D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked

[pemerton]

And again, the problem is:

(1) 5e's balance is centered around a workday of 6-8 encounters. Let us assume 8 encounters; 5 Combat and some combination of 3 that is broken out into Exploration and Social.

(2) Given 1 (which is already a fair chunk of meaningful encounters), you're going to have how many truly weighty decision-points worth of attrition that wear-out a spellcaster's loadout? Regardless what that number is, its going to be roughly the same value n for the level 9 wizard (let's use the Diviner) who has:

- only 5th level spell slots (and the related ability to up-level lower spells to there)
- 14 spell slots
- 4 Cantrips
- 2 uses of Portent
- 1 use of Divination refresh up to level 5
- Rituals up to level 5

...as it is for the 18th level Diviner who has:

- up to 9th level spell slot (and the related ability to up-level lower spells to there)
- 20 spell slots
- 5 Cantrips
- 3 uses of Portent
- Divination refresh up to level 9
- Rituals up to max level
- An At-Will level 1 spell and an At-Will level 2 spell (that they can switch out on Long Rest)

If you can't see how the intersection of (1) and (2) pushes back hard against the idea of "martial at-wills balance things out", then its virtually impossible to have this conversation. In order for it to 5e's attrition model to work, you would probably need roughly n * 2 minimum weighty decision-points worth of Diviner attrition for the scaling of resource breadth, potency (MANY more "win condition" spells = less total decision-points required to resolve a conflict), and proliferation from the level 9 Diviner to the level 18. That means a HUGE (nonsensical) workday of something like 14-16 encounters (minimum probably).

Maybe there is an assumption that low level spells won't contribute to weighty decision points? Or that more of them will be used per combat to keep up the caster's DPR?

Whatever one thinks of Mearls as a designer, it's hard to imagine that he didn't notice this pretty obvious mathematical feature of the game!

(The lack of an out-of-combat resolution mechanic to discipine the diviner's contributions only exacerbates the problem that you point to.)

 

[pemerton]

(c) is just odd. It is like you're saying that people who ran skill checks before the invention of the skill challenge didn't know when things were over.

D&D combat has always had a device for telling us when things are over: ever success ablates hp, and when the hp are all gone it's over. If the outcome of a hit was established purely narratively (ie by GM narration) then how would we know when the fight was over?

There is a good discussion here, by Vincent Baker:

Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution
In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution.

Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.

Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break success=winning, failure=losing.)

That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out.

Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll:

"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!"
Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance?
Roll: Loss!
"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins."

"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"
(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)

(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?​

It's interesting to look at "old school" RPGs and see how much of whate superficially appears to be task resolution is really conflict resolution: eg in AD&D, searching for secret a room or listening at a door looks like task resolution, but because it is connected to a consequence mechanic (namely, wandering monster checks based on number of attempts, mediated via tracking of infiction time) it turns into a form of conflict resolution. One part of that is that the tracking of time acts as a soft limit on retries - ie there is finality of resolution - and another part of that is that the outcome of success is predetermined by the GM's dungeon map and key.

Playing Classic Traveller I've discovered that many of Marc Miller's procedures are conflict resolution in the guise of task resolution - eg when you try any funky movements while wearing a vacc-suit, make a check; if it fails, something goes wrong but you can make another check to try and rectify the situation, quickly patch your suit or whatever; if that fails then the GM is licensed to hose your PC! The rules for interstellar travel, and for trading, also provide nice self-contained resolution systems - mediated through the fact that each jump takes 1 week and you only get one roll to check for misjump, one roll to find what cargo you can grab form world A, one roll to see how much they'll pay for it on world B, etc.

The rules for onworld exploration, on the other hand, are classic task resolution (check 1x/day to avoid breakdowns, avoid getting a speeding ticket, etc) with no conflict resolution (how many checks before we get there? up to the GM!). In my recent play experience they're the suckiest part of the system for precisely this reason.

That Traveller example also shows how and why the AD&D systems which can provide one sort of play experience in their classic dungeoneering context can produce a completely different experience when taken out of the context that made them conflict resolution. The most obvious way this happens in the D&D context is taking away the time element that, in classic dungeoncrawling, acts as a limit on retries while also taking away the pre-established "game board" (ie the dungeon map and key) which means that outcomes of action declarations in the context of that tracked time are independent of in-play GM decision-making - mostly this second thing happens by turning the static "game board" dungeon into a "living, breathing world".

Skill challenges, or other closed scene resolution mechanics, are a system for conflict resolution that is general, rather than all those distinct subsytems found in systems like AD&D and Classic Traveller. This makes that sort of framework more portable into a wider range of in-fiction contexts. But its contribution to play is much the same as those OSR system - outcomes are the result of a combination of how well the players engage the fiction and how well they roll on their dice, with a guarantee of finality of resolution, rather than being determied by the GM's unconstrained decisions about eg how far away from the domed city the evil scientists' base is (which was what happened in my Traveller game).

I would add: the general theme of this post is closely related to my post not far upthread about time in RPGing. In that post I explained my least favourite approach to time in RPGing. In this post I'll gloss that as: the play of the game uses time as an element in task resolution, and creates an illusion of it also being a factor in conflict resolution, but the actual outcome just depends on GM decision-making. Relating that to the Traveller example: by having the players check for breakdowns, for gettting lost, etc on each day of travel across world - ie making time a feature of task resolution (each check is only good for one day of travel) - it looks like the passage of time matters. But in fact, in the absence of a conflict resolution framework, what really matters is what decision I as GM make about how many days it takes. I didn't fully appreciate this weakness in the rules - which until that point had been working wonderfully - until we came to play it out - and then got stuck with the full suckage and had to fumble my way through it. Luckily it didn't wreck the game; if it comes up again I'll just make up some simple conflict resolution system.

To finish, here's a contrast with the Traveller experience, from Burning Wheel. In BW actions are declared in terms of both intent and task. Task determines what skill or ability is checked, what the DC is, how the fiction factors into the chance of success, etc; but intent is what determines how success or failure is narrated - on a success the task succeeds and the player gets full intent; on a failure the GM establishes some consequence that thwarts intent. And there are no retries. So when the PCs wanted to cross the Bright Desert, I only had to set a DC for the Orienteering check and then the player rolled to see if the intent - "I lead us safely across the desert to the Abor-Alz foothilss" - was realised or not. (The check failed, and so they didn't make it safely across - it took longer than anticipated as they arrived at steep cliffs rather than the way into the foothills, and by the time they found their way to the pool in the foothills they were looking for an enemy had got there first and fouled it; and so extra endurance was lost as a result of heat and thirst.)

And for clarity: in the BW approach, if the player declares a search of the safe and, for whatever reason, the GM has already decided that there is no dirt to be found in it, then no dice are rolled and the GM just narrates the PC's failure to find the dirt - most likely "You break into the safe but there's nothing in there". That sort of fiated failure isn't generally recommended in BW (or similar systems) but sometimes may make sense as one feature of framing.

 

[pemerton]

Two further comments:

(1) If, as [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] suggested upthread is widespread according to Mearls, someone wants to have an RPG experience which is mostly about GM-mediated fiction and story revelation, then conflict resolution/closed scene resolution will be unnecessary, and task resolution with no system-established finality will be fine - the skill check in effect becomes an element of colour that the GM weaves into the unfolding narration of the ingame situation.

This seems to me to be an assumption many modules from the mid-80s on make about how the game will proceed, at least out of combat. (Eg if the PCs fail to find the dirt in the safe because they fail their safecracking roll, then they'll find it in the waste paper bin or in a note on a dead henchman or whatever.) It's hard to see how the "path" in an AP would work without this sort of thing.

(2) Contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and maybe some others, it's simply not true that differential XP tables in AD&D made fighters stronger than wizards at mid-to-upper levels. A 6th level wizard needs 40,000 XP compared to a fighter's 35,000; a 7th level wizard needs 60,000 XP compared to a fighter's 70,000; and from there it only gets better for the wizard through 13th level (1,125,000 for the wizard compared to 1,250,000 for the fighter). Parity is reestablished at 14th level (both need 1,500,000) and then the wizard falls behind again because s/he needs 375,000 rather than 250,000 per level gained.

The effect of the MU XP table is to make initial progression hard for MUs, but just at the point where they power up - around 6th/7th level - the MU rockets off, and it's not until the widely unplayed mid-teen levelss that things change again.

The only class that actually needs more XP than the fighter at mid levels through name level and thereabouts is the paladin. (Cf a ranger, who needs 650,000 to get to 11th whereas a fighter needs 750,000; 12th is close to parity - 975,000 for the ranger vs 1,000,000 for the fighter - and the ranger needs 100,000 more to get to 13th.)

But in any event it makes no sense as a design element - putting all classes on the same XP table while preserving the intraparty balance of builds is purely a mathematical exercise: for instance, putting thieves on the fighter XP table, giving them up to 9 d8 HD rather than 10 d6 HD, slightly increasing their thief ability % chances at each level above first, and slightly upping their to hit and save progression so they get the 7th level numbers at 6th, the 11th level numbers at 9th, etc, will maintain the same mathematical balance subject to modest rounding errors (eg 9d8 is average hp of 40.5 + 9*CON bonus, whereas 10d6 +2 (a PHB thief's hp at 11th level or 220,000 XP) is 37 + 10* CON - that slight rounding in favour of the thief isn't going to break the game!)

Exactly the same maths can be done for the other classes as well - for some the rouding may be more or less sharp at certain breakpoints, but it's not like AD&D was a hyper balanced game in this respect in any event!

So anyway, I don't know why this mythology about the AD&D XP tables persists as it does.

 

[Garthanos]

They're just action declarations. I don't use Martial Practices in my 4e game. (A difference between me and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION].)

My point is that if simple action declarations resolved as skill checks can do things "comparable to raising the dead" or "opening portals to other planes" then Martial Practice,s can hardly make martial PCs less capable.
.

The way I see it Martial Practices can be used as part of creating that shared tier based fiction it helps become a foundation for the declaring actions (and like pushing it with improvised use of healing surges can make those declaring awesome actions more reliable an perhaps more cheaply - oh look strategic choices). The potentials of an established "Sleep of Kings" where your character doesn't just disguise yourself as dead like the mind over matter monk but forstalls afflictions and aging like the Legendary Royalty who bind their fates with oaths to the land/people/world, it may pave the way for action declarations too which can evoke upper paragon and epic awesome for martial types. It helps create fictional foundations

Similarly if you have ritualist raising the dead you have additional and game established shared fiction about capabilities of magic used out of combat AND you can use that as foundation for when the party (I have had parties of players who each and every knew rituals) wants to use improvised application of Arcana skill dealing with interdimensional barriers or spirit beings or whatever.

A player asking/wishing/investing in things like rituals or practices help set the tone of a campaign. Some of it player driven and some of it DM with the game helping by creating/offering just as a raise the dead as a known level 8 ritual helps create tone. A DM actively saying for instance the raise dead ritual is level 16 like I tend to is setting a flavor for his campaign where death is more significant but without a base line it is I feel harder. (and lacking such a base for paragon and epic you have people saying "you can't do that" for martial awesomeness way more.)

 

[Garthanos]

Oh do pay attention, 007 - I'm not complaining about the idea of spell failure. In fact I've been suggesting it as an option all along...

Argh Perhaps your typing voice sounds like someone else that Shas character lol ... I am a proponent of spell complications even more than any simple failure because it makes better more awesome story.

And I think its also more awesome if the fighting man can actually defend the squishies in a way that makes kill the caster a much less obvious choice. Which is something newer versions of the game actually followed through on.

Effective defenders and having non-casters also worthy of being considered dangerous changes that "kill the caster" dynamic enough you are looking at much less frequent interruptions even if you keep that mechanic. (hence a possibility for complications ie I accept complications and heroically make the spell happen any way)

My old one 1e variant magic system had the spell casting itself cause hp loss. (if spells were interrupted you might have a skill check determine
1 manage to cast it normally - this is a heroic caster - but expend more to cast it
2 the spell is warped to do something inconvenient instead of the desired effect.
3 spell just explodes in your face
4 and so on...

 

[Garthanos]

So what you're saying here boils down to "the Diviner is too powerful", is that it?

'Cause if so, I agree.

I think that IS part of a longer discussion ... although mayhaps he is saying it has a more general analog throughout the system with spell casters. Because of spells working the way they do or i think it might be indicative of designers not being careful because "balance isn't important anymore, wink wink" to the caster supremacists - attitude by the designers of 5e.

But he will probably elaborate better

 

[Aldarc]

Part 2

The first way to scale back spells is to do away with non-slot cantrips or at-wills. The second is to put ritual and slot casting into the same system - a spell's a spell no matter how you cast it. The third is to make spells a bit more risky in some cases (see above); or maybe more costly, but that's annoying. The fourth is to look at how some spells got broken particularly by 3e (polymorph, anyone?) and fix them; and here 1e can give some decent guidance. A fifth would be to knock off some spells that trample on the niches of other classes (Knock, Find Traps, Spider Climb - or whatever their current equivalents are) and don't replace them. A sixth would be to make a bunch of spells currently with range of touch have range of self instead - Fly, Silence, Polymorph just to name a few - to rein them in. A seventh way would be to do away with metamagic feats. An eighth would be to do away with slot flexibility - if you're out of 1st level slots but you have some 2nd-level slots left then sorry, you're stuck with casting 2nd-level spells until tomorrow morning; your 1st-level spells are unavailable because you ran 'em out.

I do not mind at-will cantrips, but I think it's a matter of what and how. Cantrips seem appropriate for tying to an ability/skill check system. But you can also scale them back or toss out things like attack cantrips. A number of spell systems that I do like (e.g., True20/Blue Rose) are essentially cantrip skills cast against failure or possible fatigue. Beyond the Wall also makes cantrips into an ability check to cast.

Reworking spells is always a plus, though those spoiled wizard kids will not like nerfs to their spells.

Sadly, one of the great taboos would be to readjust spell levels for certain spells. For example, making Fly, Fireball, or Invisibility come at a higher level. Scale back the spell utility progression.

Getting rid of the knocks, find traps, and spider climbs and such would also be somewhat welcome. But you know they would come back in another splat book, because spellcasters get cool new options via expanded spells. Martials? Not so much.

The thing I'd give them in return, were it me in charge of all this, is that spell pre-memorization would disappear never to return. All casters would work like 3e Sorcerers - if you have the spell in your book (or on your list, if a cleric) and you have a slot to cast it with then you can cast it. Period. Full wild-card by level. (I do it this way, and the pleasant side-effect has been that I see spells get cast that otherwise would never see the light of day)

You'll get no debate from me here. I never liked pre-memorization. But I would also consider removing "pray for spells" for clerics as well, as it also affords them a lot of flexibility.

As for the sage idea, the problem with a PC knowing so much is it means there's that much less for that PC (and by extension, player) to learn and discover. That said, if you're running a canned setting and one of your players happens to be well-versed in said setting I could see a place for this.

I agree, but I am not necessarily proposing that the sage should know all the things. It could be about more practical knowledge like healing, inspiration, comprehending languages and writing, runes, rituals, magical crafting, etc.

 

[Garthanos]

Casting unreliability or sense of unreliability outside of conflict situations or rituals needs a generally different take. When/If I write that Arcane Power II with rituals adjusted basically most rituals will have a skill check which adjusts effective cost for doing the ritual in other words it alters the Strategic Value.

I suppose with that thought I need to make sure practices/rituals all have some sort of strategic value not just be representation of tactical options... but I think that is already there.

 

[MwaO]

Maybe there is an assumption that low level spells won't contribute to weighty decision points? Or that more of them will be used per combat to keep up the caster's DPR?

Whatever one thinks of Mearls as a designer, it's hard to imagine that he didn't notice this pretty obvious mathematical feature of the game!

(The lack of an out-of-combat resolution mechanic to discipine the diviner's contributions only exacerbates the problem that you point to.)

I think one of the decisions made by R&D for 5e is that high level play is exceedingly rare and therefore it is more important to be aspirational than balanced. Wizards dreaming of 9th level spells is great for the game even if they never get to cast them. Or especially if they don't get to cast them.

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the decisions made by R&D for 5e is that high level play is exceedingly rare and therefore it is more important to be aspirational than balanced. Wizards dreaming of 9th level spells is great for the game even if they never get to cast them. Or especially if they don't get to cast them.

This is a really interesting point, and it's a dimension of the "written to read rather than written to play" concept that I've never thought of before.

When I used to GM Rolemaster I found that a lot of high-level spells needed rebalancing - this was partly a matter of principle (I had time on my hands!) and partly because we were using ritual rules that allowed 15th to 20th level casters to bring 30th and higher level spells into play. I always attributed the lack of balance to little playtesting and poor maths, but I think your "aspirational" idea probably has something to do with it also.

It's an interesting feature of RPGing that someone's imagining about their PC's never-to-be-realised-in-play future still needs to be mediated through PC build rules.