D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

"Freeform" not just used to describe the rules directly, but instead the results of the rules. A very structured ruleset can produce very freeform play results.

Which actually is what I am saying skill challenges did....

 

[Umbran]

...and some changes between 4e and 5e really point to a compliance with those who whined rather than a legitimate exploration of possible future D&D derived of the games better elements.

With respect - perhaps you have forgotten that 5e was designed with not just whiners, but feedback from the largest playtest audience ever seen in tabletop RPGs?

Are you saying that they should have ignored the playtest feedback, and engaged in design and exploration of those "better elements", even though the feedback didn't indicate they were desired?

If so, mayhaps you should go pop over to the Ryan Dancey thread, and note the issue of not paying attention to the players.

Also... you are arguing with success - perhaps the strongest RPG success seen since the 1980s. The hypothetical of "Well, they could have done even better with a different game..." would need a pretty strong support to make stick.

 

[Garthanos]

As I wrote, I have streamlined the game immensely by stripping away aspects of 5e, and incorporating bits from other RPGs (such as Amber)

Holy crap Amber????? I found that a very inspiring one back in the day played a lot of diceless D&D with some of its thinking under the hood.

 

[Garthanos]

Also... you are arguing with success

The argument from popularity continues to not impress me. Any more than game designers who can actually publicly claim the action economy is not important for designers to pay attention to, that does not impress me.

Also yes I will still like what I like and think MANY cool elements with potential from 4e were given piss poor lip service and not developed in 5e or rewound into inferior forms (like rituals).

None of this says anything about what "should" have been done its about what I like and what was lost.

And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.

 

[Parmandur]

The argument from popularity continues to not impress me. Any more than game designers who can actually publicly claim the action economy is not important for designers to pay attention to, that does not impress me.

Also yes I will still like what I like and think MANY cool elements with potential from 4e were given piss poor lip service and not developed in 5e or rewound into inferior forms (like rituals).

None of this says anything about what "should" be done its about what I like

And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.

Due to feedback from the players.

 

[Manbearcat]

Question... if non-paragon characters were able to achieve the necessary DC's would you let them succeed at the same tasks?

One more question is there a formal way laid out in the rules that prohibits non-paragon PC's from achieving paragon feats? If so what is it? If it's just DC's well @Garthanos made the argument that it's very possible for low level PC's to get extremely high skill bonuses when built for it. Assuming that's the case how do you avoid the "creep" @Manbearcat was speaking too?

So there are two reasons why the "Trickle Down Genre Creep" wouldn't be an issue in 4e:

1) I've run about 95 levels of 4e play (including a pair of 1-30 games). In all of that time, I've never seen a PC who could deploy the action resolution numbers necessary to make the maths work in any meaningful way. There primary reason for this is opportunity cost. 4e rewards you for breadth when it comes to investing in Utility (you get a lot of bang for your back there), but there are comparatively steep diminishing returns for trying to invest in the y-axis and piling on Skill numbers. Further, over-investing there will lead to under-investing in combat returns. And 4e combat is by far the D&D combat with the most tactical depth and related punishing nature for not building toward engaging with that to a reasonable degree.

2) Conflict framing in 4e isn't neutral. The GMing ethos of 4e is about proportionate escalating threats and stakes as the game progresses. This is the fundamental machinery of the Tier system, the themes, the cosmology, and the PC build machinery which is centered around it.

You aren't framing Heroic PCs against Paragon/Epic Tier obstacles and threats and vice versa. A Heroic Tier PC is not going to run into a level 21 Threat/Obstacle. A Paragon Tier PC is not going to run into a level 1 Threat/Obstacle.

So the situation just doesn't come up.

This is the beating heart of the sort of Story Now/Step On Up pedal-to-the-floor action/adventure nature of 4e play.

Contrast with open world, serial exploration/hexcrawl play where the the magnitude upon play of theme/premise and conflict will vary wildly from moment to moment, from session to session.

5e is built to support the latter sort of play (which is "Classic D&D").

 

[Garthanos]

Due to feedback from the players.

Excuses like everything in the game was actually run through the players or as though play test questions are perfect at discovering things.

Ever see how differently worded questions in polls result in seemingly diseparate results?

 

[Parmandur]

Excuses like everything in the game was actually run through the players or as though play test questions are perfect at discovering things.

Ever see how differently worded questions in polls result in seemingly diseparate results?

That's why they worked it for two years, to ensure they got as wide feedback as possible. And every survey got bigger, and bigger, so the net was cast wider over time.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*