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

[pemerton]

4E is a funny comparison, since I agree with @Hussar that 5E uses the 4E system with some evolution. That evolution, however, is towards a more fast and loose approach to non-combat action resolution that I would call more free-form (combat resolution is also a bit less buttoned down).

I think I'm missing what the more "fast and loose" consists in.

Both games involve, at their core, setting a DC from a list informed by a sense of fictional context + genre/tropes. The main difference I'm conscious of is the lack of a skill challenge framework in 5e.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not sure how this really differs from any of the following games:

For the most part, it doesn't. I mean, this kind of "skill check" is pretty standard traditional rpg tech. Throw Fate in there, as well. For most of these systems, the primary determinant of difficulty is GM determined. Of course, systems vary as to the methods they give the GM for determining those difficulties. 3.5e had pretty specific details for a lot of skills (although trying to use the skills in novel manners often put you in uncharted territories.) Fate, on the other extreme, has a very loosely-defined difficulty scale that lets the same chart work for very divergent settings (What is "+5 Superb"?). 5e leans closer to Fate in that regard.

4e is a little different with its treadmill DCs, kind of a numerical hybrid between the static check of 2e (roll under your score) and the common one?

The crux of the matter is whether "Difficulty" (in most of these games) is correlated to some aspect of the fictional positioning. How difficult is it to Jump 10'? The more closely-defined the DCs are, the more "locked in" the system is to the particular genre it will create.

4e isn't nearly as loose as 5e in this regard, but it does "lock in" the system fairly well with its suites of powers and expectations for those actions. If anything, the complaint about 5e not allowing martials to have nice things, is based on the comparative lack of such specification.

Contrast with "Static" Methods:
Apocalypse Engine, where there are no DCs, and if the GM wants to make it more difficult, they have to zoom in and ask for more rolls (if that's even available narratively).

Capes, you just succeed (or at least narrate the act), but it may or may not affect the eventual outcome of the Conflict in question. The numbers and die rolls involved have no correlational relationship to the fictional positioning involved. (There is no GM)

Strike! you roll a d6 and consult a generic chart for the generically described results (one chart for unskilled and another for skilled), which includes partial success, etc. In this case, the GM can only forbid the action as impossible.

To my eyes, most of the games using these systems care far less about the fine details of the fictional positioning and tactics. The mechanics tend to act to redirect the fiction in more general terms. In some cases, an entire fight can be handled with one roll.

 

[Parmandur]

I think I'm missing what the more "fast and loose" consists in.

Both games involve, at their core, setting a DC from a list informed by a sense of fictional context + genre/tropes. The main difference I'm conscious of is the lack of a skill challenge framework in 5e.

The flattened math from the Bounded Accuracy approach, primarily: Very Hard is DC 25 at Level 1 and Level 30.

Also, the less defined approach as to what counts in each catagory and leaving it entirely up to the DM.

 

[Imaro]

Sure. The population of players who play games that are not D&D derivatives is smaller, but I do not see how that speaks to diversity of play or how flexible the games are in play. All of that speaks to the size of the play culture. It does not meaningfully address diversity of play or ability to use the game for dramatically different purposes. Diversity and population size are not meaningfully correlated.

This does not bear out to my actual lived experiences of playing games like Apocalypse World where I do not have an monster stats or combat rules to hide behind or Blades in the Dark where what magic is capable of gets defined through play. When Vincent Baker released Apocalypse World and everyone remarked on the GM section John Harper was like isn't that just how you GM. I mean it is not like I become this different person when I run Apocalypse World rather than say Pathfinder or I belong to some insular bubble. We are all part of a larger hobby and bring our experiences with us.

Aren't these games supposed to be run with strict principles and procedures?

Nearly every GM of a game like Blades has been a GM of many other games, often one or several of the games sprung from Dungeons and Dragons. There are different expectations, but not more narrow ones. My experiences running games like Blades has informed my GMing of Fifth Edition and the opposite is also true.

I wouldn't the difference between being told to run a game with specific procedures and strict principles vs a game that espouses rule zero and the GM's ability to change any and everything be a comparison of narrow vs. broad? If not what would it be a comparison of?

Like I am honestly perplexed here. All systems our is a way to structure the conversation that forms play. Every game I play that handles things like the GM role or what part of the game we use mechanics for or when we go to the mechanics exposes me to new techniques and helps me improve my skills as a GM. Stuff like soft and hard GM moves from Apocalypse World or countdown clocks from Blades become tools in my toolbox for hacking and running other games. Just like 10 minutes turns from B/X are another tool in my toolbox when I need them. Sometimes I run games straight because I like trying on new techniques and seeing how everything works.

I don't care about system over the play experience. I care about system because I deeply care about the play experience.

Yes but the extent to which you are encouraged to use your wide range of tools in a particular game is different... right? I think it's a question of the game's overarching philosophy, advice, procedures, tone, processes and so on.

 

[Garthanos]

* 4e D&D (other than a few defined skill-uses - Acro to reduce falling damage, Athletics to establish jump distances on the tactical map);

4e had skill powers that basically established precedent for skill use being able to accomplish approximately the same scale of things periodically as the utility spells. In so doing they also had their own resource economy that parallel that of caster capability. Perhaps a daily utility of a wizard class might affect the entire party and an encounter one for a skill that affected only one subject. (or maybe the other way around might happen sometimes)

Skill challenges were of course another thing which established precedent of balance.

Regardless to me it looks like balance is what they want to call Wuxia.

 

[Garthanos]

4e isn't nearly as loose as 5e in this regard, but it does "lock in" the system fairly well with its suites of powers and expectations for those actions. If anything, the complaint about 5e not allowing martials to have nice things, is based on the comparative lack of such specification.

Yes you got this right. they also establish with those a sense of balance. The casters are not given this broad oh you spent a resource so you can be more powerful... handwave.

 

[Imaro]

I think I'm missing what the more "fast and loose" consists in.

Both games involve, at their core, setting a DC from a list informed by a sense of fictional context + genre/tropes. The main difference I'm conscious of is the lack of a skill challenge framework in 5e.

Well another difference is 4e's scaling of DC's with PC level.

 

[Garthanos]

Well another difference is 4e's scaling of DC's with PC level.

The 1e DMG recommended providing challenges appropritate to the power level of the party.... OMG so different do not look that the guy behind the curtain.

 

[Imaro]

The 1e DMG recommended providing challenges appropritate to the power level of the party.... OMG so different do not look that the guy behind the curtain.

Yeah and in 5e it's the same scale for skill usage irregardless of level... 4e you scale the DC's by level... Acyaully I'm not even sure exactly what your point is.

 

[Garthanos]

Those DCs scaling are about actually encountering more difficult things and you should be ashamed for pretending its some fundamental change to the game.