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

Jester David · Nov 17, 2018

The edition wars made sense back in 2009. Because if you didn’t like the edition, pointing out it’s flaws and the stuff you didn’t like was necessary, as they couldn’t respond and fix things otherwise. Feedback was necessary for growth.

Now, criticizing 4e for things you don’t like feels like coming down on THAC0, racial level limits, or death at 0hp. You can argue those elements weren’t good, but it just feels petty now.

Really, criticizing 4e in a non-review/comparative capacity feels like criticizing rocky road iced cream. It may not be my flavour, but who am I to crap on someone’s tastes?

Imaro · Nov 17, 2018

Jay Verkuilen said:
Nicely put.

Much of the issue people had with 4E was that it substantially altered so many things people wanted or expected and built a system that didn't appear like prior versions and, by and large, had very different premises. I recall thinking at the time of release that 4E would have been a great rules engine for a game like White Wolf's Exalted and the whole Dawn War setting felt quite a bit like Exalted. The more high flying action they assumed was also quite Exalted-like. Unfortunately for Exalted, its rules are very grindy.

Lol... I made these same observations about the cosmology and mechanics of 4e when it was first released... but of course it was brushed aside as hating.

Garthanos · Nov 17, 2018

Mike Mearls also took jabs at the Warlord claiming they shouted lopped off body parts on... The assertion that Mearles hated or didnt understand the big picture of 4e is based on some of his faux pas.

Jester David said:
That’s a pretty authoritative statement regarding an offhand comment being spoken during a live podcast recording, that was in response to Crawford comparing the warlord to William Wallace in Braveheart.

Oh note I said the assertion was based on... I wasn't saying that it was even mostly true (nor that that comment shouldn't have rationally been taken as a joke poking fun at the people who do not get HP, which Mearles in one of those videos described as narrative staying power). In other words it actually might have been meant utterly the opposite of what it was taken to mean by people under barrage.

As for him not getting the system at a broad level I think it's entirely possible to be one of the indians and not get bigger picture elements I felt essentials missed on several counts for instance the role which the game had structurally for Basic Attacks made basing every martial type off of ongoing boosting of that was problematic, shrug, I even kind of like the stances and maneuvers and strikes model (seen earlier in Bot9s)

Parmandur · Nov 17, 2018

Imaro said:
What I find disingenuous is to claim on the one hand 4e is fiction first... but on the other hand the fiction doesn;t matter and is easily disposable and/or malleable.

I think both are true...but equally true of 5E.

Imaro · Nov 17, 2018

Parmandur said:
I think both are true...but equally true of 5E.

Ok interest piqued... if you feel like elaborating...

Garthanos · Nov 17, 2018

Imaro said:
What I find disingenuous is to claim on the one hand 4e is fiction first... but on the other hand the fiction doesn;t matter and is easily disposable and/or malleable.

It is highly malleable hell that is entirely different in my opinion than doesn't matter. Can it broadly afect resolutions later once well defined sure. When it was discussed how everyone could agree on a broad fiction if they wanted a more mundane feeling story? (Resurrection and similar things could be entirely removed from the table and perhaps other rituals would be affected as well ) I do think that is best served by making your campaign set in a slower advancing low tier adventure BUT picking all the more mundane paragon paths can also do the trick.

The fiction first being asserted seems pretty core to the big picture Skill Challenge model for encounters. Less so for combat application of powers and the like.

5e just told me that Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies don't matter could it be because they weren't under the complete and utter stranglehold of DM domination.

Note Boons were a later concept in 4e and were no less and no more under the utter control of DMs than magic items, players were also encouraged to think in terms of what they wanted for their characters in that realm as well, and DMs encouraged to do so as well.

Jester David · Nov 17, 2018

Garthanos said:
Oh note I said the assertion was based on... I wasn't saying that it was even mostly true (nor that that comment shouldn't have rationally been taken as a joke poking fun at the people who do not get HP, which Mearles in one of those videos described as narrative staying power). In other words it actually might have been meant utterly the opposite of what it was taken to mean by people under barrage.

As for him not getting the system at a broad level I think it's entirely possible to be one of the indians and not get bigger picture elements I felt essentials missed on several counts for instance the role which the game had structurally for Basic Attacks made basing every martial type off of ongoing boosting of that was problematic, shrug, I even kind of like the stances and maneuvers and strikes model (seen earlier in Bot9s)

I think Essentials was much more Bill Slavicsek. It was his baby. Mearls and Rodney Thompson still worked under Slavicsek then. And the failure of Essentials was what led to Slavicsek leaving the company.

Plus, the focus on basic attacks was very, very much a response to fan feedback.

Parmandur · Nov 17, 2018

Imaro said:
Ok interest piqued... if you feel like elaborating...

Not sure how to state it, as it seems fairly intuitive to me: both games, being RPGs, are story using some mathematical systems as a bone. Both put story as a priority, and both are easily modded too desire.

Garthanos · Nov 17, 2018

Jester David said:
I think Essentials was much more Bill Slavicsek. It was his baby. Mearls and Rodney Thompson still worked under Slavicsek then. And the failure of Essentials was what led to Slavicsek leaving the company.

Well maybe it failed in context of the demands placed on it. I thought Mearls was fairly in charge then, hmmm. The process of gradually firing all the primary developers I do not think helped later development but since there was some very creative and explorative work post essentials. This isn't entirely an absolute.

Jester David said:
Plus, the focus on basic attacks was very, very much a response to fan feedback.

(or non-fan feedback and an attempt to see if more could be pulled in)
I have noticed that it would have been possible to give pertinent classes an enhanceable fighter strike or warlocks bolt that isn't massively different but isolate it mechanically but I admit that is 20/20 hindsight.

Hey are we actually on topic?

Jester David · Nov 17, 2018

Garthanos said:
Hey are we actually on topic?

How the hell did that happen?!?

Garthanos said:
Well maybe it failed in context of the demands placed on it. I thought Mearls was fairly in charge then, hmmm. The process of gradually firing all the primary developers I do not think helped later development but since there was some very creative and explorative work post essentials. This isn't entirely an absolute.

Mearls took the top seat after Slavicsek "left". Mearls' promotion was followed by the cancellation/ delaying of several books. And the start of planning for 5e.

Slavicsek had been in charge for a lot of 3e and the development of 4e, but was mostly managerial during the creation of 4e. He stepped in and started writing again for Essentials, where he's listed as a designer.

Garthanos said:
(or non-fan feedback and an attempt to see if more could be pulled in)

Which makes sense. 4e fans were pretty well covered by the material that had already been released. But they needed to bring back the lapsed fans (and potential new fans) to sustain the edition.

Garthanos said:
I have noticed that it would have been possible to give pertinent classes an enhanceable fighter strike or warlocks bolt that isn't massively different but isolate it mechanically but I admit that is 20/20 hindsight.

Personally, I always thought At-will powers for fighters were a mistake. Or rather, that making them Basic Attacks plus was bad design. At-will exploits should have been equal in effectiveness to a basic attack, trading damage or accuracy for an extra bonus. Making them outright better reduced the number of total optiobs (while also making it harder for people to do things like "just hit the monster").

While actually discussing a theoretical way of doing 4e differently...

doctorbadwolf said:
That sounds workable, with some iteration. The main thing for me is that I want to be able to do two things 4e doesn't let me do.

a. Choose passive features in place of a power at a given level.

Holy forking shirtballs!
Passive powers. Yes. That would have solved so much.

doctorbadwolf said:
2. Have a number of power slots of each kind, and be able to use powers multiple times, instead of being only able to use that Encounter power once per encounter. Let me use it twice if I have 2 encounter powers, for the love of butts!

That was definitely needed for fighters and martial types.

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

Jester David

Hero

Imaro

Legend

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Imaro

Legend

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Jester David

Hero

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Jester David

Hero

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Recent & Upcoming Releases