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...

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.
 

Maybe there is an assumption that low level spells won't contribute to weighty decision points? Or that more of them will be used per combat to keep up the caster's DPR?

Whatever one thinks of Mearls as a designer, it's hard to imagine that he didn't notice this pretty obvious mathematical feature of the game!

(The lack of an out-of-combat resolution mechanic to discipine the diviner's contributions only exacerbates the problem that you point to.)

It is hard to imagine that Mearls, Crawford et al couldn’t foresee that while you need to keep x (encounters per day) at a number where the fiction functions sensibly, keeping that value constant with an assymetric resource suite paradigm means that classes whose daily resources proliferate numerically and in breadth/scope/potency is going to put your constant value you’ve chosen for your daily attrition model under extreme duress at later levels.

The game was clearly (not exclusively, but nearly so I’d say) tuned for pre 11th level play (because their data said getting that right was the most important thing) and likely without certain Feats/ability combos in mind.

As you note above, conflict resolution mechanics shut down “win condition” abilities and end “Rock/Paper/Scissors” as a play paradigm (where spellcasters have historically had exclusive access to both). The issue with the Diviner, as I see it, is 3 * per day they automatically have the Rock to the Scissors scenario (or vice versa) on top of their amazing cosmic power (which also has huge staying power at endgame).

All spellcasters are amazing endgame (I’m certain of it), but this situation for the Diviner harkens to “The Generaliat” problem in editions of yore.

So what you're saying here boils down to "the Diviner is too powerful", is that it?

'Cause if so, I agree. :)

I think that IS part of a longer discussion ... although mayhaps he is saying it has a more general analog throughout the system with spell casters. Because of spells working the way they do or i think it might be indicative of designers not being careful because "balance isn't important anymore, wink wink" to the caster supremacists - attitude by the designers of 5e.

But he will probably elaborate better ;)

A dash of Lanefan, a pinch of Garthanos mixed vigorously with a cup of pemerton (absence of conflict resolution mechanics)!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That resource game doesn't depend on tracking time as Gygax describes it. It depends on knowing when an encounter ends; and knowing when the PCs take a long rest.

You can amp it up if you want to - nothing in 4e stops you from tracking rations, for instance, or tracking travel time across the wastelands - but the game doesn't require it. For instance, a trip across the wastelands can be framed as a skill challenge, and thus a single encounter and so no reuse of encounter powers, and the game will work fine - in fact, I would argue, better than it would if you actually tracked the time Gygax-style.

In that sort of play, the passage of time becomes simply colour. (There also needs to be colour to explain why the PCs can't get a proper extended rest. At heroic the colour I used was swamps, irritating insects, rain, etc; at paragon and epic the awful life-sapping environment, and chaotic forces, of the Underdark or Abyss or whatever horrible place the PCs found themselves in.)

I'm not really that interested in 4e's reception. I've participated in endless threads about that, and have expressed my own view - namely, that there is only limited market demand for a RPG that combines the indie sensibilities of Maelstrom Storytelling or HeroWars/Quest with the mechanical heaviness of Runequest or Rolemaster - but ultimately I don't pick what RPGs I play based on how many other people like them. I pick them based on my own view of what they have to offer me in terms of play experience.

But this is one of those respects where either 4e is the same, or different, but can't be both at the same time. If I'm in fact correct that 4e doesn't have a resource game like AD&D does, then I'm also correct that Gygax's injunction that you can't have a meaningful campaign without tracking time doesn't apply.

Of the seven systems for which I currently have active campaigns, or have run relatively recently, three require tracking time because it is an important resource and four treat time in the sense Gygax cared about it as simply colour.

Time is part of resolution
AD&D: healing, travel, wandering monsters, rations, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting, are all related to the passage of ingame time, and just as Gygax says managing time is an aspect of skilled play.

Burning Wheel: healing, training, and maintenance checks, plus some other less crucial stuff like crafting, all have costs in time, and so players have to make trade-offs (eg spending a lot of time on training will leave you not earning money, which then leaves you vulnerable to Resources depletion when it comes time to make a maintenance check). The GN also has an informal liberty in scene framing that follows from the passage of time: the more time the players spend having their PCs do stuff that doesn't thwart their nemeses, the more the GM can reframe the background situation adversely to the PCs without being unfair in doing so.

Classic Traveller: consumption of fuel by starships, healing, training, living expenses, saving throws to avoid the decrepitude that comes with age - all this is based on the passage of time. Given that living expenses probably won't be a big deal for most PCs, the main part of the game that makes time a resource is trying to earn enough money to meet repayments on the starship loan. Other than this, the passage of time isn't so much a resource as a bakcground thing that triggers these other happenings. (Of the systems I run, Traveller is the most simulationist.)

Time is really just colour and perhaps a bit of pacing
4e: recovery rates matter, but that can treated purely in terms of GM-mediated game play ("OK, now you get a short rest"; "OK, now you can take a long rest if you like" - at least at my table the GM-mediation often bleeds into straightforward group consensus). The connection of these rests to the passage of ingame time is pure colour, and not itself an input into resolution.

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic: everything is measured in Action Scenes and Transition Scenes, and time is purely colour. We've had transition scenes that correpsond to1 taking a rest in a dungeon room and transition scenes that correspond to spending days or weeks just hanging out. In mechanical terms those are identical.

Prince Valiant: time is just an element of colour that can alsoe be used for framing by the GM - eg as GM I'm within my rights to say "OK, you've been travelling through the forest for a while and are feeling hungry - let's have some Hunting checks to see what game you're able to catch" and if they fail the checks then I can impose Brawn penalties. But I'm equally entitled just to narrate "OK, after a week or so of riding you're back in Warwick." It's all GM-side management of pacing, colour, a fair sequence of challenges that evoke knightly adventure, etc.

Cthulhu Dark: when we played a session of this system, I had initially thought about using an old CoC module I have (the Vanishing Sorcerer) but a quick read of it suggested it was pretty bad and we could probably come up with something better spontaneously, and so we just made up the fiction as we went along. The passage of time was simply a matter of colour: I think our adventure spanned about 3 days, and at least one night passed without incident ("OK, it's tomorrow, who's doing what?") while one night invovled fitful dreams and then the PC waking up with her house on fire (which triggered some action declarations and checks). We didn't get to the point where the recovery of sanity rules kick in (at 5 pips on the sanity die, and we only got to 4), but they depend not on spending time as a resource but on performing certain actions.​

There is no general rule that time has to matter in RPGing; and no general rule that it has to matter in RPG systems that involve player-side resource management: 4e and MHRP/Cortex+ are both systems where the players have to manage resources, but the management is locked into the former's recovery structure and the latter's scene structure, neither of which depends upon tracking the passage of ingame time or treating it as a player-side resource. (Prinve Valiant does have player-side resources, but equipment and money are completely time-independent and closer to GM largesse, and Storyteller Certificates are also time-independent and utterly GM largesse.)

Finally, here's my least favourite way of handling time in a RPG: treating it as a player side resource while in fact everything that it matters to is managed by the GM offstage. In my personal experience, traditional FRPG asymmetric resource suites are especially prone to push play in this direction if the game has any sort of story/pacing dynamic to it (ie it's closer in tone to Dragonlance than Tomb of Horrors). My own personal experience with this is mostly from Rolemaster: the AD&D games I've run with that sort of dynamic have involved all "martial" parties and so haven't raised the asymmetry issue. In my first long RM campaign the group hit upon it's own solution - over time everyone played a spellcaster. In my second long RM campaign we changed various system aspects and play conventions to produce the result that, basically, a "martial" PC was pretty much as effective as a nova-ing caster.

But my subsequent experience with 4e and other systems without this headache mean that I would personally never go back to such a system. (The few times in the past few years when I've run a session of AD&D have been pure dungeon-crawl, which doesn't have the problem because there is no pacing to manage in such a game.)

The topic is about 4E's reception, and how one of the 4E designers speculated on how that reception could have been improved with other choices.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It's an interesting feature of RPGing that someone's imagining about their PC's never-to-be-realised-in-play future still needs to be mediated through PC build rules.

When I mentioned the impact of having a martial practice (which may be in the rarely played Epic Tier - I am hoping to get more) i do not think it has to be used to influence the players and dms assumptions about the world and their characters even much earlier. And if presented carefully the existence of practices to have the opposite impact of sectioning things off prescriptively.

And also even beyond "aspirational" having things evoke being the extremes of an oath bound honor and duty bound champion who returns when his people need him most when the game side of it has little need LOL
 

pemerton

Legend
No, this is a theoretical discussion, not one focused on praxis.
The topic is about 4E's reception, and how one of the 4E designers speculated on how that reception could have been improved with other choices.
Which is the real Parmandur?

EDIT: My first post in this thread is post 16 (by my count). I replied to a claim that "By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. " The ensuing 800+ posts have mostly (not solely) dealt with variations on that question. Most of mine have.

I don't think you can now accuse me of being off-topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Imaro

Legend
They're just action declarations. I don't use Martial Practices in my 4e game. (A difference between me and @Garthanos.)

So they are dependent upon whether the DM allows them to be a possibility. Which means in your game they may be feasible but in a different game run by a different GM they may not be. Correct?

My point is that if simpe action declarations resolved as skill checks can do things "comprable to raising the dead" or "opening portals to other planes" then Martial Practices can hardly make martial PCs less capable.

The Raise Dead ritual is available in heroic tier... level 8... I believe your examples are comparing action declarations of epic level characters and somehow claiming their ability to do that in epic tier makes them equally capable to a caster who can pull it off in heroic?? Huh?

My point in asking about whether they were Martial Practices was to give you a chance to show me there was something available at a comparable level for martial characters... guess not unless you are now claiming that your heroic tier martial characters can raise the dead... and if so how does that keep with the genre logic you claim informs your adjudication of martial action declarations?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Which is the real Parmandur?

EDIT: My first post in this thread is post 16 (by my count). I replied to a claim that "By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. " The ensuing 800+ posts have mostly (not solely) dealt with variations on that question. Most of mine have.

I don't think you can now accuse me of being off-topic.

Can't say I see the difference...?

This is a highly theoretical discussion, both about how 4E could have been different, and how the Fighter-Wizard action problem is more in theory craft than at tables.

I'm not saying that you are off-topic, but the reception of 4E is what this discussion has been about, at least on my part. Hence comparing it to 5E, not to say "5E is more popular" because that is dully obvious, but to ask "WHY is 5E received one way and 4E another?"
 

MwaO

Adventurer
This is a really interesting point, and it's a dimension of the "written to read rather than written to play" concept that I've never thought of before.

When I used to GM Rolemaster I found that a lot of high-level spells needed rebalancing - this was partly a matter of principle (I had time on my hands!) and partly because we were using ritual rules that allowed 15th to 20th level casters to bring 30th and higher level spells into play. I always attributed the lack of balance to little playtesting and poor maths, but I think your "aspirational" idea probably has something to do with it also.

It's an interesting feature of RPGing that someone's imagining about their PC's never-to-be-realised-in-play future still needs to be mediated through PC build rules.

Right. I think one of the big feature/bugs of Vancian casting is this idea that a Wizard goes from 'barely can cast anything' of some fantasy literature 'powerhouse Wizard' to being a 'Vancian demigod' — except, unlike any of that literature, they get to keep options from each of those set of levels.

When it should likely be more similar to Harry Potter's scenario of mostly cantrips+rituals, but a very small number of powerhouse Wizards can cast bigger options or trigger ritual options similar to the battle at the end of the books, and then a handful of Wizards can pull off the options that happen in the battle between Voldemort and Dumbledore.

(edit: and even for them, it isn't clear that they can maintain that level of power on a daily basis, but rather it takes a lot out of them, as Voldemort doesn't do it in the final battle)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Meh guys conversations wander around abit in the real world.

It occurs to me that aspirational - or inspirational, when it is somewhat in reach, I suppose is that when we talk about awesome paragon paths and epic destinies being gone from 5e isnt that what we are talking about being gone? Sure there were mechanics associated with all but not thinking that was as significant as the influence on the story.

In 1e your character got one paragon path (aka the Fighter got the castle on the hill) but in 4e that was opened up with player choices guiding the way.
 

Imaro

Legend
As to your other post: I don't know on what basis you say that I said, in another post, that "ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e." I didn't say that, and don't agree with it. I've posted multiple actual play examples in this thread that show why I don't agree with it. What post are you referring to? And is your view based on your own play experience?

Yes it is based on play experience (could have sworn I answered this already... maybe more than once). I played a wizard/swordmage hybrid ritual caster. And was able to influence the fiction in more decisive and broader ways than the martial PC's in the game.

The explanation for why ritual casting doesn't dominate play in 4e as I experience it is fairly straightforward. Domination in play can take two main forms: providing mechanical solutions to challenges; and shaping the context of play itself, determining what will count and what won't.

When resolution is taking place in the context of a skill challenge, a ritual is just another input from one player - even if it succeeds, it grants an automatic success and no more. The player of the martial PC also gets to declare actions. And if those actions are the key ones, that actually shape the outcome, then it is the martial PC who has driven things.

An auto-success vs having to roll for a skill... got it. Don't casters also get to declare actions just like martials? So they have the ability to shape the out come through bith auto-successes and action declarations... and if those action declarations or auto-successes are the key ones then it is the caster PC who has driven things (not sure what the point of this was on the end of your statement as it applies to martial and casters equally.).

One disconnect I'm having in discussing this with you is you seem to be framing the discussion around skill challenges but what about overcoming simple obstacles or not so simple obstacles that require action declarations? DO these not exist in your game because they are a part of 4e and I would say judging from published adventures and the advice in the DMG more common in gameplay than skill challenges... yet they are absent from your discussion on rituals and caster effectiveness.


So is the procedure for setting DCs in 4e and 5e the same, or not? Are the DCs in 5e set "in a purely gamist manner"?

Skill challenegs are not the same as setting a DC for a challenge in 4e or 5e I think you are confusing the two. In a SC the DC's are predetermined by the level and complexity of the skill challenge not by the actual capabilities, hazards, objects etc in the SC.

I don't really know what "gamist" means here - it seems to mean more than "by the rules" but I"m not sure what that more is - but in any event I think that the systems are quite different. In 4e the fiction tells you whether or not something is feasible - eg we know that the fighter/cleric can sway Yan-C-Bin, or the maruts, by intimidating them because we know that, in the fiction, he is an Eternal Defender who, following Torog's death, has taken on the mantle of god of pain and imprisonment. We then set a DC for that by looking at the chart.

Gamist refers to the fact that SC DC's (again you are confusing the procedures for the two as they are different in 4e) have their DC's set independently of the fiction but instead based on the challenge and complexity a DM wants the skill challenge to present to the players... then DC's a re assigned from those provided to the relevant fiction.

Why does taking on the mantle of god of pain and imprisonment along with being an "Eternal Defender" have anything to do with one's ability to sway Yan-C-Bin or the maruts through intimidation? Simple answer, because you decided it was a feasible action declaration in your game. It really is that simple.


In 5e there is no chart but I otherwise have no idea, even after reading all the posts in this thread, how the DC is set. No doubt the GM intuits how hard it is for someone to intimdate Yan-C-Bin and goes from there, but I personally have no intuition about such a thing. All I know is that if the DC is set at 25 or 30 on the basis that Yan-C-Bin is hard or near-impossible to scare then even a high level fighter seems unlikely to have much of a shot at it.

What Epic Boons or Alternative Rewards does the fighter have?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
They're just action declarations. I don't use Martial Practices in my 4e game. (A difference between me and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION].)

My point is that if simpe action declarations resolved as skill checks can do things "comprable to raising the dead" or "opening portals to other planes" then Martial Practices can hardly make martial PCs less capable.

As to your other post: I don't know on what basis you say that I said, in another post, that "ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e." I didn't say that, and don't agree with it. I've posted multiple actual play examples in this thread that show why I don't agree with it. What post are you referring to? And is your view based on your own play experience?

As to thinking that the invoker/wizard caster in my game doesn't leverage the rules well, please read these two actual play reports and then tell me what the weakness of play consists in.

The explanation for why ritual casting doesn't dominate play in 4e as I experience it is fairly straightforward. Domination in play can take two main forms: providing mechanical solutions to challenges; and shaping the context of play itself, determining what will count and what won't.

When resolution is taking place in the context of a skill challenge, a ritual is just another input from one player - even if it succeeds, it grants an automatic success and no more. The player of the martial PC also gets to declare actions. And if those actions are the key ones, that actually shape the outcome, then it is the martial PC who has driven things.

The first of the two actual play experiences shows the invoker/wizard taking the lead. He uses rituals as part of that, but not all of it. The second of the two actual play experiences shows the dwarf fighter/cleric taking the lead. He uses Intimidation and fighting to do that.

This is another illustration of the significance of closed scene resolution.

So is the procedure for setting DCs in 4e and 5e the same, or not? Are the DCs in 5e set "in a purely gamist manner"?

I don't really know what "gamist" means here - it seems to mean more than "by the rules" but I"m not sure what that more is - but in any event I think that the systems are quite different. In 4e the fiction tells you whether or not something is feasible - eg we know that the fighter/cleric can sway Yan-C-Bin, or the maruts, by intimidating them because we know that, in the fiction, he is an Eternal Defender who, following Torog's death, has taken on the mantle of god of pain and imprisonment. We then set a DC for that by looking at the chart.

In 5e there is no chart but I otherwise have no idea, even after reading all the posts in this thread, how the DC is set. No doubt the GM intuits how hard it is for someone to intimdate Yan-C-Bin and goes from there, but I personally have no intuition about such a thing. All I know is that if the DC is set at 25 or 30 on the basis that Yan-C-Bin is hard or near-impossible to scare then even a high level fighter seems unlikely to have much of a shot at it.

Another reason I don't see much real difference, other than not experiencing skill use as different when playing, is that I have seen the Skill Challenge system just taken and transplanted to 5e, and used with no problem. Matt Mercer runs Skill Challenges in Pathfinder and 5E on Critical Role, taking the rules straight from 4E straight as is. And it works fine. 4E can be played without really using the SC system, and the SC system can be thrown on 5E with little pain. The main difference is setting DCs, which is also basically the same (instead of consulting tables to come to a complex solution, here are five numbers, choose which one feels right: I wouldn't be surprised if people did that in 4E too).
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top