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

[Jay Verkuilen]

Minions in 4e are only there in relation to the PCs so that they can mow through them. In relation to each other they are just as tough as each other. It's kinda like earlier editions where an or has 1 hit die but the chieftains and champions have more hit points. Those 1 hit die orcs still get mowed through in AD&D by a high level fighter, in 4e the minions model that, it's just that the minions are a bit more of a threat than those old AD&D orcs.

Minionization was used so that threat could remain high without a lot of grind. This was particularly necessary given the way that 4E was scaled due to the fact that defenses really climbed up, so level 1 monsters that face a level 11 character basically have no chance of doing anything meaningful. The minionized or swarmized version of the same monster can have a notable threat because their offense climbed up and there's no need to do the bookkeeping that comes with tracking them for real. It's not a bad idea, though I prefer using things like mob rules or switching out monsters. 5E attempted to keep the numbers more constant via bounded accuracy, so that a horde of goblins can still be a problem for high level characters because the high level character's AC didn't climb markedly the way it did in 4E (or 3E). Grind can really hit in some circumstances, though, such as a horde of ogres.

In older versions of D&D, PCs tended to "graduate" out of monster types, so there was an implicit expectation that you'd stop fighting orcs entirely when you were, say, 5th or 7th level, those being left for lesser adventurers.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Someone can play 4e and also plot out ecologies, social structures, etc. Nothing in the system will stop that, or even push against it. (Trying to play B2 in 4e will probably suck, but that's not the be-all-and-end-all of naturalism in FRPGing.)

This is an actual play report of some 4e epic tier play. Where's the lack of naturalism, or a sense that the Raven Queen doesn't exist independently of the PCs?

Of course one could run 4E in a much more naturalistic way. Indeed, the later 4E was written much more that way, but the early 4E was very, very mechanical. Monsters had stat blocks and essentially no other information. The game made essentially no pretense to match up with a game world so while nothing stopped it, nothing really supported it either. Look at how essentially empty the default setting, the Nentir Vale, felt.

As I said elsewhere, I'm not arguing that naturalism is the be-all and end-all or even that I do it full on. Clearly one needs to engage in abstractions.

I raised the idea of Gygaxian naturalism as a way to understand why people are often bothered by minionization and other situational abstraction devices. (I wish I'd thought of that term before, but often it's in the process of articulating an argument one comes up with better terms.)

4E's general style was full-on situational abstraction, something you've indicated quite clearly multiple time, for instance with the idea of a swarm of vrocks in another post. If your focus is player-facing fiction and your goal is to remove nearly anything that isn't player-facing fiction, this kind of move makes sense.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

The toughness of a 4e ogre exists "independently of the PCs". I even described it arleady - it's quite a bit tougher than a town guard (or a goblin or even a gnoll) but quite a bit less tough than Sir Lancelot (or a giant or a vrock demon).

The minion functions grossly differently than a non-minion, though. The minionized creature (who cares what it is) hits fairly hard, if highly consistently, and dies with one hit. The non-minionized creature, by contrast, has some staying power and often takes one or two hits but doesn't have the threat.

Only if you don't understand the system, and so assume - contrary to the system design - that stats are an opponent-neutral description of a creature.

Right, opponent-neutral description is, I think, how the old game (and 5E) was written. 4E's design premises totally turned that around. I understand that's what the system was designed to do. I just don't like it and prefer opponent-neutral description both as a player and DM.

This is really the crux of it. Naturalism - Gygaxian or otherwise - is a property of fiction. Blade Runner has naturalism in a way that (say) the Princess Bride doesn't. It's not about mechanical methodologies.

Narrative fiction and an RPG aren't the same things and don't function exactly the same.

In an RPG, the game rules are a big part of what creates the secondary reality. In fiction, there isn't any such demand. Authors can do what they want, dramatically or based on a set out internal logic, or some mixture. In a sense, what I'm saying is that taking the manual stats as they are more or less base facts is how the game had always been. 4E turned that pretty much on its head. I don't know that I could articulate this before the discussion here but 4E's very player-facing/focus on the fiction presented to the player design is a lot of what I didn't like about it.

I'm not saying it was a bad design in that it didn't accomplish what it set out to do, but it didn't do what I and obviously a lot of other people were looking for. It forced me into thinking in a way I did not like, similar to when Microsoft shifted around the design of Office to use the ribbon versus the traditional menus.

You do realise that the epic tier orcs in The Plane Above are Gruumsh's einheriar. They are not mortal orcs. That the paragon tier goblins in MM3 (I think) are drow goblin slaves, exposed to the radiations and travails of the Underdark. They are not ordinary goblins.

That's not true all the time, though, or if it is, a lot of time the reader is left to infer it.

The fiction of 4e, its tiers of play, the correlation between creature level, creature status (minion, standard, solo, swarm) and fiction, is all crystal clear. The books don't hide it, they trumpet it!

I didn't say 4E was hiding it, just that they pretty dramatically changed the basic premises of the game as it had existed for three decades. For you and others, that's a huge feature, not a bug.

If you ran or played in 4e games contrary to every express and implied precept found in the PHB, DMG and MM; where, at epic, your PCs fought levelled-up goblins living in steadings whose pallisades required DC 30 checks to climb, and still went back to a village to collect astral diamond bounties from the mayor (or other similarly heroic tier fiction), that's on you and your GM. If you play contrary to the game's precepts, instructions and advice, it's only to be expected that the experience will fall short of ideal.

I just love it when someone online says "you're doing it wrong and let me tell you otherwise...."

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

They were guarding against their own zingers... "most of the time its entirely safe to just allow it" - but designers occasionally throw in things which work ummm too well or have really nice flavor and work too poorly (becoming a trap)

That's part of it, but I think they also were very influenced by video games (cooldown was the mechanic du jour) and card games (hand of cards which you have to choose to play) and wanted to use those kinds of mechanics in the hope they'd appeal to those players.

 

[Parmandur]

If you ran or played [...] games contrary to every express and implied precept found in the PHB, DMG and MM; [...] that's on you and your GM. If you play contrary to the game's precepts, instructions and advice, it's only to be expected that the experience will fall short of ideal.

Interesting, and fair, point. I have selected out the relevant points, because that can go for any other game, such as perhaps ignoring the encounter guidelines for the resource management game in 5E.

But, in inverse, if the game's precepts, instructions and advise are not what a given table wants, it might not be received with the greatest positvity.

 

[Parmandur]

That's part of it, but I think they also were very influenced by video games (cooldown was the mechanic du jour) and card games (hand of cards which you have to choose to play) and wanted to use those kinds of mechanics in the hope they'd appeal to those players.

Mearls, in the Paladin Happy Fun Hour, explicitly says that was part of what they were thinking when designing 4E. Mearls in that video credits the "appeal to video game" as one of 4E's strategic mistakes, and sees 5E benefiting from people looking for something as different from video games as possible these days.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Interesting, and fair, point. I have selected out the relevant points, because that can go for any other game, such as perhaps ignoring the encounter guidelines for the resource management game in 5E.

But, in inverse, if the game's precepts, instructions and advise are not what a given table wants, it might not be received with the greatest positvity.

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.

OSR and Pathfinder both started when D&D decided to dump its roots in favor of the direction it chose. The rest mechanics and resource management game in 5E is an example of the same kind of thing---it's precisely one of the parts of the game many people don't like. The degree to which they're baked on and are really difficult to change creates frustration.

In many respects, this wouldn't really be an issue if D&D didn't have a propensity to be the "only game in town."

 

[Garthanos]

The main difference I see is that one defines your worlds fiction for you

Nope incorrect 4e is very blatant about enabling taking the flavor text elements and wielding authorial power over them presenting them the way you like... it just encourages and provides a starting point (and yes we discuss how particular Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies fit into the DMs game world when they come up so it isn't some completely 1 sided thing without Player nor without DM involvement - its pretty much a part of that open flavoring aspect) , i go a step forward and use the players ideas about their origins to help seat elements of my game world... ie more player investment.

Heck murder hobos is partly a side effect of players who do not think in terms of the world or looking forward to their character within it or start from a point of estrangement like sociopaths.The game makes better players with these offerings as far as I am concerned.

The Fighters castle on the hill was a bad implementation of a good idea, because it railroaded player goals. So I am assuming Paragon Paths are left by the wayside too. ie pretty much leaving nothing for that fighter to look forward to nor encouraging DMs to think about either ie.

and is very much player facing

Ya got this part right its player empowering which makes it entirely different than a DM handing out a few late game boons at his infinite discretion.

while the other is left open for you to define the fiction associated with it

No more than the 4e one it is well established the distinction between flavor/fiction and mechanics and frankly I find this utterly disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The full extent of
"The DM might allow a player to select a boon for his or her character, subject to their approval."
WHEN yup I am certain at 20th level yeh that is providing aspiration and what are you going to do show them that bald list of these feat like items

4e was massively critiqued because it didnt bake in flavor 4e is positively rich with flexible fungible flavor compared to this after thought

- is pretty paltry nor do boons talk at all about nor provide any starting point for the fiction of making a development in the story driven by the player but rather treats them like handing out like treasure LOL sheesh.

4e HAD boons they were not Epic Destinies nor are 5es boons.

I like players defining their goals and these game features encourage them to think in terms of the future of their character (and as I said they are sometimes or even often adjusted to fit the narrative game world)

Yes you do see they are dramatically different and do not count as the same function at all... a player looking forward toward the storyline he invested in is entirely different from one who might be given "some minor power boost"" by the DM at really high level sheesh.

How do I use boons to accomplish what paragon paths and epic destinies ie the things I want to accomplish might be the question.

 

[Garthanos]

I think that's a good insight. 4E was a highly player-facing design. Things that didn't face the players were, by and large, left out.

Conversely I am finding things I want to face players to be left out of 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

That's part of it, but I think they also were very influenced by video games .

Right instead of thinking in terms of a "Spam Guard" keeping things more interesting you went there. ... sheesh

Why play D&D when you can play Pac Man and have your character run around in a nonsensical maze eating treasure beads till you are awesome enough to turn the attack to the ghosts I mean monsters... move to the next maze and you have to level up almost always avoiding them