D&D 4E 4e Design Themes

[Xyl]

Looking at the various changes we know about in 4e, I've noticed some overarching design themes. Some of them the designers have talked about, and some of them they haven't. I thought I'd share what I see, since it helps to explain why some of the controversial decisions have been made the way they have.


PROVIDE GUIDELINES, NOT RULES

The designers seem intent to put more power back in the hands of DMs. Many things that had hard rules in 3.x no longer have them. Instead, there are general guidelines which the DM is free to adapt to specific situations. Some examples:

Building a monster doesn't require a lot of math; you pick the values you want, with guidance from some sort of table.

There are no rules for what monsters can do outside of combat. A very iconic ability might be mentioned (granting a wish every 99 years), but for the most part it's left up to the DM.

The DMG will have suggestions for how to adjudicate any attempt to disarm a trap, even methods the DM didn't think of ahead of time.


INCREASE OPTIONS, NOT POWER

Character options will generally be balanced with each other. Most things that increased your overall power level in old editions will now give you extra options instead. The increase in options does make you more powerful, but only a little. Even if you make choices that don't increase your power, you can't fall too far behind other characters of your level. Some examples:

Most magic items will give extra possible actions which are roughly balanced with character options at the same level.

All the paladin smites do the same amount of damage, they just have different secondary effects.

Most feats will provide extra options. Those that provide numeric bonuses will give them to things that aren't essential parts of your character's power, such as skills.


AVOID NEEDLESS SYMMETRY

Symmetry is elegant, but it's not always the best design. The 4e designers are deliberately avoiding symmetry that doesn't actually make the game more fun. Some examples:

Rings have a minimum character level to use them. Other items don't.

Monsters aren't designed using the same rules as player characters.


DO THE MATH

We haven't seen a lot of examples, but we've heard a lot about "the math". The designers looked at what numeric relationships made the "sweet spot" of 3.x fun, and tried to make those relationships hold through all 30 levels of play. Some examples:

All characters use the same progression for attack bonuses and defenses, so the gap between "good" characters and "bad" characters stays constant.

Monster stats are set so that the average combat lasts X rounds at every level.

Monster XP rewards are assigned so that you can make a balanced encounter (hopefully) by just picking any group of monsters that adds up to a target XP number.


MAKE THREE GAMES IN ONE

There are a lot of abilities that can fundamentally change the way adventures are designed. Easy tactical flight lets players avoid many obstacles. Overland flight and teleportation bypass wildernesses entirely. Divination magic can short-circuit entire mysteries. In 3.x, all of those abilities appear at different levels. In 4e, the game is broken into the heroic, paragon, and epic "tiers", with different abilities assumed available to the party in each tier. A DM designing an adventure won't need to consider which specific abilities the party will have available; all of that information can be summed up by just the tier of play. Groups who prefer only one sort of play can start the game in the tier of their choice, and stop before they reach the next tier. Some speculation (sorry, I don't have examples):

Heroic play will feature local-scale threats. They will be heroes, ordinary people who managed to overcome extraordinary obstacles. Long-distance travel will be hard, but possible.

Paragon play will feature kingdom-scale threats. The characters will be well beyond normal; those they meet will tell their stories to their grandchildren. Long-distance travel will be easy. Planar travel will be hard, but possible.

Epic play will feature world-scale and extraplanar threats. The characters will be nearly beyond the realm of mortals; their legends will be told for generations to come. Planar travel will be easy.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this, it's quite good.

PROVIDE GUIDELINES, NOT RULES

INCREASE OPTIONS, NOT POWER

I agree these are major design criteria for 4e, and I'm all for both of them.

AVOID NEEDLESS SYMMETRY

This one makes me a bit nervous, as I have a very rabid Inner Symmetry Ninja hiding in my soul. But I have to admit that symmetry can sometimes be overdone.

DO THE MATH

This, combined with the promise to be transparent about how the math works, makes me very excited. I *love* tinkering with numbers!

MAKE THREE GAMES IN ONE

The distinction between tiers is intriguing, all right. (E6 seems to map right onto Heroic Tier, for one, making it "E10" in 4e.)

The one fly in the ointment is that maybe one wants easy planar travel in, say, a specific Paragon game. But at any rate it seems it will be no harder to do this in 4e than any other edition.

Epic play doesn't so much interest me; I suspect I'm going to be happiest with campaigns that cap around early-to-mid Paragon - say level 15. Looks like I can get that, and similar pacing to regular 4e, just by cutting XP from monsters in half.

Or if one wants to go a more E6 route, just say the increase to everything from 1/2 your level caps at, say, +5, but you can still get new feats and class powers as you level up. Since it's "Options, Not Power", new powers shouldn't be unbalancing, you just disallow things like flight. This method would make it somewhat trickier to judge which monsters are appropriate, though.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Xyl, awesome post. I think you summed it up clearly. I also had been thinking about the Tiers, but not from an adventure-design point of view before. I think you're onto something there. Thanks.

The distinction between tiers is intriguing, all right. (E6 seems to map right onto Heroic Tier, for one, making it "E10" in 4e.)

That's "H10", bub. For Heroic.

But yeah, I can definitely see some rules for "capping" advancement at levels 10 or 20, depending on your concept of the world and the campaign you want to run. Plane Hopping Epic-fests aren't to everyone's taste all the time.

The one fly in the ointment is that maybe one wants easy planar travel in, say, a specific Paragon game.

There's always McGuffin's, plot-provided portals, etc. etc. that can provide easy planar travel or an adventure or two. Also, maybe one of your PC's always knows where the closest Door to Sigil is ...

Or if one wants to go a more E6 route, just say the increase to everything from 1/2 your level caps at, say, +5, but you can still get new feats and class powers as you level up. Since it's "Options, Not Power", new powers shouldn't be unbalancing, you just disallow things like flight. This method would make it somewhat trickier to judge which monsters are appropriate, though.

We'll have to see how the rules work before we can really guess how it all works out, and how it can be modified. But I am sure there must be a way.

Probably the best way to do a "limited advancement" game (and this is universal, not a 4E thing) is to just stop advancing the characters in a class-based advancement sense and concentrate on skills, social contacts, goals achieved, quests completed, kingdoms saved, social rewards, etc. etc. Although many people think that leveling up (or any kind of advancement, like learning new Feats) is necessary to D&D, that can't be true. There are too many games that people play all the time where your rules situation never changes (like chess or basketball), and it's all just about winning the current contest with the players you've got. D&D can be like that too.

 

[Mercule]

AVOID NEEDLESS SYMMETRY

I hope they aren't actually avoiding it. I think a better goal statement is:

PREFER PLAYABILITY TO SYMMETRY

If symmetry doesn't impede the design or playability, then it's actually a benefit. It's when it over-complicates play or prep that it becomes an issue. On a similar note, I hope they're following this goal:

PREFER UTILITY TO BALANCE

Maybe "utility" isn't the best word, but it's the best I could think of. 3E made balance too much of an issue. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see anyone sitting on the sidelines or out of luck. And that's the real goal.

Who cares if one guy can average 1.82 points of damage more per round and 8954 points over the campaign? What really matters is whether all the players feel like they are useful, valued members of the group and are they having fun? Again, don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating reset points, games with no risk of failure, or lack of verisimilitude all in the name of "fun". Far from it. Just that the game should be a game and that the players are teammates, not competitors.

 

[Nymrohd]

Actually there is a pretty decent way to level cap without completely stopping advancement.
With no special insight in the game, I think we can still reasonably assume that feats often have a tier prerequisite and powers often have a class level or character level prerequisite. Stopping advancement pauses access to all those feats and powers. From then on you assign an XP value to buying feats, powers and ability score increases.
So on my Paragon capped games, after the players hit lvl 20 they can keep advancing in options without advancing in power.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think by needless symmetry they mainly meant:
We have Djinn and Efreet, so we need genies for other elemental planes.
We want a plane of cold between air and water so we need planes between every other elemental plane as well.
We want a negative plane so we need a positive plane.
We have the Abyss and the Nine Hells incarnating two alignment concepts, we need planes for each concept.
And since we have demons and devils, all these planes need their own unique outsiders as well.
etc...

 

[Xyl]

Xyl, awesome post. I think you summed it up clearly. I also had been thinking about the Tiers, but not from an adventure-design point of view before. I think you're onto something there. Thanks.

You're welcome.

But yeah, I can definitely see some rules for "capping" advancement at levels 10 or 20, depending on your concept of the world and the campaign you want to run. Plane Hopping Epic-fests aren't to everyone's taste all the time.

Personally, I think I'd just retire the characters and start a new campaign. The end of heroic tier seems like a good time for them to settle down and become lords, guildmasters, renowned scholars, and so on.

 

[Nymrohd]

Plus retired adventurers are one of the best aspects of homebrews and personal campaigns.

 

[Scribble]

PROVIDE GUIDELINES, NOT RULES

The designers seem intent to put more power back in the hands of DMs. Many things that had hard rules in 3.x no longer have them. Instead, there are general guidelines which the DM is free to adapt to specific situations.

Yeah I like this one a lot...

2e the power was geared towards the rules breaker... 3e the power was geared towards the rules lawyers... maybe 4e will put it into balance.

I think some of the early signs of this were things like the Book of Iron Might and Iron Heroes...

Both had guidelines for achieving results (like stunts) but not hard set rules to do it.

Rings have a minimum character level to use them. Other items don't.

Not sure if this is actually true... I thought so as well, but then I read a comment by another designer stating all items have a level now, not a gold piece value...

So maybe rings just all start at 11th level...

 

[Xyl]

Not sure if this is actually true... I thought so as well, but then I read a comment by another designer stating all items have a level now, not a gold piece value...

So maybe rings just all start at 11th level...

Magic item levels were introduced in the Magic Item Compendium for 3.5e. They're a guide to the level of player character for which having the item is balanced; they don't set a minimum level. Basically, they're a tool for the DM, like monster levels.