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.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Practically the ability which never makes it into actual play is wasted space in the current context of the story (that is a game driven answer yes)

Sure. I'm not arguing for Gygaxian naturalism over all things. Nor am I arguing for 3E style stat blocks, where the monsters were built in the system and had as much detail as a PC.

However if you want write them all up with things from how they are at all tiers (with a tier of farmer/apprentice level being populated by level 1 minions.

Tiers of play is very, very much a 4E concept. It was hinted at in BECMI due to the way those books were published but not really part of the game otherwise.

Shrug its kind of ridiculous to worry about why the 1e soldier in the monster manual didnt have an elaborated strength - doing the same thing with minions is not less so.

Not quite sure what you're arguing here, but that's not the point I was trying to make. In 1E and 2E, monster stat blocks were decidedly thinner than monster stat blocks were in 3E, which was the pinnacle of the complete stat block. The issue is that, in the 4E framework and unlike essentially any other edition, an ogre has grossly different stats. According to @pemerton, fiction says the ogre is the same ogre but the representation of the ogre shifts. I'm not saying that's wrong. From a game-mechanical standpoint it might be useful. If you like it, knock yourself out, but it's one of those aspects of 4E that often rubbed people the wrong way. Other people found the 4E design very liberating. As I've said before, I thought 4E had some good ideas but overall disliked it and hated DMing it.

I had played RuneQuest before D&D the D&D people thinking they were doing anything naturalistic always made me laugh.

Gygaxian naturalism (as defined in the link I provided) is NOT realistic. It doesn't pretend to be. The reason I used "secondary reality" is because there's an internal consistency to it. Keep on the Borderlands is probably one of the best illustrations of that. It really doesn't make sense in a larger scheme of things. I mean, where to those monsters get food from? But it does in terms of how Gygaxian dungeon areas work, with the Great Chain of Being of monsters living in caverns, raiding the road, and causing problems sufficient to draw in adventurers.

 

[Garthanos]

Tiers of play is very, very much a 4E concept. It was hinted at in BECMI due to the way those books were published but not really part of the game otherwise.

Short hand for broadly different levels having broadly different appropriate adversaries and defenses why the hell do you care about the word? I was saying take every ability you find on an ogre in 4e where they have interesting abilities not 1e, now write those abilities so they end up being harder based on the enemy applied to. The generalist advancement in 4e leads into this everyone is better at avoiding getting their head smashed in by that ogre (insert more interesting ability)

A Head Smash does the Solos effect against someone with say the defenses of a level 1 to 4 characters can be expected to have.... but not basically missing unless ... he chooses an easier move when he is up against more awesome enemies.

Or are you honestly thinking this word made a huge difference in the description?

Yes you did ignore entirely the presentation of minionization as just the adjustments from the perspect of an out classed character.

 

[Garthanos]

Note a 1e fighter got extra attacks because his enemies were low hit die...

Sounds like an adjustment to fighting ability based on adversaries broadly defined relative
level.

Or even a maneuver he couldnt even attempt against higher level foes.

 

[Garthanos]

a.) Epic destinies are not a requirement for mythic fantasy... Epic boons serve the same function.

I do not think they have the same concept one is encouraging a story role and encouraging you to think in terms of a goal

People mentioned the idea of the game presenting something to aspire to (brought up with regards to wizard spells they probably never end up getting) sure it has an associated set of benefits but it looks different to me.

Paragon Paths are like being able to pick what kicks in at Name level where as it was bound to your class in 1e. Flavor wise like a mixture of earning a title and getting to marshal troops....

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Short hand for broadly different levels having broadly different appropriate adversaries and defenses why the hell do you care about the word?

I don't follow. I was simply noting that having tiers of play being a such a central game concept was not in other versions of the game.

I was saying take every ability you find on an ogre in 4e where they have interesting abilities not 1e, now write those abilities so they end up being harder based on the enemy applied to. The generalist advancement in 4e leads into this everyone is better at avoiding getting their head smashed in by that ogre (insert more interesting ability) <...> Or are you honestly thinking this word made a huge difference in the description?

No, I totally agree that's how 4E was designed. Not liking something isn't the same as not understanding something. You are, of course, quite free to think differently.

Yes you did ignore entirely the presentation of minionization as just the adjustments from the perspect of an out classed character.

I don't think I ignored it, I disagreed with it, at least from the Gygaxian naturalism perspective that I was describing. I noted, more than once, that minionization can be game mechanically useful. However, if one takes something like naturalism even remotely seriously, minionization is problematic: Purportedly the same creature has drastically different stats. A regular ogre can take quite a beating but a minion ogre is a one hit wonder. Fights between two ogres who are regular can last a while while fights between two minions involve a bunch of misses and one messy death. To many people, this feels quite wrong. I understand the reason for why it's used, much as swarms are used to represent hordes of weenie monsters. However, I felt it was all too often very arbitrarily applied.

A naturalist perspective assumes that there's an external (albeit fictional), largely self-consistent world separate from the PCs. The 4E perspective (call it anti-naturalist I guess) is very much that the only value elements in the game have is how they interact with the PCs. If something doesn't interact with the PCs it pretty much doesn't deserve stats at all. Hence most NPCs not having any stats. One can take naturalism way too far, with 3E's stat blocks being a prime example. For me, 4E went way too far the opposite way.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't follow. I was simply noting that having tiers of play being a such a central game concept was not in other versions of the game.

What would be unnatural as anything would be anything sentient NOT fighting with a different pace and method (or getting the same exact results if you prefer) when confronted by an enemy who very quickly demonstrates they are outclassed or whom they outclass.

The use of minions is a better simulation both of the fantasy fiction and it could be seen as factoring in the above in effect being less of a simplification which all D&D combat is(than having enemies fight the same way no matter who they are challenged by) they simulate both adversaries adjusting their fighting style based on the opponent's ability.

I repeat referring to a particular model as "natural" because you are used to it and that seems the only real excuse is silly.

 

[Garthanos]

that there's an external (albeit fictional), largely self-consistent world separate from the PCs. The 4E perspective (call it anti-naturalist I guess) is very much that the only value elements in the game have is how they interact with the PCs. .

its the only area you really need mechanics for... My npcs if they have been around a while have huge amounts of traits and if they are played well tons of value to the PCs

 

[Garthanos]

I think I will just say I do find the word "natural" to be an attempt to apply the naturalism fallacy... its hogwash.

 

[Garthanos]

Purportedly the same creature has drastically different stats.

A different fighting style like what happens when you can't find the openings for your awesome moves and take the simpler ones which are easier ... ie same stats (Strength etc) same size generally speaking same appearance same goals significantly different relative ability to whom they are facing.

 

[Garthanos]

Guys (and gals), we're 89 pages into this disucssion. While a very interesting debate that has wandered about the field of battle.... what's the point? what's the goal? Are we trying to make 4e less artificially balanced? Give 5e martial characters more flash, more high level power? Make a better mousetrap?

Oh I admit my ulterior motive is figuring out if the mousetrap called 5e can give me a few fs, we can call them function, flavor and feel of 4e and can be played in a way I feel matches my priorities including not having runaway casters. And exactly what hijinx I would have to do to get it. The game has some fascinating elements too though some in the play test were thrown out also.

It looks to be significantly fewer hijinx than trying to do it in 3e, so that is saying something. Combat being much closer ballpark is good. Yes skill challenges can be fairly portable but rituals were not improved nor is monster design nor is many other things from what I can tell.