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

OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them."
Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now.

and the obligatory
Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules"

And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine.

 

[Imaro]

What's the DC to blow a demon through a timber wall using Thunderwave? AD&D doesn't tell me. 5e doesn't tell me. 4e does - pick the DC of the DC-by-level table and make an Arcana check.

Wait why doesn't 5e tell you? Once a DM decides whether it's possible in either system... The DM picks the DC for it.

 

[Jester David]

Are you talking especially about combat? That's the impression I'm getting because of your emphasis on damage dealing.

Yes. Because that’s always what’s discussed when conversing about linear fighters and quadratic wizards. Because it can be imperically measured.
You can’t chart effectiveness in non-combat situations: there’s no non-arbitrary measurements.

 

[Imaro]

My take on this is that if your best RPGing moments are coming about when you ignore the system, then the system isn't fit for purpose!

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with this. The system should help you achieve those moments but there's nothing wrong or shameful about stepping outside or beyond the system... in fact I would argue for many (whether through houserules, judgement calls, or improv) that's a large part of the actual hobby

In fact I find that one of the main attractions for me to TTRPG's is the fact that you (players and DM's) are not necessarily constrained by the system (and like any system it's inherent limitations). If I want a system that works and I know that plugging in X will always produce Y result well then I'm much more likely to play a Crpg... Dragon Age Origins, Witcher, Divinity Original Sin, Neverwinter, etc. All produce consistent, expected and (at least by the goals they've set) enjoyable gameplay purely through strict adherence to their coded systems. Furthermore they do it at a quicker pace, with better visuals, and with more consistency than any TTRPG ever will. If your main desire is to strictly engage and adhere to a system and/or this is also where you find your "agency" as a player... I have to ask why not play say Elder Scrolls online with your buddies and agree to strict roleplaying during the game?

 

[dave2008]

My take on this is that if your best RPGing moments are coming about when you ignore the system, then the system isn't fit for purpose!

My impression is that this experience - of needing to "transcend" the system to get good gameplay - is mostly found in groups whose main experience is with very narrowly focused systems being used to play games with a different focus.

I don't know that I agree with you, but I have only played AD&D/D&D 1e, CoC, D&D 4e & D&D 5e. Though have /had the rules for GURPS, MERP, and Palladium (sp).

My take is that saying: "I want to leap on the beholder, grab his eyestalks...," or "I want to distract the guard by throwing a rock...," or "I want jump on the table and leap over the dwarf to get to...," etc. are not transcending the system nor is it ignoring the system. It is how it is intended to be player. But YMMV.

 

[Sadras]

Actually, 4e does have a rule for everything that is not a combat challenge:

(1) work out whether or not the action is possible (given considerations of genrre, tier, PC capability from the point of view of the fiction, etc);

(2) if the answer to (1) is yes, then set a DC using the DC-by-level chart (this may or may not be part of a skill challenge, depending on whether or not the GM takes the view that the action being attempted is scene-worthy in itself);

(3) resolve the skill check/skill challenge in accordance with the rules for such - make a check, apply adjustments for fictional advantage, power expenditure, etc (which in some cases may make success automatic), determine success/failure.​

How is this unique to 4e?

In 5e
1. DM decides if it is feasible and if roll is required.
2. DM decides on difficulty.
3. Penalties/Bonuses + Adv/Disadv accounted for based on various factors.
4. Success or failure is determined on result of the roll.

 

[Sadras]

The odds of rolling 11 1s on 11d8 is 2 ^ 33, or less than 1 in a billion.

The odds that liches will be minions is about the same.

There is simply no comparison between AD&D and 4e in these respects. (More generally: is it really the case both that AD&D does everything 4e does, and that 4e change the game so horribly that no one wanted to play it?)

Is it really the case that you have to compare 4e to a 40+ year-old-system to make the 4e system look attractive?

 

[Jester David]

My take on this is that if your best RPGing moments are coming about when you ignore the system, then the system isn't fit for purpose!

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.

 

[Parmandur]

Are you talking especially about combat? That's the impression I'm getting because of your emphasis on damage dealing.

What party composition do you have in mind? Eg I would assume its easier to build a "social pillar driver" as a bard, sorcerer, wizard or warlock than as a champion fighter.

Sorry, I'm getting confused a bit because the style I mentioned was one for which I think 4e doesn't offer anything, namely, "there aren't any such decisions for the players to make, because eg the GM makes them all by manipulating pacing, outcomes, etc behind the screen, ensuring every PC build gets some spotlight, etc".

If Mearls is saying that 4e supported that style and only that style then I think he's radically confused about the game - I've never seen anyone who likes that style praise 4e, let alone point to 4e as a good fit for it.

If Mearls is saying that 4e didn't support that style, and hence wasn't popular with the large number of RPGers who enjoy that style, then I would agree with him.

Yes, I apologise if that was confusing, I meant the latter: the playustyle you mention, per Mearls, is how most people play D&D, and always have right through 3E (that's how I experienced 3E). He thinks the massive predominance of a playstyle 4E didn't support, and that WotC didn't realize how most people played when they did the design work, is what led to the negative reception of 4E. Mearls puts a good deal of credit for 5E's success on the effort to ask people how they actually play, and design a game for that style as a result.

As to a non-combat Champion, rolling a 14 and putting it in Charisma and having Proficiency in Persuasion, Deception and/or Intimidation is easily enough to shine in social situations. Sure, the Bard will be Strongest There Is, IF there is a Bard. But not all parties have a Bard. The flat math of 5E makes it easy to contribute, and shine. For Vox Machina, the Ranger usually drove shop negotiations.

 

[benensky]

How many times does Mike want to redo 4e?

Good point. and why beat a dead horse. Everyone knows he did not like 4E, why can't he let it go. He created his edition. Why isn't he happy with that?

 

[Imaro]

Good point. and why beat a dead horse. Everyone knows he did not like 4E, why can't he let it go. He created his edition. Why isn't he happy with that?

Wasn't he answering a question posed by someone else?