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

Garthanos said:

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.

Click to expand...

Cool. Yeah I wasn't really thinking of the intelligence issue as we kind of finessed that as I recall. It was more the "I can't really pick anything notable up" issue, as well as the game mechanical one of having markedly different stats. I played some psychological ones, too. Occasionally I'd get attracted by the dead in raven form. "Delicious eyeball!" Fortunately there are no cars to streak in the Forgotten Realms!

pemerton said:

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.)

Click to expand...

*FACEPALM*

No.
Just...
No.

Did you READ my post?!
Seriously, go back and read it again then think about it. I'll wait.

Back?

Okay... The point of my comment was that NO RPG system can have its best moments entirely related to the game system. Because if every moment is equally fun, there cannot be a best moment. There's no spikes in the fun-o-meter.
And if there are... that means the system isn't a good system, as most of the time it isn't being as fun as it should be. Or, that the spikes in fun are related to the system failing. Which also means it isn't a good system. So you're not having fun because of the system but despite the system.

I also maintain that if you're playing a game, any game, and not bringing anything else into except the rules-as-written by the rulebook, you might as well be playing a board game. Which is fine. I like board/ card games.

But it's going to be potentially more fun if you bring something else to the game. Your own story. Your own character. Because you have exactly the same amount of fun as playing the mechanical game plus the fun you're adding.
Therefore, the best moments you have playing a game cannot be entirely related to the mechanics.

Jay Verkuilen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not thinking i am actually happy with the goal. Keeping skill variance in a tighter pattern in 4e is what I would have liked so its more predictable. And I would have prefered in 4e if they had done better perhaps at change of sense of scale at epic you should be doing much more grand and huge things than at paragon.

Jay Verkuilen said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think Gygax was indeed right about people wanting to play a Conan who didnt have to worry about some random arrow taking him out. But could turn around like mentioned earlier one shot were-hyenas.

Jay Verkuilen said:

I found, the primary issue with 5e was that if one wanted to put stress on the resource management side of things one needed to ensure the recovery system (rest) used, worked for short/long rest PCS AND for dungeon, city and travel type adventures. For my table the rest mechanics that were offered in the PHB and DMG were just not practical in all the above mentioned categories all the time.

Click to expand...

The synchronized resources allows 4e rest mechanics to be altered very easily for context for instance maybe you have a nasty mountainous journey only give an effective daily recovery every other day or desert journey every week - it wont screw over any given class more than any other. It made DM adjustments on the system predictable.

pemerton said:

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.)

Click to expand...

Have you played Elder Scrolls Online? I'm asking because I'm wondering what basis you have for claiming the in-game fiction is irrelevant when playing it?

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

Unless of course the in-game fiction isn't irrelevant to one's actions in the crpg... then your whole assumption about the response falls apart...

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'll ask again have you played Elder Scrolls online? If not on what basis do you claim it's not an rpg?

Jester David said:

The point of my comment was that NO RPG system can have its best moments entirely related to the game system. Because if every moment is equally fun, there cannot be a best moment.

Click to expand...

This seems an obvious non-sequitur.

The best moments in a sporting match, or a sporting season, can be entirely related to the game as played by the rules of that game. (Eg they needn't involve external elements llike, say, a crowd pouring onto the pitch.)

The best moments in a performance can be entirely related to the performance as a performance. (Eg they needn't involve eternal elements like, say, someone forgetting his/her lines or a string on an instrument breaking.)

I have no idea why you would think or assert that the performance of any system cannot involve change, or variation, or highs and lows, or better or worse examples. That's not true in sport. It's not true in music. It's not true in spaceflight. Why would it be true in RPGing?

Jester David said:

There's no spikes in the fun-o-meter.
And if there are... that means the system isn't a good system, as most of the time it isn't being as fun as it should be. Or, that the spikes in fun are related to the system failing. Which also means it isn't a good system. So you're not having fun because of the system but despite the system.

Click to expand...

I find this hard to follow, but again it seems like an obvious non-sequitur.

You seem to think it's a virtue of a RPG experience that it involve variation and memorable moments. So why would you regard it as a failure of a RPG system to deliver that?

Jester David said:

I also maintain that if you're playing a game, any game, and not bringing anything else into except the rules-as-written by the rulebook, you might as well be playing a board game. Which is fine.

Click to expand...

I used the word system. Not rules-as-written. Nor mechanics. They're your phrases, and to the extent that you think they carry meaning that is different from system then I'm going to reject your attribution of them to me.

Furthermore, I asserted - and will reiterate - that if your best RPGing moments are coming about when you ignore the system, then the system isn't fit for purpose! You see to be treating ignoring the system and not bringing anything else into it except the rules-as-written as mutually exclusive alternatives. That doesn't seem all that plausible to me, and again - insofar as your argument rests on it - I reject its attribution to me.

To evaluate an action declaration in a good RPG system requires having regard to the rules of the game, and also requires having regard to the fictional positioning of the PC, and also requires having regard to the details of the declared action. That's the system in action. If all your best RPGing moments come from ignoring the system - eg if it's unmediated GM decision-making about a player's proposal that some awesome thing should happen - then they system is not fit for purpose. It's not doing it's job of taking action declarations + fictional positioning as input, and delivering awesome moments of play as output.

I take it that you disagree with me - that there is nothing wrong with a RPG system that does not reliably deliver awesome moments of play in the way I describe, and that has to be ignored to get the most memorable moments. But I'm not sure why. What is the point of the system, in your view, if not to deliver awesome moments of play in response to player's declarations of actions for their PCs?

Jay Verkuilen said:

Cool. Yeah I wasn't really thinking of the intelligence issue as we kind of finessed that as I recall. It was more the "I can't really pick anything notable up" issue, as well as the game mechanical one of having markedly different stats. I played some psychological ones, too. Occasionally I'd get attracted by the dead in raven form. "Delicious eyeball!" Fortunately there are no cars to streak in the Forgotten Realms!

Click to expand...

LOL yes the psych thing is fun ... Tuathan theme gave me animal form at level 2 and fly speed 6 extension of it at level 10 so didnt much matter what class I picked.

Garthanos said:

I think Gygax was indeed right about people wanting to play a Conan who didnt have to worry about some random arrow taking him out. But could turn around like mentioned earlier one shot were-hyenas.

Click to expand...

This is the biggest design issue in a RPG that is meant to deliver an experience of player protagonism: how to implement asymmetry between player-controlled and GM-controlled characters.

It's obviously not an issue in a wargame, where the whole idea is one of symmetry between the sides.

Dragonlance-style RPGing (ie a lot of D&D since the mid-80s, and indeed most late-80s and 90s RPGs) does it through GM fiat/fudging.

Mid-to-high level D&D (and comparable systems like Rolemaster) can also do it through giving the players access to sufficient resources (normally taking the form of spells and magic items) to preserve a formal symmetry while producing a practical asymmetry.

4e does it at a fundamental system level, by (in combat) giving PCs healing surges, better spike abilities and the like while giving the GM tools like minions, and (in non-comba) by having the mechanics of skill challenges be players-roll-all-the-dice. Obviousy this system-level asymmetry is not popular with all RPGers.

5e seems to be an example of formal symmetry but practical asymmetry - the system will systematically ensure that players have better ACs, better suites of magic resources, etc.

Imaro said:

Okay this isn't what I was really thinking when you said "genre"... These are just the tiers which 5e D&D also uses. That said I am failing to see how this gives a more robust or objective baseline for DC's when it comes to player's and their agency... Could you expound on this more?

Click to expand...

I noted the problem above here directly to you (citing precisely the Tier section that you're citing above). I'll requote it:

The issues with 5e regarding just the DC setting portion is layered:

1) Objective Causal Logic or Subjective Genre Logic? 5e’s designers give reasons to believe that it’s supposed to be some sort of mash-up of both (you have the Tier Section that indicates Genre, but virtually every other bit of Guidance and design impetus - “natural language” - suggests Causal. Individual GMs are all over the place on this question, including seemingly arbitrarily using one over the other as the moment takes them.

2) If Objective Causal Logic, who is the baseline for the Easy, Hard et al descriptors; everyday layman, someone proficient in the task, a professional adventurer? Again, GMs are all over the map on this and I’ve seen it change depending upon the task/test.

1 and 2 above do not make for minimizing mental overhead and handling time at the table, nor is it a recipe for consistency in mediating creative action declarations like the above.

Click to expand...

Its not the fact that it canvasses default tiers (which harken to 4e's default tiers, but (a) Wizards are massively more powerful in 5e than they are in 4e while (b) a lack of Epic Destinies and mythic-provoking endgame features for Fighters don't produce mythical martial heroes) or that they canvas potential drift. Its the facts that the above sits right alongside the fundamentals of 5e; (1) the aim to keep obstacles/threats still relevant (pretty much exclusively for martial characters, as spellcasters can obviate them as they almost completely don't have to interact with the system maths to deliver their noncombat obstacle defeating payload) at all levels and (2) "natural language" and the setting-baselined internal causality that it, and other advice, connotes).

There is an ENORMOUS tension between (1) and (2) and action resolution adjudication via genre logic. Its trivially true as you can see people carving out a dozen varying positions on any given obstacle or action resolution adjudication on any thread. And this is a tiny slice of the 5e-playing-world. Extrapolating it across the entire population of 5e GMs will create a massive variance (in first principles, in procedures, and in outcomes) among GMs.

And this shouldn't be a surprise! This was one of the fundamental OSR design imperatives outlined explicitly (and no doubt a big part of the OSR push during consultation) by the 5e designers (down with table symmetry across the gaming populace)!

Imaro said:

Another level of obscurity when using the tiers is the fact that the DC's are level based in 4e not tier based (like say in 13th AGE). So what's easy for one Heroic adventurer can be moderate for another in the same tier...

Click to expand...

I don't see how this is a "level of obscurity" and I'd need to see "the other levels" in order to determine if there is any obscurity. This is just a product of the collision of genre fiction/tropes meeting system maths (and more granular ones) over 30 levels vs system maths over 10 levels. PCs are going to be dealing with roughly the same fiction/conflicts/tropes in each tier with (perhaps) minor intratier scaling and breakpoints at 11 and 21.

D&D 4e was devised to roughly have a 65ish % median chance for success in action declarations. Apparently, designers have recently sprung up on the premise that the gaming sweet spot is when roughly 2/3 of action declarations succeed and 1/3 fail (and hopefully something interesting happens). Its no coincidence that the initial PBtA bell curves at a shade under 2d6+1 as the average, yields about 1/3 failure rate.

This isn't hidden. The maths and related design impetus couldn't be more transparent (which has been one of the great historical complaints by detractors about 4e) and was openly talked about in design articles and in both Dungeon and Dragon mags.

Imaro said:

Have you played Elder Scrolls Online? I'm asking because I'm wondering what basis you have for claiming the in-game fiction is irrelevant when playing it?

<snip>

I'll ask again have you played Elder Scrolls online? If not on what basis do you claim it's not an rpg?

Click to expand...

I haven't played it. I'm familiar with the concept of a MMO. Wikipedia tells me that "As in previous The Elder Scrolls titles, gameplay is mostly nonlinear, with a mixture of quests, random events, and free-roaming exploration of the world." The word fiction appears nowhere in the Wikipedia entry.

I do have a general sense of the ability of computers to engage in literary criticism, because of my familiarity with experiments in AI assessment of student essays. That ability is poor. I draw on that bit of knowledge to inform my understanding of the extent to which The Elders Scrolls Online will treat the ficiton as an element in adjudication - namely, it won't.

How did we get to this point in the discussion? Here's how:


Given that you think I would get what I want out of RPGing from playing the Elder Scrolls online, but I know that I wouldn't, you obviously have little grasp of what I'm talking about when I talk about the way a RPG system works to generate a play experience. That you continue to insist that I will get what I want from playing a game that I know has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm looking for in RPGing is just bizarre.

For extra clarity, there is zero connection between a good RPG system - which will reliably deliver awesome moments of play without needing to be ignored or "transcended" - and "consistent, expected and (at least by the goals they've set) enjoyable gameplay purely through strict adherence to their coded systems". The starting point for explaining why is the word coded (as I posted upthread in relation to The Elder Scrolls Online, it's all maths).