based on finding True20 fascinating or is there something else there? Of course you do good interviews also... I really enjoyed the Phil Reed one.

    Hopefully you have a better idea where I'm coming from? This is kind of ramble-y.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the long explanation, Clyde. It was very enlightening in terms of understanding your show (and to be honest, it makes me like it all the more).

    Why mention Steve? Dunno. Or maybe I know but I wanna chew on it more.

    Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it, especially coming from you. More episodes coming.
    • ^
    • v
    Clyde, bro, what happened? I miss my weeklyish dose of you. Which sounded way less gay in my head, but whatever. It's ok to be gay, and I'm gay for your podcast. So get back to work! Unless something bad happened and you can't, in which case, bummer, dude; and I hope it's not too serious. =\
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Dave,

    Nothing serious is going on. I really overworked myself prior to Gen Con. Finishing and hawking a game and doing the podcast was too much. I'll never do both again. I was deliberately procrastinating, and then Warhammer Online has made me lose track of time. That's starting to wind down into my normal MMORPG play, which for me, is not an everyday thing. Something new should be here soon.

    Thanks for calling me out.
    • ^
    • v
    No problem. Seems like all my favorite indie-rpg casts are on haitus or some crap lately =\ Weak!

    But hey, I understand, you guys all have lives too, and yeah, GenCon was a lot to recover from.

    WoW, on the other hand, is no excuse. =P

    Welcome back!
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

August 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Nov »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Meta

Categories

Blogs/Forums

License

  • License

Madison Wisconsin

Podcasts/Netcasts

Subscribe

 WP Glamour
Theory From the Closet is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).