D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Parmandur]

It does. It gives thematic ideas, flavour ideas (THE Minotaur, etc.). It doesn't give anything about how to mechanically alter the game to fulfill these themes. That would have been a very useful module in what was supposed to be a very modular game.

It does indeed say what to do: change the narrative positioning as desired.. The math stays the same. If the DM decides that in this game, for this genre, that a given action is a DC 15, so be it, the path forwards is clear. Nothing else is needed mechanically.

 

[Eric V]

The framework is all there. Certainly some expansion of the advise would be nice: maybe in the next Xanathar's style book, maybe in a setting book (since they are touting "setting books" now as "genre expansion books").

It's a pretty bare fw, I suppose; page 238 in the DMG talks about difficulty class only in "If you find yourself thinking this is very hard," but provides no frame of reference for what distinguishes "Very Hard" from "Hard."

In the descriptions of the skills in the PHB, it would have been actually helpful to both players and DMs to have examples of what could be accomplished at the different DC levels. Previous versions of the game (3e, I believe) had that and made adjudicating things easier. Again, I'm not sure why it would be controversial to point this out.

 

[Imaro]

In the descriptions of the skills in the PHB, it would have been actually helpful to both players and DMs to have examples of what could be accomplished at the different DC levels. Previous versions of the game (3e, I believe) had that and made adjudicating things easier. Again, I'm not sure why it would be controversial to point this out.

It's not controversial to point out 3e did this... it is controversial to assume everyone wants the designers to decide what in their campaign is hard vs. very hard. By deciding this independently I am deciding the tone, mood, etc. of my campaign world.... and avoiding silliness like the diplomancer from 3.5

 

[Parmandur]

It's a pretty bare fw, I suppose; page 238 in the DMG talks about difficulty class only in "If you find yourself thinking this is very hard," but provides no frame of reference for what distinguishes "Very Hard" from "Hard."

In the descriptions of the skills in the PHB, it would have been actually helpful to both players and DMs to have examples of what could be accomplished at the different DC levels. Previous versions of the game (3e, I believe) had that and made adjudicating things easier. Again, I'm not sure why it would be controversial to point this out.

But that's just it, that is entirely the judgement of the DM. The DM is the frame of reference, the referee of reality. 3.x overdetermined what was doable by ability checks, 5E makes it a free-form decision that is completely malleable to the table's playstyle. The game could provide more advise, but at a certain point it becoems restrictive and counter-productive.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not controversial to point out 3e did this... it is controversial to assume everyone wants the designers to decide what in their campaign is hard vs. very hard. By deciding this independently I am deciding the tone, mood, etc. of my campaign world.... and avoiding silliness like the diplomancer from 3.5

While still allowing said diplomancer for people who roll that way. Elegance in action resolution.

 

[Eric V]

But that's just it, that is entirely the judgement of the DM. The DM is the frame of reference, the referee of reality. 3.x overdetermined what was doable by ability checks, 5E makes it a free-form decision that is completely malleable to the table's playstyle. The game could provide more advise, but at a certain point it becoems restrictive and counter-productive.

Giving examples for frame of reference wouldn't throw out the responsibility of the DM to make the call; it would just make it a better call. The DM is a human, who makes mistakes, who might think certain things in reality are harder/easier than they are. To help correct that, give examples of what a DC 25 acrobatics check can accomplish, that's all. Then, maybe something like "All examples of Very Hard should probably be Hard" in mythic-themed games. That helps the DM run the game, but doesn't stop the DM from being "the referee of reality" as you pointed out; it only helps.

I mean, I'm buying a product, right? I should get more than "Eh, figure it out yourself."

 

[Parmandur]

Giving examples for frame of reference wouldn't throw out the responsibility of the DM to make the call; it would just make it a better call. The DM is a human, who makes mistakes, who might think certain things in reality are harder/easier than they are. To help correct that, give examples of what a DC 25 acrobatics check can accomplish, that's all. I mean, I'm buying a product, right? I should get more than "Eh, figure it out yourself."

"Make a judgement call, and here is a mathematical framework to carry that call out."

The math is the hard part. The DMG even suggests only ever using 10, 15 and 20 as DC in actual play. Slotting actions into "Yes it works with no roll/on a 10/15/20, or NO" is pretty easy for the average DM to do on the fly, and in practice (again, not theory) has not proven a problem.

Again, maybe some suggestions, and scalability suggestions for genre, would be a nice to have for a supplement down the line. But hardly necessary.

 

[Garthanos]

It does. It gives thematic ideas, flavour ideas (THE Minotaur, etc.). It doesn't give anything about how to mechanically alter the game to fulfill these themes. That would have been a very useful module in what was supposed to be a very modular game.

Yup its the talk is cheap phenomena...

 

[Imaro]

Giving examples for frame of reference wouldn't throw out the responsibility of the DM to make the call; it would just make it a better call. The DM is a human, who makes mistakes, who might think certain things in reality are harder/easier than they are. To help correct that, give examples of what a DC 25 acrobatics check can accomplish, that's all. Then, maybe something like "All examples of Very Hard should probably be Hard" in mythic-themed games. That helps the DM run the game, but doesn't stop the DM from being "the referee of reality" as you pointed out; it only helps.

I mean, I'm buying a product, right? I should get more than "Eh, figure it out yourself."

This right here is the problem... whose reality are we basing these numbers off of?

 

[Parmandur]

Yup its the talk is cheap phenomena...

Yet the game walks the walk in actual play...hmmmm...