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

[Garthanos]

And gradually grokking it, and then incorporating some of it back into my D&D after we had played it through a few times.

I was playing lost worlds with my brother when I first found Amber a lot of things came together ... the concept of generalized methods which were like tactics. Ie situationally better or worse depending on a roshambo combinations merging with some diceless rules like resources you could allocate really fired up my brain.

All this very much hinged on small number of players

 

[Imaro]

So there are two reasons why the "Trickle Down Genre Creep" wouldn't be an issue in 4e:

1) I've run about 95 levels of 4e play (including a pair of 1-30 games). In all of that time, I've never seen a PC who could deploy the action resolution numbers necessary to make the maths work in any meaningful way. There primary reason for this is opportunity cost. 4e rewards you for breadth when it comes to investing in Utility (you get a lot of bang for your back there), but there are comparatively steep diminishing returns for trying to invest in the y-axis and piling on Skill numbers. Further, over-investing there will lead to under-investing in combat returns. And 4e combat is by far the D&D combat with the most tactical depth and related punishing nature for not building toward engaging with that to a reasonable degree.

Hmmm... @Garthanos seemed to imply that the numbers to reach a paragon level of DC's wouldn't be all that hard for a heroic 4e character to reach...

Paragon DC's...
Level 11 Easy(13)/Moderate(19)/Hard(27)
Level 20 18 25 34

Let's take a 4th level character with just the basics (No theme/background/feats/etc.)... 20 Ability (+5), 1/2 level (+2), Trained (+5)...

So to accomplish an early paragon easy task they have to roll a 1 or higher, moderate 7 or higher and hard task they need to roll... 15 or higher, not exactly beyond their ability to achieve at all.

Far end of paragon roll a 6 for easy, a 13 for moderate and they can't accomplish a hard task (though with magic and/or feats, utility powers, themes, backgrounds, etc it's probably doable... again no real hard barier mechanically.

2) Conflict framing in 4e isn't neutral. The GMing ethos of 4e is about proportionate escalating threats and stakes as the game progresses. This is the fundamental machinery of the Tier system, the themes, the cosmology, and the PC build machinery which is centered around it.

You aren't framing Heroic PCs against Paragon/Epic Tier obstacles and threats and vice versa. A Heroic Tier PC is not going to run into a level 21 Threat/Obstacle. A Paragon Tier PC is not going to run into a level 1 Threat/Obstacle.

So the situation just doesn't come up.

Ok... so DM force/choice/fiat/whatever doesn' allow the PC's to choose to interact with obstacles, threats, etc. that are higher then their tier...

This is the beating heart of the sort of Story Now/Step On Up pedal-to-the-floor action/adventure nature of 4e play.

Contrast with open world, serial exploration/hexcrawl play where the the magnitude upon play of theme/premise and conflict will vary wildly from moment to moment, from session to session.

5e is built to support the latter sort of play (which is "Classic D&D").

It seems to me that the main element in either edition preventing the lower mythic character from doing the same feats as the higher mythic character is the DM not actual mechanics.

EDIT: I think 5e is flexible enough to do either type of play... just saying.

 

[Garthanos]

2. To the extent that you appreciate the elegance of the 4e system as a unified whole, then it will be difficult to attach on to the 5e superstructure.

Even with your number 2 being the likely problem - I am tempted by bits of 5e, like inspiration and like the movement system seems like the Attunement subsystem. Those are swipeable and I may be totally able to bring to 4e. To be honest I am seeing things in PF2 I want to steal also related to skills.

 

[Hussar]

I'm still rather baffled how the DM determining that X is impossible unless the character is trained is somehow an "objective" DC. How does the DM determine that? Sure, it applies to everyone in the game world, but, that's not what objective means. It's an entirely subjective determination (whatever the DM feels is appropriate for his or her understanding of how difficult the task would be) that is simply applied generally.

That's not what objective means.

So, again, if the DC is 25 for performing a task, what difference does it make how I achieve that DC? And, how can you claim that the DC is objective when it is gated behind a DM's determination?

In 5e, the only mechanical difference between trained and untrained is a +2-6 (7?) bonus to the ability check. Note, you never actually make a "skill check". You make an ability check that is modified by skills. There's a key difference there. How do I unlock a lock without lock picks? Fonzie Bump for the win. I achieved the appropriate DC (somehow) and the lock is open. Whether or not I'm trained shouldn't actually enter into it, not if the DC's are objective to the game world, rather than subjectively determined by the DM on an ad hoc basis dependent on the DM's understanding of genre convention.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You aren't framing Heroic PCs against Paragon/Epic Tier obstacles and threats and vice versa. A Heroic Tier PC is not going to run into a level 21 Threat/Obstacle. A Paragon Tier PC is not going to run into a level 1 Threat/Obstacle.

So the situation just doesn't come up.

I think that (actually fairly simple) idea caused a lot of consternation. What a threat/obstacle represented was relative to the PCs encountering it. That didn't mean that lower level threats 'disappeared' or leveled up with the PCs, it meant that how they were handled by the system changed to model the relative challenge they represented.

Monster secondary roles are an example. SC complexity could be another. The same monster that was given the stats of a 10th level solo in heroic could be a 14th level elite in paragon, and a 24th level minion at epic. Infiltrating a well-guarded castle at low level might have been a very difficult complexity 5, while at paragon the complexity might be 2, and at Epic it might not even call for a challenge, just a check or two or a single group check.

Letting the stats change like that could be described as 'more freeform,' but it's really just having more tools.

If 4e had had the chance to continue evolving, I think things like that would have become more explicit, with better guidelines for the DM.

 

[Garthanos]

How do I unlock a lock without lock picks? Fonzie Bump for the win.

Fonzy moved slowly most of the time I am putting him as using Cha based Thieving.
The paladin using invocations to not be denied admittance yes paladin

 

[pemerton]

So, again, I don't see what you're arguing? I look at your example, and if that is as freeform as 4e gets ... it doesn't seem that freeform.

Care to elaborate?

Question... if non-paragon characters were able to achieve the necessary DC's would you let them succeed at the same tasks?

No. A non-paragon dwarf isn't the toughtest dwarf around. This is why I think it's strictluy analogous to your example of the amphibious PC.

One more question is there a formal way laid out in the rules that prohibits non-paragon PC's from achieving paragon feats?

No. That's why I am saying that it is a freefrom mode of adjudication, based on the table's conception of the tiers of play.

Fewer restrictions and assumed systems = more free in a formal sense.

Yep 5e just has less formal structure in general... which just goes to the point that many of us have been making about 5e.

So as I posted upthread, I don't see freeform as a synonym for GM decides or GM makes up whatever s/he wants and/or calls for whatever rolls s/he feels like. What I would see as paradigms of freeform systems would be HeroQuest revised and Maelstrom Storytelling. (Others have mentioned Fate but I'm less familiar with it.) Both these systems have PCs built around freely chosen natural language descriptors (much like Cthulhu Dark that I mentioned upthread). Both have very tight scene-resolution frameworks (similar to skill challenges in 4e) but I don't see that is at odds with them being freeform.

Freeform, as I understand it, is about the way that PC build elements relate to established fiction relate to consequences of actions. Standard D&D combat is a paradigm of non-freeform - PC build elements fall under tightly-defined mechanical categories that generate mostly mechanically-defined consequences (hp loss, then death) with fictional positioning playing little role (sometimes modifiying attack rolls).

The example of reforging Whelm as Overwhelm differs at every point in this respect: the PC build element of a high Endurance skill bonus doesn't have a mechanical meaning that is independent of the fiction of being a tough dwarf (it's quite different, in this respect, from the same PC's attack bonus); its deployment is clearly embedded in the fictional positioning (in that case, of the hammer in the forge); and the consequences are fundamentally fictional consequences (the injury to the PC's hands; the reforging of the hammer) rather than mechanical (contrast hp attrition).

As I said, to me it seems - in process terms - pretty indistinguishable from @Imaro's example of the amphibious PC making a check to hold his/her breath.

I do find it weird that half the proponents for 4e seem to be arguing that unlike 5e it's a tightly integrated ruleset with clearly defined parameters and this is a plus... while the other half seem to be claiming it's just as freeform as 5e and it's parameters are no more locked down than 5e...

I don't know what you mean by "parameters".

I'm only talking about resolution of skill checks - framing, setting a DC, adjudicating outcomes.

As it happens I think that 4e's power system supports a more flexible and freeform approach to adjudication more broadly, because these are all-purpose resources that can be used in all sorts of contexts as suggested by the underlying fiction - which is a notable contrast to 5e's more traditional D&D spell lists - but that is not a topic that has come up yet in this thread except a little tangentially in some posts from me and @Garthanos.

 

[Imaro]

I'm still rather baffled how the DM determining that X is impossible unless the character is trained is somehow an "objective" DC. How does the DM determine that? Sure, it applies to everyone in the game world, but, that's not what objective means. It's an entirely subjective determination (whatever the DM feels is appropriate for his or her understanding of how difficult the task would be) that is simply applied generally.

That's not what objective means.

If it was subjective the DC would change depending on the character?/level?/... well something, in my example it doesn't change. Your inability to grasp that doesn't mean it isn't true.

So, again, if the DC is 25 for performing a task, what difference does it make how I achieve that DC? And, how can you claim that the DC is objective when it is gated behind a DM's determination?

Because determining whether it's appropriate to roll and determining the DC are two different steps.

In 5e, the only mechanical difference between trained and untrained is a +2-6 (7?) bonus to the ability check. Note, you never actually make a "skill check". You make an ability check that is modified by skills. There's a key difference there. How do I unlock a lock without lock picks? Fonzie Bump for the win. I achieved the appropriate DC (somehow) and the lock is open. Whether or not I'm trained shouldn't actually enter into it, not if the DC's are objective to the game world, rather than subjectively determined by the DM on an ad hoc basis dependent on the DM's understanding of genre convention.

Lol... The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Campbell]

Here's my particular concern when it comes to making judgement calls based on shifting genre concerns in a play environment where spells have a dramatic impact outside of combat: How do we do it hygienically?

What I mean by this is as levels raise how do we keep our rulings consistent and fair in a way that guarantees we are acting as referees rather than game designers when we make our judgments? Is there a means or mental framework that allows us to ensure that a high level fighter can consistently do the things a high level fighter should do while low level fighter or high level wizard cannot do the same without us meaningfully designing the game in motion?

Basically how can we attach our decisions to things that are true in the game state without meaningfully making a determination based on things like game balance or narrative outcomes?

Fourth Edition offers us things like Tiers, Paragon Paths, and Epic Destinies to use as touchstones. Still making consistent decisions can sometimes be somewhat difficult. This is slightly helped by the fact that magic use outside of combat is also mostly a matter of fictional positioning. There is also the DC by level chart. Generally I am mostly fine with determining difficulty by how difficult should it be for this person, but nailing down what a 17th level character should be capable of isolation rather than a holistic range can be difficult.

Fifth Edition also offers us Tiers, Proficiency, and Expertise. The tiers are less defined however. Proficiency is pretty binary and applies to low level PCs just like high level ones. I would love to use Expertise as a separate touchstone except Rogues get it from day one and most classes get it not at all. If I could change one thing about Fifth Edition it would be to grant Expertise to every class and have Rogues and Bards be more broadly skilled and not deeper skilled than other classes. There is also the DC chart. Generally the issue I have is that judging based on the every man is not very useful to me when it comes to characters that should have long ago left that stage in life.

As someone who prefers to approach active play as a referee both are largely unsatisfying to me for Step On Up or challenge oriented play. I largely do not want to be concerned with game balance or outcomes in the middle of play. I want to set a challenge and leave it up to the PCs to accomplish it however they want to. Game design considerations are something I view as a between session activity.

I find B/X adequate mostly because by limiting it to only Basic and Expert I can keep a consistent milieu. Stars Without Number and Godbound (B/X clones targeting other genre) both have largely contained bands of efficacy.

I am hoping that Pathfinder 2 will be better. Simple DCs are not determined based on the every main, but based on who can accomplish a task. Can someone who is Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master or Legendary at this accomplish this task? It also has the option to lock certain tasks off to level of proficiency. So knowing something about the nature of this spell might require Master level Arcana or holding up a mountain might require Legendary Athletics. It also provides a DC by level table, but it is about affecting something of that level. So if the PCs are trying to sneak past some guards and you don't have stats you decide the guards are probably level 3 and then make some other adjustments based on the fiction.