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.

 

[Jester David]

Heh.
In the first page I said:

By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. Because people generally have an idea. You just set the limits (how much you can lift, how far you can jump) and people can extrapolate and fill in the blanks.

Prompting these replies from pemerton:

I really don't see much evidence in the history of RPGs that this way of approaching it provides dynamic and capable "martial" characters.

and

You're foucsing on the fiction. I'm focusing on the gameplay.

So it's funny to see him now drop:

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);​

Which was literally what I was talking about!

Also, while I'm dealing with that last post:

But there is also a very robust set of improvisation rules.

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.

There's probably two ways to adjudicate that.
Page 246 of the Dungeon Master's Guise has object AC and the following page has object hp. A DM could rule that if the thunderwave would have dealt enough damage to have destroyed the objected, a creature could have been hurled through the wall. In this case, it'd be a large object (a 10ft x 10ft panel), possibly fragile since you said timber and not stone. Or halfway between fragile and resilient. So, if the attack does 15-20 damage, the demon goes through.
Alternatively, page 238 of the Dungeon Master's Guise gives a list of typical DCs, from very easy to nearly impossible. Which is exactly the same as page 42 of the 4e DMG. So. in this instance, you pick the DC of the Typical DCs table and make an Arcana check.​

 

[Jester David]

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?

1) When did he EVER say he didn't like 4e?
He worked on 4e for the entire lifespan of the edition and is credited with over a dozen 4e products, including the very first one: Keep on the Shadowfell.

2) He was answering a direct question. While he worked on 4e, he wasn't the designer of the ruleset. Someone asked him what he would have done differently. He replied.

3) I'm sure he is happy with his edition... to an extent.
He's a creator. Creators are inherently unhappy with their creations, only seeing the flaws and stuff they didn't have time to fix, the problems they missed, and stuff they came up with better ideals for later.
Plus... creators like to create. He's not creating anymore, having "finished" 5e. Someone asked him a creative question. That's mental catnip...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the issue is that for some older players (players who played a long time ago), some of their best moments came when they asked DM-May-I... and the DM said yes! Some of the best actions/combats/encounters/etc. occurred because the players simply asked if they could do X,Y, & Z (usually something wild, crazy, or creative) and the DM adjudicated it.

Now, you can still do this in 4e (it took me a few years, but I finally got my players to try it), but what I found (and I think others too) is that players only wanted to do what their "powers" told them they could do. It was the easier approach to play and DM. I just didn't see as many exciting and creative approaches to problem solving.

I started to fall into that trap as DM and had to actively work to add back the improve skills I grew up with in D&D/AD&D. I then had to work harder to get my young players to try it.

You explained my feelings about 4e very well.

 

[Kite474]

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.

By that logic though whats the point of even using a system? If mechanics are that irrelevant to what actually leads to a games “good” moments

 

[Jester David]

By that logic though whats the point of even using a system? If mechanics are that irrelevant to what actually leads to a games “good” moments

I didn't say mechanics are irrelevant. Just that the best moments don't come exclusively from the mechanics. Or rather, the mechanics working as intended.

* The rules of the game and the system allow for fun between the moments of exceptional fun. Because you can't plan for the memorable/ exceptional.
* The rules provide a framework that sets-up the exceptional or unusual moments that become memorable. Often when a system breaks or does the unexpected, that's when the memorable occurs.
* The rules provide a randomisation element. The exact random element at the wrong time causes maximum memorability. Such as a chain of crits or fumbles.

You don't remember the combat where everyone rolled average and things proceeded like clockwork with no surprises, and everyone took an expected amount of damage while expending the nominal amount of resources. The textbook fight where the rules are all working seamlessly and as intended. It may be fun at the time, but you won't remember the details in a week or a month, let along ten years.

But you remember the fight where you rolled nothing lower than a 17 for six rounds including double or triple 20s, and the party devastated a high level monster. Or the fight against the goblin with 2hp left that survived against the entire party for three rounds because everyone kept wiffing.

Let's face it, the AD&D system isn't that good. Playing it by-the-book wasn't always fun. (Did anyone follow all the rules?) Especially compared to the tight clockwork that is 4e. And yet the gonzo randomness of 1e and unpredictability of 1e caused so many memorable encounters and moments and stories.

 

[Zaukrie]

I really liked the combat in 4e. Much more interesting than stand around and swing and hit (or miss) until death on one side.....5e has somewhat gone backward in that regard.

Frankly, I find the NEED of D&D to be generic kind of boring. I'd really like classes to be much more flavorful and have their mechanics driven more by the story and setting. I get why it isn't that way, but it really waters them down for me.

Also, for my games, every mage/wizard/cleric having access to all the spells (mostly) is boring.......witches and warlocks and generalists should all have different spells and powers, and there should be some spells only specialists get (like ward vs damage vs control spells).

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

4e adjudication of using Thunderwave to throw a target through a wall of timbers is as follows:

1) Follow genre logic. Is this genre appropriate for Tier. If so, then...

2) Blocking Terrain and the player is looking to turn it into a Hindering Terrain:

Arcana Check vs Medium or High DC for Level depending on Effect sought by player (failure inducing some kind of negative consequence for the “recoil”; At-Will status effect, perhaps Slide 2, CA or Prone UEoYNT)

Success = Hindering Terrain Effect. Save to be Prone right outside. Difficult Terrain in the squares formerly occupied by the wall. If failed, Prone inside of the DT and 3/6/9 (Tier) damage if you end turn in the Hindering Terrain.

Before you improv any sort of terrain effects, 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. This is before navigating Action Economy concerns or establishing Terrain Effects (where 5e isn’t exactly robust!).

I’ve navigated dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Terrain Stunts via Forced Movement in 4e. I’ve navigated 3ish (that I can recall) for the Diviner and Fighter I’ve GMed in 5e. It’s much more difficult to coherently/consistently adjudicate and less robust in 5e vs the same action declaration in 4e.

The designers could have reversed that by (a) saying outright “USE GENRE LOGIC” for your DCs and (b) here is a robust list of standard terrain effects and their effective level. Sorting out the cost or complicationon failure is the least intrusive and most intuitive (and often most fun part of) part of GMing so guidance on that need not be significant.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I just wanted to reply here to just state that all of my opinions above are just my own views and I know that my perspective and how I think is more in the minority compared to most other people.

Such is the nature of being an autistic gamer. For me, and many like me... The more clearly understood the rules are presented, clarified, and structured, the better off I am in understanding and Seeing how best I can use them to create narrative and story experiences while gaming.

This is why 5e (and games very similar) as a whole, makes little sense to me and I feel that it strips my player agency away.

 

[Parmandur]

4e adjudication of using Thunderwave to throw a target through a wall of timbers is as follows:

1) Follow genre logic. Is this genre appropriate for Tier. If so, then...

2) Blocking Terrain and the player is looking to turn it into a Hindering Terrain:

Arcana Check vs Medium or High DC for Level depending on Effect sought by player (failure inducing some kind of negative consequence for the “recoil”; At-Will status effect, perhaps Slide 2, CA or Prone UEoYNT)

Success = Hindering Terrain Effect. Save to be Prone right outside. Difficult Terrain in the squares formerly occupied by the wall. If failed, Prone inside of the DT and 3/6/9 (Tier) damage if you end turn in the Hindering Terrain.

Before you improv any sort of terrain effects, 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. This is before navigating Action Economy concerns or establishing Terrain Effects (where 5e isn’t exactly robust!).

I’ve navigated dozens upon dozens upon dozens of Terrain Stunts via Forced Movement in 4e. I’ve navigated 3ish (that I can recall) for the Diviner and Fighter I’ve GMed in 5e. It’s much more difficult to coherently/consistently adjudicate and less robust in 5e vs the same action declaration in 4e.

The designers could have reversed that by (a) saying outright “USE GENRE LOGIC” for your DCs and (b) here is a robust list of standard terrain effects and their effective level. Sorting out the cost or complicationon failure is the least intrusive and most intuitive (and often most fun part of) part of GMing so guidance on that need not be significant.

I read this, and all I see on the 5E side is the pro of flexibility, no real cons. Bounded Accuracy means that the difficulty is "objective," as the DM sees it for their own game. So, fuzzy and under human control.

 

[Manbearcat]

I read this, and all I see on the 5E side is the pro of flexibility, no real cons. Bounded Accuracy means that the difficulty is "objective," as the DM sees it for their own game. So, fuzzy and under human control.

Please don’t take this as me trying to be a jerk (I’m really not), but I don’t know how else to respond to what you just typed.

“Objective as the DM sees fit for their game” is either unparsable or it’s an oxymoron. If I was a player walking into a session and was told that the role of GM mediation in action resolution is as you put it above, there wouldn’t be a single action declaration that I could make where I would have an a priori notion of how things are going to turn out. I feel like that is the opposite of both agency and immersion. The “flexibility” in this case looks remarkably like a mandate to and the means for the GM to control action resolution outcomes (and therefore any plot trajectory), putting players in an extraordinarily passive position during play.