cbwjm
Seb-wejem
He was asked a question and he answered. Simple as that.
D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked
He was asked a question and he answered. Simple as that.
Manbearcat
Legend
What is on the table is how "player-facing" (or codified/explicit) prospects for martial action declarations vs "GM-mediated" prospects for action declaration affect the table. Personally, my sense is it affects the table as follows:
1) In "player-facing" systems, players who play martial characters KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) their conception of their martial character's thematic portfolio will coherently port from their mind to actual play and (b) they can reliably depend upon being able to change the gamestate and attendant fiction through that archetype manifestation as a result.
This is constantly underplayed by detractors of this approach, but it is definitely a thing for both long term players of martial characters who have been denied this in GM-mediated play (or at least rendered less secure) and in new players who look at their player counterparts who choose spellcasters and merely by din of doing so KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) and (b) will be realized because of the nature of D&D's supernatural-effect-by-fiat (I cast x spell vs some form of possible misadventure to spellcast because dice are rolled) inherent to spellcasting PCs.
Fundamentally, in GM-mediated action resolution you're choosing to assume a less secure mental framework when you choose a martial character vs a spellcaster character (both in the ability to positively/profoundly change the gamestate via action declaration and in the reliability of the conception of your archetype being realized through play).
2) GM mental overhead and table handling time. Broadly, player-facing mechanics decrease my (as GM) mental overhead and decrease table handling time as we don't have to engage in some form of parlay/clarification-through-conversation in order to resolve my personal mediation of any given action resolution.
They also decrease my control over the fiction and my related ability to apply force (covertly or overtly) in order to dictate outcomes, which is a lovely side-effect! In-so-doing, they increase all player autonomy (creating greater parity in the stressload-by-way-of-insecurity that players of martial characters must endure in heavily GM-mediated systems) over the fiction.
Manbearcat
Legend
You don't think the below are HUGE PARTS OF THE PUZZLE in the majority of D&D:
a) the designers CHOSE (it didn't have to be done this way...plenty of systems don't...and they play VERY differently for it) to have a ridiculous number of codified spell effects covering an absurdly large number of broad, significantly gamestate-changing supernatural abilities ("I can expressly accomplish a, b, c, d, e through one spell because of the broad and thorough spell text" vs "can I accomplish a as I'm not sure due to the low word count on this spell that relies on pithy thematic text meeting GM-mediation")...
and
b) the designers CHOSE (again, doesn't have to be this way...and huge impact on play) to have those spell effects require no fortune resolution in order to deploy ("I cast this signifcant gamestate-changing ability" vs "I roll to cast this significant gamestate-changing ability")...
and
c) <"DMs arbitrate based on acceptable realism. Typically cinematic. The "does this feel real?" test."> is a minefield of vagary that must be confronted on any individual action declaration and resolution (contrast with (a) and (b) where genre adjudication is bypassed by the system's choice to extensively codify ridiculously broad and significantly-gamestate-changing effects-by-fiat in spellcasting lists and spellcasting action resolution that is bereft of any test to actually will your supernatural effect upon the world).
Seems to me, a/b/c do a lot of work.
Especially (b), ie the fact that spellcasting in D&D almost never requires a successful check.
Think about what, supposedly, the fiction of D&D spellcasting involves - precise hand gestures, speaking complex arcane syllables of such power and profundity that only a few of them can be impressed into a human brain at any one time (ie Vancian spell memorisation/preparation), pulling various material components out of pouches etc - not to mention the actual channelling and deployment of the arcane forces conjured up by the performance of these various acts. Then reflect on the fact that, per the game rules, this is never mucked up!
Whereas a 1st level thief in AD&D has around a 1 in 7 chance to fall, quite probably to his/her death (d6 per 10' fallen on a d6 HD character) every time the climb of a wall is attempted; and in 5e a fighter who wants to make a leap comparable to world jumping records (which are greater than 20 feet) has to depend upon a GM's decision as to the interpretation of the text (Basic PDF, p 59) that states that a STR/Athletics check "covers . . . try[ing] to jump an unusually long distance" - a bit of text that in a recent thread had a significant number of 5e GMs stating that the player would have to state some approach to making the jump beyond just I give it my all, so as to warrant the making of a check rather than the GM just declaring automatic failure!
This is nothing to do with "each of the fiction and the mechanics informing the other". Nor is it to do with it's magic - the effects of a spell might be magical, but nothing in the game suggests that a 1st level MU has a magic ability never to drop stuff from his/her components pouch, or stumble or sneeze while speaking the words of power, etc. It's a system issue, whereby a mechanical legacy inherited from Chainmail (of spells being fiat effects that a player can declare) is generalised across all fields of magical endeavour, while the system of ability and skill checks has been designed by grafting the mechanical example of attack rolls onto a half-baked task (as opposed to conflict) resolution system.
(Imagine if the sort of dexterity that 1st level MUs demonstrate in handling their spell components was extended to 1st level thieves trying to pick pockets!)
4e showed how the basic system conceits of D&D can be preserved and yet this particular problem overcome.
Early on during the 5e/D&D Next design period, Mearls had an interesting blog about classic D&D fighters as "easy mode" and classic D&D MUs as "hard mode".
A different take on the same asymmetry is found in a c 1980/81 White Dwarf by Lewis Pulsipher, where he says that most serious D&D players prefer to play MUs (or something very much along those lines).
I've got not objection to a game being designed in this sort of fashion - different player options which set out different strategies with different difficulties of starting potential and different sorts of long-term destination - but one then wants the game to come out and say so! Gygax is a bit inconsistent in this respect. Some bits of AD&D suggest that all class choices are in some sense equivalent - it's just about what function you want to play in the dungeoneering context (examples include the discussion at the start of the Character Class chapter of his PBH (p 18), and then the discussions fo class function that are found in both the PHB (p 106) and the DMG (p 86) discussions of gaining experience points and gaining levels). But other bits hint at the asymmetry - eg p 25 of the PHB says that MUs "are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak." (As far as my knowledge base goes, it's an open question whether this asymmetry was intended, or simply noted as a byproduct of developing the Chainmail mechanics so as to establish systems for playing both fighters and MUs as PCs.)
When we look at 5e, though, there is no hint of asymmetry between the classes. Nothing suggests that choosing to be a fighter is choosing to have fewer prospects of long-term flourishing within the context of the game. This is reinforced by the fact that low-level MUs are not distinctively weak as they were in AD&D.
It just seems irrational to think that you can seek to abolish this original asymmetry between the classes while keeping intact some of the key mechanical features - in particular, fiat spell effects - that underpin it.
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
Agreed with everything above and that (b) is most certainly the lynchpin. The only thing I'll add is that you forgot to add the savant-level memory component required to assimilate an (dare-I-say genre-defying?) overwhelming curriculum of precise arcane formulae (surely in ancient, nigh-impossible-to-articulate, tongues) and spit them out with absolute precision and reproducibility under the most stressful situations that a human can endure.
They get a pass on the ridiculous mundane components of their craft (because fiat via systemization - designer choice), but chin-ups and jumping need to be mediated?
A simple spellcasting system that hooks into the basic action resolution system (roll Arcana vs DC, Success With/Cost or Complication or Fail Forward) would do wonders for parity (particularly noncombat action resolution) in a system like 5e. It certainly does wonders in other systems (systems that don't possess the weighty, player-facing text inherent to the spellcasting lists; my (a) above). But, by designer choice (first principles being homage/familiarity), they did not. To represent a position that such a design choice has no implications upon play is...something...
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Yes and that was hilariously extreme disconnection between the fiction and the function was gobbled up and made a sacred cow.... hell magic missile was changed to sometimes miss? They couldnt have that.
Raith5
Adventurer
I am happy to see him thinking across editions. It is always interesting for me to see what these designers are thinking about - and how further into an edition there concerns hae changed (and how each new edition of D&D seems to have elements of overreacting to issues in the previous one).
That's something I wouldn't have liked (and hated about the Essential classes). Imho, it was one of the greatest achievements of 4e to make all classes equally complex by using the same mechanical framework.
At least he's acknowledging that!
I kind of agree that the skill challenge system was initially underdeveloped and they tried to hard to fill a matrix of roles and power sources.
That's an interesting take. I would have liked to see how that might have worked. I never quite understood why there had to be zero overlap between the powers used by the different classes.
I think the background powers they introduced later (iirc, they showed up first in the Dark Sun setting) were a big step in the right direction: Since you could choose backgrounds independently from your class, they allowed you to mix and match roles to a certain degree and the powers scaled, i.e. there was a version of every background power for each tier. All powers should have worked like that.
Sadras
Legend
Just two things.
1) What do you mean by non-combat action? I seem to be misunderstanding as arcana checks already exist within the 5e game unless you're only referring to success w/cost, fail forward ...etc
2) I would prefer Arcana vs DC in combat, you would have to be careful how this integrated with saving throws (if at all).
Manbearcat
Legend
On (1), one way to systematize it would be to mechanically gate every spell that is cast by an Intelligence (Arcana), Wisdom (Religion), Charisma (Perform), maybe Constitution (Endurance).
Depending on how it’s subsequently systematized, there could be a few different emergent properties. One approach could be a success let’s you cast the spell normally, a success with a cost/Complication means you get your spell, but you have to throttle back it’s effects or take disadvantage on your next spell cast or lose HP/HD or something, a hard failure could be a roll on a thematic surge table that mostly brings adverse effects upon the fiction; a gate to the Far Realm is opened, a Fire Elemental is summoned on the grounds of a nearby township where roads and roofs are made of dry thatch, your arm briefly transmutes to a viper (attacking you initially, but allowing you to attempt to control it and use it as a weapon until x duration, but closing out spellcasting for that duration), etc.
I invoked “non-combatant action resolution”, because that is the classic site of play where parity of archetype contribution is most frustrated.
Such an approach would (a) mitigate that lack of parity and (b) satisfy the verisimilitude or realism contingent that are always frustrated with the absurdities of player fiat over the supernatural (in the way of no action resolution for the mundane component of conjuring these otherworldly effects) in the same way that they’re preoccupied by martial heroes’ vertical jump and chin-up output (yes, that was a joke...they belabor the latter and utterly disregard the former).
On (2), I agree. Care (in maths, in output, and in dealing with the compound probabilities that martial characters have long suffered from in non-combatant action resolution that doesn’t entail certain techniques, such as Fail Forward, and/or conflict resolution subsystems) must be taken for sure.
