D&D 4E Core 4E vs. Essentials

[Imruphel]

On all of this - no. I am in the 'corporate world' now, and the idea that anyone - Mearls included - is somehow so diabolical that he could both design it to fail, not blink at throwing away potentially millions of dollars on a project he manages out of spite, and then cackle over a pile of money - is kind of fanciful.

I think you're giving him too much credit, when other explanations are at least as reasonable without involving conspiracies.

You failed your reading comprehension check.

I specifically stated that I was NOT accusing Mike Mearls of orchestrating 4E's failure.

NOT.

NOT.

Is that clear yet?

But he was a cat's-paw for those who wanted Hasbro to sign off on the new edition. He's a salaried designer (or whatever his title is this week: WotC changes job titles several times a year) so the idea of him sitting on a big pile of money is fanciful, at best. Again, that's not what I said or even implied so here I am defending comments I never made. Or implied.

Again, you're mistaken if you think an executive wouldn't make a play that involved losing the company a million or so in the short term in order to prove a point that would (hopefully) result in the gain of millions in the medium or longer term. That's common behaviour among mid- to senior level executives, especially in a company where the MD/CEO is generally clueless and/or issues contradictory directives (also shockingly common). In this case, Hasbro was largely "hands off" with respect to the running of D&D so that made it even easier to do... as did Bill Slavicsek's departure as a lot could simply pinned to him.

 

[Obryn]

The difference, of course, is that a million to the D&D division is way different than a million to MtG or Transformers.

(None of which matters because it's a number I pulled out of thin air anyway, so...)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Imruphel]

You've gotta carefully dab them with little white lies to make them more palatable, but without actually obscuring them.

I don't claim to be an expert at the art, myself. (snip)

I am probably lawful evil in many ways so my expertise at the art of sugar coating directly correlates with the amount of money I have at stake.

(snip) I must've missed Baker's time in the hotseat - I thought the reins had passed directly from Heinsoo to Mearls?

And why would Baker necessarily have tried to actually salvage 4e rather than throw it to the wolves as Essentials?

::google::google:: .... oooh... he did the last ed of Gamma World? I see...

He was never in charge but he was promoted just before he was retrenched.

Chris Perkins referred to him as the best adventure writer working for WotC - which is high praise coming from someone else who is an outstanding adventure writer. Rich was one of the few WotCers who actually grokked 4E and turned out good adventures even in 4E's early days when we otherwise saw nothing but duds. If WotC was serious about reviving 4E, he's the man who would have been put in charge of it.

(snip) In this respect I agree totally that Mearls was the WRONG guy to head up 4e development. Its still absurd to claim that he sabotaged the game. Nobody has that much leeway in a company as big as Hasbro, sorry.

Again, I'm not blaming MM for orchestrating the demise of 4E; he was merely a cat's-paw for those in the executive ranks. And it's the size of Hasbro - especially relative to the size of the D&D business (roughly USD10 million a year in revenues when 4E died - estimate only, but not conjured out of thin air) - that would allow this sort of internal corporate game to be played out.

But, again, as I really don't like having to defend myself from comments I neither made nor implied, this was way above MM's pay grade. I'm sure he did his best but he was simply the wrong man for the job... which made him the right man for the real job he was being instructed to perform. Plus, any failure would be pinned to the departed Bill Slavicsek making this an even easier play to make.

What would the net result have been? Something like: "Our research now clearly tells us that the customer base wants us to go backwards rather than forwards. We tried that with our best designer on Essentials but - bloody Slavicsek! - our research now shows that nostalgia simply doesn't fit on the 4E chassis. We need a new edition for the customer base which is clearly begging for it and here are Mike's plans. Yep, he learnt a lot through the Essentials process. We should put him in charge."

And, yeah, someone at WotC will read that and wonder if I had bugged his meeting with a Hasbro executive.

One final thing: I don't want people thinking I've got it out for Mike Mearls. I'm an anonymous, very irregular poster. He's a big part of the success of 5E. People are going to remember him for 5E, not for his duds during his OGL freelance years or Keep on the Shadowfell, Pyramid of Shadow, Heroes of Shadow, Essentials, and the first 4E Monster Manual.

The difference, of course, is that a million to the D&D division is way different than a million to MtG or Transformers.

(None of which matters because it's a number I pulled out of thin air anyway, so...)

Yes, and a million doesn't matter when you're already seen as a division that has failed. The blame had already been pinned to someone else - Bill S - so it was merely a matter of clearing the decks to start again in a different environment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know how we have a laugh button, I need a creeped out button. That was a disquieting glimpse into the corporate psyche, the more so for the ring of truth I thought I heard.
Hope I was imagining it.

XP will have to do.

 

[thanson02]

See, this is all why I took care of the whole issue in HoML. You level by acquiring 'boons', which in part replace feats (as well as items, themes, PPs, EDs, etc.). Thus it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE mechanically in this system to gain something that doesn't have a narrative basis in the game at hand. Your character takes actions, those actions lead to acquisition of boons, and for each major boon your character levels. It doesn't even make design sense to attempt to create some meaningless non-entity boon. I mean, sure, you COULD, and there are a few "I hit harder" type boons that have been devised, but you STILL have to come up with the narrative logic for acquiring them! I guess a GM could undermine the whole concept by just handing out arbitrary boons at random intervals, but it makes little sense in the overall context of the game.

IMHO this went a HUGE long way to obviating the problems with feat-like elements. Beyond that there are a few design concepts that you can stick by that will help a lot. One of the main ones is applicability. There are no elements in my game that can only come into play at specific GM-determined points (like say a strange language). These exist, but they are totally non-mechanical (termed 'minor boons' which you can simply acquire without consequence, though they still come out of narrative logic). Each boon provides the character with options, and options that are pretty much always relevant. Many of them can be leveraged using my version of 'Inspiration', which means even if the granted mechanics aren't particularly useful at a given time you can still shape the story with it (IE you have the 'Thief' boon, you could expend your inspiration to gain an advantage in a social situation by calling it out).

Again, I must say that in this one sense 5e outdoes 4e, its version of backgrounds and feats simply work better. They missed the boat in their implementation of inspiration and character traits though. Truthfully I'd have much rather seen a game evolved in the direction I'm going with mine vs what Essentials ended up being. It was both too constrained and too much change, just missed the mark.

In this respect I agree totally that Mearls was the WRONG guy to head up 4e development. Its still absurd to claim that he sabotaged the game. Nobody has that much leeway in a company as big as Hasbro, sorry.

Seeing Feats as a Meta-game mechanic with no narrative element is a good point and I never thought of that. Thank you Igwilly for pointing that out.

As for the rest of this AbdulAlhazred, I love it. I have heard you talk about liking Boons before, but I don't think I ever heard you break it down like this. It makes complete sense and seems like a natural replacement for the Feat system. Thank you for sharing this.

Do you have any examples of Boons you came up with towards this idea?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Seeing Feats as a Meta-game mechanic with no narrative element is a good point and I never thought of that.

I never thought of it, because I immediately thought of the use of the word 'feat' in Celtic mythology, the moment I saw them in 3.0, so, to me, they were something extraordinary a hero could do that ordinary folk couldn't.

There are plenty of blah - have a small bonus, patch a bad design, pay your taxes - feats in D&D (every ed that has feats, anyway), but there're always some good ones worthy of the label, too. Great Cleave in 3.0 certainly felt like a feat a mighty hero might perform, for instance.

 

[Pauper]

Interesting discussion. I'll agree with the general consensus that, while 'Core vs. Essentials' is an interesting dividing line for discussion purposes, the actual decisions that weakened 4E to the point of requiring replacement don't always neatly correspond to that dividing line.

Example one: Themes. Introduced with the Dark Sun Campaign Setting (released at GenCon 2010, thus slightly pre-dating the full Essentials release), themes quickly proved popular, not for their original purpose of fleshing out character backstories and providing thematic abilities and/or powers to support that backstory, but because they basically counted as 'prestige classes' for 1st level characters, increasing both power and character complexity in the otherwise 'boring' early heroic tier. Perhaps the height of absurdity for themes came in the Heroes of Shadow release, when vampire was released as a character class, but werewolf was released (in supplemental material included in Dragon Magazine) as a theme, fulfilling the dream of lycan/vampire fanboys the world over.

Example 2: Fortune Cards. Fortune Cards technically count as an 'Essentials'-era 'enhancement': the first set, Shadow over Nentir Vale, was released in early 2011, while the Essentials books came out in late 2010. They are basically the first-ever attempt by WotC to create a 'cross-over' of D&D with their flagship product, Magic: the Gathering, by allowing players to bring customized decks of cards to the table that they could play during combat. As with themes, they represented an increase in both power and complexity right off the bat -- and WotC effectively mandated their use by declaring them usable in all WotC-official events such as Game Days and in the D&D Encounters program, regardless of the wishes of the DM and/or most players at the table.

I think both of these examples harmed D&D 4E, but I don't believe either of them dropped fully-formed from Mike Mearls's mind as sappers to undermine the 4E game system. But I also think it should have been obvious that these systems would not prove beneficial to the 4E game system, and a head designer who was committed to 4E as a system would have fought harder to keep them from becoming real things that would ultimately harm the overall system.

--
Pauper

 

[Obryn]

Huh. I genuinely think Themes are one of the best improvements in mid/late 4e development, and I'd keep them before I kept feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the actual decisions that weakened 4E to the point of requiring replacement don't always neatly correspond to that dividing line.

Very true.

Psionics and feat taxes are good examples of things that borked 4e, in spite of preceding Essentials.
The Essentials RC had the best version of Skill Challenges and the MV & MM3 the best-done monsters.
And there was plenty of good post-Essentials material in HotFw and HotEC...

Example one: Themes. Introduced with the Dark Sun Campaign Setting,

I have to disagree with you on Themes - there were a lot of really good ones, and they were much more evocative than Backgrounds. The quality of HoS notwithstanding, they were a fine concept. 5e backgrounds are one of the current ed's better features and are as much like 4e Themes as they are 4e Backgrounds - and could do with some of the ability to grow with the character that Themes had.

themes quickly proved popular, not for their original purpose of fleshing out character backstories and providing thematic abilities and/or powers to support that backstory, but because they basically counted as 'prestige classes' for 1st level characters, increasing both power and character complexity in the otherwise 'boring' early heroic tier.

Increasing complexity & acting like 'prestige classes' sounds exactly like fleshing out and mechanically supporting backstory.
And, y'know, they did kinda make low-level heroic tier re-play more appealing to experienced players, now that I think of it. Another very positive feature, IMHO, giving the DM a little flexibility to tailor the start of a campaign to his players.

 

[Pauper]

I have to disagree with you on Themes - there were a lot of really good ones, and they were much more evocative than Backgrounds. The quality of HoS notwithstanding, they were a fine concept. 5e backgrounds are one of the current ed's better features and are as much like 4e Themes as they are 4e Backgrounds - and could do with some of the ability to grow with the character that Themes had.

I won't disagree that, used with the spirit in which they were created, Themes could be very helpful to a player in adding just that extra bit of 'oomph' to a character background. The problem was that, in practice, most folks playing (in our area, anyway) tended to use themes as an additional layer of character optimization.

As a hypothetical, say there was a 5e Background (let's call it 'Nemesis') that allowed you to choose a type of opponent, and gave you an extra attack (as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter) against that type of opponent which stacked with the Extra Attacks of the fighter or similar classes. *That's* exactly the damage that the more poorly-designed themes did to 4E, and it seemed the longer the idea went on, the more poorly-designed the themes became.

That the granted abilities of 5E backgrounds are restricted to non-combat and RP-related effects, as appropriate for a feature that's meant to flesh out those parts of the game, is a sign that the 5E designers noted the flaws in theme design in 4E and decided not to include that aspect in the new design.

And, y'know, they did kinda make low-level heroic tier re-play more appealing to experienced players, now that I think of it. Another very positive feature, IMHO, giving the DM a little flexibility to tailor the start of a campaign to his players.

They were certainly popular, but popular does not automatically mean positive.

--
Pauper