Mike Mearls did that "Reddit Ask Me Anything" Thing About 5e - It's the "Non Answers" That Interest me the Most

ENWorld has an excellent summary and highlights from the Mike Mearls AMA on Reddit.

Go to ENWorld and read it. We'll wait for you.

Now, here's the pieces I find most interesting:

On PDFs -- "We're definitely looking at PDFs, ebooks, and other digital platforms, but no news yet. The goal with anything along those lines will be grow D&D, not just sell ebooks to people who already play the game, so we're putting a lot of work into figuring out that side of the equation."

Reading between the lines, don't hold your breath. WotC / Hasbro still sees PDFs / Ebooks as cannibalizing dead tree sales. We have DnDClassics because all of those products are out of print. Are they selling anything in PDF that they recently reprinted?

On the OGL -- "No news yet, but we do plan to announce something within the next couple of months or so." 

To another OGL question [Mike never says "OGL" though] -- "Yes - we're working on plans right now to allow people to use the D&D system to create their own stuff."

I suspect here going to see a licensing scheme for publishers (No OGL) and a fan license, as the second answer refers to people, not publishers.

We can already create our own stuff our own stuff for ANY edition - it's the legal and organized sharing of such works that something like the OGL gives safe harbor to. I strongly suspect that the "fan license" will not allow work to be sold for profit, or, if it can be, WotC owns the final product and gets a cut of the sales.

Without a subscription type service resulting in recurring income, 5e is not going to make the money the suits at Hasbro expect from a Dungeons & Dragons RPG.

I'm surprised no one asked about the Annual WotC Xmas Purge ;)

It's Official - Free 15% of Player's Handbook (and MM and DMG) is "Basic D&D"

The clues were there, and I wrote about some of them, such as the Free Player's Handbook covering the core four classes (check) and core four races (check) and levels 1-15 (actually 1-20). I also brought up the idea of free material form the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide rolling out to supplement the free 15% of the Player's Handbook. Link to What If the Freely Available 15% of the 5e Player's Handbook includes Core Advancement Thru 15 Levels? and http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2014/05/peering-into-taverns-scrying-pool-what.html

This morning, Mike rolled out the exciting details: WotC Basic D&D Announcement

"Basic D&D is a PDF that covers the core of the game. It’s the equivalent of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia, though it doesn’t have quite the same scope (for example, it won’t go into detail on a setting). It runs from levels 1 to 20 and covers the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, presenting what we view as the essential subclass for each. It also provides the dwarf, elf, halfling, and human as race options.

But the best part? Basic D&D is a free PDF. Anyone can download it from our website. We want to put D&D in as many hands as possible, and a free, digital file is the best way to do that.

If Basic D&D is the equivalent of the classic Rules Cyclopedia, then the three core rulebooks are analogous to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Want more character options? Pick up a Player’s Handbook. Looking for more critters for your campaign? The Monster Manual has you covered. Want to sculpt a unique campaign? Pick up the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Still, Basic D&D is the true heart of the game and could easily provide a lifetime of gaming.

At the launch of the D&D Starter Set, Basic D&D will include the material needed to create characters and advance to 20th level. In August, with the release of the Player’s Handbook, Basic D&D will expand to include the essential monsters, magic items, and DM rules needed to run the game, along with the rules for wilderness, dungeon, and urban adventuring. (The Starter Set already covers the aspects of these rules that you need to run the included campaign.)

As we introduce new storylines like Tyranny of Dragons, we’ll also make available free PDFs that provide all the rules and stats missing from Basic D&D needed to run the adventures tied into the story. The adventures released as part of Tyranny of Dragons are playable without requiring any of the core rulebooks or the Starter Set. With just the Basic Dungeons & Dragons rules, you can play D&D for years.

Basic D&D makes it easier than ever for new players and DMs to jump into tabletop RPG play. We’re involved in the greatest gaming hobby ever invented. It’s time to bring that hobby to everyone who wants to take part."

This could very well be a game changer...

Mike Mearls Clarifies the Definition of "Stand Alone" for "Tyranny of Dragons"

Mike has been taking some heavy hits in the social media arena. Well deserved hits, but hits none the less. So I give +Mike Mearls credit for tweeting away during the holiday weekend to clarify, clarify and occasionally obscure ;)

So, that 15% of the Player's Handbook that will go up for free online hand in hand with the release of the Starter Set? Looks like you'll need that to run Tyranny of Dragons. Unless Mike says something different tomorrow. Damn it Mike! One answer obscures the other!

So, do we really need the starter set? Would the 15% of the Player's Handbook suffice to run games between now and the end of time? How much of the magical 15% is also covered in the Starter Set?

Is the Emperor Wearing Pants? What's REALLY Going on with the Release of 5e?

There is more left unsaid than said right now with the impending release of 5e. If WotC were graded on a scale of 1-10 on it's use of social media, it would be risking a negative rating.

"Mystery" Mike Mearls and his tweets are more about what isn't included than what is.

The Pundit's social media posts are all about what he knows and can't talk about, but trust him, it is great. You know what? As a paid consultant of WotC - I don't trust your opinion. I'll trust your facts when you present them, but as you can't, you have nothing.

My biggest question isn't "how can you create PCs to use with the Starter Set when the Starter Set doesn't include PC gen rules, but still, you can do it - Mike says so" but more "If there is a step between the Starter Set and the 3 Core Books AND it's an integral part of the release (enough that The Pundit says it's all rainbows and unicorns and shit) why mention it if it can't be talked about?"

Social media is aimed at current roleplayers, not newbs or boardgamers one is looking to convert. Why fuck with us? It may gain WotC publicity, but the sour taste is going to turn many away.

Really, does anyone at WotC even understand social media, because it's obvious Mike doesn't...

Maybe we'll need to open up the scrying pool in the privy to figure this shit out.

More "Mike Mearls Magic Pearls" - Tweets - Turning Board Game Geeks "Geekier"

Okay, so it's pretty much a "remedial" gaming package. Which is okay. But if this means Next will suffer from "boardgamism" like 4e, I'm not looking forward to the future.

Is this an as yet unnamed release, the new DDI, or something even more sinister?

Mike Mearls Latest Legends & Lore Column - Where Less is More (Maybe)

It's been a while since I turned my sights on D&D Next. Really, what was the point? The game to "Rule Them All" had set itself up to fail, trying to be all to everyone. It wanted to cover the desires of the OD&D Grognards right thru 4e. In that madness lies failure.

Then we had this week's Legends & Lore Column - early as it as pointed out elsewhere. Mike tells us that after the core rules, the emphasis will be on story, not mechanics. Fluff, not crunch. This is a complete turn around from the 3e days.

Let's look at Mike's post (original post is here):


It might be strange for the guy in charge of D&D R&D to say this, but here it goes: After the core rules for the game are done, we really want to stop adding so much stuff to the mechanics of the game and shift our emphasis to story (emphasis mine).

D&D is a shared language. The rules serve to make it easier to talk about the game and make stuff happen. They take abstract concepts and give them clear meaning. When we say "5th-level wizard," we know what you can do and how you do it. (well, we did up through 3x - 4e significantly changed the language) We know that because we play D&D. Someone who never played the game would be utterly lost. (again, 4e is a different game with different assumptions than it's predecessors) 

A language works best when everyone who uses it can communicate efficiently. If I described my character as a "prime tier ensign," that doesn't mean anything to you. Could you guess what my character wears, what sort of weapon he might wield, and what special abilities he uses? Any answer you give is a pure guess. (sure - but again, 4e describes a manner of play that is unfamiliar to those that played earlier editions)

For that reason, in building classes, character options, and everything else in the game, we need to stick to things that make sense and resonate with you. That's why we've adopted things like specialties and backgrounds as tools to organize game rules. Rapid Shot and Precise Shot are abstract things that aren't really clear. You can only understand them by knowing what they are. They don't stand on their own in a meaningful way. Describing your fighter as an archer, though, makes sense to anyone. Your character uses a bow. That's self-evident from the word archer. There are still details to study, but the general idea evokes a key fantasy archetype. (So far I'm following)

The trick is that the list of things that resonate is shorter than an unbound list. It's a challenge, but it's one worth tackling. Realistically, I'm willing to bet that most people didn't start playing D&D because they wanted to take Rapid Shot. You probably wanted to play an archer, or a sneaky thief, and so on (I started with D&D because my friends played it and I loved the Lord of the Rings - classes and skills we the least of my concerns - I wanted to share in the excitement of my favorite fantasy stories). The most resonant elements arise from outside the game, in the myths and stories that we're all exposed to. (Gee, just what I was talking about)

The other side to this coin is that with a much-reduced emphasis on turning out new rules mechanics (who would have expected this from WotC?), the material we make receives more playtesting, development, and care. If you want to make an archer option, it has to be a good option. You don't get a second chance at it.

So, that's the general philosophy on expanding the rules of the game.

So basically, less is more. Which may very well mean D&D Next has to live or die on it's own strengths, not by emulating previous versions of D&D. It's an interesting trip this D&D Next has travelled to get where it is now, and with over a year before release, I suspect there will be even more twists and turns between now and then.

Makes you wonder if the release of the previous versions, both in print and in PDF, have as much to do with a "we aren't going to convert many of the grognards, so we may as well embrace them" as it is a cash grab during the lean year and a half left before the new edition releases.

Yeah, I know Grumpy normally handles the D&D Next posts, but I figured I could handle this one. Maybe Next time ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Remarks on Mike Mearls Latest D&D Next Interview (Part One)

Nothing pisses off a Grumpy Dwarf more than a blog post that screws up the font, the colors and all that other shit.  So, I'm going to try using yet a different browser today.  Lets see if it fucks up yet again, shall we?


Oh, this is Mike Mearls' latest interview.  Mike can talk.  Have I mentioned that before?  Yes?  Well, I'm going to state it again.  He's like the Everready Bunny.


On June 15th, we conducted an interview over Skype with Mike Mearls, head of Research & Design of D&D at Wizards of the Coast. Also during that day, Mike was participating in an “Ask Me Anything” thread on Reddit, (Mike is a multi-tasking madman!) so some of the answers make reference to that. This interview has been transcribed, paraphrased, and edited by us from the call (so it's just the meat I suppose). We chose to mainly focus on the process of playtesting and design for D&D Next for this interview.

Critical Hits: How is the AMA on Reddit going?

Mike Mearls: It doesn’t matter how many questions I answer- more stuff just keeps showing up (which shows a lot of interest in D&D Next.  No matter how much I may biatch about 5e, I'm glad to see Mike is swamped with questions). It’s funny, I think most of the answers have boiled down to “yes, we’re giving the Fighter maneuvers, we just haven’t gotten to it yet.” Which fits the playtest feedback too, where I think 80% of the surveys said they wanted it too (which seems awfully huge, as I doubt 80% of playtesters played fighters to any extent.  Then again, most of the playtesters are probably current 4e players, and they are accustomed to front loaded options). Even players of older editions are saying that. It’s just funny to see it (is 3x older?  probably.  I suspect the further one goes back in edition preference, the lower the numbers of people that want to be loaded down with upfront power and options.  then again {yet again} when you aren't increasing the fighter's chance to hit, he needs something to show that he is progressing in levels. I think that is the main reason folks what more options and maneuvers for fighters - they simply don't get better otherwise in D&D Next) .

CH: Let’s talk about some of the new rules, like Advantage/Disadvantage (this should be interesting). When the survey responses come in, is most of the feedback focused on those new rules, or is more about the older rules that have been brought forward?

MM: It’s a mix, yeah. One of the things we did with the playtester base was to set the framework based on the questions we asked. The first thing we want to look at is the new mechanics: Advantage, action economy (i'm sure someone will define this, but it just seems like a strange phrase to me), and so on because it’s a change from what D&D has been doing the past few editions. We’re mainly taking the temperature of the room, asking “do you like this or not?” Then deciding where we want to go from there.

Healing has been one area that’s been getting tons of attention (that shouldn't be a surprise). It’s funny, if you went back to the days of 2nd edition and gave those players the D&D Next document exactly as it is now, I think people would be like “woah, there’s so much healing, I have these hit dice I can spend.” (the result would be "whoa, there's too much healing - we'll never die now!"  but i was 19 or so when 2e came out, and we were still Monte Haul back in the day, so it would have been fun for a few months.  Then we would have moved on to WFRP or Traveller)  But now that they’ve played 4th edition (this one sentence should tell you the edition segment that will have the most influence on D&D Next - and it ain't the old farts in the OSR), they’re just like “there’s not enough healing in this game.” It’s one of those things that has changed. It’s interesting to get people’s perception of what D&D “is” and see that it has changed over time (not so much changed as there are now multiple opinions out there.  that's what you get when you change editions and rule sets faster than folks change cars).

The really interesting thing is that preferred edition plays some role in it, but it’s nowhere as big of an effect as you’d think (I'd like to see a percentage of 4e self identifying players in the 5e playtest.  I'm going to guess it's around 80%.  Who wants in on the over / under?). Like, everyone loves at-will spells (because nearly everyone is a 4e player Mike.  who do you think signed up in droves for the playtest?), it’s one of the most positive things. Even players who played OD&D or 1st edition, it’s not like they’re 90% (75% maybe?  it's a weird number for mike to pull out) against it. There’s still some shifts, but it’s overall positive among all those groups. It’s interesting to see what’s new to different people too.

CH: All the surveys I’ve seen have asked how long have you played D&D. You’re saying the differences haven’t been that pronounced?

MM: Yeah. To give you an example, we have a lot of people who say they want the Fighter to have more options. It’s the most pronounced among players who have played 3rd and 4th, but you still see more than half the players who played 2nd or 1st saying that as well (again, without an increase in THAC0, how else will a fighter improve in combat?  more options or maneuvers is the only way.  Self fulfilling prophecy)  . I think it’s because even though 1st edition didn’t have that, they know what they want to play (yes - a fighter that gets better as they level). So a player who plays a newer edition with a simple Fighter says “if I wanted that, I could play AD&D” (Exactly Mike - you hit the nail on the fucking head! This is the very reason trying to appease all players of all editions will fail.  All of the previous editions are still in print in one form of another and will be FOREVER because of the OGJ.  Well, maybe not 4e in that case but 3x and prior) but in this context of playing a newer edition, I want that thing, so just go ahead and give it to me.

Doing the AMA today has shown that- I don’t want to call the questions boring, but a lot of them have been the same. Like “why is the Fighter boring?” (because 4e players expect every class to be equally good at everything, and fighters don't have the "flash" of clerics and wizards) OK, we’re going to add maneuvers to answer that, so I’ll move on. Then the other question is “if we’re already playing an edition of D&D we like, why should we switch?” (didn't I already answer this?) What it comes down to is that those editions have a very specific flavor (sure, it's flavor from the RULES.  If I want to show 4e players what a 0e game was like, D&D Next may get me to the parking lot of the ballpark.  Swords & Wizardry White Box Edition will not only get me in the ballpark, but put me on the ball field. Did I mention it's free? Mike, in using DND 5e to recreate the "feel" of earlier editions, you neglect to acknowledge that you are competing with OGL / OSR rule sets that are extremely faithful to the source material and are available for free in PDF. You remember what PDFs are, right? Those are the things WotC removed from RPGNow on short notice, and left many of us without access to our legitimate purchases. Now I now why you don't like PDFs. It's not the piracy, its the competition ;) In Next, if we do it right, you’ll be able to make your own edition of D&D, and maybe in a way you weren’t able to before, just because it’s more than house rules (wait, WotC makes optional rules, they are legit.  A DM or RPG group make optional rules, and the are illegitimate?).

And thus ends Part One of the interview.  This is too long to do as a single piece, and my comments are longer than is usual.  Damn you Moe T! 


heh ;)


This has been The Grumpy Dwarf

The Grumpy Dwarf Look at Mike Mearls Latest Interview (He's Mr. Media!)

YES!!! Another PR Bag of Poop from Mike, this time at Examiner.com.  You can read the unadulterated Poop Here!.  Join me, The Grumpy Dwarf, as we follow Mike in his latest interview...

I had the opportunity to catch up with Mike Mearls, senior manager of Dungeons & Dragons research and development. Mike and I last worked together years ago on AEG's d20 supplement, Relics. In this interview he gives an update on the playtest and the surprising places we might see old and new versions of D&D.

Michael Tresca (MT): How's the playtest going so far?

Mike Mearls (MM): So far, it has gone very well and the response to the first playtest survey has been overwhelming. People seem happy so far (at least 60%, but that's a whole nother conversation), but ready to see more options added to the system.

MT: The public playtest has generated quite a bit of press. ("See Mike?  It worked!) Have you seen this reflected at all in consumption of Dungeons & Dragons content (online site traffic, product purchases, etc.)?

MM: We’ve definitely seen a surge of interest in D&D across the board (I'm willing to guess that sales are not part of that "board".  who is going to buy D&D 4e shit when 5e is around the corner?). The playtest has been a great way to spark interest. A good chunk of the people responding to the playtest survey are former D&D players (how many are pathfinder players?  are they really "former"?), so the word is definitely getting out there.

MT: The publication of the collectible Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books generated a lot of excitement (that aren't for sale yet, and i don't think they are "published yet). Given that D&D Next will be compatible with older editions (WTF?!?  Wasn't this rumor beaten and killed months ago?  it will NOT be compatible with OLDER editions), can we expect reprints of older editions?

MM: We aren’t announcing any specifics right now, but we do plan to bring back more fan favorite content throughout the year. (Wait, Mike didn't address an obviously very wrong compatibility statement?  For shame Mike.  For Shame!)

MT: In a similar vein, Wizards withdrew completely from the online marketplace. Any chance D&D will return to PDF publishing of older editions with the new release?

MM: I don’t have any information on that at this time, but we’re always exploring our options (Which means, our lawyers still don't understand how this internet thing works).

MT: Thanks for extending the playtest to support online play (that initially was our lawyers again not understanding this internet thing). Are you seeing a shift towards more online play of D&D?

MM: We haven’t tried to gather specific information on that, but I think it makes sense given how digital media and the Internet have evolved (but again, dont ask us about PDFs or God forbid, our Virtual Table Top) It’s much easier to get a game going if you don’t have to worry about driving to someone’s house or finishing up early because of time constraints. We’ve tried to focus our design efforts on making adventures about an hour long (which again seems like a waste to me, but 2 1/2 to 3 hrs seems to work fine, so what the fuck do I know?)knowing that shorter sessions become more viable if people are able to just meet online to play. (I wouldn't get together for a one hour session, in person or online - too much work for too little in return)

MT: What's been the most surprising feedback you've received so far from the playtest group?

MM: The level of positive feedback about the core system so far has been exciting. We aimed for simple, fast game-play with this system. My initial sense was that 3e and 4e left people wanting more complexity. (not surprising) Most of the feedback we’re seeing is centered on character options, however, rather than system detail. That was surprising, but in a good way.

MT: How are the races and classes shaping up? Any of the non-traditional core archetypes that were introduced in later editions likely to make an early appearance?

MM: We’re sticking to the meat and potatoes of classes and races right now. (i'll give mike credit, this was the best decision they could have made)

MT: Will we see a new introductory boxed set?

MM: I can’t talk about specific products (because it's too early in the game to even know), but in my ideal world there’s a game called D&D that you find in stores. It’s simple enough that you can just start playing, but deep enough that you feel that the next layer of stuff adds to it, rather than replaces it like going from a starter set to a Player’s Handbook has traditionally done.

MT: Fantasy Flight Games has led a shift towards creating detailed boxed sets of accessories supporting their role-playing games. Can we expect deluxe editions of D&D Next?

MM: We’re so focused on playtesting right now that we don’t really know what the final product will look like yet. If accessories are a part of it, I just know that I’d want them to be things that bring the game to life in ways that people are still talking about and using years down the line (if they go the Warhammer FRP route i'm not touching it - over priced and too system specific).

MT: Will we ever see D&D Next on toy store shelves again like they were in the 80s? Or even in bookstores…if there are any left?

MM: I don’t have any information on where/how D&D Next will be available yet (but if we go with a boxed set, the hopeful answer is yes - if there are any toy stores or bookstores left when we release D&D Next), but in recent years we’ve had a great relationship with hobby/game stores. They provide a great resource for local customers who are looking to purchase our games, get more information about them, and even take part in in-store play programs.

MT: What can we expect next from the playtest?

MM: We’re going over the playtest feedback right now to focus on areas that need some attention. You can expect to see revisions to the classes, mainly fighter but the cleric and rogue are getting some tweaks. We also have new drafts of the armor system in the works (was there anything strange with armor in the current playtest?  it it going to absorb damage in the next one).

MT: Anything else you'd like to add?

MM: Without the playtesting feedback we’ve received, we wouldn’t be in a position to improve the game and make D&D something that everyone wants to play (I think you should be happy with "a majority of D&D players want to play"). The feedback has been a huge help so far, so for those of you who are currently playtesting and giving us feedback, thanks! And if you’re not playtesting yet, it’s not too late to get involved. Just go to dndnext.com. (and maybe they won't fuck up the release of the playtest materials this time around)

The Grumpy Dwarf Chops Away at Mike Mearls Q&A on Reddit (Part 2)

Yep, The Grumpy Dwarf here, back with part 2 of Mike Mearls' endless Reddit Q&A.  There's more after this post, as a Dwarf can only do so much in one (or it it two now?) sittings ;)


Answer 5 (of the answers I'm picking - skipping a few)

We're looking at a set of maneuvers that characters can dip into to gain more concrete options in fights, along with options that you can use to push yourself beyond your limits for an action or two per encounter (encounter powers make their return - 4e players, this is for you - enjoying the crumbs?).

We're strongly considering adding a free attack if someone breaks away from a melee (isn't this an "Attack of Opportunity?  I never even realized they removed it). The playtest feedback has been a little soured on letting people move around without consequence. (ya think?) However, the rule would be much simpler than attacks of opportunity - likely it'll be that if you start your turn in someone's reach, they get an attack on you if you try to leave their reach using an action to withdraw. (so you can run by or run through them without consequence?  i so much prefer Theatre of the Mind)

Answer 6

I think that as the game takes shape, the breadth of mechanical options for DMs will make this game stand out as the next step in D&D's progression (time will tell).

This is the first time that we're building D&D from the bottom up to account for house rules and expansion. The simple rules we've shown off so far are about as complex as we want the core (so this is the OSR or 0e game they are trying to emulate? because if it is, they got it wrong). I want the game to be easy to understand not just from the POV of learning how to play, but also in terms of understanding how all the parts work together.

Once you understand that, you can much more easily house rule, add rules modules, tinker with things, and otherwise make the game yours. Really, our goal isn't to make everyone happy by making a game (now there's a surprise). It's to make a range of options that any individual DM can modify and reconfigure to make the specific type of D&D they always wanted and that no other edition was able to exactly deliver. (but i get to do that with a handful of house rules to ACKS - they are going to do an OSR style game better with the current base rule set?)

Of course, some people will be perfectly happy with an older edition. (yep) If that game is perfect for them, I'm not going to try to force them to buy into Next or leave the game they love. (but we'd love for you to check it out and buy a copy - just in case ;)

In some ways, this is a shift back to independence, back to the 0e feel, but with a really welcoming starting point for people who have never played D&D before. (0e "rewritten", such as S&W White Box is pretty simple to understand and is fairly welcoming)

Answer 7 (re: 4e)

As I mentioned above, we're working right now on a maneuver system for fighters and other characters (is this a feats deal?). In addition, we're looking at alternate magic systems for casters other than the wizard and cleric.

Also, we're 100% committed to taking the same approach to balancing the math behind the game (do we really need the game to be so closely balanced?  doesn't that take some of the soul from the game?) and improving upon the 4e tools for encounter, NPC/monster, and adventure design (sweet!  recipes for perfectly balanced encounters! sigh).

 Answer 8

For caster supremacy, the key lies in attacking it from both ends. We can do a lot by reining in the most abusive spells and making it harder for casters to chain things together in abusive combos (if this is anything like the combo that mike talked about it one of his posts, i saw nothing wrong with the combo - it was smart play - and the saves required should have made it a rarely successful occurrence). The other end is making sure that we make an honest comparison of the casters to the non-casters.

For instance, if a wizard can turn invisible we have to be cool with rogues having an almost entirely assured chance of success to hide or sneak up on people (how is this unbalanced?  the game was like this up to at least 3.5e, and it played fine). It's unbalanced if the guy who is supposed to be stealthy has a real chance of failure, while the wizard's magic has 100% chance of success of turning someone invisible (skills have no limit to use - spells have a limited number of castings - therein lies the balance) .

For skills, we definitely will have them in some form to give people pointers to the non-combat stuff they are good at. Right now, classes give skills as appropriate but most of your skills come form your background. Backgrounds are not linked to class, so a fighter can choose the criminal background to become stealthy or good at picking locks (so what is a thief / rogue good at anyway?  or are we going to give spells to all the classes to?).

The key discussion we're having right now with skills boils down to this - does a skill make you better than you otherwise would be at something, or does it make you strictly good at it?

Making you better would be a +3 bonus, which is then stacked on top of an ability modifier. So, a Wis 9 rogue (ahem) would be better at finding traps, but still only at +2 (wouldn't INT be just as useful for finding taps if not more so?).

The second path removes abilities from the equation. The rogue would just have +5 to find traps. You'd use either an ability mod or your skill, rather than stacking them. (which makes ability mods relatively useless outside of combat)

We've been arguing back and forth on which path works better. Neither has emerged as a clear front runner.

Thats the end of Part 2 - more tomorrow night

The Grumpy Dwarf Chops Away at Mike Mearls Q&A on Reddit (Part 1)

Food For Dwarven Thought ;)

My God but Mike had a shitload to say at Reddit!  I'm going to go through this in pieces, because a dwarf needs to make sure he doesn't get buried in a pile of dung - it's the whole height issue if you must know.

Now, lets hear Mike's Words of Wizzdom

Answer One (because the questions are just too fucking long and rambling)

First, I think it's important that we learn from the past and guard against those mistakes. So, we've seen the sort of mechanics that cause issues in 3e and 4e. (I've seen some of those mistakes crop up in 5e.  Wait - those are features now, my bad!)

Second, we've made a big effort this time to define what exists within each piece of a character - race, class, feat, spell, magic item, and so on. Before, there were a lot of grey areas. For instance, in 4e powers were fairly well defined, but feats were all over the place. (but this means that 4e was defective.  oh, i get it.  every edition prior to what ever edition that is being worked on now id defective)

So, the key lies in establishing the limits in each area and then, most importantly, throttling way back on the flood of mechanics (whoa!  i thought the whole mechanics BS was the bread and butter of the design team). We have to consider each spell, theme, or whatever with the same attention that the Magic team regards a new card (comparing D&D to MtG is not a good sign in my book).

By keeping the core options under control and expanding slowly, we can keep a handle on the worst excesses.

This ties back into class support, where we want to release overall less stuff (dumb question - where is the money in a New Edition if you don't release the usual pile of useless shit to go with it?  isn't that where the bottom line is made?), and the stuff we do release make as usable across classes as possible. So, we're more likely to introduce new themes that any class can take rather than spells for one specific class.

The math will be baked into the class and race. Since those are the only things that are 100% required for the game, between the two of them they contain all the math that we assume.

We 100% will support sliding complexity within classes, though with some limits (wizards and clerics are inherently a little more complex than non-casters). (i will believe this when i see it - sliding complexity with parity among the complexities)

Balancing the simple vs. the complex is tricky. The important thing is to keep the math level and make the simple character feel effective, even if the experienced played who takes a few maneuvers and applies them intelligently comes out ahead. We have to allow for skill and experience -otherwise the game gets stale - but I think we can mitigate that if the beginner feels like he has an effective characters and has some obvious, clearly useful things he can do.

For instance - the pregen fighter's damage on a miss. A beginner player always feels like he or she is contributing in a fight. (that is the reason?  are we moving our RPGs to the type of Little League where everyone gets a trophy?  why not just make every roll auto-hit?  hell, lets just make every monster a one hit and it's dead wonder. Mike, if there is no chance to fail, there is not true chance to succeed)

Answer Two

I can't say any specific about digital tools, but we're 100% committed to making them happen. I think the easiest way to make D&D fade would be to mistake the core thing about D&D with the way it's delivered. (but don't expect anything in PDF ever again - because PDFs are tools of the Devil!  They make people steal!  It has nothing to do with fairly pricing our products in PDF format.)

D&D has survived and thrived over the years because it engages the imagination and brings people together in a really unique way. It would be foolish to lose that by equating those things with physical books. (But WotC has a history of foolishness in such matters)

Of course, people do like physical products and there's no reason to stop those, but the reverse is also true - we aren't making book lovers happy by pissing off people who want the game delivered digitally, with a robust set of tools. (Mike, we trust WotC to piss off a large bunch of people before they figure out what to do digitally.  Just accept it, you'll feel better)

(Hey Mike, how's that Virtual Table Top thing going for ya?)

Answer Three

Ah yes, the rats. Sometimes, playtests reveal subtle issues. Other times, they hit you over the head.
This is a pretty big issue, because the monster design is aiming to keep hordes of orcs/goblins/etc a viable threat at high levels. So, at level 1 it might be 18 rats, but at level 10 it might be 18 orcs. (wait, keeping orcs viable at higher level is to turn them into "swarms"?)

I'd like to incorporate a core "swarm" rule into the game, an easy way for DMs to group up monsters into single attacks. For instance, something that lets you combine X attacks into one die roll, with some small amount of damage even on a miss to make that an appealing option. (again with this fucking success on a failure shit, but now on the DM's side of things)

Hopefully, that solves the rat issue and also the humanoid horde issue at higher levels. (personally, I suggest going back to the drawing board on this one)

Answer Four

Probably the most surprising thing has been the positive reaction to having fairly slimmed down rules. I was expecting a lot of people to feel that the game was incomplete - and obviously it's just a first draft - but I think a lot of people are pretty happy with a simple, fast game. That's been cool to see.

The feedback on long rests has primarily been that they are far too forgiving. (you think!?!  you didn't find this out in the earlier playtests?) It feels lame that the party can be on the edge of death, sleep for eight hours, and bounce back up to full strength.

The thing I loved and had to see go away - there's been a few. I wanted to go back to the name magic-user because it is so uniquely D&D, but cooler heads prevailed (magic-user is cooler than wizard in some ways, but whatever). Some for thief, though thief is an option under rogue. (rogue is so - bleh!)

I really liked one of the drafts of the auto success system we had early on, but it was hard for DMs to grok it. An auto success mechanic is something I still want to see in the game, but making it work without making it too good is a tricky thing to balance. (auto success can be extremely unbalancing, especially if the extremes are Auto and Miracle Time)


Alright, that's all The Grumpy Dwarf has time for today.  More tomorrow ;)

The Grumpy Dwarf Listens to Mike Mearls in the D&D Next Playtest Podcast

First off, here's the link to the podcast:  D&D Next Podcast

It's just over 26 minutes of your life to listen to it and no, you don't get it back.

I was surprised at the amount of times they used the spell "Summon Old School".  I'll assume it is an At Will Power and not a Vancian Spell ;)

I do have a few questions / comments:

- how can it be "this week's podcast" when the last podcast was in April? Wouldn't it be "this month's podcast" at that rate?

- monthly updates to the playtest package, and possibly smaller updates in between?  I'm impressed

- how the fuck is it too much for people to process the whole game as it currently is in house? too much to expect the players to create their own PCs?  we created PCs in the previous version of the Beta (which was good, as we found a broken rule or two by doing so). everyone play testing is a gamer by nature - its what we do.  it's a condescending bit of crap that i'm sure wasn't intended to be as such, but it certainly can be seen as such.

- they want folks to house rule the heck out of the game? wouldn't it be easier to just run the edition you currently have, as that's probably what you are house ruling it towards anyway?

- definitely playing up the Old School angle... it's the PT Cruiser of RPGs ;)

so, what are your thoughts after listening?

The Grumpy Dwarf Asks Mike Mearls a Question- What's Up With No Google+ Hangouts with D&D Next?

I'm really left scratching my beard on this one.  To me it seems like Hasbro's lawyers got involved in something they had no need to and are just muddying the waters.

When I signed my D&D Next playtest agreement yesterday, I do not recall a section indicating I couldn't play the game (it is a game, right?) using Google+ Hangouts, Skype or some other VTT.  Then WotC posts a D&D Next Playtest FAQ, and lo and behold, the FAQ says you can't:

Can I run an online game via email, Skype, Google Hangout or a play-by-post forum? 

No, you may not run an online game on third parties sites at this time.

Which I guess means you can use WotC's not ready for prime time VTT, but even that isn't spelled out.  Strangely enough, I never agreed to this when I signed the agreement.

Do they think we are going to record a session and send it out into the world?  Why do that when the playtest documents were already on rapidshare by yesterday afternoon for all the world to grab without signing off on any agreement?

But wait, its gets better.  Here's a piece from Mike's interview at Kobold Quarterly (because you know he had to make the media rounds before the playtest released)

• Wolfgang: D&D Next provides a lot of support for “theatre of the mind,” also known as running your game without minis. I’ve found this extremely enjoyable in online games using Google Hangouts. Is that form of online play a design goal?
• Mike: I’m not sure if it started as a design goal, but since many of our playtests took place using Hangouts it helped evolve it that way. When you don’t have minis and grids to represent things, it forces you to make sure that your rules don’t require them. So I think a good way to think of it is that if playing via Hangout works, then the game should also work fine if you and your players want to sit on couches in your TV room without a table, or while driving to GenCon, or wherever.

Emphasis above is all mine.

I'm left with just these thoughts:  Mike, what the fuck is going on?  Did your handlers let you know that Google+ Hangouts and the like were now verboten before you spoke so glowingly about it in an interview?  Why can we not do now what we could do before?  Are you trying to use this as a way to push WotC's VTT?

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.  This is one of the worst decisions the paper pushers could have made, especially after it was so largely used in the Friends & Family part of the Beta.  I know first hand, as my group use G+ Hangouts for our sessions.  Whatever faults we had with the system, it wasn't that it didn't work well over Hangouts.

As a side note, how the hell would you even know if members of your gaming group signed off on the agreement to Playtest D&D Next?  Just their word from what I can see.  There is no way to verify.  

The Grumpy Dwarf Drinks Beer and Comments on Mike's Interview at Wired

Hi.  I'm fucking Grumpy the Dwarf.  I mean, I am The Fucking Grumpy the Dawrf.  I just got back from the pub with the misses.  I had four pints of Killeans, and I'm moving to take whatever is in the damn icebox that aint tied down and has gone through some sort of fermentation.  I asked for a piss bucket so I wouldn't have to get up in the midst of my ramblings, but the wife threatened to cut off the ale if I went thus far.  Apparently I'll be taking some breaks, as me seal has already been broken.

Oh, you can catch the original here

If you’ve been following role-playing game news, you know that the fate of Dungeons & Dragons is somewhat in peril. Many younger gamers flock to video games, not table-top games. Some old school gamers have abandoned the hobby entirely, or else they play outdated (but perfectly playable) versions of the rules (or reimagined rules inspired by such). Others prefer Pathfinder and other fantasy RPGs. Factions squabble over what edition ofD&D is the best. (There's actually a question?  I'll be generous - anything prior to 3e - no, make that anything prior to Skills & Powers in 2e - heck, cut out all but the first four Complete Handbooks too while you are at it.  Now, where the fuck were we?)

Getting fans of the various rules — Original D&D, Basic D&D (and Basic isn't really just Basic), AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3rd, 3,5 and 4.0 — to all agree on how to run a run-of-the-mill combat with a band of hobgoblins (simple - ya kill 'em!), how magic is used (Vancian), or how much authority the Dungeon Master has to improvise when your character want to do something not explicitly covered in the rules (infinite) … well, good luck with that.

Against this complex backdrop and into an uncertain future, Wizards of the Coast, which makes D&D, has embarked on an effort to redraw the rules once again ('cause we need you fuckin' money!). As was widely reported in January, Wizards is giving D&D a makeover, its first overhaul since 2008 (they make that seem like its a long time), when 4.0 was released (wait, what about 4.5 Essentials?) and, some say, further fractured the fan base (some say?  since when is "everyone" some?)

The project to create D&D 5.0 — or what Wizards is calling “D&D Next” — has been a cause for both bickering and hope (I bicker as I lose hope). But the company has promised to listen to players. They hired game designers from previous editions, such as Monte Cook (gone!), Bruce Cordell and Rob Schwalb, in an effort ”give a voice to the different generations of D&D.” They initiated a multi-phase play test (put phasers to STUN!). Some months ago, I had a chance to play an early version of D&D Next, Dungeon Mastered by none other than the man heading up the revamp, Mike Mearls, senior manager of Dungeons & Dragons research and development. Then came a “Friends and Family” play test phase this winter and spring for a select group of D&D players.

Now, this week, the general public playtest will kick off, beginning Thursday, May 24th. You can sign up to play here. On the eve of this new phase, I had a chance to ask Mearls some questions about the state of D&D‘s evolution, if he could reveal any sneak peeks into D&D Next and what challenges remain.

Gilsdorf: Please bring readers up to date (especially any newbies reading this) on the process to date — the previous “Friends and Family” playtest, the overall schedule, and where in the process the game design revision stands now.

Mike Mearls, senior manager of Dungeons & Dragons research and development (Image courtesy of Wizards of the Coast)

Mearls: The first concepts for the game arose about a year ago in a series of limited tests and proofs of concept (right after we saw the sales figures for 4e). We also played through each edition of D&D to get a sense for how the game has changed. In the fall, we started to do more work in earnest, with that material making up a closed playtest that began around the start of 2012. We used feedback from that test, along with games run at theD&D Experience convention and PAX East, to shape the next round of design. The game right now is functional within a limited array of levels (now that's an overwhelming endorsement - "Functional"). There are a few things we know that will change in short order. For instance, monsters still need some work, and the starting character hit points are a bit inflated to account for that (still working on balance). At this point, we’ve created a few different scenarios we can follow for new content based on player reaction to the first round (or second round, or third round, depending on who's counting). Depending on how that goes, we can figure out if we should debut new content or go back and revise classes and races that have been tested before. The big thing is that we’re ready to take as much time as needed to get this right. (as much time as needed, but not so much that Hasbro starts cutting our funding as we bleed cash.  4e is pretty much dead now.  The yearly WotC Christmas Purge is closer than you think.  So we have all the time in the world, but lets hurry the fuck up!)

Gilsdorf: Can you characterize the general sense of where the game in progress stands now? Is it more like classic D&D, more like 4.0? How have the rules and philosophy changed?

Mearls: In general, we’re pushing more power into the DM’s hands to run the sort of campaign that he or she prefers (Empower me Gawd Damnit!). For instance, we just talked today about a rule that lets DMs hand out bonus hit points at first level (isn't that what Hackmaster and Pathfinder do?  It's not innovation, this is what I do in my home campaign - i steal good ideas from others). The DM gets to determine if adventurers in the campaign are lucky, blessed by the gods, or otherwise destined for greatness. I’d say that in general, the game has the open-ended nature of AD&D, the character flexibility of 3e, and the clarity and ease of DMing of 4e (holy fucking shit!  trying to give all of the major editions a stroke job at the same time?!? THIS is how you bring all of the editions together?  THIS defines each of the previous editions?  Mike, when did the boys in marketing give you this line of bullshit?  Right before the interview?)

Gilsdorf: I imagine you did a lot of reading into D&D‘s history to think big picture stuff. How far back did you delve to get good ideas/best practices?

Mearls: We started at the very beginning (back in the way back, before dice, during "The Time of Chits!"), looking back at the original version of the game and even what information we could find on the games that inspired D&D. When we played each edition, starting with the original, we had a chance to see how the game evolved. The most interesting thing we learned was that the original game held up very well (ya think?), and the best parts of D&D — creativity at the table, the DM’s ability to create a unique game — were consistent in all editions. (I'm not even sure what this means)

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. (They are only steps forward when they retain the previous step - in many ways, 3e and 4e were steps backwards and forwards at the same time, for little if any net gain)

Gilsdorf: I think a lot of older gamers expressed concern about the direction 4.0 was headed vis-a-vis the balance of combat vs. storytelling and role playing. Do the new rules dictate how much role playing should be incorporated into the game? How much storytelling? How much combat?

Mearls: We’re very hands off with that stuff, instead leaving it up to the DM (again, another confusing non-statemeent from Mike the Mearls). We tend to give characters a mix of combat, exploration, and interaction abilities so that players feel that all of those areas of the game are important. The big thing I want to do for DMs is create a flexible core of rules that they can apply and modify as they wish.

Gilsdorf: In the new rules, will there be any fresh instructions on how to role play and tell stories, to help inexperienced players who might come to D&D from video games understand how to play a character, or how to DM? Or at this point is it just the rules framework you are focusing on?

Mearls: That’s the kind of thing we’ll tackle as we start thinking about final products. For now, we assume that players and DMs are at least familiar with the basics of the game.

Gilsdorf: So you have this feedback from the “Friends and Family” playtest. How did you tabulate and incorporate all of it? It sounds like a monumental task.

Mearls: We have a great team of people at Wizards who have tabulated everything, making it much easier for us to zero in on issues (we love our underpaid interns very much.  they will be our next Brand Managers after the Christmas Purge of 2012). We also rely on surveys to collect information, so we can take a look at the raw numbers. There are two ways we’ve looked at feedback so far. Sometimes, specific issues leap to the top of the to-do list because we see less than stellar feedback. In other cases, we use the results to help shape our discussions for revisions. For instance, if we have an idea for a new way to handle magic items we can check on the playtest data and see what players had to say about the current rules, then use that information to help us make our revisions.

Gilsdorf: How much feedback did you get? In the thousands of responses?

Mearls: That’s hard to tabulate (Huh!?!  How is it hard to tabulate the about of feedback you got? You received it.  You tabulated it.  That means you must have counted it. By saying you don't know, it's almost like saying you never looked). We kept our closed playtest small, with a little over a thousand people participating. They were given survey questions but also submitted written feedback. The real test will come when we begin to receive feedback from the public playtest.

Gilsdorf: My understanding is the next phase is the public open playtest. So really anyone will be able to play?

Mearls: That’s right, though as in the case of any public beta there is a play test agreement you have to agree to.  (I really want to know what the agreement says.  Can someone criticize the game if you sign the agreement?  can you discuss the rules?)

Gilsdorf: How is this handled? Do folks download materials from the D&D site?

Mearls: The materials will be available online via the D&D web site at www.dndnext.com. All you need to do is create an account on the site – if you already have one you can skip that step – and agree to the playtest terms. Once you do that, you can download the files and start playing.

Gilsdorf: How will you solicit feedback and what form will it take — surveys? Open comments on forums?

Mearls: We’re are focusing on surveys as the primary method but also hosting Live Chats, continuing playtests at key events, panels, and also paying close attention to the conversations that are coming out of our weekly articles. Surveys make it as easy as possible for people to contribute. A survey also lets us focus in on the key issues we want to examine, though of course people will have a chance to write out their thoughts and impressions. We want to give players as many outlets as we can to give us feedback.  (where is the talk of forums? blog posts?  open discussions?)

Gilsdorf: There’s been a lot of talk about the the departure of Monte Cook from the team working on this project. I’m sure you’re restricted on what you can say, but I wonder if you care to comment or respond to some of the internet chatter about what this might mean for where D&D Next is headed. What did Monte bring to the team and has he been replaced?

Mearls: Nothing has changed in terms of big picture ideas (because we've been shooting Monte's ideas down for months). The core concept behind the game was in place about a year ago, so our direction remains the same. Monte has a good sense for what makes for a fun RPG, and his big role was providing his experience on third edition (but we've decided to build the new game off of the Fourth Edition, so Monte's skills and knowledge weren't needed anymore - so said our previous play testers, who just happened to be overwhelmingly 4e players, as they are the ones with the DDI accounts that the Beta Pool was chosen from). We’ve also been relying on other team members to provide the same kind of expertise in all editions so that we can put together the kind of game that all D&D players will enjoy and appreciate. (I don't see many Grognards on their payroll)

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 classicD&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. (wasn't this backgrounds or themes or something else before?)

Gilsdorf: Biggest challenge thus far?

Mearls: The biggest hurdle has been trying to make sure that we can encourage more creativity, immersion, and flexibility in DMs and players. We want to have a solid set of rules, but at the same time I think D&D is at its best when the game is about the DM’s rulings rather than the actual rules. (now this is just fucking bizarre.  mike is mr. 4e.  4e is all about rules.  i'm sure there is a chart in a 4e rulebook for the time a PC needs each day to defecate and the effect of fiber on those numbers.  now he want to back track?  why?  maybe because you are having problems nailing down the rules?  don't look at my, I'm a fan of DM improvisation, but I'm not in favor of lazy rules writing) The rules are a tool that a DM uses to keep the game moving and inform decisions. The rules don’t make decisions for the DM, unless that’s how the DM wants the game to work. (but the players need to have a baseline of expectations.  that is what rules are for.  without rules, we are back to playing Cowboys & Indians and Cop & Robbers, with the same damn arguments we had when we were six)

Gilsdorf: Any other cool surprises in the new rules you can share now?

Mearls: I mentioned the rogue schemes earlier, but here’s another tidbit. Character backgrounds dictate the skills you receive, rather than your character class. Right now in the rules you could play a fighter who is also a thief, a wizard who is also an explorer, or any other combination you want. (but wasn't one of the rogue kits or whatever the fuck they were call giving thieving skills too?  I'm really confused)

Gilsdorf: When I contacted you last fall, you and your colleagues at Wizards spoke about how the major goal for this rules revamp was big picture, brand and relevance stuff — how to unite all the warring tribes; end the editions wars (The One Game to Rule Them All, and in the Darkness Bind Them); get older, lapsed players to play again; and get younger generations excited about D&D. The changes you’re talking about here seem a little smaller-scale. Can you point to some bigger-picture ways you are addressing these issues?

Mearls: The really big questions are, in some ways, still up in the air. Right now, we’re sort of heads down (in the sand), focusing on small details for the playtest. We have some fairly big ideas we’re working on in terms of RPGs as a whole, but that stuff is still fairly far off on the horizon. Right now, we really are down in the weeds in terms of details, and you’re right that the stuff we’re talking about right now is fairly small in terms of the big picture. However, that big picture still isn’t in focus. I think a mistake we made in the past was to try to make these big, grandiose statements, but in doing that we lost track of the core elements of what people enjoy about RPGs. We also ended up touting things that we couldn’t actually execute on, and no one wants that to happen again (Holy... Fucking... Shit...  With sugar on top.  "We should never have announced a system that was going to be all editions to all players, all of the time, because it just can't be fucking done".  Want to know why Monte left?  I suspect you just read the reason.  They built up these huge ass expectations.  They promised us a Playboy Centerfold and found out all they can give us is Selma from the Simpsons). With all that said, we’re definitely thinking big picture. That work is taking place, but it’s not ready for prime time.  (Notice he's said "Big Picture".  Mike wouldn't even answer the fucking question directly, and it was a pretty direct question.  That being said, he has a future in politics.  Sad.)

Gilsdorf: How are you holding up, personally? Leading this rules revision for D&D Next must be exhausting and stressful. Lots of folks wanting this to go right. I can only imagine.

Mearls: It’s definitely stressful, but it helps to have a great team of designers and editors. Plus, my wife and our menagerie of pets – two dogs and three cats – help to keep me grounded (nope, he's not getting much sleep). The best thing, though, is actually playing the game. It feels good to play through a new iteration and have a good time, or spot issues that we know we can fix. In some ways, there’s some security in having a public test. If people hate it, we are listening and make changes along the way. The biggest thing I have comes down to my attitude toward whatever my current project might be. I’m sort of like a parent who pushes a kid way too hard and expects straight As every term. I just want the game to be absolutely awesome!  (as do we all.  being that the child was introduced to the world as an infant genius, and now we'll be lucky if it doesn't get left back, expectations are suffering)

Gilsdorf: Anything else you’d like to add?

Mearls: We’re really looking forward to having people try out the playtest materials and give us their feedback. People have asked why they should care about this version of D&D when there are other versions out there. This is your chance to play a role in the development of the rules. If there has ever been anything about D&D that bugged you or some new thing you wanted in the game, now is the time to be heard!  (But will you hear us if it isn't on your site, your forms, your email?)

Phew - four pints followed by a mixed six-pack of Sam Adams Seasonal.  I think the Grump is going to be sick.  Still, I survived this PR nightmare that Mike gave us.