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

[pemerton]

What seems strange to me here, is that this is one area where the games aren't much different at all, just 5E accomplishes the same thing with an economy of numbers. Player declares action, DM sets DC, roll determines success or failure. The rest is detail, and the same things can be accomplished in either system, at the DMs discretion.

Saying "the rest is detail" is like saying the difference between having a determinate number of hp, or having the goblin die "when the GM thinks it's been hit enough", is just detail. Many people would think those are two pretty different resolution systems.

5e does not have a method for deciding, once feasibility of some non-combat action has been determined by reference to the fiction, (i) what a mechanically sound DC is, and (ii) how to resolve the conflict (as opposed to the task). 4e has both. That's the difference.

 

[Parmandur]

Saying "the rest is detail" is like saying the difference between having a determinate number of hp, or having the goblin die "when the GM thinks it's been hit enough", is just detail. Many people would think those are two pretty different resolution systems.

5e does not have a method for deciding, once feasibility of some non-combat action has been determined by reference to the fiction, (i) what a mechanically sound DC is, and (ii) how to resolve the conflict (as opposed to the task). 4e has both. That's the difference.

Certainly there is such a system, as follows:

(i) "is the declared action easy, moderate, hard, very hard, or basically impossible?" Each difficulty rating has a mechanically sound DC attached to it, 10-30.

(ii) Roll the dice and adjudicate the result.

Now, it is a simple system, but simple can be beautiful. In play, it is extremely effective and unrestrictive.

 

[Imaro]

Again, ritual casting is rarely used.

First you said rarely used at low level... so is it at low level or throughout the entire range of levels in 4e because my experience was at mid to high level (which is what we are discussing for the most part in this conversation) the costs were trivial and they were used often.

The only reason that's true about skills is that classes with a particular focus in 4e would usually get an extra skill — often in a skill that would be kind of useless, such as Religion on a non-Int-based PC. But plenty of options had the exact same number of skill choices as Fighter, particularly Hybrid builds. And in 5e, that turns itself around by putting PCs such as Clerics and Paladins, who might not have good mechanical reasons to pick Religion as a skill, to feel compelled to pick it anyway. Where Fighter can freely choose to pick appropriate mechanically useful skills.

Wait so it's a boon that the fighter only had 3 skills because those extra skills the other classes got were useless (then why were they included in the game and why couldn't the designers just give a "useless" skill to the fighter as well) and because some hybrids (who were for the most part known for being underpowered compared to single class characters) had 3 skills... Oh and 5e is worse because it doesn't force "useless" skills (your words not mine because in my games religion is far from a useless skill) on said classes... but players feel compelled to pick them anyway, even though they have the choice not to...does that about sum it up?

 

[Parmandur]

Let's put it in more concrete terms: I played 4E, and my experience of Skill usage was no different than in 5E or in 3.x...

 

[Imaro]

Because games are dependent on shared fiction of the table, not individual campaign's shared fictions across everyone else's. And if you're publishing an adventure, you don't shame the table that wants to just use skills in a semi-realistic fashion into being fantastical. As I described earlier, why can an Epic Wizard be the equivalent of a Heroic PC in terms of say Athletics? Well, maybe they have a magic trinket or cast an unlisted cantrip. Perhaps they rewrite the universe to make tasks easier for them. Or maybe, over the course of all those adventures, they became 'trained' in it even if they're not actually good at it.

If it's that easy to turn on or off (and the official sources have opted for turning it off) well then I'd argue its not inherent it's just like you said... "dependent on shared fiction of the table, not individual campaign's shared fictions across everyone else's." and if that's the case just as easily accomplished in 5e as 4e with an adjustment of the shared fiction of the table... right?

Just 4e describes over the course of DMG that you might want either of those choices and why and 5e tries to avoid describing it at all.

Are you sure the 5e DMG doesn't discuss overlaying different fiction on it's mechanics to achieve different genres and types of fantasy?

 

[Jester David]

Are you able to explain how closed scene resolution gives you less room to improvise - eg an example of an action that you might want to declare but can't?

Sure.

First, how much organised play have to engaged in? Living Greyhawk, Living City, Xen'Drick Expeditions, D&D Encounters, Pathfinder Society? How many published adventures have you run? How many convention tournaments have you done? I've done those activities a lot, and there's precious little improvisation in those games. Or even roleplaying at times. Just a lot of chucking of dice.
3e/4e/PF really seemed designed with organised play in mind. Regimented play with little adjudication. But there's virtually zero improvisation in organised/ convention play because that goes against the intent that everyone gets the same adventure run the same way. It's meant to be your skill with the character and tactical savvy that determines your success. How the DM runs the adventure isn't meant to be a variable.

Second, is the option creep.
There are 3271 feats in 4th Edition. And 2783 general/combat/skill/ magic feats in Pathfinder.
You cannot know them all. It's impossible.
If someone wants to do some improvised action... can you be 100% sure that is not a feat? That you're not giving them a "free" feat.
Plus rules. There are lengthy codified rules on every activity. Which not only means there's less room for pure improvisation, but occasionally means you need to stop and look up the official "rule", which slows down play. Easier and faster to just use a power.
Activities like kipping up or kicking a sword into your hand or intimidating someone with a display of sword prowess. Or even using a whip to swing across a gap.

Lastly, there's how codification focuses your attention. Very often players just fixate on their character sheet when confronted by a problem. Especially in 4e with the power cards. Robust codification gives you a big toolbox, which becomes a trap for your attention. You *want* to use all your new tools, you *want* to use the options you invested a feat/power slot in, so you look for solutions using those first.
It's the sunk cost fallacy at work.

 

[MwaO]

If it's that easy to turn on or off (and the official sources have opted for turning it off) well then I'd argue its not inherent it's just like you said... "dependent on shared fiction of the table, not individual campaign's shared fictions across everyone else's." and if that's the case just as easily accomplished in 5e as 4e with an adjustment of the shared fiction of the table... right?

4e DMG did not turn it off. Playable adventures assumed the DM read DMG. 5e DMG did turn it off in specific ways.

Are you sure the 5e DMG doesn't discuss overlaying different fiction on it's mechanics to achieve different genres and types of fantasy?

It does, but in ways that don't conflict with the idea that Martials are Martials. Which really centers around why 4e players look at the forge example and say, "Hmm, maybe" and the 5e players are going, "That seems kind of extreme."

 

[Imaro]

4e DMG did not turn it off. Playable adventures assumed the DM read DMG. 5e DMG did turn it off in specific ways.

I never said the 4e DMG did. Official adventures on the other hand...

EDIT: And if it was assumed that the 4e DMG had been read why wouldn't the default line up with what was supposedly presented in the rulebooks... claiming the DMG lays it out and it's assumed to have been read by 4e players/DM's but then the opposite was put in the official adventures makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm sorry I don't understand your other assertion here. The 5e DMG turned what off exactly... and how was this done?

It does, but in ways that don't conflict with the idea that Martials are Martials. Which really centers around why 4e players look at the forge example and say, "Hmm, maybe" and the 5e players are going, "That seems kind of extreme."

Or it has nothing to do with the respective rules sets and more to do with the fiction the individual players answering want their games to emulate.

 

[MwaO]

First, how much organised play have to engaged in? Living Greyhawk, Living City, Xen'Drick Expeditions, D&D Encounters, Pathfinder Society? How many published adventures have you run? How many convention tournaments have you done? I've done those activities a lot, and there's precious little improvisation in those games. Or even roleplaying at times. Just a lot of chucking of dice.

I'll invite you to read the adventure I co-wrote for Living Forgotten Realms, NETH4-1:
http://www.livingforgottenrealms.com
http://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/adventures/NETH0401LFR.zip

Direct link 2nd, but you can click on the 1st link if you don't want to direct download. So, there's an entire encounter interacting with NPCs for the point of thinking about what is a moral decision and what are their character's values. All roleplaying. No real dice used.

And then each table gets to make a decision as to what they think is more important. And that decision leads to two different combats and each table only fights one of them. And the outcome based across various tables then strongly influenced what direction the campaign would go.

At the 2 tables I ran at its introduction, I had religious PC of deity important to the adventure at both tables. And at one table, a PC argued for the route of personal sacrifice, because that's what their deity would want. And at another table, a PC argued that they had to do the opposite, because that's what their deity would want. And literally, one person at a table said decision X was the emotional decision, but Y was intellectual and at the other table, decision Y was the emotional decision and X the intellectual.

The adventure got one of the highest ratings from both a DM and player side in LFR, both values over 4 out of 5. Didn't have any problems getting it approved from the higher ups and I wrote that part of the adventure in its entirety. Bonus points for people who played 2e heavily is that Moontassel details are actually from Volo's Guides and one of the major NPCs is related to Danilo Thann.

i.e. you might think that Organized Play is not about options, but it really depends on the writer and editor of the adventure, and the player base was perfectly happy to see such options available for them.

 

[Garthanos]

From the get go in 4e in the PHB you were exposed to a Paragon path and Epic Destiny and players may think of their characters in terms of that. Quite honestly the most basic Epic Destiny is the Demi-god (and arguably a very sound choice in the game too - recommended by the handbooks). The game at that point help establish some shared fiction. In some sense even ignoring the mechanics became narratively part of how you defeat the Demogorgon in high level and the like.

I can pick a background like Auspicious Birth or even create descriptions of the prophecy that affected his early life alah Cu Cuhlaine or Lancelot. Some of these can be just part of that story without having more than flavor impact especially if say you want that fighter to have Detective Skills because he was trying to find out how his mother died in his childhood instead of taking the stories for granted or have mechanical teeth - on the order of a feat even.

Now player input has set the stage with encouragement from the game and shared fiction very early on....

So when the player has his character hallucinate seeing death early on and in paragon and maybe even takes an ability to do battlefield medic but pictures it as him barring death from the injured.

And later mid paragon when this fairly Herakles like hero says I want to save the life of my friends dying wife by Wrestling death perhaps I can just roll with that seeing death idea and get drunk on fancy wines to see death himself I want to challenge him for her soul, exactly 3 days after her death. Perhaps this becomes more balanced when it is gatewayed just like the raise dead ritual - Note late heroic is when the Cleric can plop down expensive incense and raise someone who has been dead for quite a while 100 percent reliably.