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

[Garthanos]

One of my biggest regrets was the lack of a way to get extra At Will powers.

I regret that issue as well. But I would like more rock paper scissors effect so that more generalization is valuable instead of specialization.

Human Wizard types can kind of roshambo on different defenses. I would like that for other archetypes too.

 

[Garthanos]

Or a green lantern ring?

Or super wealth and prediction ability so you always have the tool you need like he actually gets?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

5e PCs progress in their non-combat capabilities as they progress in their combat capabilities (bettern Prof bonuses, stat increases, for many access to more and more impactufl spells, magic items, etc).

The combat mechanics recognise this and build it in (partly by escalating ACs, mostly by escalating hp and damage). But the non-combat mechanics don't. I don't see this as a strength in a level-based game.

Indeed, and that's why right after the part of the quote you clipped of mine I indicated they didn't entirely succeed at implementing their own goal.

The combat system is much better implemented than skills and saves, where there's an all-or-nothing aspect to most rolls, particularly skills. That's because success in combat isn't all-or-nothing for the most part, and hit points provide a means to measure partial success.

I've hashed out my feeling of a desirable approach with this greatly in other threads---some folks took it thoughtfully, others were of the mind that "well if you could do better you should publish it and beat WotC in the market" which... uh, sure. That's what block is for. IMO the best cure is to mimic the hit point system, keep bonuses down and make use of requiring multiple successes to succeed. This also implements partial success nicely and would benefit a number of high level spells or bigger gun monsters without encouraging DC creep.

 

[pemerton]

not sure what this has to do with anything since I haven't asserted what you are suggesting above

I said that if the most memorable RPG moments result from ignoring the system then the system is not fit for purpose. You replied that, if that's my view, I should play a computer game - that is, a game in which fiction is irrelevant to action declaration or resolution. (It's all just maths.)

That response would only make sense if one assumed that system and fiction must be separate things. Which is true in AD&D and 5e combat resolution, but not true of RPG systems in general.

Not an rpg... By whose definition?

Mine. Which is the only relevant one, given that you were suggesting I should engage my RPGing preferences by playing it while talking along in funny voices.

How do you know what games I am and have played?

You posted the following:

I couldn't disagree more.

If the best moments in a game come exclusively from the mechanics... I might as well be playing a board game.

Plus, your argument is inherently flawed, for two reasons.
First, if the best moments of the game occur because the system is working as intended, then that also means the worst moments occur when the system isn't working. It's putting your enjoyment in something you cannot necessarily control.
Secondly, if the best moments of the game occur because the system is working as intended, then you don't really have any standout memories. It's all just a samey blur. One moment is the same as the next.

By definition, your best moments in a game anything are exceptional. They stand out because they're not the norm. This means they're unlikely to be related directly to the intended play system... unless the system doesn't work as intended often.

The two claims here that I responded to are (1) that if system provides the best RPGing moments, it's like a board game; (2) if system provides the best RPGing moments, the exerpience will be flat/samey.

Now I assume that you don't think that your RPGing is (i) like a board game and (ii) samey. Hence I assume that in your RPGing the best moments don't come from the system. (If they did, yet (i) and (ii) were false for you, then you would be a counter-example to what you posted. Which would make your posting insincere. I am assuming that it is sincere.)

Which is what I posted: you don't play a game where the system provides the best moments. If you're now turning around and telling me that I'm wrong, and that you do play RPGs in which the system provides the best moments, then either in those games the experience is samey and boardgame like, or else you were being insincere in your earlier post.

As for what RPGs you've played, I've read you posting on this in the past but don't remember. But I'm assuming you haven't played (say) Dungeon World or other PbtA games; or Fate; or Burning Wheel; or HeroWars/Quest - to name a few. Because if you had played those then you would know that a RPG in which system provides the best moments is nothing like a boardgame. And you would have had experiences that weren't all flat/samey.

(There are two other possibilities. One is that you've played those games, or ones like them, and did find them boardgame-like. In my experience that would make you an extreme outlier, but there's no accounting for taste! A second is that when, in your earlier post, you said mechanics you were meaning to contrast that in some fashion with system. But given that you quoted a post by me that used the word system and began by saying "I couldn't disagree more" and then went on to express your disagreement using the word mechanics, I am assuming that you are using those two words interchangably.)

 

[Garthanos]

Not so in 4e where the AC will increase based on the level of the enemy that you're fighting in 4th edition. .

Yes your skill at fighting somehow doesnt decrease the chance of you being hit by stupid goblin.... you are prevented from that by magical forces apparently and it didnt make sense in 1e doesn't make sense in 5e.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

He might be spending a hit die/healing surge to simulate extreme fatigue or pulling muscles on that super leap to get out of the way of the ranged attack spell. (this might be one expenditure for the stance duration - if he was actually attacked by a ranged opponent)

That's a good idea and indeed things like it have been used in other games, for instance WotC's Star Wars D20, where Force abilities were driven by spending Fatigue.

Another possibility by focusing on ranged defense - you might grant advantage to melee attackers. - might even only give disadvantage to ranged opponents but that is weaker than flight.

That was something I'd suggested elsewhere---the idea of having PCs be able to shift stances on a per turn basis, moving from neutral to offensive to defensive. You could add others. This wouldn't even be a limited resource per se, except of course for the limited resource of the action and the fact that they'd be committed to a particular stance.

If one is comparing to a flier is giving up his ability to attack entirely then the fighter might be in so defense focused mode unable to attack in effect he is using his attack action to put up that wall of steel or to make a surging leap.

I have a character that can turn into a raven in raven form he cannot really attack but he can fly all day that way and it also acts as a superb disguise.

I played an Unearthed Arcana Raven Queen pact Warlock who could raven, fly, and back to half elf. It was nice in combat but nowhere near as nice as being an actual flyer and I think was a good example of how one could implement a flight ability. The mobility came at the cost of some potential in the action economy and risk due to being in raven form. It was also useful in exploration due to the disguise, but, again, the disadvantages of being in raven form were notable.

 

[pemerton]

It's also the same in combat. You fight an enemy who is wearing chainmail and a shield (AC 18) in 5e and that AC will stay the same all the way from level 1 to level 20 in 5th ed. Not so in 4e where the AC will increase based on the level of the enemy that you're fighting in 4th edition.

(1) In 5e the hit points and damage output of that opponent will grow. There's a hp/damage-by-level table (well actually a pair of them - the CR table together with the encounter difficulty table).

(2) The reason, in the fiction, that the AC of that enemy grows is because s/he is tougher - her armour is more mythical, her prowess greater, etc. (Ie stuff that, in 5e, is expressed only by growing hp is, in 4e, expressed both by growing hp and growing defences.)

 

[Garthanos]

Oh definitely, it's a matter of the dynamic range. Some areas of the system posit 0 advancement (non-proficient saves, skills) while others grow too fast (proficient or expertise, with a synergistic stat).

What I think they should have done is made more use of advantage or rerolls. For example, proficiency using advantage means the overall range of the character's ability is the same but rolls are somewhat higher and, more importantly, much more reliable yet still uncertain.

4e didnt have the cellar door problem because you weren't ever impaired in any significant way at paragon or higher by something described in the same fashion as a heroic tier obstacles "as a mayors cellar door" the fiction advanced and abandoned the old obstacles just like the DCs did on that chart you would be getting a Kings Vault in paragon and something insane in Epic. If you did run into the cellar door you wouldnt likely be asked to roll nor would it actually be a plot point. I think its fine to be certain it can show real advancement when you stop worrying about them cellar doors even the iron bound ones.

RuneQuest combat comes to mind with regards to uncertainty not necessarily being appropriate the uncertainty of defense -- every attack could be a bit like a save or die. The effect was you really didnt feel at all heroic.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

4e didnt have the cellar door problem because you weren't ever impaired in any significant way at paragon or higher by something described in the same fashion as a heroic tier obstacles "as a mayors cellar door" the fiction advanced and abandoned the old obstacles just like the DCs did on that chart you would be getting a Kings Vault in paragon and something insane in Epic. If you did run into the cellar door you wouldnt likely be asked to roll nor would it actually be a plot point. I think its fine to be certain it can show real advancement when you stop worrying about them cellar doors even the iron bound ones.

True, though 5E had as one of its explicit goals not doing that, and still leaving lower level threats reasonably viable even at fairly high levels. And I'm totally not saying there should be no advancement at all. I just think that they could have gotten a lot of the benefits of keeping the numbers fairly small and avoiding DC creep by thinking outside the D20+Stat Bonus+Proficiency Bonus box.

RuneQuest combat comes to mind with regards to uncertainty not necessarily being appropriate the uncertainty of defense -- every attack could be a bit like a save or die. The effect was you really didnt feel at all heroic.

Oh yeah, combat in games like that really do have "save or die" feeling. That's tough and you're right, it doesn't feel all that heroic. In a game that's not supposed to be heroic, that works. I'm not sure that's what I want to play, though.

 

[Garthanos]

T
I played an Unearthed Arcana Raven Queen pact Warlock who could raven, fly, and back to half elf. It was nice in combat but nowhere near as nice as being an actual flyer and I think was a good example of how one could implement a flight ability. The mobility came at the cost of some potential in the action economy and risk due to being in raven form. It was also useful in exploration due to the disguise, but, again, the disadvantages of being in raven form were notable.

Real life ravens are bloody smart has hell that one acted like one was paying attention to things would not necessary be reasonable evidence that you were anything but a raven.

I was doing the Taliesin - Celtic Bard/Druid thing.