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.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

I would, alternatively, posit that is always the case, and any attempts to create a "truly" objective resolution mechanic are an illusion that will at most tables end up being the same thing in effect. Having a DM controlled structure doesn't take away from agency, but gives it a context to work. If there is a mismatch between DMs and players, that is a personal issue that a system can't fix.

Again, I will point to Matt Mercer on Critical Role as a very good example of how I have always experienced DMing, and apparently according to WotC most people do.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Okay I have to ask this before I answer more deeply... exactly what genre logic is 4e action resolution informed by?

EDIT: And just to make sure I'm on the same page... where exactly is the genre that 4e draws from communicated clearly to the player/DM?

 

[Manbearcat]

Couple things.

1) You’re using the term “objectively” here in a way I wasn’t intending in the post you quoted. I meant Objective in terms of establishing a setting-baselined, internal causality to the DC numbers; eg “Objective phenomena” from the viewpoint of someone within the setting. Therefore, when players are evaluating prospective action declarations, their mental framework is anchored by that (contrast with “genre logic” or a mental framework calibrated to “what could be possible by someone in that genre”).

2) As to your post above, the statement of “any attempts to create a truly objective resolution mechanic is an illusion”, my only thought is “this person has not played a wide variety of games and is assuming the TTRPG paradigm they’ve been exposed to and internalized is the only working/true model.” Is that true? If so, I can suggest dozens of games to play that would hopefully (if you’re open to it) challenge your conception and enrich your present gaming.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Mike, if you're gonna make D&D Tactics, then how about Simply D&D?

4E was basically a different game than D&D. Like the other D&D-branded offshoots, such as the D&D Cooperative Board Games, D&D Parlor Games, or D&D Miniatures games, it was basically a D&D branded MMORPG-inspired tactical game. It was boldy and well crafted in that regard, but it just wasn't D&D, as such.

If Mearls and WotC want to craft other games which bear a D&D brand, but are actually different games than the TRPG, I'm all for it. But what I'd personally like to see, rather than an even more granular tactical game, would be an even *less* granular "D&D Storytelling Game" with a complexity akin to Hasbro's Tails of Equestria RPG. A fully-fledged, but ultra-streamlined TRPG experience, and not just for kids. Let's call it, say, "Simply D&D" or "Tales of the D&D Multiverse--A Storytelling Game."

Design parameters for this D&D Storytelling Game:
*It looks like D&D...if you blur your eyes. It uses all the poly dice, has 6 ability scores, HP, AC, maybe a Saving Throw, and not much else.
*Possibly no math at all. Except for maybe adding and subtracting Hit Points. (Like Tails of Equestria.)
*Battles are designed to be resolved in possibly just one (or a few) rolls. Fights last no longer than the real time it takes for a typical fight scene in a film or novel to be resolved.
*PCs don't die when defeated, unless a story twist calls for it. Perhaps all PC deaths are consensual.
*Characters begin with only two or three powers (maybe: culture power, class power, + one chosen power).
*All choices can be randomly rolled if the player wishes. There's a random table for character creation.
*Gain exactly one power each level. A spell is a power. By 20th level (20 sessions), a character will still only have 22 powers.
*Spell lists either trimmed to iconic Basic D&D list, and/or synthesized and somewhat abstracted like True 20 spells or DDM spells.
*No XP bean counting - just level up after every session.
*Except for marquee items, treasure is abstracted as Treasure Level or something.
*Simply D&D is kinda like Lone Wolf or Super Endless Quest, but still a TRPG.
*Except for special equipment. a party (or solo character) is assumed to have "coincidentally remembered" every kind of ordinary equipment necessary for the adventure. Including a 10' pole, if there is a hazard which calls for it. Its presence is retconned in the moment: "Hey, good thing I carried this 10' foot pole with us."
*No counting of rations, water, or arrows. Only starve or run out of ammo if a story twist calls for it.
*Encumbrance similarly streamlined.
*Designed for a complete story to last no more than 1 or 2 hours. In fact, there could be a timer with the game to make sure! (Or maybe not.)
*Is presented as a comprehensive and legitimate "lens" on the entire D&D Multiverse, which is distinct from the "5e lens." (Like how BECMI D&D was officially held to be a different "reality", wherein there were only four human classes and three demihuman races in the whole world.)
* However, unlike BECMI D&D, this D&D Storytelling Game would theoretically include every race and class ever seen in the D&D Multiverse (because it's fun to choose race & class, and to see new races and classes to chose from)...but each race and class would be streamlined into a much less granular "one power per level."
*Any class can be multiclassed at any level. Just choose Class Power from that class list and voila!
*Perhaps (like PF2), all or some racial/cultural powers can be chosen at any level, to form "multiraced/multicultural" characters. And justified by a retcon: "Hey, I just learned that my great grandfather was a dwarf. I'm going to start exploring that heritage."
*Setting wise, the classic dungeons of the D&D Multiverse are represented as 1-to-2-hour long "television episode / novella / film"-sized stories, completable in a single session. Even mega-dungeons are narratively condensed, where various key scenes of the iconic dungeon are played out, but separated by "cut scenes" which are just retroactively narrated in a quick paragraph of boxed text.
*World hopping from the start. Everyone is a member of the Adventurer's Guild (from AC1: The Shady Dragon Inn). (Like Pathfinder Society.) The Adventurer's Guild spans the entire Multiverse, including the more inaccessible worlds such as Athas. The Adventurer's Guild has planar teleportation (and chronomantic time-travel) resources to get the players anywhere, in any time. It is an assumed trope that the party is sent on adventures throughout the Multiverse, even from first level. That's just part of the game.
*As for products: the modules are printed in a small format (say, 7x10-inch). Could be softcover (cheaper) or hardcover (if Hasbro's business model requires a bit higher price point). Either way, the Simply D&D product line should be a lower price point.
*All modules are scalable from 1st level to 20th level (or possibly 36th level like BECMI or 40th level like 2e Epic), so that any series of Simply D&D modules could be used in any order of play. Has an appendix which gives scaled stats for every encounter. For example, the 1st level Tomb of Horrors, where Acerack is hardly more than a Skeleton with Wizard spell or two. (Sacrilege?! Well, that's pretty much how the Lich of the Fantasy Forest gamebooks was portrayed. Same for the Skeletor-looking Lich which Strongheart and the Kids easily defeated on the way into Castle Venger in the D&D View-Master story.)
*Besides the usual dungeon crawl modules and wilderness modules (Isle of Dread), there could be a sort of World Sampler (or "Worldbook") module, which takes the characters on a whirlwind adventure to iconic sites throughout a single D&D World, such as a Mystara Worldbook module which gives the players a map of the whole world, and has a plot hook which takes them to a scene or two in Threshold, then to Castle Amber, to Alphatia City, to the Savage Coast, to the Hollow World, to the Immortal City of Pandius on the moon, etc...all in one session! And the module comes with a "splatbook" appendix consisting of power options covering the unique races and classes of that world: "Hey, now that you've visited Mystara, you might pick up a level in Atruaghin Shamani or Darokin Merchant. Hey, and you discovered, when you picked up the Scent power, that one of your ancestors was a Lupin! Bow-wow!"
*Make a Simply D&D module for each of the iconic D&D novels (Icewind Dale, Dragons of Autumn Twilight, etc...or maybe even condense a novel trilogy into a single session! The War of the Lance in 2 hours!). Module comes with Simply D&D stats for the iconic characters of the novel (Drizzt, Raistlin, etc), scaled to the difficulty level seen in the novel, or you can play it with your own character, and scale all the encounters up or down using the appendix.)
*Really tie together the timelines of the D&D Multiverse, and play on that in a clever, "meta" way, using the existing concepts of "paraverses" or "tangents." Like: "For this module, we're going to visit the Curse of Strahd timeline of Ravenloft. Next module, we'll visit the Classic Timeline of Ravenloft!" See: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/timeline

That's the kind of D&D i'd like to play.

Lastly, I'm glad Mearls mentioned his Nentir Vale home game. I was averse to Nentir Vale during the 4E era - not because it wasn't a thoughtful and innovative campaign setting - I rather liked the Points of Light them and the synthesis of the various planes; but rather, because it purposely pushed out all other settings, and so it grated on me like FR. Yet now, I'd like to see Nentir Vale given the full campaign setting treatment, with a World map and everything - but as an equal peer of the other Classic worlds - Oerth, Mystara, and so forth.

 

[Parmandur]

Couple things.

1) You’re using the term “objectively” here in a way I wasn’t intending in the post you quoted. I meant Objective in terms of establishing a setting-baselined, internal causality to the DC numbers; eg “Objective phenomena” from the viewpoint of someone within the setting. Therefore, when players are evaluating prospective action declarations, their mental framework is anchored by that (contrast with “genre logic” or a mental framework calibrated to “what could be possible by someone in that genre”).

2) As to your post above, the statement of “any attempts to create a truly objective resolution mechanic is an illusion”, my only thought is “this person has not played a wide variety of games and is assuming the TTRPG paradigm they’ve been exposed to and internalized is the only working/true model.” Is that true? If so, I can suggest dozens of games to play that would hopefully (if you’re open to it) challenge your conception and enrich your present gaming.

In game, "objective" is what is determined by the DM. A good DM does this in a satisfactory way, a bad DM does this in an unsatisfactory way. The good DM will make reasonable judgements on the really tiny table of DCs that make common sense to the players in the game world as presented. The DMG does go a bit into how to set DCs based on genre, at the DMs discretion. There are only about 4 or 5 DC difficulty ratings, so it really doesn't need much systematization.

It is less lack of experience, and more satisfaction with that style.

 

[Manbearcat]

Okay I have to ask this before I answer more deeply... exactly what genre logic is 4e action resolution informed by?

EDIT: And just to make sure I'm on the same page... where exactly is the genre that 4e draws from communicated clearly to the player/DM?

To be brief, roughly (in terms of scope and default thematics):

Heroic Tier is about plucky, resilient adventurers saving the town’s officials and inhabitants from the devil worshipping clan (Character Themes engage with this).

Paragon Tier is about big damn heroes saving the King and Kingdom from the scourge of the Red Dragon and it’s agents embroiled in the kingdom’s midst (Paragon Paths engage with this).

Epic Tier is about mythical beings of legend engaging with the cosmological forces of the Dawn War (Primordials and Elder Spirits being 4e unique) and finding The PCs place in the conflict (Epic Destinies engage with this).

 

[Imaro]

To be brief, roughly (in terms of scope and default thematics):

Heroic Tier is about plucky, resilient adventurers saving the town’s officials and inhabitants from the devil worshipping clan (Character Themes engage with this).

Paragon Tier is about big damn heroes saving the King and Kingdom from the scourge of the Red Dragon and it’s agents embroiled in the kingdom’s midst (Paragon Paths engage with this).

Epic Tier is about mythical beings of legend engaging with the cosmological forces of the Dawn War (Primordials and Elder Spirits being 4e unique) and finding The PCs place in the conflict (Epic Destinies engage with this).

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?

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...

 

[Shasarak]

Even at 7th level and above? With double-digit spells per day + scrolls, wands etc?

A 7th level Magic-User only has 10 spells per day soI guess yes they could Fly and Fireball in the same day. But reliably having scrolls and wands to use, no I dont think you can draw that conclusion especially if you look at the random treasure tables you have a 4% chance of a wand.

No. An AD&D fighter can make 2 attacks in a round (3 if very high level in the post-weapon-specialisation era). There is an exception for kobolds, goblins, giant rats and basic men-at-arms. Conan does this with were-hyenas. I don't think I've ever seen these statted up in AD&D, but I take it as given that they would not be less than 1 HD - more likely 4 to 6 HD, given that wolves are 2+2, werewolves are 4+3 and hyenas are 3 HD.

If Conan is mowing them down then I can only assume that they must be 1-1 HD at most, furry goblins if anything.

Have you GMed AD&D? Or played much of it? If you had you'd be aware that there is a significant range of foes between giant rats and liches.

I can not say that I have ever GMed ADnD. The only games that I have run was when I was the DM so maybe that was the problem, playing a different version of the game?

In any case, yes in both of our versions of our games you have different types of monsters although I do remember a version where you could mow down swarms of 1hp Liches

Also, Conan is typically able to kill a lich in one blow. In AD&D a lich has 11 8-sided HD. No one-blow kills for AD&D Conan!

I wonder if that is more to do with Fiction not translating accurately between a Story and a Game. Would we expect to see a 5 round ADnD fight written in a story blow for blow exactly as it played out? Doubtful. Would we expect to see a Conan 1 hit KO of a Lich play out the same way in a 1 minute per round ADnD fight? Doubtful.

Would you expect them to be the same? Not reasonably. Gary and Dave never sat down to try and directly translate a story into game form after all.

If the intention is that the player of the MU should be the one who gets to shape operational decision-making and determine the flow of play, then yes!

I would imagine that it is up to the Players to decide how the game plays out.

I must admit that it often baffles me when I see complaints about Magic Users being able to "impact" the fiction with their spells what one expects a Fighter to do in a similar situation? If a Magic User casts Fly then does a Fighter get to literally pull themselves up by their boot straps Baron Munchausen style?

 

[MwaO]

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.

4e has a page of rules about how the DM should accomplish this on page 42 of DMG. It makes suggestions about likely overall suggested outcomes and DCs to set.

So if someone wanted to spend an encounter power to leap on the Beholder and grab its eyestalks, I know exactly how I'd resolve that. Make an appropriate attack roll, do a W with your weapon, then get to grab the Beholder with a free hand until EoNT. While grabbed, Beholder's is at a -2 to hit period and a -2 to attack the grabber. Throw in a mark and you've now done something reasonably exciting and effective. If it were an at-will, I'd make it just do Str damage and no -2 to attack the grabber.

If it were a higher level encounter power, do more damage or more of a penalty to hit. Etc...and the exact numbers I'd get from page 42. Distracting the guard is a hard check with Athletics and an easy Bluff check. Jump on the table and over the Dwarf is Athletics as part of a move action. But the Dwarf can take an OA if it wants.

4e can be an extraordinarily flexible system for saying, "Tell me what you want to do and what kind of resource you're putting into it to make it happen."

 

[pemerton]

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.

You might have noticed that the people you are engaging with in this thread are emphasisng non-combat situations. I posted an example of such a situation (reforging a magic warhammer) and you replied to it.

In my RPGing experience, it's never been too hard to note effectiveness in a variety of situations - roughly, the bonuses on the sheet for non-combat abilities, the availability of salient fiat abiliites (eg spells or magic item effects, in D&D), etc.

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.

Given that you don't play a game where the system provides the best moments, this can only be empricial conjecture. I'm here to tell you it's false.

If you're wondering why/how, here's a rough analogue: sporting events can have standout moments even if no one cheats.

If the best moments in a game come exclusively from the mechanics... I might as well be playing a board game.

From this, I infer that you haven't played many RPGs with systems more connected to the fiction than the AD&D or 5e combat resolution systems.

Boardgames don't involve playing the fiction, and they don't generate ficiton accept as a possible epiphenomenon. RPGs are different in both respects. If you're not sure how a RPG system can be designed to both take fiction as input and yield fiction as output, then you might want to look at eg any system designed by Vincent Baker or Luke Crane; or Robin Laws' HeroWars/Quest; or any PbtA game; or Fate; etc.

And if you think that 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 is the same as 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 then you might also consider some of those system. What I said is very different from what you said in (at least) two ways: (1) I wasn't talking particularly about martial PCs; and (2) considerations of genre, tier, and PC capability from the pont of view of the fiction has almost nothing in common with setting limits and extrapolating from there.

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?

I would have thought the answer to that is obvious - because Elder Scrolls isn't a RPG, and so won't produce a shared fiction and permit engaging the fiction as part of the process of play.

If someone thinks that engaging the fiction in play is at odds with engaging the system, that makes me assume that the only system they are familiar with is AD&D-type combat (to hit vs AC, damage deducted from hp), which is a fiction-independent system.

where exactly is the genre that 4e draws from communicated clearly to the player/DM?

In the description of the tiers of play (which is found in both the PHB and the DMG). And in the fiction associated with paragon paths and epic destinies.

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.

Those are fine action declarations. AD&D gives me zero advice on how to adjudicate them. 4e gives very clear advice on how to adjudicate them.

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.

5e doesn't have a DC-per-level chart. 4e does.

How is this unique to 4e?

It's not. As I've posted multiple times already, the 4e non-combat resolution system is clearly modelled on earlier systems like those found in Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest.

I think that 5e is different from 4e in two respects: (1) there is no DC-by-level chart (5e does use levels for combat resolution, but not non-combat); (2) there is no closed-scene resolution system analogous to a skill challenge. In this respect 5e is closer to late 70s/early 80s systems like RQ, RM, etc than late 90s/early 2000s systems like the ones that influenced 4e's skill challenges.

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

Huh? (1) There are minion liches published in the 4e MM.

(2) There is no obstacle in 4e to adjudicating the outcome of a skill check, or a skill challenge, as being the "minonisation" of the lich. It's happened in my game on multiple occasions (not with respect to liches, but that's a matter of what's happened to come up, not a matter of principle).

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

The comparison can equally be made to 5e, which doesn't differ in any salient respect as far as statting up a lich, or resolving a combat between a fighter and a lich, is concerned.

I must admit that it often baffles me when I see complaints about Magic Users being able to "impact" the fiction with their spells what one expects a Fighter to do in a similar situation? If a Magic User casts Fly then does a Fighter get to literally pull themselves up by their boot straps Baron Munchausen style?

A fighter might jump - for instance, as per this passage from Tower of the Elephant:

A high wall enclosed this garden, and outside the wall was a lower level, likewise enclosed by a wall. No lights shone forth; there seemed to be no windows in the tower - at least not above the level of the inner wall. Only the gems high above sparkled frostily in the starlight.

Shrubbery grew thick outside the lower, or outer, wall. The Cimmerian crept close and stood beside the barrier, measuring it with his eyes. It was high, but he could leap and catch the coping with his fingers. Then it would be child's play to swing himself up and over, and he did not doubt that he could pass the inner wall in the same manner. . . .

Leaping lightly he grasped the wall and swung himself up to the top with one arm.​

Other examples: fighters are (notionally) the best at combat, yet it is wizards and not fighters that have a class ability that permits killing a foe without having to go through hp ablation. Wizards have abilities that enable them to issue powerful commands, extract oaths, etc (suggestion, geas, charm person) - there is no reason why fighters, as leaders, couldn't have comparable class abilities. Etc.

I wonder if that is more to do with Fiction not translating accurately between a Story and a Game.

<snip>

Would you expect them to be the same? Not reasonably. Gary and Dave never sat down to try and directly translate a story into game form after all.

From Gygax's DMG (pp 9, 21, 81):

a person of the nature which this game presupposes, i.e. an adventurer in a world of swords & sorcery . . .

it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic . . .

The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.​

Those are just some examples which at least suggest that the designers intended the play of the game to, in some fashin, emulate or be suggestive of sword and sorcery fiction.