# Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?



## Wik (Feb 15, 2009)

So, during a post-game discussion last week, we started talking about an Eberron game.  The idea would be that GMs rotated each week, and the game followed a sort of "episodic" format.  And the general vein of things would be like CSI (Sort of like a storyhour posted here, apparently).  We hashed out how things would work in this possibility, and it was a pretty interesting idea.  

After everyone left, I kept thinking about it, analyzing angles in my head to see how it would work out.  And I like the idea - I hope it grows into a real game.  And not just because it would give me another opportunity to play a spellthief!  

You'll note I just said "spellthief", which is, of course, a 3e class*.  This campaign concept, to me, would only work in a 3e game (assuming we had to choose among editions of D&D).  That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.  And in any investigative game, combat shouldn't be happening all that often.  

Once I started thinking along that line, I thought of a few other things that 4e doesn't cover very well, in comparison to earlier editions:  Cthulu-esque horror (3e can sort of do it, though not too well;  1e or 2e can do it alright), "historical" gaming (2e, for the win), survival horror (anything pre 4e can do this pretty well, as resource management used to be all the rage in D&D)... plus a dozen others, I'm sure.

Now, each edition is going to have areas it doesn't cover very well.  2e was pretty bad at over-the-top epic games, and 3e never could catch the "feel" of a good DARK SUN game.  And good luck trying to run a historical game using BECMI rules.  My question here is, does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?

What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?  What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit?  And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul?  

*and, in my humble opinion, the most enjoyable class to play in the game.  Even if it probably sucks mechanically.


----------



## Wik (Feb 15, 2009)

I have my own answers to the questions, but I'm not dead set on my opinions as of yet.  But, to answer my own question...

1.  *Does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?*

Yes.  I think because of the focus on combat powers and roles, characters lose a bit of that non-combat focus present in other editions of the game.  Wizards have the same number of combat powers as a fighter of the same level, for example.  And a character's non-combat abilities are rather limited in 4e - what rituals you know, and that's it.  Magic items are usually written for combat uses, and every skill has a combat use.  There are no craft skills in 4e, or anything like that.  

Because of that, the game is obviously shunted towards combat.  Meaning, if you were to try to make a 4e game that had a focus away from combat (say, a horror game), you are really taking away the primary focus of the character.  

To put it another way, the primary means of differentiation between characters in 4e is in combat - a fighter and a wizard behave differently in combat.  Outside of combat, characters are much more similar in abilities in 4e than they ever were in other editions.  As such, if you take away the combats, you take away many of the mechanical differences in characters.

2.  *What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written? * 

Anything based around Combat will be covered well by 4e.  I think the game supports Wuxia very well, and it handles large scale combats admirably.  I think you could use the game to run fairly large mass combats, where both sides field a number of minions. 

The game also handles "hexploration" fairly well, and I think you could easily run an Isle of Dread-style campaign in 4e.  

I think 4e is perfectly suited for a short-session "pickup" format - much like the Gladiatorial Campaign described in DRAGON a few years back.  Each session would last only an hour or two, and would take place entirely within the gladiatorial arena.  Role-playing would be happening during combat rounds, in the vein of popular wrestling.

3.  *What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit? *

PLANESCAPE.  If you add a few rituals, and include some more non-combat items, you could cover a PLANESCAPE game really well.  

In fact, I think 4e could cover some of those "Classic" 2e campaign settings pretty well - at least, better than 3e ever could.  I think DARK SUN would work better in 4e than in 3e, for example, simply because the differences between a trained and an untrained character isn't as huge in 4e as in 3e.  For example, if you decided to model dehydration on fortitude saves, a wizard would be dead well before a fighter even started feeling the effects, while in 4e, the differences between the two wouldn't be nearly as drastic, so the whole group would be feeling the pressure as one.  

4.  *And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul? *

Anything involving horror.  Most horror stories revolve around one big bad guy - in 4e, the characters are really built towards a multiple-foe model.  And the game doesn't convey horror too well - there are no mechanics to reflect horror, and the game is built towards heroic play.  Also, since horror as a genre is aimed towards non-combat, it is a poor fit for combat-centred 4e.  

Survival Horror is especially poorly-suited for 4e.  "Outlast waves of zombies" just doesn't work as well in 4e as it does in other editions, because PCs can sort of regenerate to full between encounters (except for their dailies).  In earlier editions, each spell cast was one less resource to use in future encounters.  

Anything historical.  The game has been built with a balance of classes and roles expected, and if you were to take away the magic in 4e, the game wouldn't really work too well.  While you could fold magic item enhancements into a character's natural progression, and remove or reflavour all of the "magic" in the classes, the simple nature of powers would make a historically-based game seem fake.  That being said, 4e would handle this much better than 3e could, as 3e also suffered from magic being built into the rules, and was a bit harder to reflavour powers and whatnot.  Really, I think only 2e had any success in the historical campaign model.  

***

Okay, all that being said, I think it's disclaimer time:  I like 4e.  I admit it has some shortcomings, and I'm not a diehard fanboi, but I do like the game.  I enjoy running it, and I enjoy prepping adventures in 4e a helluva lot more than I ever did in 3e.  I like the general tone of the game, and I like wotc's approach to reworking some of the sacred cows.  If I do want to run a game that 4e doesn't model very well (for example, the CSI Eberron game), I have no problem using a different system.

I just think this is an interesting thought exercise.  But, let's argue away.  But let's not turn this into an edition war - I think we can all accept that every edition has had campaign models that are difficult to implement.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> Does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions? What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written? What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit? And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul?




I don't think 4e imposes a larger restriction. I think a better way to word it is that 4e provides less support for different tones and playstyles.

4e is a very *focused* game. What it's focused on is combat. It doesn't give a real kobold's tail about anything else -- to 4e, combat is *the* fun part of D&D. Everything else -- espionage, horror, exploration, survival, etc., etc., is boring to 4e.

It nods at the other stuff, but the fact of the matter is that skill challenges and rituals (which are going to be the first two answers that leap to mind for those who think it DOESN'T restrict) cannot support a campaign that revolves around them -- there's not enough variety and depth (and balance) in them to hold up a campaign that heavily uses them. 

Any style of play that doesn't heavily focus on combat is not supported very well in 4e right now.

That said, most styles of play probably do heavily focus on combat. Combat is the most important part of the game to get "right" in many cases. It is possible that future adjunct systems can handle other genres and playstyles better than the core rules do right now. 4e probably has the capacity to do more (nothing is stopping it), it just chooses not to (Wizards doesn't think it's especially important).

This narrow focus is more "encourages you to one style" rather than "prohibits other styles." There is empty design space there, waiting to be made. There's nothing there right now, though. 

The style that it encourages is for you to go out and beat things over the head with sharp peices of metal and glittery magic lazers until you get their XP's and GP's.

Every other form of resolution is less encouraged to the point where you really can't run a game that doesn't use combat as the main form of resolution in any kind of satisfying way with the game.

This isn't accidental. It's intentional. 

What worries me most going forward in 4e, with regards to old and new settings, is that this idea -- that combat is the best idea, the most fun thing to do, and the thing that needs the most support -- won't get pushed aside by new rules and settings. Ravenloft won't be a game about horror and protection, it'll be a game about going into crypts and fighting vampires instead of a game about going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Planescape in 4e won't be a game about exploring the unknown and philosophical metaphysics, it'll be a game about going into the planes and fighting demon lords. Dark Sun in 4e won't be a game about survival and necessary cruelty, it'll be a game about going into the weastlands and fighting psychic bugs. 

I worry that 4e will reduce everything to combat, and in that respect, it'll effectively have only one setting, one style, and one kind of campaign: the kind where you go somewhere and kill something.

I really don't think that's what every D&D game should be about, and that has never been what MOST of my D&D games are about.

The focus is nice if that's what I'm looking for, but I'm not really looking for that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> So, during a post-game discussion last week, we started talking about an Eberron game.  The idea would be that GMs rotated each week, and the game followed a sort of "episodic" format.  And the general vein of things would be like CSI (Sort of like a storyhour posted here, apparently).  We hashed out how things would work in this possibility, and it was a pretty interesting idea.
> 
> After everyone left, I kept thinking about it, analyzing angles in my head to see how it would work out.  And I like the idea - I hope it grows into a real game.  And not just because it would give me another opportunity to play a spellthief!




  first I just want to say awsome concept...I think that would make a great game...



> You'll note I just said "spellthief", which is, of course, a 3e class*.  This campaign concept, to me, would only work in a 3e game (assuming we had to choose among editions of D&D).  That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.  And in any investigative game, combat shouldn't be happening all that often.




    I disagree here...I think it can work great in 4e...aslong as PCs went in with this concept in mind...infact l want to make up skill challanges right now for crime sceans...



> Once I started thinking along that line, I thought of a few other things that 4e doesn't cover very well, in comparison to earlier editions:  Cthulu-esque horror



I don't think any edtion of d&D is a good fit for this...



> "historical" gaming (2e, for the win),



I agree 110%



> survival horror (anything pre 4e can do this pretty well, as resource management used to be all the rage in D&D)...



no way 4e for the win...Zombies seem made to order here...I don't understand how you think 4e isn't about resource mangement...it still has it just diffrent...I ran a 4e game based on a mix of Evil Dead and Resident evil...it was great...




> My question here is, does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?




   I don't thinks so...any restrictions are put there by the user...



> What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?  What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit?  And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul?




I think most will work out of the box, but with a bit of tweaking anything would work...


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.  And in any investigative game, combat shouldn't be happening all that often.




I think, rather than 4e being limited here, you are looking at it in a limited manner.  In other editions, few character classes are well suited to this style of game out of the box either, if you focus on just their class abilities.  What does a fighter bring to the table for this type of game in any edition?  But, you have the ease of adding more skills to the game to cover some of this, in a similar manner to how Eberron added elements of this style of game.  Just make up a needed suite of skills, pick appropriate ability modifier and add them to appropriate class lists.  As of now, Streetwise would cover this in basic gameplay, but you'd want more for this style of game.




> Once I started thinking along that line, I thought of a few other things that 4e doesn't cover very well, in comparison to earlier editions:  Cthulu-esque horror (3e can sort of do it, though not too well;  1e or 2e can do it alright), "historical" gaming (2e, for the win), survival horror (anything pre 4e can do this pretty well, as resource management used to be all the rage in D&D)... plus a dozen others, I'm sure.




No Cthulhu-esque?  Are you serious?  With the Far Realm, loads of Aberrations, Star Pact Warlocks... I think 4e can do Cthulhu-esque quite well and the Touch of Madness adventures in Dungeon are highlighting this. 

With 4e, we're still just out of the starting gate.  Specific campaign settings and styles always require tweaks and adding a few new things to the mix.  A goal with 4e was to start the edition with a solid core for "core" gameplay, and expand gameplay through the core expansion books and settings.  So, I think it's a bit early to talk about what 4e will or won't be good at handling.  



> What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?  What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit?  And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul?




With a bit of tweaking, I think about anything except low magic, which has never been a strength of D&D.  You could wrestle a couple of the older editions into something resembling low magic, but you really have to gut the game to do it.  A friend of mine is running a historical medieval 4e game right now and reports that it is working well.  He had to make a number of tweaks to do it and bounced a lot of ideas off me for input, but he feels he got there in the end. 

4e does high magic very well, so I don't think you'd have to tweak under the hood much to incorporate investigation.  The game has divinations, it's be easy to design CSI style rituals that make blood light up as if under a black light or mimic other investigative tools.  You could add some alchemy recipes, as well, truth serums, potions to detect magical auras, things like that.  Most of investigative play is in the roleplaying anyway.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 15, 2009)

1. I think survival horror works fine in 4e.  Now, instead of just saving one resource, spells, everyone is saving daily powers and healing surges.  Just think- survival horror with an actual mechanic to represent fatigue!  In my games, things get awfully tense once you get near the end of a long, hard day, and at least one player knows that if they go down in the next encounter, they may not be able to get back up.

2. Investigation games are an odd duck.

In 3e, investigation games often turned into "find the right spell" games.  The DM played a sort of cat and mouse with the players, where they tried to find spells that would solve the mystery, and he came up with reasons they wouldn't work.  "Ah, but this corpse has been damaged so that you can't use Speak with Dead!"  Etc.  That sort of thing seems to be gone, although rituals might bring it back if we get enough of them.

But if you're not playing a magical mcguyver detective story, 4e... it doesn't facilitate it any more than 3e did, and it doesn't get in the way any more than 3e did.  In both cases you're using a game system with a massive combat engine and not using it for combat.

I'm just thinking back on investigative storylines I've done in the past, and I can't see them not working in 4e.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 15, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> No Cthulhu-esque? Are you serious? With the Far Realm, loads of Aberrations, Star Pact Warlocks... I think 4e can do Cthulhu-esque quite well and the Touch of Madness adventures in Dungeon are highlighting this.



The issue with Cthulhu-esque horror is that everyone is supposed to run away from the monsters, not kick their asses.  Which makes having extravagant rules for monster-ass-kicking kind of irrelevant.

I think you can do some great stuff with the Far Realm, but any "flee from this monster if you hope to save your very mind!" stuff is going to have to come from the DM.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The issue with Cthulhu-esque horror is that everyone is supposed to run away from the monsters, not kick their asses.  Which makes having extravagant rules for monster-ass-kicking kind of irrelevant.
> 
> I think you can do some great stuff with the Far Realm, but any "flee from this monster if you hope to save your very mind!" stuff is going to have to come from the DM.




That's true.  But when you mention Cthulhu-esque and D&D together, I don't picture that kind of game, but one where the heroes kick the ink out of tentacly things.  Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D.  

If that's the type of Cthulhu-esque the OP is talking about, I question the validity of his statement that 1e-3e can pull off the mild mannered professorial types reading tomes, going mad, and hiding from monsters their minds can't comprehend.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Feb 15, 2009)

I suppose to get the Cthulu vibe in 4e you could:

1. Use a lot of gibbering orbs, doppelgangers, aboleths, and mind flayers.

2. Throw a lot of extremely difficult encounters at the group. Stress the importance of running away when things look grim. Focus on situations that favor stealth and quick thinking (sneak past the ineffable horrors, close the gate to their universe, weaken them with a ritual, then fight).

3. Build Escher-like and Geiger-like terrain (portals in the walls that make you fall out of the ceiling, staircases to nowhere, slime/webs, floating platforms, etc.

4. Take the disease mechanic and make it into a "sanity" mechanic with each monster capable of "infecting" the players (ala eternal darkness)

5. Change the components for rituals into horrible things (blood, skeletal remains, the eye of an illithid, etc.) Up their power/effectiveness but introduce horrible catches.

The first three suggestions are system-independent. The latter two build on mechanics already present in the system. It seems doable in that I don't see anything mechanically that will prevent it.


----------



## Wik (Feb 15, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> If that's the type of Cthulhu-esque the OP is talking about, I question the validity of his statement that 1e-3e can pull off the mild mannered professorial types reading tomes, going mad, and hiding from monsters their minds can't comprehend.




It was, and you can do Cthulu better in earlier editions.  3e had the optional sanity rules - it required a bit of tweaking, but it was doable.  Ditto for 2e.  4e, unfortunately, doesn't have those tweaks available in print.  You could do it yourself, though I doubt it would work as well as it did in 3e.  Personal taste there, though.

Good point about the Far Realm being more common in 4e - that IS a selling point of the game, and I had forgotten it.  But, anything Cthuluesque in 4e is aimed more towards the combat encounter, as opposed to the "Weeping in a corner and praying" encounter.  



			
				cadfan said:
			
		

> 1. I think survival horror works fine in 4e. Now, instead of just saving one resource, spells, everyone is saving daily powers and healing surges. Just think- survival horror with an actual mechanic to represent fatigue! In my games, things get awfully tense once you get near the end of a long, hard day, and at least one player knows that if they go down in the next encounter, they may not be able to get back up.




Good point.  But in my experiences, daily powers are not that great, especially in a survival horror setting where it's usually the PCs against many smaller enemies.  Healing surges are more important, and I can see how they would contribute to survival horror;  but, in other editions, this would be covered by the fact that PCs cannot self-heal, and have a limited amount of healing resources available to them... the choice being "do I heal now, and waste our last CLW on me, or do I go into the next fight wounded and save that CLW for an emergency?"



> 2. Investigation games are an odd duck.
> 
> In 3e, investigation games often turned into "find the right spell" games. The DM played a sort of cat and mouse with the players, where they tried to find spells that would solve the mystery, and he came up with reasons they wouldn't work. "Ah, but this corpse has been damaged so that you can't use Speak with Dead!" Etc. That sort of thing seems to be gone, although rituals might bring it back if we get enough of them.
> 
> ...




Well, part of my problem with 4e investigative games has to do with the limited skill list - fewer skills mean that there's more PC overlap.  And rituals, while useful, do nothing to encourage PC versatility.  After all, any PC that has the ritual caster feat would basically have access to all the same rituals as everyone else (since there's no reason why PCs shouldn't share).  So, the only differences between characters would be generally in the skills they chose... and if you have a skill that I don't have, odds are we're only +5 or so different anyways.  

Compare this to 3e, where different classes offered different spells, and there was a wider range of skills to select from.  It was, in effect, easier for each character to specialize.  

I realize 3e wasn't the greatest for an investigation game, either (especially at higher levels!), but I feel it runs better for purposes of long-term play, as each PC will have their own niche.  



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> With a bit of tweaking, I think about anything except low magic, which has never been a strength of D&D. You could wrestle a couple of the older editions into something resembling low magic, but you really have to gut the game to do it. A friend of mine is running a historical medieval 4e game right now and reports that it is working well. He had to make a number of tweaks to do it and bounced a lot of ideas off me for input, but he feels he got there in the end.




It'd require a few tweaks!  But, it could be done - but then, any system, appropriately tweaked, can cover anything.  I realize you can use 4e to run a historical game... my question is really, how much tweaking would be necessary?

Low magic/history hasn't been easy for most editions of D&D, 3e and 4e in particular.  And that's cool with me.  But you CAN do it... it was pretty easy in 2e, especially if you used the historical supplements.  You could drop the wizard and cleric from the game, and the game would still run.  You can't do that in 3e, because the game sort of assumes the presence of a healer, and builds that into the CR/encounter design.  It's easier in 4e, because the game doesn't assume a fully "balanced" party in encounter design... but I don't think it'd run as smoothly as it did in 2e.  That being said, I think it'd be fun giving it a shot!  

(Tweaking a game is fun, after all)



> With 4e, we're still just out of the starting gate. Specific campaign settings and styles always require tweaks and adding a few new things to the mix. A goal with 4e was to start the edition with a solid core for "core" gameplay, and expand gameplay through the core expansion books and settings. So, I think it's a bit early to talk about what 4e will or won't be good at handling.




You're right, and I *am* being unfair to 4e.  I'm comparing it to games that have had years of design behind them - of course 3e will have more supplements that allow Cthuluesque horror, for example.  But, I don't think it's too early to discuss what 4e can or cannot handle.  I believe we have a pretty good idea of where 4e is at, and where it's heading - and the focus on combat seems to be holding the course.  



			
				kamikaze midget said:
			
		

> What worries me most going forward in 4e, with regards to old and new settings, is that this idea -- that combat is the best idea, the most fun thing to do, and the thing that needs the most support -- won't get pushed aside by new rules and settings. Ravenloft won't be a game about horror and protection, it'll be a game about going into crypts and fighting vampires instead of a game about going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Planescape in 4e won't be a game about exploring the unknown and philosophical metaphysics, it'll be a game about going into the planes and fighting demon lords. Dark Sun in 4e won't be a game about survival and necessary cruelty, it'll be a game about going into the weastlands and fighting psychic bugs.




God, that *IS* a scary thought.  I was thinking about how cool 4e DARK SUN would be, but now you've scared me.  You really do make a point... 

*shudder*


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 15, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D.



Many players (and DMs) of D&D would disagree with you on that point.

I, for one.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 15, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Many players (and DMs) of D&D would disagree with you on that point.
> 
> I, for one.




In context, I think that was a pretty straight forward statement.  I'm not talking about the occasional fleeing from the more powerful monster or encounter that took a bad turn.  Fleeing, in that context, is of the "I'm just a normal human and incapable of combating horrors from beyond time and space" variety.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 15, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> In context, I think that was a pretty straight forward statement.  I'm not talking about the occasional fleeing from the more powerful monster or encounter that took a bad turn.  Fleeing, in that context, is of the "I'm just a normal human and incapable of combating horrors from beyond time and space" variety.



Oh. Well, fair enough then. I just took the words at face value, and it's entirely possible I missed the point of what you were actually saying, or meaning anyway. Happens a fair bit, particularly online.

Just seemed like a pretty strange assertation, at the time. Sorry, OP, for the unnecessary sidetrack.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 15, 2009)

Absolutely. It limits them to _Awesome_. If you want to play something that _isn't_ Awesome with 4e, I'm afraid that you're screwed  More seriously, yes, it has limitations — all rule sets do, as you wisely point out. 

I wouldn't use D&D 4e to run a campaign that was non-cinematic or non-epic in nature (because its rules don't support non-cinematic or non-epic play very well, IMO).

I also wouldn't use it for any kind of simulation — of course, I wouldn't use _any_ edition of D&D for that as, IMO, all of them handle simulation of reality or literature very poorly at best.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2009)

What kind of tools does the regular CoC or d20 Modern investigate at his hand to solve a crime? Does he have Speak with Dead, Divination, Contact Other Plane, Legend Lore or Identify? Or does he just have his bare bone skills and can try to look for clues, make sense of a trace, and talk to witnesses? 

If he has the first at his disposal, I suppose it might be harder for 4E to manage that.
But the latter, 4E does very well. Because the characters have all the skills required for that (at least those that are "appropriate" for a Fantasy Campaign. No one has "CSI"-style skills aka "Investigate" or "Evidence Analysis" or whatever games set in this or the last century might offer).

The hardest part is not doing what you want to do, the hardest part is not doing what you do not want to do, which would be running excessive combats against supernatural, horrifying monsters. Here you will find the real limitations, because 4E characters are really good at combat, and you can do a lot in them. And, if you get most of your XP by combat (which you really shouldn't), you need a lot of that, too.
This makes it harder to run the "Fight a single, superior monster from the Far Realm"*, though it would manage fine a "Zombie Invasion" story-line. The 4E resource management might give the inexperienced player the illusion that after each combat, he's up to full health and can go on infinitely. But he will learn that he's down to 2 healing surges and he hasn't gotten out of town yet!

*) There are ways to do this, but again, with constraints. The monster needs to "return" occasionally, so you split one monster over multiple encounters. That doesn't work for all of them. The "Tentacles from the Ground" or an "Alien"-like monster could pull it off, retreating when it is "destroyed" and coming back for a later encounter.

--

Low Magic is possible, but maybe not "low-wahoo", since at higher levels, martial powers will be very impressive and there is little way to conceal that. (Besides, if you have a few of "mundane" guys fight a Dragon, it won't feel very low-magic anymore. But then, you don't _have_ to use a Dragon just because that's in the name of the game.  )


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.




Let me ask something...

Way back when (if?) you played OD&D, BD&D, or AD&D, how did you play out non-combat situations?  None of those games had even as much support for non-combat activities as 4E does. Remember, we did even get non-wepon proficiencies until 2E, and there weren't a whole lot of rules for using those.

So the simple answer is...  Roleplay it.  

And when necessary use a skill check, an ability check or a skill challenge to setermine success.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 15, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Let me ask something...
> 
> Way back when (if?) you played OD&D, BD&D, or AD&D, how did you play out non-combat situations? None of those games had even as much support for non-combat activities as 4E does. Remember, we did even get non-wepon proficiencies until 2E, and there weren't a whole lot of rules for using those.




There were NWP from Oriental Adventures in 1E (1985) and the survival guides. I'm quite certain that players created thier own systems for these kinds of activities before then so you are still partially correct.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 15, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That's true.  But when you mention Cthulhu-esque and D&D together, I don't picture that kind of game, but one where the heroes kick the ink out of tentacly things.  Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D.




 You, sir, had some very forgiving DMs...

One of the things I dislike most about the change in "culture" between the "old school" and the "new school" (and I'm not sure where the line is; I don't think it's a hard edition line, but "CRs" and "Encounter Levels" certainly didn't help) is the idea that the PCs will not encounter things outside of some arbitrary acceptable level spread -- that somehow the world changes to match their level.

In the deep places of the world, there are things from which even epic heroes should flee.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 15, 2009)

IMO, D&D is for playing games of spell-carrying, sword-toting, door-kicking, monster-killing heroes.

If I want to play some other genre, say, Cthuluesque horror, I'll play some other game..such as Call of Cthulu (not the d20 version, either).  If I want to play the "common man" sort of fantasy game, I have WHFRPG.  Over-the-top badassness?  Exalted.  Something modern and scary?  World of Darkness.  Something futuristic?  Dark Heresy or Shadowrun.

The point is, I don't *need* D&D to be all things.  I need it to be what it is; there are other games for other scenarios.


----------



## arscott (Feb 15, 2009)

I think you're underselling a particularly important part of 4e that's really benificial to an investigative-style adventure:  It handles a low-combat game much better, in terms of resource management, than any other edition of the game.

With the separation of powers into daily and per encounter categories, and the addition of healing surges, you've got a system where you can throw just one encounter at your party each day _and still have that encounter be challenging._  A 3rd edition party facing a level appropriate challenge that didn't have to worry about conserving spells and hp for future encounters would have a cakewalk in front of them.  If you tried to make things more challenging by adding tougher foes, it just got swingy--either PCs did just as well as they did against lower-level opponents, or they lacked the abilities necessary to effectivly counter their foes.

In 4e, if the party only has one fight a day, it's a little bit easier because they get to use their dailies, but you don't have the same why-even-bother fights that you had in 3e.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Many players (and DMs) of D&D would disagree with you on that point.
> 
> I, for one.




Back when 4e first began to leak out, and I saw how focused of a game it was going to be I said that the problem here was that WotC had made assumptions about how D&D was played and had been played over the years that just weren't true.  WotC had this idea that there was some sort of consensus D&D that almost everyone played, and that people who didn't play it that way were a small fringe group.

I don't think the 'wierdos' are really that small of a fringe group.  I think when you add up all the D&D tables that were playing horror games, historical recreation games, survival games, steam-punk games, detective games, and so forth that it constituted either a majority of the tables or close to one.   Sure, no one style was even close to a plurality, but take all the 'fringe' groups together and it was a big percentage.

When I suggested that the new edition wouldn't support 'wierd' styles as well by virtue of being more tightly focused, I was told that people shouldn't have been playing D&D in that fashion anyway because D&D was never perfectly suited to supporting all those wierd styles.  But it was never perfectly unsuited either, and over the years DMs had developed ways of coping.  Often times it was easier to stay with an established system than move to something which in theory handled your game better, but which in the end would turn out to have rule issues of its own.  The bad you knew was better than the bad you didn't, because you were prepared for it.

And really, from WotC perspective is, "If you don't like 4e, go play something else?", really a great selling point?


----------



## Reynard (Feb 15, 2009)

arscott said:


> I think you're underselling a particularly important part of 4e that's really benificial to an investigative-style adventure:  It handles a low-combat game much better, in terms of resource management, than any other edition of the game.
> 
> With the separation of powers into daily and per encounter categories, and the addition of healing surges, you've got a system where you can throw just one encounter at your party each day _and still have that encounter be challenging._  A 3rd edition party facing a level appropriate challenge that didn't have to worry about conserving spells and hp for future encounters would have a cakewalk in front of them.  If you tried to make things more challenging by adding tougher foes, it just got swingy--either PCs did just as well as they did against lower-level opponents, or they lacked the abilities necessary to effectivly counter their foes.
> 
> In 4e, if the party only has one fight a day, it's a little bit easier because they get to use their dailies, but you don't have the same why-even-bother fights that you had in 3e.




Excellent point, especially at higher levels.  I was running a 13th-14th level 3.5 game that, due to constraints of both the campaign and the real world, ended up amounting to one major encounter per day and the PCs were juggernauts of destruction (especially since they usually made an effort to scout and plan their attack).


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> You'll note I just said "spellthief", which is, of course, a 3e class*.  This campaign concept, to me, would only work in a 3e game (assuming we had to choose among editions of D&D).  That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.  And in any investigative game, combat shouldn't be happening all that often.




I think exactly the opposite is true. I 3.x the investigation part will be handled by the spellcasters with some help by the high perception classes. So the majority of the game will be handled by some of the PCs while the rest stands around waiting for something useful to do. One of the nice things about 4th is that they also spread the non-combat utility around, every class gets about the same number of skills and can thus contribute in a skill based scenario. Furthermore, skill based characters actually get to shine, as magic cannot cheaply outdo skills. Finally skill challenges if done right are an other tool to allow all players to contribute.

I also agree with arscotts point that 4th edition is much better balanced if you only have one fight between extended rests, as 4th does not allow for the same amount of novaing.

In the end though this follows the general rule: If you think edition X cannot do Y at your table, you are probably right.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> The point is, I don't *need* D&D to be all things. I need it to be what it is; there are other games for other scenarios.




I think one of the issues for me is that D&D in previous editions was *more adaptable* to different styles than 4e is. The modularity of 1e, the setting-specific fiddly bits of 2e, the universal d20 system in 3e....4e isn't very modular, applies its own philosophy to new settings instead of the other way around, and is more concerned about marketable D&D branding than about opening up the game to new experiments and individual styles.

4e has removed a lot of the things that made D&D in earlier editions capable of handling all those things well enough for a few months of gaming fun.

This isn't a problem if you like 4e's style, but if you're a fan of a different style, D&D might not work for you any more, forcing you to find a different game rather than use D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I think exactly the opposite is true. I 3.x the investigation part will be handled by the spellcasters with some help by the high perception classes. So the majority of the game will be handled by some of the PCs while the rest stands around waiting for something useful to do. One of the nice things about 4th is that they also spread the non-combat utility around, *every class gets about the same number of skills and can thus contribute in a skill based scenario.* Furthermore, skill based characters actually get to shine, as magic cannot cheaply outdo skills. Finally skill challenges if done right are an other tool to allow all players to contribute.
> 
> I also agree with arscotts point that 4th edition is much better balanced if you only have one fight between extended rests, as 4th does not allow for the same amount of novaing.
> 
> In the end though this follows the general rule: If you think edition X cannot do Y at your table, you are probably right.





Emphasis Mine: Huh?  In my 4e books there's still a pretty big disparity between certain classes... like the fighter (3 starting skills) and the rogue (6 starting skills), now it can be offset by the expenditure of feats, but that's dependent upon the spending of character resources.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2009)

Reynard said:


> You, sir, had some very forgiving DMs...
> 
> One of the things I dislike most about the change in "culture" between the "old school" and the "new school" (and I'm not sure where the line is; I don't think it's a hard edition line, but "CRs" and "Encounter Levels" certainly didn't help) is the idea that the PCs will not encounter things outside of some arbitrary acceptable level spread -- that somehow the world changes to match their level.
> 
> In the deep places of the world, there are things from which even epic heroes should flee.



Of course, you don't have to use the new mechanics for a "new school" game. You can just use CRs and Encounter LEvels to figure out what kind of "monster" you just send against their PCs and maybe take this into account. If you put Ancient Dragon in an AD&D game, what did you expect your 1st level PCs to do? 
If you put a CR 15 monster in your D&D 3E game, you can do to the same thing. You just are not "limited" to the monsters you know well enough to gauge, you just look at CR (or level in 4E) and figure it out "mechanically". 

Of course the intention in both 3E and 4E is to set PCs against monsters in their level range so that they can experience a fair challenge, and neither waltz through nor just run. But if you don't need that for your games, don't use the tools...


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 15, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis Mine: Huh?  In my 4e books there's still a pretty big disparity between certain classes... like the fighter (3 starting skills) and the rogue (6 starting skills), now it can be offset by the expenditure of feats, but that's dependent upon the spending of character resources.




Well yo have picked the biggest difference in the game; almost all classes have 4 skills. And compared to 3.x where the skill-monkey rogue has 10-12 skills and the low int fighter has 1, I think the comparison of 3 to 6 is much less of a difference. Especially as takes a smallish expenditure of resources to even out.


----------



## Rel (Feb 15, 2009)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> IMO, D&D is for playing games of spell-carrying, sword-toting, door-kicking, monster-killing heroes.
> 
> If I want to play some other genre, say, Cthuluesque horror, I'll play some other game..such as Call of Cthulu (not the d20 version, either).  If I want to play the "common man" sort of fantasy game, I have WHFRPG.  Over-the-top badassness?  Exalted.  Something modern and scary?  World of Darkness.  Something futuristic?  Dark Heresy or Shadowrun.
> 
> The point is, I don't *need* D&D to be all things.  I need it to be what it is; there are other games for other scenarios.




Totally agree.

If I want to run a gritty, low fantasy game then I'd use WFRP.  For "medium fantasy" I'd probably use Savage Worlds (if I hadn't ended up liking 4e and wanting to run a high fantasy game then I'd have dropped 3.5 to play Savage Worlds).  If I wanted to play a Cthulhuesque horror game then I'd probably use Dread.

While I don't think that 4e is as limited as some others do, I do acknowledge that it's best to use the right tool for the right job.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 15, 2009)

I think 4e can handle a wide variety of play styles with a good dm and good players. Investigation- hell, I ran a segment of my 4e campaign that was heavily focused on investigation, with hardly any combat, for about 4 or 5 sessions recently, and they were some of the best sessions we have had (in an overall very fun game). Horror? I think you can do horror quite well in 4e, but I haven't tried it yet. The key is _exception-based design_. This is a beautiful throwback to 1e and earlier design philosophy; you just make what the game requires, and remember- the suggested guidelines are _only_ suggested guidelines. If you want a horror game with a monster that pcs will have massive incentive to run from, give it resist 15 all; also, have its attacks hit at level + 15 and, while they might only do level-appropriate damage, if you add a rider that "the target takes -5 to saves and cannot take standard or minor actions (save ends both); _Aftereffect:_ the target is dazed and takes a -5 to saves (save ends both)". Suddenly a stand-up fight looks very, very bad to most groups of pcs. You just have to customize things. With the skill challenge rules, it is easy to put mechanics to almost any idea. I've done skill challenges for recognizing that the pcs are in an illusory trap, building a makeshift raft out of Underdark fungus, negotiating prices down from greedy dwarf merchants, escaping from a buried tower via a difficult climb and some tricky navigation, outrunning or outfoxing enemies, trying to deal with the insane, etc. In many of these cases, the skill challenge rules were modified (can't fail- but the challenge goes on, with consequences for each failure, until the pcs get 10 successes; pcs don't know they are in a skill challenge; the challenge is spread over 3 sessions, with many other events and encounters in between; etc etc).  



Reynard said:


> One of the things I dislike most about the change in "culture" between the "old school" and the "new school" (and I'm not sure where the line is; I don't think it's a hard edition line, but "CRs" and "Encounter Levels" certainly didn't help) is the idea that the PCs will not encounter things outside of some arbitrary acceptable level spread -- that somehow the world changes to match their level.
> 
> In the deep places of the world, there are things from which even epic heroes should flee.




QFMFT!!!!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> And really, from WotC perspective is, "If you don't like 4e, go play something else?", really a great selling point?




Better than than giving players unrealistic expectations of what the game can do, I think.  Or trying to build a game that is all things to all people. 

I don't think there's any game out there that will do everything well.  Part of the nature of a set of rules is that those rules are limiting, and that's okay.  But then, I'd prefer to see a gaming culture that is less about finding your own perfect game, and sticking only to that, and instead finding the good parts of many games, and swapping between them as you wish.

I understand that, from a business perspective, this is hard on the publishers - it implies having less depth spread over wider areas.


----------



## korjik (Feb 15, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Better than than giving players unrealistic expectations of what the game can do, I think. Or trying to build a game that is all things to all people.
> 
> I don't think there's any game out there that will do everything well. Part of the nature of a set of rules is that those rules are limiting, and that's okay. But then, I'd prefer to see a gaming culture that is less about finding your own perfect game, and sticking only to that, and instead finding the good parts of many games, and swapping between them as you wish.
> 
> I understand that, from a business perspective, this is hard on the publishers - it implies having less depth spread over wider areas.




I dont think that there was any aspect of unrealistic expectations with what people wanted from 4e. Most prior editions of D&D were pretty generic fantasy. Vancian magic did put in certain restrictions, but with the immense number of spells you could get, that was not much of a limitation.

The biggest dissapointment for me was that we went from a very wide set of character options to a very narrow set of character options. You get to pick one of 4 powers, or one of 2 if you are certain classes and want to have at least a little optimizing. You MUST pick a paragon path at tenth level. You MUST pick an epic destiny at 20th level.

The 'right out of the box' play is so limited that it turned me off. 

It is my view that if they had fixed 3ed instead of tossing it, the game would have been much better.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The issue with Cthulhu-esque horror is that everyone is supposed to run away from the monsters, not kick their asses.  Which makes having extravagant rules for monster-ass-kicking kind of irrelevant.



The problem here is that Cthulu adventures assume that the PCs aren't heroes. That the PCs neither fight back, nor have an effective means of doing so even if they wanted to. That they are common joes who are getting their sanity sipped by something Out There. Lovecraftian protagonists either die or go insane. 

In D&D you kick a monster's ass with magic swords.

The only way to get this effect in 4e, the only way to get it in 3e (or any series before that), was to put a monster in front of the PCs that they have no way to kill: i.e. one that's far beyond their level, or one that has resistances the PCs cannot puncture (2e's "+3 weapon required to damage" monsters).

D&D is not suited for that.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 15, 2009)

korjik said:


> I dont think that there was any aspect of unrealistic expectations with what people wanted from 4e.




I am not talking about what WotC expected people wanted from 4e.  I'm talking about WotC setting expectations on what 4e actually is.



> It is my view that if they had fixed 3ed instead of tossing it, the game would have been much better.




Perhaps.  But also moot.  There's only so much to be gained from retrospective "it would have been better if they had done X".  It isn't like we can make then go back and do it over.  I would prefer to talk about what is best to do going forward, given the games we have at hand.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The problem here is that Cthulu adventures assume that the PCs aren't heroes. That the PCs don't fight back. That they are common joes who are getting their sanity sipped by something Out There.
> 
> The only way to get this effect in 4e, the only way to get it in 3e (or any series before that), was to put a monster in front of the PCs that they have no way to kill: i.e. one that's far beyond their level.
> 
> D&D is not suited for that.




Yes, I think that's a good characterization. I mean, you can run D&D with monsters the PCs can't beat, but that's kinda not the point or the focus of D&D. 

---

Once again, I am reminded of Torg. The game doesn't have stuff like levels or CR to gauge power, but still, the general assumption will be that the players survive most combats and will engage in combat. There are even realms where you are specifically rewarded for engaging an enemy physically, and there are realms where "Action" is a world law.

But there is also a realm, Orrorsh, where you play the same guys that run around gun-toting, spell-slinging or super-powered in other realms, and you're basically playing Call of Cthhulhu. All the world laws in Orrorsh work to your disadvantage and give the monsters benefits. The only way to really beat the "big bad" are investations and research - and then you might have a (fair) chance in the straight up fight..

Transplanted to D&D, you'd need a new layer of rules that protects the monsters and hurt the PCs. (It's not enough to just say that the monster(s) won't die, it is important to make the monster(s) dangerous all the time.) This is, of course, outside of the scope of Core D&D. Torg literally tries (and manages) to cover all kinds of genres, D&D is "just" a fantasy game (and what it loses in breadth it gains in detail.)


----------



## Rechan (Feb 15, 2009)

> Yes. I think because of the focus on combat powers and roles, characters lose a bit of that non-combat focus present in other editions of the game.



I also don't even get this whole discussion. 4e, in terms of the system, is not very different than 3e. 9/10ths of the book consists of Combat-focused things. 

For instance, let's take social skills. 3e had: Bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive. 4e has: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight. In 2e, _skills were so unimportant they were called non-weapon proficiencies_.

So if you want to run a social game, _there's no difference_. 

How about other skills? The only difference between the two:

Profession skill. Which were so vague. The only use of the profession skill is to gauge how much someone is supposed to earn per week using their profession. Or it's a vague description that using a single skill to encompass so many things that one could take the "Adventurer" profession, and use that skill check for anything that depends on the adventure.

Craft skill. Which is pretty much a hand-waving power. The craft skill isn't going to impact anything besides effecting the GP distribution of item creation. It just makes someone feel nice that they have a craft skill point sitting on their sheet that lets them know their character was trained as a blacksmith. 

The exclusion of Profession/Craft skills are not going to impact a _campaign scope_. If anything, the non-combat skills in 3e were a vestigial tail, providing the illusion of non-combat depth.

What about *low magic campaigns*? 3e could not facilitate _that campaign scope_; magical items and healing magic were required. If you didn't have a +2 sword by level 10, you were in trouble because of DR, and inflated AC, and so on. Not to mention the other Big Six. How about healing magic? Unless you where chugging healing potiosn or had a cleric, battles were lethal. Not very Arthurian.

Next we have a few magical items missing between the editions. Decanters of endless water, folding boat, etc. The loss of these are not going to impact the campaign scope. 

We could discuss the economy. Where the sole purpose of the economy is to distinguish what sorts of magical items you are balanced to have. There is nothing in D&D that costs more than 100gp, except magical items. In 2e, you couldn't even buy magical items, so loot = castles. In 1e, loot = XP. 

Next look at feats. The only non-combat feats that 3e had were Skill boosters (hey, 4e has those), and feats based on crafting magical items - which, 9/10ths were combat-specific magical items.

Finally, there's spells. 3e had quite a few non-combat spells. The problem is that those spells allowed plot bypassing. It didn't require any skill or story, but ultimately came down to "I cast this spell, and the DM gives me what I want." Here's a question: how many 3e spells were useful for non-adventurers? For growing crops, building things, etc? Answer: next to none, because the game focuses on adventurers. 

So I don't know where people got this idea that 3e supported a huge amount of non-combat games. *D&D has never supported non-combat gaming* to the extent that people make it out. 

Anyone who has ever ran low-combat games in D&D is using a hammer to put in screws, nuts and bolts. It's a round hole and a square peg. Sure, you can _do_ it, but it's not pretty.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> So if you want to run a social game, there's no difference.




You're totally ignoring the noncombat abilities of the classes, at least in 3e.

Spells like _Charm Person_.

Details like the Barbarian's illiteracy.

Bard's music inspiring higher skill checks.

A paladin's ability to Detect Evil.

All of these things added dimension and variety to noncombat sessions in 3e (and in earlier editions). 

These, being removed or shunted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, reduce the options and variety of 4e for handling noncombat challenges.

This in turn leadst ot less fun noncombat elements, and less support for them.

Which leads many to play what IS well-supported: namely, (minis) combat.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> All of these things added dimension and variety to noncombat sessions in 3e (and in earlier editions).
> 
> These, being removed or shunted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, reduce the options and variety of 4e for handling noncombat challenges.




You see, I look at it a different way...

All of these things allowed players to quickly and easily bypass non-combat encounters without having to actually resolve anything through problem solving or roleplaying.

These, being removed or shnted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, encourages my players to use more thoughtful and innovative methods for handling noncombat challenges...  As opposed to relying on skills checks, spells and magic items to solve every problem.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Details like the Barbarian's illiteracy.



If anything, that is an arbitrary rule.  It's like saying "All wizards are left handed", and then saying "Because this rule says wizards are left handed, it shows there's depth to the class, and how they differ from other classes!"

Take for instance that bards can only be chaotic. You could say that "shows depth and how they are different", and I think it's an arbitrary limitation that hurts character conception and is there for no other reason than to be there. 



> Bard's music inspiring higher skill checks.



You mean like the bard's "Inspire Competence" level 2 utility power? 



> A paladin's ability to Detect Evil.



I would argue with you over this, but I feel that is a different tangent than the topic at hand. I don't feel that being able to deal with alignment adds anything to the equation at all, and matters of alignment are a different topic.



> These, being removed or shunted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, reduce the options and variety of 4e for handling noncombat challenges.



There are so few options, and the "dimension and variety" are so shallow, that it's complaining that a radio only gets 99 stations, not 100, and this is a great limitation to the radio.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think one of the issues for me is that D&D in previous editions was *more adaptable* to different styles than 4e is. The modularity of 1e, the setting-specific fiddly bits of 2e, the universal d20 system in 3e....4e isn't very modular, applies its own philosophy to new settings instead of the other way around, and is more concerned about marketable D&D branding than about opening up the game to new experiments and individual styles.
> 
> 4e has removed a lot of the things that made D&D in earlier editions capable of handling all those things well enough for a few months of gaming fun.
> 
> This isn't a problem if you like 4e's style, but if you're a fan of a different style, D&D might not work for you any more, forcing you to find a different game rather than use D&D.




Again, I think this is very short sighted.  The design intent has been simply and repeatedly stated by the designers.  The early core is focused on providing strong, balanced gameplay for the core of D&D gaming.  The core book sequels and campaign settings will expand gameplay.  It doesn't work to give a nod or two to different styles in the core books, because many see that as a core part of the game, when its usually just a single nod or two - here's some clunky firearms rules in the equipment section, people like guns, oh and here's some psionics, over here is an inadequate system to craft things using skills...

To me, it's sound design to start from a strong, balanced core and expand outwards, rather than try to create a mish-mash of subsystems to emulate a dozen different playstyles.  If you've used D&D in the past to play games that are very far from the core of D&D gameplay, which has always been the same, then you are used to tweaking (and are not, for some reason, interested in game systems build for that kind of play that likely do it better).  4e is easier to tweak than previous editions because you are starting from a much stronger, more stable ruleset.  It is easy to add on the things you need to suit your playstyle.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

How incompatible are the add on d20 rules from 3e?  For example, adding sanity in by copying the UA sanity rules.  To me, they would fit just as well as they did in 3e.  Or just a minor revamp of the taint rules in Heroes of Horror?  Obviously, they'll take a bit of tweaking to get right, but my impression is that it should work pretty smoothly.

edit: oh, and my take on Cthulhu-esque adventures is that 4e would probably do a delta green style pretty well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> All of these things allowed players to quickly and easily bypass non-combat encounters without having to actually resolve anything through problem solving or roleplaying.
> 
> These, being removed or shnted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, encourages my players to use more thoughtful and innovative methods for handling noncombat challenges... As opposed to relying on skills checks, spells and magic items to solve every problem.




I could apply the same logic to combat though. Having a magic missile at-will (for instance) allows the player to quickly and easily bypass the challenge of resolving not having a spell to attack with through problem-solving or role-playing.

The fact of the matter is the rules are the game -- you can free-form and ask DM permission for anything you want, including combat. But the rules are what is supported.

4e overwhelmingly supports beatin' the fudge out of things as the most ideal method of conflict resolution.

One person's "bypassed [combat] encounter" is another person's clever strategy or interesting role-playing choice (why SHOULDN'T an enchantress PC be able to avoid combat using other skills? Why SHOULDN'T a clever sneaky rogue PC avoid combat by not being noticed? Why does combat HAVE to happen?).

Every edition before it was largely OK with that.

I, as an improv-heavy DM, was totally OK with that.

4e is NOT OK with that.

This is a problem for any genre or playstyle that does not want to encourage combat. Not every play style or genre *should* encourage combat.

4e doesn't HAVE to be that way, especially going forward. It's understandable that it would look that way in the first round of books given 4e's "progressive core" model and the importance of combat in general, but my big concern is that 4e won't bother to model other genres or playstyles, and continue to use the trappings of those things to just change up the combats. There is, as I said, a lot of design space for non-combat challenges in 4e that has yet to be tapped.

That's 4e's focus, the idea that D&D is a combat game, but that certainly wasn't how the game was played around my table -- and isn't how it continues to be, even as I DM 4e. 

Solving your problems with spells and skill checks is still creatively solving your problem using character resources. 



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> The early core is focused on providing strong, balanced gameplay for the core of D&D gaming.




The core of my D&D gaming looks nothing like what the first three core books actively support (that is, minis combat). The designers, with regards to my campaign anyway, were wrong.



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> here's some clunky firearms rules in the equipment section, people like guns, oh and here's some psionics, over here is an inadequate system to craft things using skills...




Here's a clunky Rituals system in a tacked-on chapter because people liked the old problem-solving spells. Oh, and here's some broken skill challenge rules because some people don't want to fight everything. Oh, and here's an encumbrance system that still measures things by the pound because who DOESN'T love that?

4e doesn't get a pass in the "providing useless rules" thing.



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> If you've used D&D in the past to play games that are very far from the core of D&D gameplay, which has always been the same,




Now who's being short-sighted. 

The D&D game has always embraced a diversity of playstyles, and 4e even tries to (it just fails to, so far). D&D was what each DM defined it to be, not what TSR or Gygax or WotC defined it to be.



> 4e is easier to tweak than previous editions because you are starting from a much stronger, more stable ruleset. It is easy to add on the things you need to suit your playstyle.




That doesn't change what 4e clearly supports in the rules as published thus far, and that is combat. This makes 4e, as published so far, an awkward fit for many styles and genres that don't put as much emphasis on combat as 4e does, and who need more robust options for handling non-combat options than 4e provides so far.

I believe I clearly stated that 4e doesn't HAVE to be like this, even if it has been like this so far. It's totally possible for a Dark Sun 4e to introduce more rules about survival, resource management, long-term exposure and survival, breaking equipment, stone age crafting, etc., then core 4e has. I'm just not necessarily confident that it's going to happen, given that 4e seems more interested in applying different window dressing than in changing what the game can be about (which, I'm sure, is as much a branding consideration as it is a game design philosophical descision). 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> There are so few options, and the "dimension and variety" are so shallow, that it's complaining that a radio only gets 99 stations, not 100, and this is a great limitation to the radio.




Most of your post is arguing specifics, which is not what I'm doing here, so I'm ignoring that part of the post.

The thing to note is that it was *more* dimension and variety.

It didn't necessarily need to be a lot more -- as many have rightfully pointed out, the focus on combat in D&D has been omnipresent, and combat SHOULD be focused on in D&D. But challenges other than combat deserve a lot better than what 4e gave them. 4e gave them this shallow treatment because 4e, so far, doesn't want you to resolve things in ways other than combat, whereas other editions were, to varying degrees, ENCOURAGING you to avoid combat by giving you easy outs and by making  your characters easy to kill (especially at low levels).

The entire philosophy of 4e thus far believes that combat is the One True Fun.

That idea is wrong.

In fact, for me, if I wanted to fight goblins, I'd go play a video game. D&D, especially for me, is not a game about fighting goblins, and never, ever has been.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.




Once it stops being flawed, shallow, and boring, it's more than welcome to.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 15, 2009)

malraux said:


> The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.




The amount of content the system provides for a particular aspect of play informs the way the game is played.

95% of the game is well-balanced combat engine. 5% is poorly-written, badly-designed generic mechanic for dealing with everything not-combat.

Sorry, but calling upon the skill challenges part of 4e does not make your argument look better.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Once it stops being flawed, shallow, and boring, it's more than welcome to.




Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat.  Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.

edit:  To be more specific, the skill challenges chapter specifically counters the claim that


> The entire philosophy of 4e thus far believes that combat is the One True Fun.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 15, 2009)

malraux said:


> Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat.  Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.




The skill challenge system is an after-thought.

Compare the amount of work that went into the combat system with how much went into skill challenges.

Skill challenges reek of "Oh, I guess we should put this in..."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat. Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.




If the rule is flawed, shallow, and boring, who wants to use it? Ultimately, it ends up encouraging combat by not accomplishing what it sets out to do -- it isn't a very good resolution system, so, if you don't like that, you go fight things.

If they wanted to design a game that wasn't just about combat, they'd have put more work into the skill challenge system to make it an attractive alternative option.

As it is, the system is just there as an ultimately failed attempt to show that 4e can embrace other playstyles. It is not evidence of the designers actually giving much of fig about those other playstyles, because it is shallow, flawed, and boring, whereas the parts the designers cared about -- combat, the powers system, monster generation -- were pretty well designed by all accounts.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.




This is actually a problem for noncombat resolution -- it's part of the reason that it is shallow, boring, and flawed. It's like every character being able to mark, sneak attack, cast fireball, and heal -- there's no difference between what someone can contribute.

It's part of something that a theoretical "noncombat roles" kind of philosophy can remedy, in the future of 4e.

I'm not sure that the designers have any desire whatsoever to do that, though.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 15, 2009)

malraux said:


> Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.




Awesome, so all characters can use all skills that are really only useful in combat. Doesn't change the fact that the scope of 4e is heavily combat-centric.

And "useful" skills is relative. There are numerous skills cut in the 3e => 4e transition that some folks found useful.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Awesome, so all characters can use all skills that are really only useful in combat. Doesn't change the fact that the scope of 4e is heavily combat-centric.
> 
> And "useful" skills is relative. There are numerous skills cut in the 3e => 4e transition that some folks found useful.




What 4e skills are only useful in combat?  

The claim that I am disputing is not that 4e is heavily combat centric, because it surely is, as every edition of DnD has been.  I dispute the claim that 4e is *only* about combat.


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is actually a problem for noncombat resolution -- it's part of the reason that it is shallow, boring, and flawed. It's like every character being able to mark, sneak attack, cast fireball, and heal -- there's no difference between what someone can contribute.




Is this statement based on your experience playing 4th edition or a theoretical conjecture?


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 15, 2009)

That's a fancy argument, Kamikaze, but I have to say, I got awfully sick of trying to run investigative scenarios in 3e and having to deal with Detect Evil, Speak with Dead, Locate Object and the like.  I know that a character who solves a murder mystery by just asking the victim what happened is still engaged in investigation, so its not like the story didn't happen.  But the ability to bypass interviewing witnesses and scrounging for clues by the use of magic circumscribed my ability to tell an investigative story more than it helped.

I also know that you can get around those spells with carefully crafted scenarios (the bad guy is true neutral, not evil, the victim's corpse was mangled to prevent it from speaking, the murder weapon is too unknown or too far away for you to locate it with magic, etc).  But that just meant that investigative scenarios fell into two categories: 1. the very short, and 2. ones that began with me nerfing all of the I WIN buttons the PCs possessed.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 15, 2009)

malraux said:


> What 4e skills are only useful in combat?




Which ones are useful out of it? Not nearly as many as those useful either in combat or having a direct impact upon a combat.



> The claim that I am disputing is not that 4e is heavily combat centric, because it surely is, as every edition of DnD has been.  I dispute the claim that 4e is *only* about combat.




The support for non-combat activity in 4e is such that it might as well be only about combat.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Which ones are useful out of it? Not nearly as many as those useful either in combat or having a direct impact upon a combat.




Again, what skills can only be used in combat?  Or are only useful in combat?  Please give an example, because I really have not experienced that claim being true in any way.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

Harlekin said:
			
		

> Is this statement based on your experience playing 4th edition or a theoretical conjecture?




Direct 4e experience. Directly trying to use Skill Challenges, in fact, for almost all of the session (since the session was involving a complimentary fey and some wrongly accused orcs and some angry townsfolk, combat wasn't much of an option for the PC's).

I'm not ignorant about this. 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I got awfully sick of trying to run investigative scenarios in 3e and having to deal with Detect Evil, Speak with Dead, Locate Object and the like




That's a fair criticism. But there are solutions that don't depend on getting rid of these elements (rather, working them deeper into the fabric of the game would be the way to go, IMO). 

I would have loved it, too, if 4e would have given a more in-depth consideration of these different genres and styles than 3e or 2e or 1e did. Imagine an investigative game where Detect Evil and Locate Object and Speak with Dead were all challenges that every character could contribute to in a unique way, like combat is in 4e, rather than being "I win" buttons. This was entirely within the realm of possibility for 4e.

It kind of went the other way, though...rather than making these things easier to run, they just said "don't bother running them, and if you have to, try this subsystem maybe?" When you try the subsystem, you find that it's not really up to snuff, encouraging you to go with the first option more often than not: just don't do these things in D&D. 

I prefer my D&D adaptable, and, it must be said again, that 4e *could* do this. The only thing stopping the designers is their own idea of what 4e is and what 4e should be.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> That's a fancy argument, Kamikaze, but I have to say, I got awfully sick of trying to run investigative scenarios in 3e and having to deal with Detect Evil, Speak with Dead, Locate Object and the like. I know that a character who solves a murder mystery by just asking the victim what happened is still engaged in investigation, so its not like the story didn't happen. But the ability to bypass interviewing witnesses and scrounging for clues by the use of magic circumscribed my ability to tell an investigative story more than it helped.
> 
> I also know that you can get around those spells with carefully crafted scenarios (the bad guy is true neutral, not evil, the victim's corpse was mangled to prevent it from speaking, the murder weapon is too unknown or too far away for you to locate it with magic, etc). But that just meant that investigative scenarios fell into two categories: 1. the very short, and 2. ones that began with me nerfing all of the I WIN buttons the PCs possessed.





You know what kind of gets me about this whole "3e's spells solved everything" line of thinking?  Well for starters I'm going to assume you're PC's are getting involved in murders with at least a medium level of importance to the campaign world... that said why aren't the murderers using magic as well?  I mean I could easily imagine a erudite wizard, genius type serial killer in Eberron (think Hannibal Lecter with magic), who uses spells like disguise self, polymorph, etc. to cleverly impede spell solutions.

The second thing is... aren't the players suppose to "solve" the mystery?  I mean I can also see this played for more "what happens during the running around and investigations"... being the focus as opposed to actually figuring out who did it.  Perhaps the killer sets nefarious traps and hired muscle as well as a frame up for the meddling PC's...  this just means the killer's focus is on stopping them from acting on their knowledge as opposed to covering his tracks.  Anyway, just some thoughts.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 15, 2009)

To steal obryn's line, 4e D&D is very good at being D&D.  I would not use it for other things, but rather other games.  If I want Cthulhu, I'll play Call of Cthulhu.  If I want survival horror, I'll play AFMBE or Dread.  If I want wuxia over the top fantasy I'll play Exalted.  

On the Cthulhu front, I really feel any form of D&D is inappropriate, as they have opposite themes.  D&D is all about the hero's journey, no matter what different spin you put on it.  The characters start out barely competent, just a bit over the common folks around them.  As they adventure they become more powerful, heroes of legend, eventually becoming lords or kings or demigods or what have you. 

Cthulhu is about the spiral downward.  Your character at the start is competent, and doesn't really get much more competent as the game goes on.  Skill may go up a bit, but not in a game changing way.  The sanity rules though, mean every character feels like a ticking time bomb.  If you play the same character long enough, they might get eaten by a monster.  But eventually the *will* go crazy.  Its all a matter of what you can do before you've Seen Too Much.


----------



## Wik (Feb 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I know that a character who solves a murder mystery by just asking the victim what happened is still engaged in investigation, so its not like the story didn't happen.  But the ability to bypass interviewing witnesses and scrounging for clues by the use of magic circumscribed my ability to tell an investigative story more than it helped.




As an aside, have you ever seen _Pushing Daisies_?  It's an investigative TV show where the main character basically has the power to _Speak With Dead_ (with a few caveats).  He usually speaks with the corpse within the first fifteen minutes of the show, and then spends the next 45 minutes trying to make sense of what the corpse said.

So, yeah, you can use magic to enhance a storyline, not to provide an instant "I win".

In fact, that's what I had in mind with my earlier mentioned "CSI: Eberron" model.  Since players KNOW going in that it's an investigative game, as opposed to a combat game, you'll see players make characters with that in mind.  I'd be making a streetsmart Spellthief with ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Streetwise - and if we used the Contact rules in UA, a bunch of street-level contacts.  You might make a bard, or a diviner-type wizard, or a sorcerer focused on Speak With Dead.  

Our adventure will probably have those talents in mind.  We could speak with the corpse, and get a vague clue as to who the killer is.  Or, we might not even be able to find the corpse, because it's been animated as a zombie and is now killing people.  When you use Detect Evil to find the bad guy in the slums, you suddenly realize that you're standing in a PIT of evil, and it's hard to find the villain.  And so on.

Compare that to 4e, as written.  We know we're in an investigative game.  So, we start taking classes.  Now, I could be a rogue or a bard, with some very useful skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Streetwise, Thievery, Perception)... or I could be a wizard, with some useful rituals.  Now, let's say I go with the rogue... since most of the feats are based around combat (Which isn't going to be as useful in this game), I might take Ritual Casting - meaning, I can now do most of the same non-combat things as our mage.  Our mage, trying to stay even with the rogue, takes "Jack of All Trades" (+2 to all untrained skills) as a feat... or starts taking training in useful skills.

The overlap between characters in 4e, as written, is rather large.  To be honest, _I like this_, but only in a combat-based game - it gives characters a range of backgrounds.  But, in an investigative game, this level of play is not as well supported as it was in 3e. 

I really should clarify something I said earlier, though.  Earlier, I said something along the lines of "4e Doesn't do Investigative as well as as 3e did".  What I mean is, as-written, 4e doesn't encourage investigative play as well as 3e.  You could argue that many 3e powers nerf investigative play (Speak with dead, for example, though I've given examples in this post how that spell can be used to ENHANCE the scenario) - but the fact is, they're there.  They are in the game.  

As for Cthulu in D&D, I have run it in both 2e and 3e.  When I ran it in 2e, I wasn't familiar with Lovecraft, but the horror adventure I ran wound up being very Cthuluesque.  When I ran it in 3e, I used the sanity rules from CoCd20, and the game was a blast.  Both worked  fairly well, because the culture of the game had been modified to discourage direct combat.  I think, in 4e, it might be a bit harder to modify the inherent assumptions of the game to support a "run away!" style of play.  When characters are 95% hammer (ie, Combat), everything starts to look like a nail.  

Hopefully, we'll see a 4e Unearthed Arcana which we can use to tweak the game to our heart's content.  

There's a lot of debate over whether or not 4e can run investigation or cthulu horror.  But what other genres does it have a problem running?  And, to broaden the question a bit, beyond basic combat, what sort of genres is 4e GREAT at running?  I believe I mentioned that it runs large-scale combats (20+ participants) pretty well.  I could imagine using it to run a Vietnam-like campaign, against jungle-dwelling orcs.  I think, as a whole, 4e fits pretty well with Eberron (though some tweaks need to be made).   I imagine it could also be used to run a DARK SUN game better than 3e ever did (because the game burns out much of the inherent magic in the classes that happened with 3e).


----------



## Nightson (Feb 15, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Which ones are useful out of it? Not nearly as many as those useful either in combat or having a direct impact upon a combat.




Three physical skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance)
Six knowledge skills (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, Religion, Streetwise)
Four interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate)
Two sneaky skills (Stealth, Thievery)

I count 15 skills which are useful out of combat which is all of them.  Acrobatics and Athletics get used for stunts so they've got importance, Intimidate can be used so it's got that.  I don't think the actual skill support your assertion.


----------



## Panzeh (Feb 15, 2009)

I think of all the criticisms of 4e, this is probably the most cogent, that it's simply not that ambitious and the skill system doesn't seem to be all that well thought out, like a half-hearted nod toward 3e players.  It's not so much that there were complex non-combat systems in 3e, because most of the non-combat models were spell vs save and basic skill check to get x result, or basically come up with a combo of spells to solve x.  4e's skill list is not nearly as thorough as 3e's, though it is much appreciated that complementary skills like hide/ms and spot/listen/search were combined.  I don't think characters need skills in pure labor operations like farming, but in skilled professions like drafting or accounting or something it would be nice to have that as a skill, and it's difficult to graft on extra skills without changing the other skill rules.  Then, probably some profession DCs would have to be added.

Also, the level bonus to skills has to go, because it just seems to add numbers just to make them go higher, the difference in skills is more important than the number itself with respect to how the players regard proficiency.

Simply adding in more uses of skills and DCs(for plain skill checks) for them would probably bring it up near 3e's level, though certainly concessions had to be made because of caster dominance in non-combat tasks.


----------



## malraux (Feb 15, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Three physical skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance)
> Six knowledge skills (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, Religion, Streetwise)
> Four interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate)
> Two sneaky skills (Stealth, Thievery)
> ...




You're short 2: perception and heal.  Personally, I'd regard heal as the one with the most combat only focus, as its the one to use to give a saving throw, second wind, or stabilize a character.  The only listed out of combat usage is to treat disease.  But all the rest are as usable out of combat as within combat.


----------



## Psion (Feb 15, 2009)

I think it is. But then, many games I like A LOT have limited campaign scopes. Because, well, those games are good at what they do do, and I am interested in doing things those games do well.

I don't think that's _necessarily_ an indictment of 4e. Though for my taste, I do feel like the game traded off some things I like to do in D&D for some things I could have done without tuning.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> That's a fancy argument, Kamikaze, but I have to say, I got awfully sick of trying to run investigative scenarios in 3e and having to deal with Detect Evil, Speak with Dead, Locate Object and the like.  I know that a character who solves a murder mystery by just asking the victim what happened is still engaged in investigation, so its not like the story didn't happen.  But the ability to bypass interviewing witnesses and scrounging for clues by the use of magic circumscribed my ability to tell an investigative story more than it helped.
> 
> I also know that you can get around those spells with carefully crafted scenarios (the bad guy is true neutral, not evil, the victim's corpse was mangled to prevent it from speaking, the murder weapon is too unknown or too far away for you to locate it with magic, etc).  But that just meant that investigative scenarios fell into two categories: 1. the very short, and 2. ones that began with me nerfing all of the I WIN buttons the PCs possessed.




Yeah, but isn't that basically true of any detective story?  I mean, suppose that I was running a modern CSI campaign and the killer's fingerprints were on every murder weapon, and the victims blood could be found on the suspects clothes?  If in the next session the killer carefully wiped away finger prints, incinerated or threw away clothes, and even left false clues, you wouldn't say, "Hey, that's no fair.  You nerfed all of my I WIN buttons!".   No, you'd say, "This is a typical episode of CSI."   Naturally, if you expect the investigation to be difficult, then its going to involve a mystery where the killer has been careful to destroy evidence, leave false clues, or frame up a likely suspect who happens to be innocent.  That's just the standard trope in one of the genera. 

I would consider 'Speak with the Dead' to be interviewing witnesses.  Like any witness, the dead guy doesn't necessarily need to be trustworthy.  The dead guy might not have seen anything (it was dark, he was struck from behind, the killer was invisible, the killer used a ranged weapon or spell).  The dead guy might not have seen what he thought he saw (the killer was wearing a disguise).  What the dead guy saw might not be immediately useful (he was killed by someone he didn't know).  The dead guy might be lying (the real killer is someone the murder victim wants to protect).  The dead guy might be insane or traumatized and any clue he provides is cryptic.  The dead guy might hate the PC's guts and simply be difficult.  The dead guy might now be a spectre, and more interested in eating the PC's soul than cooperating with a murder investigation.  I could probably go through a whole lot of different scenarios before I tried, "The dead guy's jaw is missing and his throat is slashed."   

I understand you basic point about 3e RAW, especially with things like 'Detect Evil' being potentially disruptive but I don't it is that different from setting up any mystery.  If the detectives have forensic tools, then you are going to have to take that into account when planning out the mystery whether CSI: New York or CSI: Greyhawk.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

I think strictly for mystery adventures, 3E skills work much better than 4E skills. If the group doesn't believe in resolving those sort of things through skill rolls anyways, I suppose the point is mute.


----------



## Gimby (Feb 15, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I think strictly for mystery adventures, 3E skills work much better than 4E skills. If the group doesn't believe in resolving those sort of things through skill rolls anyways, I suppose the point is mute.




Can you explain how?


----------



## DandD (Feb 15, 2009)

How would 3rd edition skills work better for mystery adventures than their 4th edition equivalent?

Also, who besides the characters with many skillpoints could participate well?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You know what kind of gets me about this whole "3e's spells solved everything" line of thinking?  Well for starters I'm going to assume you're PC's are getting involved in murders with at least a medium level of importance to the campaign world... that said why aren't the murderers using magic as well?  I mean I could easily imagine a erudite wizard, genius type serial killer in Eberron (think Hannibal Lecter with magic), who uses spells like disguise self, polymorph, etc. to cleverly impede spell solutions.



The spells are entirely made up. They do not relate to real world experience. It is just "spell vs counterspell". People worry about the game all being about pushing minis around? How about people canceling each other spell cards?

I can relate to finding clues, talking with other people, and trying to make sense of the information I got. 

And yes, I often have mysteries like murder mysteries in my homebrew games. I like the PCs doing legwork between killing people and taking their stuff, and I also like to play this kind of legwork between killing people and taking their stuff. Anything that reduces it to "cast the right spells" removes from the game.
Speak with Dead or other Divinations are just as terrible to me as Save or Die spells. They don't involve thinking or smartly using your abilities (without just abusing them). They are just pick the ability that is designed to solve the problem and go on. 

And that's also what makes Magic Missile different from something like Speak with the Dead. Magic Missile is just a tiny thing I can do in combat, it is like rolling a Gather Information or Streetwise check during an investigation. It is not a "Win"-Button. It is something that can lead you to succeed. There is more to do then merely use Magic Missile once. 

But Finger of Death is a "Win"-Button. But with one provision - there is a larger context in which this might work, e.g. if you have to decide whether you use Finger of Death now or later. 
Unless you have only one Speak with Dead in your entire investigations available and half a dozen of bodies to speak with, this is not the same. You could run every of your mystery scenarios like that, but it would provide a limitations to how these scenarioes can look like. And if you run a scenario in this way, you are actually running an investigation of "Who is the victim that will tell me what I need to know?", and Speak with Dead is just a kind of plot device. If you now add Augury or Divination to the mix, you have once again a way to cut all this short...


----------



## Geoff Watson (Feb 15, 2009)

malraux said:


> How incompatible are the add on d20 rules from 3e?  For example, adding sanity in by copying the UA sanity rules.  To me, they would fit just as well as they did in 3e.  Or just a minor revamp of the taint rules in Heroes of Horror?  Obviously, they'll take a bit of tweaking to get right, but my impression is that it should work pretty smoothly.
> 
> edit: oh, and my take on Cthulhu-esque adventures is that 4e would probably do a delta green style pretty well.




Since the 3e Sanity rules are a direct lift from CoC, without any D&D specifics (like mental ability damage) you could use them in 4e just as easily.

Geoff.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

Gimby said:


> Can you explain how?




WARNING-WARNING-PERSONAL OPINION BEING STATED HERE
Because 4E has a smaller and highly consolidated skill list. 3E has an extensive skill list, and the ability to take ranks in individual skills. If you are running a mystery adventure, there are simply more skills that are appropriate. And because it is not consolidated, there is a little more texture at work.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

DandD said:


> Also, who besides the characters with many skillpoints could participate well?





I never liked having class and cross-class skills in 3E. But I do think it is okay to have some classes have more skills than others (especially since it is the rogues thing in 3E). Everyone could participate, but sure mystery adventures will favor charaters that possess investigation related skills. I don't really have a problem with that. Also, even in a mystery adventure there will be combat and other threats, so in the hands of a competent DM everyone will have a chance to shine.

By the way, I am not trying to trash 4E here. Lots of really good games have consolidated skill lists. And they sure help keep the game going, and help place greater emphasis on role play. But in an adventure that is so focused on skill use, having a beefier skill list, with greater variation in ability between characters (through skill points or ranks), works better in my view. And I said before, if the players and GM prefer to role play those kinds of interactions rather than Roll them; then the point is moot.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 15, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> WARNING-WARNING-PERSONAL OPINION BEING STATED HERE
> Because 4E has a smaller and highly consolidated skill list. 3E has an extensive skill list, and the ability to take ranks in individual skills. If you are running a mystery adventure, there are simply more skills that are appropriate. And because it is not consolidated, there is a little more texture at work.




Error:Syntax. Does not follow.

1.) First off, how many skills were "lost"? Appraise, Craft, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Every other skill got rolled into something else. There is no need for UMD, and all the others could be handled with a simple ability check. Appraise aside, I don't think any of those skills help a mystery adventure.

2.) How does taking ranks help anything? All it means is you can't accurately predict if the PC will hit the DC needed. 

Lets say you have a clue that can only be found by talking around to people (Gather Info/Streetwise). Your first group has a rogue with max ranks, a fighter with a cha penalty, a wizard who through a few c.c. ranks, and a cleric with no ranks but a decent cha. What do you set the DC at. Set it too high and only the rogue has a chance at it (Others can't make it without magic or such). Set it too low, and your rogue will breeze it so why bother making the others roll. In 4e, the difference in trained/untrained is 5, so its easier to guess at what a good DC should be.

So I fail to see texture, unless you mean "more than likely, the PCs won't have the appropriate ranks to solve this by rolling."


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Error:Syntax. Does not follow.
> 
> 1.) First off, how many skills were "lost"? Appraise, Craft, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Every other skill got rolled into something else. There is no need for UMD, and all the others could be handled with a simple ability check. Appraise aside, I don't think any of those skills help a mystery adventure.
> 
> ...




1) The problem here is the consolidation and how it impacts variety. Yes there are ability checks and mechanics to take care of these things; but if you want to design an "Investigator" or a skill character whose skills shine in a murder mystery, being able to take and improve skills matters.

2) Ranks matter because they allow for varience in skill level between characters who possess the same skill. And they allow for being okay at something, mediocre, or great.  

You set the DC at however difficult it should be. Tailoring DCs to the party composition is silly. Climbing a greasy ladder should always be just as hard. It shouldn't get harder, because you get better at climbing.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So I fail to see texture, unless you mean "more than likely, the PCs won't have the appropriate ranks to solve this by rolling."





No it means one guy might breeze through, another might get by the skin of his teeth, and another fails completely.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat.



Last time I check the combat rules of 3e (or BECMI, 1e or 2e) didn't apply out of combat either. Those powers you mention are "attack powers." So I really don't see how 4E is different from the other editions in that respect.

And for what you want, I think 4e is more suited than BECMI, 1E or 2E.  4E has Skills, Skills Challenges and Backgrounds. 2E had Non-Weapon Proficiencies. BECMI had not much. And all editions have roleplaying in equal measure.




Wik said:


> My question here is, does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?



IMO (obviously), no.  The 4E books spend a lot of time (and ink) on attack powers and battle-gear, but that in no way diminishes the rest of the game. Make of it what you will. Especially the roleplaying.




Wik said:


> What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?



You want an exhaustive list? I am quite sure I couldn't write one. I keep coming up with new ideas all the time.

The most important thing to realize is how easy it is to re-write the fluff. I wanted a Firbolg race and just reflavored all the Dragonborn rules without changing any of them. You can do the same thing for the classes too, mostly. The Cleric and Paladin could just as easily be Jedi or some secular warrior order from The Tome of Battle.




Wik said:


> What can be done if you tweak the rules a bit?



However big the previous list is, this one's 10x bigger. Most games would be accomplished with rule additions though, not changes. You could layer a horror mechanic on top of 4E without changing how combat works, for instance. Or dehyrdration. Whatever.  

4e is focused on combat, and the combat rules are well playtested. I wouldn't change them, but I might add to them.  Stalker0's alt-Skill Challenge mechanic is a good example.




Wik said:


> And what sort of settings would require a complete rules overhaul?



Like any previous edition of D&D, historical accuracy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> 1.) First off, how many skills were "lost"? Appraise, Craft, Perform, Profession, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope. Every other skill got rolled into something else. There is no need for UMD, and all the others could be handled with a simple ability check. Appraise aside, I don't think any of those skills help a mystery adventure.
> 
> 2.) How does taking ranks help anything? All it means is you can't accurately predict if the PC will hit the DC needed.




Both of those things are related to granularity, to each character contributing something unique ("noncombat roles" elsewhere). A character with 5 ranks in Use Rope was different than a character with 10 ranks in it, and both of those characters were different than someone with 7 ranks in Appraise.

I'm not totally on board with the idea that this specific granularity (skill ranks and more skills) is the (or even a) big reason 3e does it better, but it is fair to say that overall, 4e's equalization of everyone across the noncombat spectrum is one of the big reason that 4e sucks so hard at giving us an interesting noncombat challenge. In combat, the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric all contribute in markedly different ways to success. In the skill challenge system (for instance), everyone is equal as long as their case to the DM is vaguely persuasive. This is good if you don't want to focus much on using the skill challenge system (it's a nice patch to get you through that and onto what you really want to focus on -- a fun minigame), but if the focus of your game is on things the skill challenge system would model, it leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 15, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> No it means one guy might breeze through, another might get by the skin of his teeth, and another fails completely.




Yeah, but unless your investigator-type PC isn't going to share that info, the first person who makes the DC wins.

Take that gather info roll. You decide the info requires a DC 15.

The Rogue has +11. He has a real hard time failing.
The Fighter is at -2. Not a good chance.
The Wizard is +6, Not good, not bad.
The Cleric is +2. Better than the Fighter. 

Unless the rogue rolls a 1, 2, or 3, the DC is met and the info gleaned. He gladly shares this knowledge with his friends (who all failed their rolls by miles) and the result is the same; PCs learn info. 

Of course, that's assuming a skill like that with no risk to failure. If that were a JUMP check, then the rogue would leap across while the wizard prepped a Dimension Door for the others.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 15, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, but unless your investigator-type PC isn't going to share that info, the first person who makes the DC wins.
> 
> Take that gather info roll. You decide the info requires a DC 15.
> 
> ...




Sure. And if he spent that many ranks to get the +11, he deserves to breeze through when the skill comes up. But solving a mystery shouldn't hinge on 1 skill. Another reason why the consolidated skill list doesn't work as well in this situation. It puts more possibilities on the table.

Hey if the skills in 4E work well for you with investigation adventures. That is great. I just found I had more fun solving mysteries with the 3E skill system.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 15, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Oh. Well, fair enough then. I just took the words at face value.




Don't feel bad. I did as well.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 15, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Sure. And if he spent that many ranks to get the +11, he deserves to breeze through when the skill comes up. But solving a mystery shouldn't hinge on 1 skill. Another reason why the consolidated skill list doesn't work as well in this situation. It puts more possibilities on the table.




The point is that a character at level 10 with 2 ranks in Diplomacy was completely useless at it.  It was much better to have a group with a Rogue with max ranks in Search, Bluff, Gather Information, Hide and Sneak and a Cleric with max ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge(Religion) and so on than it was to have a group whose Rogue had 3 ranks in Knowledge(Religion) and 3 ranks less than max in Bluff with the same Cleric.

Therefore, the granularity of the system wasn't helpful at all except as an illusion.  Sure, it let you play a character that you could say "knows a little bit about religion because of his upbringing in the monastery", but in actual play it meant that you rolled and failed to know anything while the Cleric made it and knew everything.  Meanwhile, you failed to roll high enough on your Bluff because it was so low.

It's not about hinging on one skill.  As everyone else has pointed out, all of the skills that vanished from the list were not useful in solving mysteries at all.  There are just as many skills as before for this purpose.  You still spread things amongst the skills.  In fact, I don't see any change I'd make at all for an investigative adventure in 4e.  Other than to rely more on freeform roleplaying and less on skill checks in order to make the actual players do some thinking and figuring things out.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2009)

> The point is that a character at level 10 with 2 ranks in Diplomacy was completely useless at it.




Not every DC varied with level. In fact, this was part of the assumed design -- not every skill was WORTH one point per level, so if you only invested a handful of points in them, you could get as much functionality as you ever would really need. 

But anyway, this is kind of a fiddly bit of specific detail. The main point is that 4e lost a significant amount of granularity that made noncombat challenges less fun to run, rather than making them MORE fun to run.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Not every DC varied with level. In fact, this was part of the assumed design -- not every skill was WORTH one point per level, so if you only invested a handful of points in them, you could get as much functionality as you ever would really need.
> 
> But anyway, this is kind of a fiddly bit of specific detail. The main point is that 4e lost a significant amount of granularity that made noncombat challenges less fun to run, rather than making them MORE fun to run.



Well, fun is subjective of course.  I found that if a skill wasn't scaling per level then I was simply asking for a roll that didn't need to done:

DM: "Ok, make a knowledge(arcana) check to determine what the runes on the wall mean.  DC 10."
Rogue: "I have +5 to that.  I roll a 5.  Whew, I made it!"
Wizard: "I have +27 to that roll.  What is it?"
Rogue: "Why did I put ranks in that again?"

DM: "Fine then, you know what the runes are.  But make me a search check to search the room.  DC 20, it's pretty hard."
Wizard: "Ooh, I have a 28 Int and I'm an Elf.  I get +11.  I have no ranks in it.  I make it."
Ranger: "That sucks, I put 10 ranks into that so I could be good at it.  But I have Int of 8, I only have +9."
Rogue: "It seriously doesn't matter guys.  I have +25 in Search."

When making a skill check in either 4e or 3e, it doesn't matter what your skill check is if it isn't within 10 of the highest person in the group with that skill unless it was one of the couple skills where individual successes matter(Jump, Climb, Swim, Spot, Sneak, Hide, and maybe a couple of more I'm not thinking of).  For most skills, however, it is simply a matter of whether SOMEONE in the group succeeds, not how many or who.

As for the amount of fun to RUN these challenges.  My experience is that they are exactly the same:

3e:
DM: "Give me a search check."
Player 1: "I got 17"
Player 2: "I got 20"
Player 3: "I only got 5"
DM: "It was DC 20, you find a blood smear on the floor underneath the table."

4e:
DM: "Give me a Perception check."
Player 1: "I got 17"
Player 2: "I got 20"
Player 3: "I only got 5"
DM: "It was DC 20, you find a blood smear on the floor underneath the table."


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The main point is that 4e lost a significant amount of granularity that made noncombat challenges less fun to run, rather than making them MORE fun to run.




In your opinion, of course.  Not on the granularity, but on the "less fun."  

4E non-combat encounters are the same as any other system's non-combat encounters.  The only thing that limits the scope of a campaign is the person designing said campaign.  

To say that a mechanical system limits your ability to think up something fun for your characters to do is...well.  I'll stop there.

Edit:  Ninja'd by Majoru, and HE had NUMBERS.  Frickin' eh.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The point is that a character at level 10 with 2 ranks in Diplomacy was completely useless at it. It was much better to have a group with a Rogue with max ranks in Search, Bluff, Gather Information, Hide and Sneak and a Cleric with max ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge(Religion) and so on than it was to have a group whose Rogue had 3 ranks in Knowledge(Religion) and 3 ranks less than max in Bluff with the same Cleric.
> 
> Therefore, the granularity of the system wasn't helpful at all except as an illusion. Sure, it let you play a character that you could say "knows a little bit about religion because of his upbringing in the monastery", but in actual play it meant that you rolled and failed to know anything while the Cleric made it and knew everything. Meanwhile, you failed to roll high enough on your Bluff because it was so low.
> 
> It's not about hinging on one skill. As everyone else has pointed out, all of the skills that vanished from the list were not useful in solving mysteries at all. There are just as many skills as before for this purpose. You still spread things amongst the skills. In fact, I don't see any change I'd make at all for an investigative adventure in 4e. Other than to rely more on freeform roleplaying and less on skill checks in order to make the actual players do some thinking and figuring things out.




Yes, if he only spent 2 ranks in skills he should be useless at it, no matter what his level. 

Your example about the rogue and cleric doesn't matter if the cleric really needs to make a skill check, and can't rely on the Rogue's success to get him by.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 16, 2009)

Late to the conversation but in my humble opinion I haven't noticed any signifigant decrease in any particular area. I have noticed however a dramatic improvement in being able to pull off stuff like mystery, non-magic campaigns and such. 

So for myself of all the D&Ds I have played. 4e has been my best for non-magical classes who like to equally (and that is important) interact and play in non-combat campaigns.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Well, fun is subjective of course.






			
				RefinedBean said:
			
		

> In your opinion, of course. Not on the granularity, but on the "less fun."




Sure. But I don't know how one can have more fun with less options and less variety unless one wasn't interested in that aspect in the first place.



			
				RefinedBean said:
			
		

> 4E non-combat encounters are the same as any other system's non-combat encounters. The only thing that limits the scope of a campaign is the person designing said campaign.
> 
> To say that a mechanical system limits your ability to think up something fun for your characters to do is...well. I'll stop there.




Well that's just blatantly false, man.  

4e is different in non-combat encounters. Unless you happen to be at least a dabbler in game design, not having good rules for something does limit you to basically avoiding that thing (unless you find another game that does it better). A mechanical system can prevent you from having fun doing what you think up because, for instance, there is no difference between the characters.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Yes, if he only spent 2 ranks in skills he should be useless at it, no matter what his level.
> 
> Your example about the rogue and cleric doesn't matter if the cleric really needs to make a skill check, and can't rely on the Rogue's success to get him by.



True.  But you CAN rely on the Rogue if he has max ranks(or if he chose it as a trained skill in 4e).  You can also somewhat rely on him in 4e even if he hasn't taken it as a trained skill, since he'll have a reasonable chance of success.

It's the granularity that actually causes an all or nothing:

-If no one has the skill at (near) max ranks, then anyone (or no one) can succeed and there is no point in rolling.

-If one person has a skill at max ranks, then no ranks anyone put into the skill(unless they are also maxed) matter.

-If too many people have the same skill at max ranks, than the max ranks don't mean anything, because if a DM wants to make a skill check have a chance of failing, DCs suddenly skyrocket.  Either that or one person succeeds on a 1, making the skillpoints put into everyone else's skills redunant(and better spent elsewhere).

Basically, the granularity of the skill system has no effect at all except to waste skillpoints that aren't in maxed skills (or up the the "effective max", like +24 in Tumble.  And I always felt that it was pretty dumb that there were skills with "effective maximums").


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure. But I don't know how one can have more fun with less options and less variety unless one wasn't interested in that aspect in the first place.




Where you saw options and variety, I saw choke-chains and pigeonholing.  In my opinion, for non-combat mechanisms in D&D, less is more.



> Well that's just blatantly false, man.
> 
> 4e is different in non-combat encounters. Unless you happen to be at least a dabbler in game design, not having good rules for something does limit you to basically avoiding that thing (unless you find another game that does it better). A mechanical system can prevent you from having fun doing what you think up because, for instance, there is no difference between the characters.




I think the point of 4E is to differentiate characters in combat, and leave things pretty wide open for everything else.  Characters can be as unique or similar as they want, with skill training/focus, utility power choice, etc.

Sure, the skill challenge system wasn't perfect at release, but they never said you had to use it.  It's not difficult to design non-combat encounters.  You have skills, that require checks.  The rest is up to the plot.  Like I said, 4E is taking a "less is more" approach to non-combat mechanics, and it's one of the reasons I love it.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> True. But you CAN rely on the Rogue if he has max ranks(or if he chose it as a trained skill in 4e). You can also somewhat rely on him in 4e even if he hasn't taken it as a trained skill, since he'll have a reasonable chance of success.
> 
> It's the granularity that actually causes an all or nothing:
> 
> ...




No. My point was that the rogues success isn't always going to impact the skill roll the other guy makes. The Rogue may make his diplomacy check, but the cleric might fail and be sent to the dungeons. It helps flesh out characters and gives the game much more texture. If everyone is either good or not good at a skill, then things get kind of boring. Especially when everyone at the same level is basically the same on all the skill they took. Allocating skill ranks allows you to flesh out your character, to create degrees of skill.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not totally on board with the idea that this specific granularity (skill ranks and more skills) is the (or even a) big reason 3e does it better, but it is fair to say that overall, 4e's equalization of everyone across the noncombat spectrum is one of the big reason that 4e sucks so hard at giving us an interesting noncombat challenge. In combat, the fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric all contribute in markedly different ways to success. In the skill challenge system (for instance), everyone is equal as long as their case to the DM is vaguely persuasive. This is good if you don't want to focus much on using the skill challenge system (it's a nice patch to get you through that and onto what you really want to focus on -- a fun minigame), but if the focus of your game is on things the skill challenge system would model, it leaves a lot to be desired.




   Drawing on the little actual play experience I have in a related system (Star Wars Saga Edition), I'd suggest that it's not the lack of skill ranks _per se_ that makes the difference, but the lack of differentiation in skill types and the de-emphasis on skills in other parts of the system.

   In our past two sessions, my group has been playing "The Queen of Air and Darkness" from the _Dawn of Defiance_ campaign. We've had a single combat encounter, and yet the game is moving along at a good clip and appears to be fun for everyone. I know that my PC (a Noble 4/Soldier 1) hasn't fired a single shot, and yet I've been enjoying it tremendously _and_ he's made a substantial mechanical difference in play.

   Now, SWSE uses the same basic skill system as 4E, but with two differences:
  1) Niche protection in the skill system is stronger, given that you can only learn class skills barring extraordinary circumstances. 
  2) Greater specialization in _other_ areas keyed off of skills, via feats, talents, organization benefits and the like. Our Zabrak scout can get up to three rolls on Perception checks under the right circumstances, the two Force-sensititives in the group can use that skill to do funky stuff outside of combat, and my organizational benefit from the _Force Unleashed Campaign Guide_ saved our bacon on a Persuasion check in the last encounter.

  Therefore, I'd suggest that the problem isn't the trinary skill model (untrained/trained/focused) per se, but the lack of niche protection and possibilities for differentiation and specialization outside it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> Where you saw options and variety, I saw choke-chains and pigeonholing. In my opinion, for non-combat mechanisms in D&D, less is more.




People see the same thing in combat roles, though -- one character can't heal, sneak attack, mark, and use fireball all with equal proficiency, so people see that as pigeonholing and limiting.

Basically, less is only more if you want less. In a campaign focusing on combat, you don't want that much noncombat stuff gumming up the works and you only need quick resolution rules for things. In this respect, 4e works fine, but that doesn't make noncombat more fun, it just makes it get out of the way faster so that the fun part of the game is done more. It makes it less of a problem, but if it wasn't a problem to begin with, it breaks it further.



> I think the point of 4E is to differentiate characters in combat, and leave things pretty wide open for everything else.




That weakens the support to do "everything else." 



> Characters can be as unique or similar as they want, with skill training/focus, utility power choice, etc.




But when it comes to actually putting those to use to influence the game, all those choices are meaningless. It's a similar beast to railroading: whichever path you go down, you'll get to the same thing. Whatever skill you choose, whatever training or focus or utility power you have, it doesn't make you any different in the skill challenge. 



> Sure, the skill challenge system wasn't perfect at release, but they never said you had to use it.




They never said you had to use anything. They did say that the skill challenge was there to help you resolve conflicts that didn't involve combat, but it fails to do that in a satisfying way.



> It's not difficult to design non-combat encounters.




No more so than it is to design combat encounters. They're both forms of resolving conflict.



> You have skills, that require checks.




And combat is just an elaborate "attack check." 



> The rest is up to the plot.




It's usually not very fun just being taken along for the DM's ride.



> Like I said, 4E is taking a "less is more" approach to non-combat mechanics, and it's one of the reasons I love it.




Less isn't more, though. Less is less. It's only great if you want to do less of it. Not every campaign style and genre wants less noncombat resolution. For 4e to assume this is the case across the board is for 4e to be absolutely wrong, and rather limited (not that it has to stay that way). This was, effectively, the OP's finding: If you want to resolve conflict without fighting things, 4e is worse than earlier editions. Conversely, if you want to do a beat-down, 4e rocks.

IMO, videogames rock more than 4e for combat, and my D&D games were never about combat (though combat was a necessary element to them).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 16, 2009)

I think it is really a individual thing. I know for myself 4e has allowed much more flexibility for non-combat then previous editions. I can finally have mystery, noir style fantasy games I have been wanting to do properly in D&D with 4e.

A combination of Skill Challenges (yes they work quite well for me), lack of overpowering magical abilities such as Detect Evil, everyone having generally equal capacity out of combat (I have always viewed non-combat stuff to be the area where it is more about the player then the PC), the openness of the system (I have found that Powers can be used quite nicely even if combat-focused in non-combat), easy to determine non-combat.

I found with previous editions it was essentially either single dice-rolls from skill-master classes and/or magic spells overpowering whatever the obstacle was.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 16, 2009)

Though I'm far from what one might call a fan of 4e, it's hard to blame its system for this one.  Any edition of the game can handle a very broad spectrum of campaign ideas and play styles, provided the DM is willing to make the necessary tweaks; as-written is often not enough:

Want a gritty investigation game? Chop out some divination spells, disallow information gathering via any means other than spoken-word roleplaying (in 3e terms, ban non-physical skill checks), and keep the magic and wealth down to a dull roar.

Want a Cthulu-esque horror game? Play up the fright aspect, maybe kill off a few entire parties until players learn not everything can be solved with combat, and overlay some pre-published or homebrew sanity rules.

Want historical quasi-accuracy?  Downplay - but do not eliminate - magic, pick a culture or historical era you want to replicate, and go. (many fantasy authors have done quite well in overlaying magic into an otherwise historically-reasonable setting; Katherine Kurtz' Deryni series is but one example)  Oh, and in 4e take about 20 hit points off everything except minions; such that one blow *can* kill or severaly hurt an inexperienced adventurer.

D+D in all its iterations is at its core a surprisingly robust system; it has to be, to allow for all these different flavours and remain playable.  In car terms, all the engine models have been reliable but it's always been up to you to choose the body style, trim, colour, etc. that make it the car you want to drive.

Lanefan


----------



## RefinedBean (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> People see the same thing in combat roles, though -- one character can't heal, sneak attack, mark, and use fireball all with equal proficiency, so people see that as pigeonholing and limiting.




Well, people are...dismissive, maybe.  This is what MCing is exactly for.  And MCing helps both combat and non-combat aspects in 4E (and 3E, if I remember correctly).



> Basically, less is only more if you want less. In a campaign focusing on combat, you don't want that much noncombat stuff gumming up the works and you only need quick resolution rules for things. In this respect, 4e works fine, but that doesn't make noncombat more fun, it just makes it get out of the way faster so that the fun part of the game is done more. It makes it less of a problem, but if it wasn't a problem to begin with, it breaks it further.



I see what you're saying here, but if you're running a non-combat oriented game, why would you use ANY edition of D&D?  Plenty of other games provide an epic feel with little focus on combat.  4E gives you what you need to do non-combat stuff, without hassle or pointless mechanics (skill challenges being an exception, based on opinion).  Skills.  Rituals.  Villains.  Drama.  It's all there.



> That weakens the support to do "everything else."



Perhaps.  Or maybe that "everything else" doesn't need any support.  Heck, in my opinion, I think skills are pretty pointless, but they remain.  We probably just have a difference of opinion stemming from play-styles here.



> But when it comes to actually putting those to use to influence the game, all those choices are meaningless. It's a similar beast to railroading: whichever path you go down, you'll get to the same thing. Whatever skill you choose, whatever training or focus or utility power you have, it doesn't make you any different in the skill challenge (or the ritual use).



I don't see it that way.  The skills presented allow for quite a bit of flexibility in how they're presented by various characters, in my opinion.



> They never said you had to use anything. They did say that the skill challenge was there to help you resolve conflicts that didn't involve combat, but it fails to do that in a satisfying way.



How does it fail, other than the mechanics needing to be eratta'd?  My groups have had nothing but fun with skill challenges.  One thing I love about them is they can be extended and hidden from the players, or plain to all, depending on what mood is called for.



> No more so than it is to design combat encounters. They're both forms of resolving conflict.



True, except that there's probably a better chance of a character dying in a combat encounter than a non-combat one, which means most players enjoy a bevy of options in-combat to make things go their way.  Out of combat, things are a bit looser, and players can take a simple system and run with it (i.e. skills)



> And combat is just an elaborate "attack check."



Well, you got me there.  Maybe this whole "check" thing is a problem.



> It's usually not very fun just being taken along for the DM's ride.



Never said that was the outcome.  All I'm saying is non-combat encounters in D&D, no matter how complex, are basically 1 part RP, 1 part skill check, thrown into a giant stew that the DM is stirring.  4E seems to have realized this, and gives us a small set of tools for non-combat encounters that I find highly adequate.  But your opinion differs, and that's fine.



> Less isn't more, though. Less is less. It's only great if you want to do less of it. Not every campaign style and genre wants less things not involving combat. For 4e to assume this is the case across the board is for 4e to be absolutely wrong, and rather limited (not that it has to stay that way). This was, effectively, the OP's case: If you want to resolve conflict without fighting things, 4e is worse than earlier editions.



And I think the OP is wrong.  If characters want to resolve things in 4E without fighting things, they're perfectly able to.  What's stopping them?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

> I have always viewed non-combat stuff to be the area where it is more about the player then the PC




That's the difference there in a nutshell. 

I don't consider combat to be more about the player than the PC. That doesn't change just because the swords are sheathed.

To me, both are ways to accomplish a PC goal using a PC's abilities. 

Resolving a conflict is done with the PC's abilities, not the player's, no matter if it involves stabbitty death or not.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Resolving a conflict is done with the PC's abilities, not the player's, no matter if it involves stabbitty death or not.



But the rules are there for answering the question "Did it work?" (where 'it' is whatever the PC was trying to do). In a combat context you want clear, unambiguous rules because the DM doesn't have a better method for answering the question. In a roleplaying situation allowing some flex makes a lot more sense because roleplaying is inherently more open-ended and subjective than combat. It's just sensible to have different levels of specificity for combat and roleplaying scenarios if you want equally good results in both situations.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The core of my D&D gaming looks nothing like what the first three core books actively support (that is, minis combat). The designers, with regards to my campaign anyway, were wrong.




So?  They were wrong for the guy in Wisconsin who uses D&D to play a non heroic game of Postmen & Pitbulls.  That doesn't make the designers wrong, it means your expectations are flawed.



> Here's a clunky Rituals system in a tacked-on chapter because people liked the old problem-solving spells. Oh, and here's some broken skill challenge rules because some people don't want to fight everything. Oh, and here's an encumbrance system that still measures things by the pound because who DOESN'T love that?
> 
> 4e doesn't get a pass in the "providing useless rules" thing.



Clunky?  Rituals are easy and generally well liked.  My players love them.  Skill challenges are the best innovation of 4e, imo.  I love them, have ran dozens, they work great in doing what they are intended to do.  Especially if you apply the general wing it attitude of DMing in 4e to the structure of skill challenges.  Running multi-phase challenges, challenge/combat hybrids, challenges that run for months behind the scenes...

Only thing you get right there is that encumbrance sucks, has always sucked, and probably will always suck.  Games are better off without an encumbrance system.  The only groups that need them are groups with players that specifically look to abuse equipment issues and the DM of that group can handle things as needed.



> The D&D game has always embraced a diversity of playstyles, and 4e even tries to (it just fails to, so far). D&D was what each DM defined it to be, not what TSR or Gygax or WotC defined it to be.



No, the game really hasn't.  D&Ds *players* have embraced a diversity of playstyles over the years, the game itself has never deceived anyone (except you, apparently) about what is built to do.  As someone else said - D&D is great at being D&D.  The 3PP playground was built off bringing different playstyles to a published form using and tweaking D&Ds basic kill-things-take-stuff model.  D&Ds given nods to other types of games, and 4e is no different.



> That doesn't change what 4e clearly supports in the rules as published thus far, and that is combat.



Yeah, because skills like diplomacy, streetwise, and arcana cry combat only, as do rituals, skill challenges, extensive sections on campaign design and world building in the DMG, a Roleplaying section in the PHB before any real crunch appears...  



> The entire philosophy of 4e thus far believes that combat is the One True Fun.
> 
> That idea is wrong.
> 
> In fact, for me, if I wanted to fight goblins, I'd go play a video game. D&D, especially for me, is not a game about fighting goblins, and never, ever has been.



That's simply wrong.  You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as "not working" when legions of players feel otherwise.  Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication.  This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math.  One that has been corrected in Errata.  Skill challenges beat the heck out of the way 3e and, indeed, all other editions of D&D, have approached non-combat situations.  It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, "sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book."  The development of skill challenges and other touches show me that 4e is more focused, not less, than 3e was on things that happen outside of combat.  The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded.


----------



## Wik (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This was, effectively, the OP's finding: If you want to resolve conflict without fighting things, 4e is worse than earlier editions. Conversely, if you want to do a beat-down, 4e rocks.
> 
> IMO, videogames rock more than 4e for combat, and my D&D games were never about combat (though combat was a necessary element to them).




Yeah, this sums me up pretty nicely.  I like 4e, I like running some awesome combats... but I'm personally thinking 3e handled the skill side of things better.  Maybe I just haven't adjusted to the 4e dynamic yet.  But I can't see CSI: Eberron (or some other thereotical campaign I'll think of a month down the line) working in a 4e context AS WELL as it would with 3e.


----------



## Wik (Feb 16, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That's simply wrong.  You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as "not working" when legions of players feel otherwise.  Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication.  This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math.  One that has been corrected in Errata.  Skill challenges beat the heck out of the way 3e and, indeed, all other editions of D&D, have approached non-combat situations.  It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, "sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book."  The development of skill challenges and other touches show me that 4e is more focused, not less, than 3e was on things that happen outside of combat.  The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded.




Two things:  

1)  You seem to be taking things a bit personally.  This isn't an edition war, though it seems to be heading that way unfortunately.  

2)  I think we're allowed to be annoyed at what is an "error in the math" - it more or less shows that something like Skill Challenges didn't get nearly the same amount of attention as something like combat, which is sort of the point of all this.  

Skills are a big part of this discussion, but they aren't the only part.  Another big part on why I don't think 4e works as well outside of combat has to do with abilities themselves.  In earlier editions, while abilities had combat uses, a creative player could often use them in non-combat situations.  You could, for example, use Burning Hands to burn through a rope, or Reduce to get through a tight squeeze.  In 4e, unfortunately, powers are pretty much all mechanics, and it is a bit harder to use the powers in non-combat situations (not impossible, but spotty at best).  Can I, for example, use Ray of Frost to freeze water?  Can my ranger use Armour Splinter to knock off an ally's armour (maybe the armour is cursed, or something)?  You can point to the stunt rules in the DMG (the famous "page 42"), but that's not what I'm getting at.  Can I use my powers (something like 30% of the PHB, and easily the biggest part of my character) to do things not explicitly detailed in their description?  Or, more to the point, _can I use my powers outside of combat_?  The answer, for most of them, is no.  Even utilities are often aimed primarily towards combat functionality.

Really, a 4e character outside of a fight is not much different from a BECMI character outside of a combat.  The 4e character has some skills that weren't present in BECMI, but beyond that... not much difference.  The BECMI character probably has more magic items useful outside of a fight, though.  The BECMI character may have spells and scrolls useful outside of a fight, while the 4e will have rituals, so I'll put them on even grounds there.

What I'm saying is, if you want a game with interesting _mechanical_ details outside of a fight, 4e is probably not your game.  Most characters will look too much alike outside of the fray.  

3e does not have this problem - it suffers instead from a divide between combat and non-combat characters (a fighter is built entirely for combat, while a bard is pretty bad at combat, but great outside of it;  in a fight, one player will be awesome, while outside of a fight, he'll be bored and useless while the other character shines).


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1)  You seem to be taking things a bit personally.  This isn't an edition war, though it seems to be heading that way unfortunately.




Oh, I am definitely not.  No worries there.  I was just objecting to Midgets language implying that every last element in 4e that is not combat oriented has been factually established as "sucking".  They don't.



> 2)  I think we're allowed to be annoyed at what is an "error in the math" - it more or less shows that something like Skill Challenges didn't get nearly the same amount of attention as something like combat, which is sort of the point of all this.




There are a lot more errors fixed from the Combat and Powers sections than anywhere else, so using it as proof of lack of attention falls flat.  Throw in the hype over skill challenges, as they were being talked up long before release, Mearls was going on about them for months before release, and continues afterward.  Like I said, I've had nothing but success with them, even before modifying the math. 



> You could, for example, use Burning Hands to burn through a rope, or Reduce to get through a tight squeeze.




Those, at least burning hands, were uses outside of the descriptions as well.  That was before and is now up to the DM, but there is no rule or reason to not allow such things now if you allowed such things before.



> Can I use my powers (something like 30% of the PHB, and easily the biggest part of my character) to do things not explicitly detailed in their description?




This, as in 3e and previous editions, is up to the DM.  As I said, if the DM allowed it before, what's to stop him now.  Certainly no rule found in 4e that says you can't do things like this.



> Really, a 4e character outside of a fight is not much different from a BECMI character outside of a combat.  The 4e character has some skills that weren't present in BECMI, but beyond that... not much difference.




I think that's a bit ...light.  Just the presence of Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate show a huge intention towards social design, something BECMI did not have.  These skills were among the better additions of 3e as it let players build characters with the intention of being good at social situations.  This carries through in 4e and is strongly, strongly enhanced with skill challenges.  Rather than a single roll, you can play out an entire evenings worth of social interaction, backed by firm character mechanics.  It's hard to support the argument you are making when you look at things like this.  



> What I'm saying is, if you want a game with interesting _mechanical_ details outside of a fight, 4e is probably not your game.




I understand perfectly well what you're saying.  I _disagree, _completely.  



> 3e does not have this problem




It does because the systems involved are clunky.  Skills are based on static DCs unless its opposed, so things are often impossible or far too easy.  Social situations too often come down to a single die roll, rather than a complex encounter where the group must work together, play to their strengths, and apply themselves.  Craft skills?  Don't get me started, clunky and unworkable for what it intended to do. 

4e is fluid in non-combat situations where 3e was not, mechanically.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

I'm mostly not responding to every detail because (a) I want to avoid getting bogged down in fairly meaningless specifics and (b) I'm not interested in engaging in edition wars. I want to make sure I stay on-message here: 4e isn't very good when compared with other D&D editions if you're playing a game that doesn't want to focus on combat.

With that said:



			
				Idra Ranger said:
			
		

> But the rules are there for answering the question "Did it work?" (where 'it' is whatever the PC was trying to do). In a combat context you want clear, unambiguous rules because the DM doesn't have a better method for answering the question. In a roleplaying situation allowing some flex makes a lot more sense because roleplaying is inherently more open-ended and subjective than combat. It's just sensible to have different levels of specificity for combat and roleplaying scenarios if you want equally good results in both situations.



It's wrong to assume that more vagueness is a good thing in "roleplaying." It's a matter of focus.

Here is perhaps a heretical thought: Combat is no different from a skill check. They both do the same thing. Combat could be reduced to a skill check.

Understand that, and you begin to understand where I'm coming from.



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> Rituals are easy and generally well liked. My players love them. Skill challenges are the best innovation of 4e, I love them, have ran dozens, they work great in doing what they are intended to do.



But neither of them can support an mostly noncombat campaign in a satisfying way. It's not what they were designed to do. This leaves a gaping hole in 4e that wasn't so gaping before. They add a few noncombat options to a combat game just fine, but they don't support different genres and playstyles.

Which is really my point: 4e doesn't really support a playstyle that isn't mostly about combat.



> No, the game really hasn't.



There's never been a homogenous D&D. I've never met two DMs who have run the same game, even if they've run the same module. I've never met one DM who runs everything exactly by the books. The game is insanely diverse, whether or not it is supposed to be. 



> Yeah, because skills like diplomacy, streetwise, and arcana cry combat only, as do rituals, skill challenges, extensive sections on campaign design and world building in the DMG, a Roleplaying section in the PHB before any real crunch appears...



Combat is one form of conflict resolution.

What other forms are present in 4e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 4e combat? Heck, half as diverse?



> You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as "not working" when legions of players feel otherwise.



It doesn't work if you don't also have combat in it, and it works a lot worse than it did in earlier editions for a host of reasons (especially because every character can do every thing). 



> Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication. This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math.



How many mistakes were there with the combat math, on publication?

What does that tell you about how important these things are to the designers?

What does that tell you about how much fun a game that focuses on something that the designers didn't even think was important enough to get exactly right on publication might be?



> It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, "sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book."



So I assume you use it instead of combat, too, right?

I mean, why use the combat system at all?



> The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded.




This is only true if you're only using them to support a combat-focused game, or if you're truly comfortable with open-ended rules.

If it's the latter, would you have a problem with skill challenges replacing combat in your game?

If it's the former, well, that's my point.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But neither of them can support an mostly noncombat campaign in a satisfying way. It's not what they were designed to do. This leaves a gaping hole in 4e that wasn't so gaping before.




D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming.  Every edition has had a primary focus on combat.  It has always been the most detailed system within the game system.  If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D?  There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs).  

This is really propping up a straw man.

"4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions"

"Those editions didn't do games without combat well either"

"Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er."

You're not really arguing anything of value here.  That's not the gameplay D&D is built for, in any edition.  Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly.  Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it?  



> Which is really my point: 4e doesn't really support a playstyle that isn't mostly about combat.




Neither does any other edition.  D&D is _mostly_ about combat.  I know, I know, "it does it worse-er"



> There's never been a homogenous D&D.




The game has always been the same.  Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this.  We did it in the early 80s because D&D was about all there was, you didn't have 10 systems for every conceivable style of play.  1e and OD&D weren't built to do noncombat games, they weren't built for games of courtly intrigue. they weren't built for historical, non magic gaming.  We did those things more out of necessity than because early D&D built it into the system.  

Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do.  There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play.



> The game is insanely diverse, whether or not it is supposed to be.




This is where the disconnect is.  The _players_ are insanely diverse and insanely creative.  




> Combat is one form of conflict resolution.
> 
> What other forms are present in 4e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 4e combat? Heck, half as diverse?




What other forms are present in 3e, 2e, 1e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 3e, 2e, 1e combat.  Heck, half as diverse?

None.



> How many mistakes were there with the combat math, on publication?




Most of the several pages of errata.



> What does that tell you about how important these things are to the designers?






> What does that tell you about how much fun a game that focuses on something that the designers didn't even think was important enough to get exactly right on publication might be?




No game has ever been exactly right on publication.  There is always errata.  



> So I assume you use it instead of combat, too, right?
> 
> I mean, why use the combat system at all?




Because I am playing D&D.



> This is only true if you're only using them to support a combat-focused game




That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute.  It is D&D afterall.  What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&D were not combat focused.  And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&D are combat focused, what are we arguing about?  The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions?  

I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Yes, if he only spent 2 ranks in skills he should be useless at it, no matter what his level.
> 
> Your example about the rogue and cleric doesn't matter if the cleric really needs to make a skill check, and can't rely on the Rogue's success to get him by.




Then what is the state of "2 ranks" for? I am useless at any level? Why do I need to spend 2 points of my in-game resources for it? What's the purpose? 

It is as if I could spend points on fractional hit points that always get rounded down. What's the point? Why not just give me a point value to get full hit points?


----------



## bouncyhead (Feb 16, 2009)

I'm loving this argument. A most entertaining read.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e.  I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed.  The same thing is true about 4e.  The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often.  Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on.

The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes.  You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt.  You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens.  Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing.

When you are outside of combat, a LOT more actions become obvious and don't need rolls.  If there is a box underneath a bed and someone looks there, they should find it(unless it is particularly dark or well hidden somehow).  If someone says "I look under the bed" and the DM says "You find a box", I doubt anyone in the group is going to say "Shouldn't that need a skill check?  We need detailed rules for this sort of thing."

That's why the rules are written the way they are in 4e.  You need a rule when you want to convince an NPC of something that they don't want to believe, when you want to find something that the DM isn't sure if you'll find or not, when you want to see if you unlock the door or fail, and so on.  The skill checks cover nearly every situation that should require a rule for it.  

Certainly, they aren't complicated.  I will admit that there aren't a lot of exceptions, small bonuses, things to keep track of and so on(like a bunch of rerolls, circumstantial modifiers, powers that work in noncombat situations in quirky ways) like there were in 3.5e.

I wonder if that is what everyone is concerned about.  That if you aren't getting "+2 to diplomacy checks with elves who have black shirts" that there isn't enough mechanical diversity in the system.  I've found that having those things didn't really add anything to the game.  People forget about them 90% of the time and when they do apply and the end effect on the game is:

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get plus +2 against elves because I'm a member of this PrC.  I get 24."

vs

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get 22."

In fact, non-combat situations are more fun for me when the rules get out of my way entirely.  I'm much more interested in the game where a PC is in the presence of the king being asked to explain what he was doing sneaking around the dungeon and watching the player squirm to come up with an explanation than I am in the game where the same thing happens and the player simply says "I use Bluff to come up with a good reason.  I fail?  I use my Bluffer PrC power to reroll it.  It still doesn't work?  Well, my party can aid me, right?  Quick everyone, make some aiding rolls.  We still failed?  Alright, Wizard, cast a Charm Person on him, he won't send us to the dungeon if he's our best friend."

Mechanical options often make for worse games rather than better ones.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Then what is the state of "2 ranks" for? I am useless at any level? Why do I need to spend 2 points of my in-game resources for it? What's the purpose?
> 
> It is as if I could spend points on fractional hit points that always get rounded down. What's the point? Why not just give me a point value to get full hit points?




Again it is so there can be degrees. I may have over made the point. 2 points isn't useless. But in relation to the guy with 10 ranks, it kind of is. Still two points gives you a +2 modifier, on top of your relevant attribute. But I being able to make different guys with varying skill levels. The current system is too binary. Even when it was in star wars I wasn't a fan of the you are either trained or not trained in something. I like be able to spread my skill points out the way I want, so in some instance I am a little good at one thing, competent in another, and a god in others.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e. I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed. The same thing is true about 4e. The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often. Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on.
> 
> The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes. You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt. You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens. Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




What you are saying is mechanical diversity doesn't matter for in with non combat skills.  But for some of us, it does. It enhances the game just as much as mechanical diversity for combat skills does. In 3.5 I found non-combat skills were used a lot more, and to much greatere effect. 
My experience with 3.5 is much different than yours. And so is our experience of 4E.


----------



## Rel (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I want to make sure I stay on-message here: 4e isn't very good when compared with other D&D editions if you're playing a game that doesn't want to focus on combat.




This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same).  But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus?  I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Rel said:


> This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same). But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus? I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.




AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies (at least second edition did--don't remember what they had in 1st).


----------



## La Bete (Feb 16, 2009)

Rel said:


> This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same).  But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus?  I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.




I am admittedly startled that D&D (whatever edition) is being pitched as the "go-to" game for non-combat mechanics.


----------



## Rel (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies (at least second edition did--don't remember what they had in 1st).




I believe that these started to be introduced in some of the later AD&D books (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide).  That notwithstanding, is the suggestion that this is equal to or better than the sort of skill system supported by 3e or 4e in terms of handling non-combat challenges?


----------



## radferth (Feb 16, 2009)

I think 4e would do just as well as older editions at non-combat situations (maybe a tiny bit better, but comparable).  That being said, I can't imagine choosing it to run a campaign that wasn't combat heavy.  The system wants you to fight.  Its piles and piles of (mostly) gorgeous, skirmish-miniature-flavored combat rules.  These rules don't really inhibit the game outside of combat, but why play the system if you aren't going to make much use of the combat rules?  Sure, if your groups all knows and loves 4E, and wants to run a non-combat game, stick with the system everyone is comfortable with.  But under normal circumstances, you want the rules for a non-combat (or not-much-combat) game to either be rules-lite, or have a detailed skill system.  4E is neither.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 16, 2009)

La Bete said:


> I am admittedly startled that D&D (whatever edition) is being pitched as the "go-to" game for non-combat mechanics.




Yeah, me too.  I've been playing D&D since 1989, and as far as I can tell the rules have always been very heavily combat focused.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Rel said:


> I believe that these started to be introduced in some of the later AD&D books (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide). That notwithstanding, is the suggestion that this is equal to or better than the sort of skill system supported by 3e or 4e in terms of handling non-combat challenges?




I don't remember how well the actual mechanics worked, though I don't recall them being awful.  But by AD&D 2nd edition, there were more non weapon proficiencies than there are skills in 4E. So I can see the argument. Actually I do kind of remember them working pretty well in the game.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Stoat said:


> Yeah, me too. I've been playing D&D since 1989, and as far as I can tell the rules have always been very heavily combat focused.




3E had pretty extensive rules in the skill chapter. Giving lots of specifics on the different skills. Even 4E has a farily beefy section on skills as well. I think most people who are critical of it, dislike the trained/untrained approach and the consolidation.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Feb 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> Once I started thinking along that line, I thought of a few other things that 4e doesn't cover very well, in comparison to earlier editions:  .....survival horror (anything pre 4e can do this pretty well, as resource management used to be all the rage in D&D)...




I will disagree regarding survival horror;  I think 4th Edition can manage this reasonably well.  There are two resources that need to be managed on a per day basis in 4th edition.  Daily powers are one, though admittedly not having them is hardly crippling.  But Healing surges are limited, and they govern when the party will need to stop and take an extended rest.  Unlike spells, healing surges are a resource that the entire party will often run low on at about the same time.  On top of that, the skill system in 4th edition is much better suited to using non combat challenges in such an adventure.

Lovecraftian horror is something I think that all versions of D&D are ill suited to in general though.  The focus of D&D is about killing creatures and taking their stuff.  The focus of Lovecraftian horror is trying not to be killed by the monster while also retaining your sense of sanity.  Attempts to run that kind of horror based game within D&D usually have one of two results.  Either they come across as ineffective if the players can reasonably expect to win combat encounters against the various monsters they encounter, or it feels like a DM screw job when the players are constantly over matched.  While being forced to retreat in D&D is not unreasonable, one of the over-riding expectations of the system is that you can win fights.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Again it is so there can be degrees. I may have over made the point. 2 points isn't useless. But in relation to the guy with 10 ranks, it kind of is. Still two points gives you a +2 modifier, on top of your relevant attribute. But I being able to make different guys with varying skill levels. The current system is too binary. Even when it was in star wars I wasn't a fan of the you are either trained or not trained in something. I like be able to spread my skill points out the way I want, so in some instance I am a little good at one thing, competent in another, and a god in others.




Most of that is an illusion, as I mentioned.  If you have 2 ranks in something, you are incapable of doing it.  Not even a little bit.  It sounds like you can in your head because you can look at your character sheet and say "I have 2 ranks, that's more than the fighter has, at least I have SOME idea what I'm doing" but you might as well have put no ranks into it, since it has no effect mechanically.

The reason for this is the math.  When you are using a d20 to roll your skill checks, any difference of more than(approximately) 75% of the number of sides on the die means that the lower number is no longer statistically relevant.   This means that if there is more than a 15 point difference in the total bonus between the best person in the group and the lowest, then the lower person might as well not bother.  And, realistically, the odds are pretty much stacked against you even at 50% of the die.

Unfortunately, this difference is easy to get as early as 1st level.  A character with an 8 stat and no ranks vs a character with a 20 stat, max ranks and skill focus, and a +2 bonus from race means a 14 point difference between highest and lowest in the party.  In 3.5e, the gap grows every level.  My best estimate is that is can grow about 37 more points by level 20.  Making it a maximum difference of 51 points.

As I explained before, if the DC is below 51, there's no point in picking up a die, the expert succeeds automatically.  If it is above, there is no point in the low person picking up a die, he fails automatically.  Even if he then puts 23 ranks into the skill, he still only has +22.  He still fails automatically.  Those ranks are useless other than to make the player feel like he took something worthwhile.

The only time they become useful is in the (rather rare) circumstance where the success and failure of each character matters individually.  So far, my experience has been that it might happen a couple of times in an entire campaign.  Most of the time, the success of one member of your party covers for everyone who fails(the one with the +50 jump check jumps over the pit with a rope and the rest use the rope to cross, the one with the good diplomacy check covers for the blunders of others, the one with the good sense motive lets everyone else know that someone is lying, and so on).  

The couple of times that individual success matters, it normally means the party won't attempt it if anyone in the party can fail.  If there is a good chance the wizard is going to let go of the rope and drop to his death, then it doesn't matter if the fighter and paladin can both climb well.  If the whole party can't get across that way, then no one will.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Most of that is an illusion, as I mentioned. If you have 2 ranks in something, you are incapable of doing it. Not even a little bit. It sounds like you can in your head because you can look at your character sheet and say "I have 2 ranks, that's more than the fighter has, at least I have SOME idea what I'm doing" but you might as well have put no ranks into it, since it has no effect mechanically.
> 
> The reason for this is the math. When you are using a d20 to roll your skill checks, any difference of more than(approximately) 75% of the number of sides on the die means that the lower number is no longer statistically relevant. This means that if there is more than a 15 point difference in the total bonus between the best person in the group and the lowest, then the lower person might as well not bother. And, realistically, the odds are pretty much stacked against you even at 50% of the die.
> 
> ...




+2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 3E had pretty extensive rules in the skill chapter. Giving lots of specifics on the different skills. Even 4E has a farily beefy section on skills as well. I think most people who are critical of it, dislike the trained/untrained approach and the consolidation.




I'll agree that 3.X and 4E have MORE rules for out-of-combat activities than 2E, and DIFFERENT rules for out-of-combat activities than 1E. (I don't have a lot of experience playing 1E, but I note it has a lot of OoC rules related to, frex castle construction).  

But.  I stand by the assertion that all editions of the game devote the bulk of their mechanics to combat.  3.X does have a robust skill system, but the vast majority of the PHB is combat-related.  This is even more the case in 4E.

On topic:  I think a true "Horror" game is tough to pull off in any edition of D&D.  IME, hitting the PC's with a monster far above their ability to fight is frightening, but not horrifying.  I think the game (in all editions) is too focused on the idea that problems can be overcome with violence to really support a brooding atmosphere of horror.  I suggest that successful horror in D&D is accomplished by (a) skillful DM'ing; (b) players who are willing to buy into the concept; and (c) variant rules, often quite different from the "core" rules that change the mechanical focus of the game.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e overwhelmingly supports beatin' the fudge out of things as the most ideal method of conflict resolution.
> 
> One person's "bypassed [combat] encounter" is another person's clever strategy or interesting role-playing choice (why SHOULDN'T an enchantress PC be able to avoid combat using other skills? Why SHOULDN'T a clever sneaky rogue PC avoid combat by not being noticed? Why does combat HAVE to happen?).
> 
> ...




How many XPs does my PC get for bypassing the combat in 3E?  (Answer: Not much.)

How many for fighting?  (Answer: A lot.  95% of my XP is going to come from combat XP.)

How many XPs does my PC get for bypassing the combat in 4E?  (Answer: Some, if it's an encounter and we run a skill challenge, or there's a Quest involved.)

How many for fighting?  (Answer: A lot.  Most of my XP, probably 75%, is going to come from combat.)


I don't understand how you can claim that 4E is "NOT" okay with bypassing the combat.  There are more rewards for the PC if you avoid the combat in 4E than there were in 3E.  In playing 3E, I knew that if I decided not to fight I was missing out on valuable XPs.  In 4E, at least I'm going to get something for my troubles.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> +2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.



It increases the absolute percentage of you succeeded by 10 points. If you had a 10 % chance to succeed, that would be doubling your chance. If you had a 80 % chance to succeed, that would be increasing your chance by 11.25 %. 

But that is actually of no consequence if there is someone around that has an 80 % chance to succeed, and you need only one success. (And in some cases, two people trying the same and one failing might be worse then just one succeeded.)

Your chance to fail with 2 skill points: 90 %. Without them: 80 %.
Your comrades chance to fail: 20 %.

Total chance of failure if both of you get to try and only the better result counts with 2 skill points on your side: 80 % x 20 % = 16 %. 
Without the 2 skill points: 90 % x 20 % = 18 %.
Chance of Success is accordingly 84 % vs 82 %. In total, that's roughly a 2 % increase in your chance for the party to succeed. 

If your comrade had these 2 ranks to spend, he would have a straigth 90 % to succeed without your help. With your help but no ranks, 90 % x 10 % = 9 % chance of failure. That's more than a 50 % improvement of his chance to succeed. 

And that is basically your best case scenario -  both rolls can be used, failure of an individual doesn't count. So in a "everyone rolls Knowledge/Gather Information" scenario, it is a tiny benefit.
Your lesson: Maximize the skills in your party. Don't have Jack of Trades, Specialize.

Notable Exception: Skills that have fixed DCs don't need to be maximized. They only need to be spread around if these skills checks have to be taken individually. 

Unfortunately, most of these skills are like Climb or Swim, and those are the most costly for those that are already bad at them (e.g. they are cross class skills and the ability score is a "dump" stat, or their armor makes things worse.)

Of course, similar success/failure changes apply in 4E. But you never just have "2 ranks", you get a solid +5 to +8 bonus, and the rest scales with levels.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> *Does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?*



Not that we've seen. While my group made a new setting for our 4e game, the tone is fairly similar to our 3.5e campaign (as seen in the "Chronicles of Burne" Story Hour).

I don't accept that 4e only works for combat-oriented games. Then again, I don't think the inclusion of Craft/Profession skills and charm spells somehow equate to 'robust non-combat support'. 4e Skill Challenge system --work in progress thought it may be-- with it's linking of task-level resolution and conflict-level resolution is worth more than any of 3e's 'non-combat' mechanics as far as I'm concerned. 



> *What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?*



It's easier to list what it can't: horror/survival horror (no edition of D&D did this out of the box, so it's a moot point), emulating the prior edition (you could use 2e to run a 1e campaign, the same can't be said for 4e and 3e), any kind of historical game (without copious pruning/reskinning), ahem, 'grim-and-gritty (again, D&D never did this well). 

BTW, my group runs a PC-initiated story and role-playing focused campaign heavy on atmosphere and loony characterizations. One adventure was a Great Expectations homage that led to fighting wraiths in the land of the dead. In an upcoming one the party is going to put on the most spectacularly bad play in the history of theater, which is part of a convoluted plan to keep ownership of a dire pig sow from across the Astral Sea which they've been building a false religion around.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> +2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.




Then you misunderstand my point and the math behind it.  If the goal of the party is to succeed, and that is defined by someone in the party succeeding, then the chance of succeeding is exactly the same with the +2 as without it.

If you have someone in the group with +25 in Diplomacy and someone with a +2 in Diplomacy then the chance of succeeding in a DC 25 Diplomacy check is 100%.  If you don't have the +2, the chance is still 100%.  Therefore, no improvement at all.  In fact, there is no DC that could cause the +2 to have any significance at all.  If it is below 25, the chance is 100% still, if it is above 25, your +2 doesn't change the percentage since you can't possibly succeed.

The only time you can help at all is with an assist.  In which case, anything that gives you more than a +9 to your roll is completely useless.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Then you misunderstand my point and the math behind it. If the goal of the party is to succeed, and that is defined by someone in the party succeeding, then the chance of succeeding is exactly the same with the +2 as without it.
> 
> If you have someone in the group with +25 in Diplomacy and someone with a +2 in Diplomacy then the chance of succeeding in a DC 25 Diplomacy check is 100%. If you don't have the +2, the chance is still 100%. Therefore, no improvement at all. In fact, there is no DC that could cause the +2 to have any significance at all. If it is below 25, the chance is 100% still, if it is above 25, your +2 doesn't change the percentage since you can't possibly succeed.
> 
> The only time you can help at all is with an assist. In which case, anything that gives you more than a +9 to your roll is completely useless.




But lots of times, skills are about individual success (do I jump the canyon).  You are building a straw man. Most skills tests are not just about one member of the party getting the whole party through. And even when they are, it is often a matter of who gets to shine. I have had countless instances in my campaigns, especially during investigations, where the party split, and the guy with the two ranks in diplomacy mattered. Or where the rogue with the +14 succeeding, didn't get the whole party through, because everyone had to make their own check and be judged indivudally by an NPC. Or what about those rare instances where the +14 rogue doesn't want to help the party, and they need to fall back on the next guy. Who succeeds and how is often very important to story, and creating texture in the party.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course, similar success/failure changes apply in 4E. But you never just have "2 ranks", you get a solid +5 to +8 bonus, and the rest scales with levels.




Again, this just ends up making everyone the same. And I think 
 you are both overplaying the "one guy succeeds so the party does" thing. This definitely happened rarely in most of campaigns. Especially on city based adventures. Sure there are moments when that happens. But there are also lots of times when everyone has to make their own roll and suffer differing consquences.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's wrong to assume that more vagueness is a good thing in "roleplaying." It's a matter of focus.



I see vagueness as a good, since the dividend that vagueness pays is "rule-space for creative DM interpretation." Very specific charts may be less vague, but they also pin you down; and what happens if the chart doesn't have a modifier for "NPC is a religious zealot of the Order of St. Croix."




Kamikaze Midget said:


> Here is perhaps a heretical thought: Combat is no different from a skill check. They both do the same thing. Combat could be reduced to a skill check.



Oh, I see the problem now. You're an idiot. 

 I'm kidding of course, but I think combat is _not at all_ like a skill check. They're measurably, objectively different.




Kamikaze Midget said:


> would you have a problem with skill challenges replacing combat in your game?



Depends on the game, I guess. If you want a really abstract combat system where no time at all is spent on combat - sure. Just create a "Kill it with an axe!" and "Kill it, kill it with fire!" Skills (for Martial and Arcane classes, respectively) and call it a day.  Why not?  Burning Wheel has a combat system like that and resolving a combat (no matter how many people are involved) takes about 20 seconds. 

But of course the price you pay for that is loss of tactical control. But if the tradeoff works for you, go for it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming.  Every edition has had a primary focus on combat.  It has always been the most detailed system within the game system.



I agree.



> If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D? There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs).




There's a whole bundle of reasons to use D&D even though it has never been perfectly suited to noncombat to handle noncombat things. The biggest one is probably that it is the most popular RPG out there, so it's the one that everyone in the group knows how to play, has been playing since high school, and the one you can find new players or a DM for. Because the campaign will probably only last a few months, it doesn't need to be ideal at handling those noncombat things, just "good enough." Because most often, individual sessions might focus on other things, but the campaign overall might use combat as an important tool. Because D&D has always modeled a class-and-level based system. Because you want said political mechanics to occur along with the cults to Demogorgon. Because no one wants to bother to buy or to research other games.

Because, basically, D&D was easier to use and it was "good enough" for the time you'd use it for. 

People did it all the time.



> "4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions"
> 
> "Those editions didn't do games without combat well either"
> 
> "Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er."




This isn't a strawman argument -- it is the real situation. This isn't about what systems are theoretically ideal for a game that isn't about combat, this is about specifically 4e doing it less well in comparison to an earlier edition. That's the point.



> Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly.  Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it?




Because that is how D&D has been actually used by a multitude of gamers for 30 years. It was a playstyle that 4e has abandoned in favor of doing one thing well. 



> The game has always been the same.  Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this.




Of course it does. The game has always been different. Not one normal group has played by-the-book D&D, I'd wager, since it was invented (possible exception for RPGA and other "official" play, but I'd hardly call those "normal" groups). That diversity was a strength of the game, it allowed the most popular RPG to be "good enough" for a variety of things.

4e has narrowed this focus considerably, meaning that, in part, this strength has been lost.



> Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do.  There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play.




So ultimately, you're saying this:

"KM, you're absolutely right, but I just think those people who want that shouldn't be playing D&D.'

We can probably agree to disagree on that side-point for this conversation, since it's not about who theoretically should or shouldn't be playing D&D, it's about what 4e actually does in practice.



> Because I am playing D&D.




If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?

Unless you WANT more detail for combat?

So perhaps you could envision a situation where a D&D player WANTS more detail for non-combat?



> That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute.  It is D&D afterall.  What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&D were not combat focused.




I certainly never said that. Just that 4e, by decreasing the noncombat rules, has damaged the campaigns of those who use those rules extensively.

Your "unsuported hogwash" that these people don't exist or should be playing some other game doesn't actually matter for what people actually do. They still want to play D&D, even if they want to play it differently than you do.



> And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&D are combat focused, what are we arguing about?  The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions?




Yes, actually. I'm as surprised as you are that people are defending 4e's capability for noncombat-focused campaigns since 4e clearly doesn't have as many. 



> I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why.




For instance, that you think skill challenges are "better" at handling noncombat than what previous editions had speaks to the fact that you're not doing a whole lot of non-combat focused games (since you won't use them to replace combat, I'm guessing you're not generally comfortable with open-ended rules), and thus really aren't talking about the same thing as I am.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?




Nothing.  In fact, some of the new 4E supplements suggest just that for certain "combat" scenarios.  I was just reading _Open Grave_, in which they have an example of using a skill challenge for a city-wide zombie infestation.  I could see the same idea being used for PCs being involved in large-scale battles between armies, or leading (or defending) a beseiged city.

A 4E Lite system that effectively used skill challenges (or somethign similar) for everything, including combats, could be interesting.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But lots of times, skills are about individual success (do I jump the canyon).  You are building a straw man. Most skills tests are not just about one member of the party getting the whole party through.



I'll have to say we have very different experiences on this.  It's possibly because of the players I play with.  If there is a check to be made, it only gets made by the highest modifier.  When an NPC asks them a question, they immediately ask out of character "Who has the best Diplomacy again?  Right, you should answer him.  The rest of us, shut up, if we say anything, the DM might make us make a roll.  That means you, Half-Orc Barbarian!"

Rule number one in every party I've been in has been "Don't split up!"  So, the highest modifier is ALWAYS around to roll.  There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare.



ProfessorPain said:


> Or where the rogue with the +14 succeeding, didn't get the whole party through, because everyone had to make their own check and be judged indivudally by an NPC.




The thing about individual checks is that they often end up in a situation that makes an adventure unworkable.  If everyone needs to make a jump check to get over a pit, then either the DC is easy enough for even the lowest skill or one person doesn't get across the pit.

Either the group continues without the one person who couldn't make the jump check and you make the player bored as he has to sit their and watch for the rest of the session or the group finds another way that doesn't involve making the jump check.  If they find another way, then then jump check was unimportant and it doesn't matter if everyone made it.

If everyone has to impress the king or they won't be allowed to go on the mission, anyone who fails either has to roll up a new character, sit there being bored, or the DM finds a way to involve him despite the fact that he failed.  In which case the failure doesn't mean anything.

The thing about these situations is that parties avoid putting themselves into them as well.  If the Rogue has a -2 jump check and the party comes to a 20 foot wide pit, no one is going to suggest that they all jump across.  The Rogue is going to fail for sure.  The only options are to leave him behind or find a way that doesn't involve jumping.  Very few groups are going to opt for a solution that involves one person not playing for a while.



ProfessorPain said:


> Or what about those rare instances where the +14 rogue doesn't want to help the party, and they need to fall back on the next guy. Who succeeds and how is often very important to story, and creating texture in the party.



There certainly ARE circumstances that are exceptions.  I'm not disagreeing with that.  It's just that the exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule.  It heavily depends on how your DM plans his/her game, I think.  Most published adventures, RPGA adventures and homebrew adventures written without specifically being tailored to the group can't really plan the adventure around WHO succeeds.

When they are being written, they normally are in this format:

The innkeeper knows about the cultists' plan, but he is being threatened by them.  He can be persuaded to tell the PCs, however, with a DC 20 Diplomacy or Intimidate check.

In practice, this is normally run like this:

Innkeeper: (fearfully) "Sorry, I know nothing about the cultists.  Please, just go away."
Players: "Alright, who has the best Diplomacy?  The Cleric?  Ok, maybe you should try to convince him to change his mind."
Cleric: "Please, we won't hurt you.  We'll make sure no one harms you, but we need to find out where they are."
DM: "Make a Diplomacy check."
Cleric: "I have +20, I rolled a 15 for 35."
DM: "He tells you that the Cultists are hiding out in his cellar."

That is pretty much how 95% of all skill checks are handled in games I've been in.  In this situation, it simply doesn't matter that the Rogue has a +2 to Diplomacy.  It also doesn't matter if you are running the game in 4e or 3.5e, the game works exactly the same.  Except the DC in the 4e game is 25 and the Rogue has +15, meaning the Cleric needs a 5 and the Rogue needs a 10.  Which means they both have a chance of succeeding and the Rogue can role play his outgoing character without fear that he's screwed over the party by opening his mouth.  Even though it might have been better to let the Cleric speak.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

> A 4E Lite system that effectively used skill challenges (or somethign similar) for everything, including combats, could be interesting.




So you're more on the "open-ended rules are cool with me!" side of things, yeah?

Which is great. It's not what I like playing with, but if you're OK with those kinds of rules for most of your game, 4e, I imagine, does noncombat just fine for you, even if you focus on it for a little while.

Since I like something more robust than rules like that (though, it must be said, it doesn't need to be MUCH more robust), it's not something that satisfies what I'm looking for out of the game, usually. But that just seems to be a difference in playstyle between us, which is just really saying "noncombat in 4e doesn't support my playstyle as well as noncombat 3e (or 2e or whatever) did"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Again, this just ends up making everyone the same. And I think
> you are both overplaying the "one guy succeeds so the party does" thing. This definitely happened rarely in most of campaigns. Especially on city based adventures. Sure there are moments when that happens. But there are also lots of times when everyone has to make their own roll and suffer differing consquences.



And in these cases, those 2 skill ranks will not do much, either. 

Look at a "Jump the Pit" - every party member in a 4 man party (level 4) has to clear a 15 ft wide chasm (DC 15) in mid-combat. Rogue and Fighter have 7 ranks. The Rogue has a +1 bonus from Strength and a +2 synergy bonus for a total of +10.  The Fighter has a Strength of 18, an armor check penalty of -3, and a -6 penalty from speed, for a total of +2.
The Wizard has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of -1 for a total of -1.
The Cleric has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of +2 but a -3 penalty from armor and -6 from speed for a total of -7.
Rogue: Success Chance 80 %
Fighter: Success Chance: 40 %. (Without Armor: 80 %.)
Wizard: Success Chance of 25 %.
Cleric: Success Chance of 0 %. (Without Armor: 40 %)
Total Chance for the party to succeed with armor (for example, in combat) : 
80 % x 40 % x 25 % x 0 % = 0 %.
Total Chance for the party to succeed without armor: 
80 % x 80 % x 25 & x 40 % = 6.4 % 
Let's give the Cleric and the Wizard 2 extra ranks (costing them a total of 8 ranks) 
80 % x 80 % x 35 % x 50 % = 11.2 %

Your chances almost doubled. And are still pathetic. Luckily, one level later, the Wizard can cast Fly, and I think Air Walk isn't too far away for the Cleric, either.
But at 4th level, Rogue and Fighter will notice the chances of success and the Fighter or Rogue will jump over and affix a rope, making it vastly easier for Cleric and Wizard to get over. Again, making it only depending on one character to get over the pit. It works similar for Climb. 
Swim is maybe the only case where this isn't your way out, and if the scenario is really at DC 15 or even DC 20, say good bye to your Wizard and your Cleric.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This isn't a strawman argument -- it is the real situation. This isn't about what systems are theoretically ideal for a game that isn't about combat, this is about specifically 4e doing it less well in comparison to an earlier edition. That's the point.




And your point is wrong.  4e does it better than previous editions of D&D, but still worse than a great number of other system choices if the focus of your campaign is noncombat.




> Because that is how D&D has been actually used by a multitude of gamers for 30 years. It was a playstyle that 4e has abandoned in favor of doing one thing well.




4e does noncombat better than previous versions of D&D.



> Of course it does. The game has always been different. Not one normal group has played by-the-book D&D, I'd wager, since it was invented (possible exception for RPGA and other "official" play, but I'd hardly call those "normal" groups). That diversity was a strength of the game, it allowed the most popular RPG to be "good enough" for a variety of things.
> 
> 4e has narrowed this focus considerably, meaning that, in part, this strength has been lost.




This claim is unsupportable.  You still won't find any two groups that are the same and 4e does noncombat better than previous editions of D&D.




> it's about what 4e actually does in practice.




Which is to have the best combat system D&D has yet had coupled with the most involved and fluid noncombat system yet.  




> If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?




I like the combat system, too.



> So perhaps you could envision a situation where a D&D player WANTS more detail for non-combat?




Yes.  Unfortunately, no other edition of D&D gives you more detail because this is not the focus of any edition of D&D.  This is where a gamer's imagination comes in.  It is gamer's imagination that has led to so many different ways of playing D&D over the years.  4e didn't take any of that way and it frees the game from the unnecessary constraints of the 3e system.



> I certainly never said that. Just that 4e, by decreasing the noncombat rules, has damaged the campaigns of those who use those rules extensively.




4e didn't decrease the noncombat rules.  It increased their functionality and streamlined their presentation while making them more exciting, fun, and tense.



> Yes, actually. I'm as surprised as you are that people are defending 4e's capability for noncombat-focused campaigns since 4e clearly doesn't have as many.




Your assertion doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.



> For instance, that you think skill challenges are "better" at handling noncombat than what previous editions had speaks to the fact that you're not doing a whole lot of non-combat focused games (since you won't use them to replace combat, I'm guessing you're not generally comfortable with open-ended rules), and thus really aren't talking about the same thing as I am.




You don't know anything about my games.  That I've actually used skill challenges numerous times shows that I do, indeed, do a lot of non-combat.  My games certainly feature combat, we are roleplaying adventurers, after all.  My games are pretty heavily roleplay focused, in and out of combat, and my group enjoys a lot of involved noncombat activity.  I've used skill challenges to see if the group, invited as guests to a feast given by the local ruler, could impress said ruler and gain his favor; to determine what kind of impression the group could make on the townspeople in the first couple weeks, having established a base of operations as a mercenary company; more than once in a hybrid situation along with combat; to play out a duel of wits and song between a PC musician and a rival bard; to cover days of exploration searching for an ancient temple in a barren landscape; to handle the PCs scaling a dangerous mountain to an ancient fortress while avoiding detection from enemy patrols.  

That you think skill challenges don't work shows your inexperience and lack of understanding of the subsystem and what it brings to the game.  I understand skill challenges inside and out, and more importantly, I get the intent of the system, so I can use it in a very flexible manner to handle just about anything.    

As for open ended rules, 4e is a lot more open ended than 3e, which is one of its strengths.  It restored the game to its 1e state of DM empowerment and unshackled us from the constraints of 3es player mastery/rules lawyering.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And in these cases, those 2 skill ranks will not do much, either.
> 
> Look at a "Jump the Pit" - every party member in a 4 man party (level 4) has to clear a 15 ft wide chasm (DC 15) in mid-combat. Rogue and Fighter have 7 ranks. The Rogue has a +1 bonus from Strength and a +2 synergy bonus for a total of +10. The Fighter has a Strength of 18, an armor check penalty of -3, and a -6 penalty from speed, for a total of +2.
> The Wizard has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of -1 for a total of -1.
> ...




I never said it mattered a lot. But +2 still matters, even in the example you give. The point is, in 4E you are either on or off with a skill. A +5 or not a plus 5 in terms of ranking. In 3E there are lots of gradients. I can take +2 (someone who just started learning the skill), a +3-6( Somone who has been at it for a bit, a +7-10 (someone who has been at it for some times, etc. And within those ranges there is variety. That is the point. Also the party doesn;t fail, because the wizard falls down the chasm. The wizard fails. The party must decide if they want to go on without a wizard, and that is up to them (it also makes for interesting gaming). But you are creating a false example by saying if one member fails, everyone else does as well. And if the wizard knows he probably can't make the jump, he probably needs to find an alternate means across (magic wouldn't be a bad idea here-- though it does waste a spell slot).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So you're more on the "open-ended rules are cool with me!" side of things, yeah?
> 
> Which is great. It's not what I like playing with, but if you're OK with those kinds of rules for most of your game, 4e, I imagine, does noncombat just fine for you, even if you focus on it for a little while.
> 
> Since I like something more robust than rules like that (though, it must be said, it doesn't need to be MUCH more robust), it's not something that satisfies what I'm looking for out of the game, usually. But that just seems to be a difference in playstyle between us, which is just really saying "noncombat in 4e doesn't support my playstyle as well as noncombat 3e (or 2e or whatever) did"



Regarding "free-form" vs "detailed": 
I remember that we have exchanged ideas on making non-combat more like combat, including stuff like an equivalent for hit points. 

I am trying to figure out why this idea doesn't appeal to me. I like a reasonably detailed combat system. But a "combat-like" approach to social encounters or navigating a dungeon somehow feels wrong to me. 
Would you also agree that it is going too far, or would you go for that approach? 

Here is an example system: 
In a social challenge, each skill check might represent an argument or counter-argument. Your opponent has a certain amount of "social points" (which might depend on what the PCs want to achieve), and each successful attack costs him points. At the same time, he gets to "roll back" and deal damage to the PC social points, and whoever loses all his points, must accept the NPCs demands. (Maybe you could use "Bloodied" for in-between states of compromises.)
I think what you had suggested looked a little similar, but it's been some time...

I am trying to figure out _what_ I don't like about these systems, and I think it is because I have no idea what these individual rolls "mean" in the game world. Now, we might often have no clues what hit points represent exactly in 4E. But basically, if I make an attack roll, I can describe what I am doing - I swing my sword in some fancy way and if I hit the enemy is hampered and if I don't I fail. I can basically do this all day, regardless of whether the combat takes 3 rounds or 30. Ultimately, I might repeat myself a lot (or don't bother to narrate anything), but that is not a big problem, because I can accept combat being so repetitive.

But my approach to playing a social scenario would be different. I would try to decide what my character is saying, and a roll represents that. But I can only make up so many things I can say (or describe saying). If the system tries to resolve the scenario with too many dice, I have no idea what to say, and I'd have to go back to not describing what I actually do, or repeating myself, and either feels "wrong" to do. 

Of course, this just "proves" to myself that my approach to "social combat" fails for me. Maybe your idea would be better?

Maybe a different approach might be to divide the social encounter in various aspects. You roll once for "properly adressing the NPC(s)", one roll for "intoning the argument", one roll for "explaining the logic". That would cut down the number of things to talk about... But it seems a little ... fiddly. THere still doesn't seem to be a big point to it. 

Another aspect might be "Where are the tactics?". Combat is full of tactics. Who to attack when with what power, combat option or spell. Where to move? 
Can I find something similar in a non-combat challenge? Social, Exploration, Investigation, Research? What is the equivalent of a "charge" in exploration or research?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I never said it mattered a lot. But +2 still matters, even in the example you give. The point is, in 4E you are either on or off with a skill. A +5 or not a plus 5 in terms of ranking. In 3E there are lots of gradients. I can take +2 (someone who just started learning the skill), a +3-6( Somone who has been at it for a bit, a +7-10 (someone who has been at it for some times, etc. And within those ranges there is variety. That is the point. Also the party doesn;t fail, because the wizard falls down the chasm.



Well, if losing a party member is not failure, okay. The Wizard fails the check, but the party fails the "encounter". Well, or at least takes a serious loss.



> The wizard fails. The party must decide if they want to go on without a wizard, and that is up to them (it also makes for interesting gaming). But you are creating a false example by saying if one member fails, everyone else does as well.



Goal: Get the party over the chasm.
Failure: Not the enitre party gets over it.
Success: The entire party gets over it. 

The game doesn't end because of this failure, but it even doesn't end if the entire party is disintegrated and dusted to the wind. But I think it is a reasonable definition of failure to not meet your goals. There might be degrees of failure, but it is not a success.



> And if the wizard knows he probably can't make the jump, he probably needs to find an alternate means across (magic wouldn't be a bad idea here-- though it does waste a spell slot).



So, did the 2 ranks help him avoiding to look for an alternate way or not waste a spell slot?


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So you're more on the "open-ended rules are cool with me!" side of things, yeah?




Absolutely.  In the past, my players ahve gotten stuck in the mentality of "the rules don't say I can do it, so I can't".  It got particularly bad a few times while we were playing 3E.

Explicit open-ended rules (4E isn't completely open-ended, but are generally more so than 3E out of combat) help my players break out of that mind set and be a little more creative about their solutions.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Which is great. It's not what I like playing with, but if you're OK with those kinds of rules for most of your game, 4e, I imagine, does noncombat just fine for you, even if you focus on it for a little while.




Right.  I persoanlly enjoy detailed combat rules that allow for occassional open-ended rulings -- it satisfies the little tactician in my head.  But at the same time, I prefer looser, wide-open rules for non-combat situations -- that satifies my creative problem solver.

That's part of the reason I've been enjoying 4E...  It's the version of D&D that's come closest to those two ideals.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Since I like something more robust than rules like that (though, it must be said, it doesn't need to be MUCH more robust), it's not something that satisfies what I'm looking for out of the game, usually. But that just seems to be a difference in playstyle between us, which is just really saying "noncombat in 4e doesn't support my playstyle as well as noncombat 3e (or 2e or whatever) did"




You've got that right.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again...  Overall, the different are really no better or worse than each other.  They're just diffrent styles of play.

I, for one, am glad that we finally have enough different editions of D&D that almost everyone can pick and choose an edition best suits their play style and still be playing D&D.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'll have to say we have very different experiences on this. It's possibly because of the players I play with. If there is a check to be made, it only gets made by the highest modifier. When an NPC asks them a question, they immediately ask out of character "Who has the best Diplomacy again? Right, you should answer him. The rest of us, shut up, if we say anything, the DM might make us make a roll. That means you, Half-Orc Barbarian!"




Every group is different. And everyone takes home a different impression of each edition. 

In my group, this would be considered metagaming, and I would ask the party to keep it in character. Even if they persist in metagaming though, you need to spice it up. Sometimes the guy with the highest rank in diplomacy, isn't the person the NPC wants to address. Maybe the mayor of the town, refuses to deal with someone who appears too manipulative, or has a "roguish" manner about them. They might single out the most dim-witted looking member of the party in order to take advantage of them. 



> Rule number one in every party I've been in has been "Don't split up!" So, the highest modifier is ALWAYS around to roll. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare.




This is normally true in combat adventures, but in investigations splitting up usually speeds things up a lot. It is much easier if people pair up and follow different leads. 




> The thing about individual checks is that they often end up in a situation that makes an adventure unworkable. If everyone needs to make a jump check to get over a pit, then either the DC is easy enough for even the lowest skill or one person doesn't get across the pit.




No adventure should hinge on a single roll of the dice. There should always be alternatives to jumping the pit. In these circumstances, different levels of skill in different things, allow characters to shine in different ways. A good way to solve this, is to have failure result in making things harder, but not impossible. Think of it like a movie, maybe the guy falls onto a small ledge fifteen to twenty feet down. Sure he takes some damage as punishment, but now the party has to figure out a way to rescue him. In my mind this is more exciting anyways. 



> Either the group continues without the one person who couldn't make the jump check and you make the player bored as he has to sit their and watch for the rest of the session or the group finds another way that doesn't involve making the jump check. If they find another way, then then jump check was unimportant and it doesn't matter if everyone made it.




See my suggestion above. Again, this boils down to adventure design and how you handle failures. I always try to keep all my players from gettting bored no matter what. The question you need to answer, is where does the player fall? This can be really interesting. Even if the party leaves him, he can still try to figure his own way out and catch up later (and hey that makes for a great little side trek--plus it is an opportunity to do a split party which is often fun if done well)



> If everyone has to impress the king or they won't be allowed to go on the mission, anyone who fails either has to roll up a new character, sit there being bored, or the DM finds a way to involve him despite the fact that he failed. In which case the failure doesn't mean anything.




Again this is adventure design. If failure of one roll means the adventure stops, then it is bad no matter what skill system you use, because you either let them fail and everything comes to an end, or you make it a cake walk. You need to be creative with failures, and understand there is always more than one way to overcome a challenge. Okay, so maybe they didn't impress the king.  But maybe the king's uncle saw an opportunity, and offers to get them on the king's good side in exchange for a favor. Or maybe they have to deal with the theives guild instead of the king. 



> The thing about these situations is that parties avoid putting themselves into them as well. If the Rogue has a -2 jump check and the party comes to a 20 foot wide pit, no one is going to suggest that they all jump across. The Rogue is going to fail for sure. The only options are to leave him behind or find a way that doesn't involve jumping. Very few groups are going to opt for a solution that involves one person not playing for a while.




Sure. In near impossible situations, people will seek alternate paths. I would argue a clever party can use the theives high rank to get everyone across (maybe he jumps and then throws a rope back for everyone else). In this case, he shines, but the others still get across. 




> There certainly ARE circumstances that are exceptions. I'm not disagreeing with that. It's just that the exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule. It heavily depends on how your DM plans his/her game, I think. Most published adventures, RPGA adventures and homebrew adventures written without specifically being tailored to the group can't really plan the adventure around WHO succeeds.




They aren't rare at all in my games. Especially if you are playing a non-combat heavy adventure, where skills keep coming up. 

So don't plan around who succeeds. Just make sure there are different paths to success. and that these different paths yield different results.


----------



## Rel (Feb 16, 2009)

Irda Ranger said:


> Oh, I see the problem now. You're an idiot.
> 
> I'm kidding of course, but I think combat is _not at all_ like a skill check. They're measurably, objectively different.




IR, you KNOW we frown on this kind of thing here.  Do you see me frowning?   That's me frowning really hard.  DON'T do this again and I don't care that you added a smiley and a "kidding".


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, did the 2 ranks help him avoiding to look for an alternate way or not waste a spell slot?




I think I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post (above), but this one is important. If you are facing a skill roll that is a life/death situation and it hinges on rolling well, of course you will seek an alternate path. And on those rolls I wouldn't put all my eggs into two ranks. But most skill checks don't result in death if failed. haggling with the inn keeper, those two ranks may come in handy.  Or trying get the skinny on the head of the thieves guild at a loval gambling den, +2 or +3 might make the difference. Does it assure success? Absolutely not, and it shouldn't. 2 ranks means you character has just picked up a skill recenlty. He shouldn't be an expert yet. But he can try his hand at it.  If it becomes important enough to you, then you will take more ranks down the road as your character grows.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Rel said:


> IR, you KNOW we frown on this kind of thing here. Do you see me frowning?  That's me frowning really hard. DON'T do this again and I don't care that you added a smiley and a "kidding".





I think this boils down to respect. Having respect for the other side to form its own opinions.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 16, 2009)

For those looking for an abstract system that would handle combat as well as "skill challenges" in a similar manner I think the best example ever is HeroWars/HeroQuest  by Issaries, Inc  (Robin Laws designed the mechanics/system).  Very cool system, but VERY different.

Here is a Link to the rules synopsis PDF (see page 6 of the PDF).


----------



## Greg K (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Who succeeds and how is often very important to story, and creating texture in the party.



True.  
Furthermore, imo, the DM should be taking into party member skills and skill ranks when designing scenarioes (the players are telling you how important a particular skill is to their character) and not create situations where one bad skill roll brings the whole adventure to a crash. Instead, they should be creating situations appropriate for the DC of the highest  skilled character (if onlly one person matters) or, if the group is forced to split or rely on the other members, the DC of those other members.  And, if you know the low DC of others members may be a problem, create situations where failure creates a complication or setback- even one requiring  the party to regroup and take a new approach rather than something that will bring the game to a halt.  Which is why placing a chase and making it an integral part of the adventure, because the DM thinks it would be cool  without having alternatives (should the characters lack the skills or the players not wanting to bite) is not, imo, good adventure design- it is railroading.



Now, obviously, the writers of published adventures don't know your group or party make-up. Yet, imo (again), it is still the DMs responsability to go through the module and adjust it to their particular group.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So you're more on the "open-ended rules are cool with me!" side of things, yeah?



I know I am.  There are times for lots of rules and times for very few.  Open ended rules are better in some circumstances than others, but I'm ok with using them for the whole game.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Since I like something more robust than rules like that (though, it must be said, it doesn't need to be MUCH more robust), it's not something that satisfies what I'm looking for out of the game, usually. But that just seems to be a difference in playstyle between us, which is just really saying "noncombat in 4e doesn't support my playstyle as well as noncombat 3e (or 2e or whatever) did"



I understand the rest of your argument and agree with you.  I'm just wondering what was more robust about 3e or 2e or whatever?  So far, the way I run non-combat encounters from 1e through 4e hasn't changed almost at all:

The PCs need to find the clues in a room with a dead body, apparently murdered.  There is a murder weapon in the back yard.

1e:
DM: "Where are you searching?"
Players: "We take a look around the room."
DM: "You see a dead body, a blood pool, and the back door is open."
Players: "We search the back yard."
DM: "You find a knife covered in blood."

2e: 
Exactly the same as 1e, there are no NWPs that really apply to this situation, at least none that I'm remembering right now.  If there is one, you can make them make a roll to discover the knife.

3e: 
DM: "Where are you searching?"
Players: "We take a look around the room."
DM: "Make a Search check."
Players: "The highest check is 15, we take 20, everyone aids for a total of 43."
DM: "You see a dead body, a blood pool, and the back door is open."
Players: "We search the back yard."
DM: "Make a Search check."
Players: "The highest check is 15, we take 20, everyone aids for a total of 43."
DM: "You find a knife covered in blood."

4e:
DM: "What's the highest passive perception?"
Players: "22"
DM: "You see a dead body, a blood pool, and the back door is open."
Players: "We search the room to make sure we aren't missing anything."
DM: "Make a Perception check."
Players: "The highest check is +15, we can just assume we get 20 out of combat."
DM: "You don't see anything else."
Players: "We search the back yard."
DM: "Since you get 35 on your Perception you find a knife covered in blood."

The same thing applies to a number of other situations:
Diplomacy/Negotiation/Haggling: 1e-Roleplay with a (possible)Cha check, 2e-same as 1e, 3e-Roleplay with a Diplomacy check, 4e-same as 3e
Sneaking in/out of somewhere: 1e-The Thief makes a Move Silently check(everyone else can't succeed or simply freeforms it), 2e-same as 1e, 3e-Everyone makes Hide and Move Silently checks, 4e-Everyone makes Stealth checks


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

Mudstrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But a "combat-like" approach to social encounters or navigating a dungeon somehow feels wrong to me.
> Would you also agree that it is going too far, or would you go for that approach?




I wouldn't necessarily want combat-like social or exploration challenges, but what I would like are *more detailed* non-combat challenges where your archetype (your class or your "noncombat archetype") offers different options to use tactical and strategic rules to overcome the challenge.

4e is clearly about combat, but I'd like the option to shift the detail to other things, too. That doesn't require mechanics quite like combat, but it does require a diversity of abilities that can contribute to various noncombat challenges. Earlier editions have this. 4e, with skill challenges and rituals, only supports this if you don't really care about it or if you're comfortable with abstract rules generally. Earlier editions, especially with the "toolbox" noncombat spells like divinations and enchantments, supported this better.



> Another aspect might be "Where are the tactics?". Combat is full of tactics. Who to attack when with what power, combat option or spell. Where to move?
> Can I find something similar in a non-combat challenge? Social, Exploration, Investigation, Research? What is the equivalent of a "charge" in exploration or research?



A given episode of CSI will certainly show you how many tactics and challenges can be derived from something non-combat. Also see: A John Grisham novel, most horror movies, and real life.

Combat is not the only place where meaningful tactical choice can take place, and 4e treats that as if it is the case more often than previous editions.



			
				Maroju Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering what was more robust about 3e or 2e or whatever?




Specifically, a lot of noncombat spells, and the access to these abilities varying with class, helped give each character something different to contribute. For instance, in the investigative challenge case, the Rogue might have underworld contacts, or could spy on the secret meeting. The Cleric could uncover imposters. The Wizard could charm the guards. The Fighter could apprehend the wrong-doer when she was uncovered.

Skill challenges being open to almost any skill means that there is no difference between a character who chooses Diplomacy and someone who chooses Perception.

Rituals are a little better, but even they are just there to be grabbed by anyone who wants them, meaning there's still no real difference in what two characters can contribute.

There is little strategic dimension in earlier editions, and there is even less in 4e. 



			
				Thasmodius said:
			
		

> Which is to have the best combat system D&D has yet had coupled with the most involved and fluid noncombat system yet.




...look, obviously you're a fan. If you're unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ and that people who hold other opinions can actually be valid in holding those opinions, and if you can't somehow engage in a conversation instead of spouting subjectivities that are clearly in dispute, I think we're pretty much done with whatever constructive results could have come from this conversation. You're intractable, and spouting about how ignorant and wrong I am certainly isn't going to convince me that you have anything worth contributing to my perspective.

Saying "You're wrong, I'm right, you're ignorant, I'm well-learned," isn't a counterpoint, it's just contradiction. I feel like I've stepped into a Monty Python sketch. Go enjoy your game, no one is stopping you.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 16, 2009)

I was going to be just edit my last post, but

Let  failure be interesting.  On  Leverage Alec and Parker are in a black van screwing with the insurance guy that replaced Nathan.  He spots them (success on his check or failure on theirs) and calls the cops.  

Or how about Sophie (again, on leverage) droping character when Nathan gets shot. He loss of cover alerts the corrupt mayor and now the group has to adapt on the fly.

Also, let low skills (or no skills) be a situation for lack of or character growth.  Parker from leverage on jury duty when she has no diplomacy skill. Cordelia,on Angel, finally learning how to fight under Angel's tutelage.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I think I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post (above), but this one is important. If you are facing a skill roll that is a life/death situation and it hinges on rolling well, of course you will seek an alternate path. And on those rolls I wouldn't put all my eggs into two ranks. But most skill checks don't result in death if failed. haggling with the inn keeper, those two ranks may come in handy.  Or trying get the skinny on the head of the thieves guild at a loval gambling den, +2 or +3 might make the difference. Does it assure success? Absolutely not, and it shouldn't. 2 ranks means you character has just picked up a skill recently. He shouldn't be an expert yet. But he can try his hand at it.  If it becomes important enough to you, then you will take more ranks down the road as your character grows.




Which brings us back to my point.

That as it stands, two ranks by itself is useless.

Sure, having a +2 to a roll is better than not. But the opportunity cost is what is important.

Those two ranks in diplomacy could be used to top off a skill a PC has nearly max ranks in. Which is better, a +2 to a roll you'll seldom make (like a diplomacy check when separated from the bard) or something you'll make regularly (spellcraft for a cleric or disable device for a rogue)? Certainly, its the latter.

The opportunity cost of NOT maxing out a skills is certainly not equal to adding a 1-2 point insurance boost to a seldom used skill. 

Then, can we agree that barring some odd circumstances (that mostly being "when the DM creates a life/death scenario hinging on a single forced skill check") that its better to max out skill than it is to spread 2-3 skill points across multiple skills (IE its better to be good at one thing than suck at many)?

Good. Because we're now walking into not granularity, but polarization. Either you're good at something (max ranks) or you didn't bother to waste the points in it (because you placed those points in maxing out something else). Eventually, we create a system that is either all or nothing or on/off. Not much different than Saga/Pathfinder/4e's untrained/trained/focused system, eh?

Of course, I'm ignoring the two OTHER uses of skill points, and I'd be reminisced to do so: vanity points and cross-class skills. 

Vanity points is exactly what those two ranks in diplomacy are: a way of mechanically showing your PC had exposure to, but isn't good at, something. Typical vanity points are spent either in a knowledge (to make it trained thus uncapping the DC beyond 10) or in craft/profession (to show a former trade before adventuring). IMHO, they are a false skill sink. Those knowledge checks, barring the occasional 20, rarely succeed better than that DC 10 and I rarely see a need (or even much opportunity) to see craft/profession checks be made. However, they make the player feel "good" about something since "its written down on their character sheet".

The other is C.C. skills: a way to fool people into burning 1/2 their skill points on a skill they cannot possibly trump a trained character at. After most people figure out C.C skills are a skill point diminishing return, all I ever see it used for is meeting PrC requirements.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Which brings us back to my point.
> 
> That as it stands, two ranks by itself is useless.
> 
> ...




Umm. No it doesn't. You have announced a conclusion, without making a real case for it. And the vague case you made was loaded with assumptions. As if yopuu can prove that my experience of the 3e skill system must match yours. I have been playing role playing games for over fifteen years, and prefer game systems that allow me to take ranks in skills.  Sometime maxing is going to be better. But not if you want to take 7 points and put 5 in Diplomacy and 2 in Knowledge Religion. Especially if you end up using knowledge religion often. 

You will need to define opportunity cost, as that is a term I have never heard before.

It depends on the character. I may want to be more well rounded. So I spread my points out by taking 2 ranks in everything. Or I may simply have a vision of my character where is more or less skilled in different things. And the +2 becomes important as an expression of who he is. 

Why do you think two ranks is useless, I just showed you many instances where it comes in handy. It isn't as good as a +3 or +4, but it still has some value. 



> The opportunity cost of NOT maxing out a skills is certainly not equal to adding a 1-2 point insurance boost to a seldom used skill.




Again, not sure what you mean exactly by opportunity cost; but this all depends on what happens in the course of the adventure, and if makes your guy all the more cool, what is the big deal? Not everyone maxes out all their skills. I had lots of players in 3E who spread out skills and were perfectly content. And they were able to do more things as a result. 



> Then, can we agree that barring some odd circumstances (that mostly being "when the DM creates a life/death scenario hinging on a single forced skill check") that its better to max out skill than it is to spread 2-3 skill points across multiple skills (IE its better to be good at one thing than suck at many)?




No we can't and no we don't. Because +2 doesn't suck in a d20 system. Would you rather have a +0 or a +2 in something? 




> Good. Because we're now walking into not granularity, but polarization. Either you're good at something (max ranks) or you didn't bother to waste the points in it (because you placed those points in maxing out something else). Eventually, we create a system that is either all or nothing or on/off. Not much different than Saga/Pathfinder/4e's untrained/trained/focused system, eh?




THis may work for you and the way you build characters, but it doesn't work for me. I much prefer granularity to polarization. I want shades of skill level. And I want the option to take different ranks in my skills. +2 v. +14 is an extreme example, and sometimes the case. More often I am taking 4 ranks here, 5 there, 7 here, and 3 there. For me, this is much more fun, and creates a much more textured character than the binary: untrained/trained approach. 

Which is why I don't like these systems. It was the first thing I found I didn't like about saga.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Specifically, a lot of noncombat spells, and the access to these abilities varying with class, helped give each character something different to contribute. For instance, in the investigative challenge case, the Rogue might have underworld contacts



How?  That's not a rogue (or thief) class feature.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The Cleric could uncover imposters.



I missed that class ability, too, I suppose.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The Wizard could charm the guards.



Well, that one at least is no longer possible.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Skill challenges being open to almost any skill means that there is no difference between a character who chooses Diplomacy and someone who chooses Perception.



Not all skills are appropriate to all challenges.  And utimately it's up to you as the DM to decide what does and does not contribute to the success of a given task.  Different characters are trained in different skills, and they won't all be applicable in every situation.  I don't see how the situation has really changed since 3e, except that you no longer have to micromanage your skill points.  If you don't like the skill challenge system, don't use it and go back to whatever you were doing before.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Rituals are a little better, but even they are just there to be grabbed by anyone who wants them, meaning there's still no real difference in what two characters can contribute.



You could say the same about picking up a level of wizard and/or cleric in 3e, or putting enough ranks into UMD to reliably use wands & scrolls.  Learning rituals has a cost - you have to be trained in one of two skills (which costs a feat for the non-caster types), you have to spend a(nother) feat, and then you have to buy or find rituals.  And then various rituals require different skill checks on top of that.  So saying there's no real difference in what two characters can contribute is plainly false.  It's like saying if you had two wizards (mages, magic-users) in the party there'd be no real variation between them (which might be somewhat true in 4e - or at least you'd have to work harder to differentiate them - but certainly wasn't in earlier editions).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

Spatula said:
			
		

> How? That's not a rogue (or thief) class feature.




Depending, it can be (the OP mentioned the optional contact rules) But regardless, I also mentioned hiding and spying. And here's another kicker: with the high level of skill points in 3e, rogues were more likely than even wizards to have a Knowledge skill or two high enough to serve as the "plan-maker" and researcher for the party.



> I missed that class ability, too, I suppose.




Detect Evil and it's kin. Also, Detect Lies. Also, Augury or Clairvoyance/Clairaudience or True Seeing. Divine magic in D&D has usually been pretty stellar for divinations.



> Not all skills are appropriate to all challenges.




The fact that this depends on DM judgment means that there are no solid rules for it. 



> If you don't like the skill challenge system, don't use it and go back to whatever you were doing before.




4e has removed a lot of what I was doing before, in the interest of focusing the game. 



> So saying there's no real difference in what two characters can contribute is plainly false. It's like saying if you had two wizards (mages, magic-users) in the party there'd be no real variation between them (which might be somewhat true in 4e - or at least you'd have to work harder to differentiate them - but certainly wasn't in earlier editions).




You got it right in the last bit. How many people want to be the "second wizard"? Wouldn't you rather do something similar that can contribute uniquely to the scenario?

4e doesn't let people contribute as uniquely as earlier editions did. 

This, of course, isn't a problem that 4e can't solve if it wants to.


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> You will need to define opportunity cost, as that is a term I have never heard before.






			
				Websters said:
			
		

> The added cost of using resources (as for production or speculative investment) that is the difference between the actual value resulting from such use and that of an alternative (as another use of the same resources or an investment of equal risk but greater return.




What is basically being argued is that you gain more by focusing your skill points on a few skills rather than spreading out your skill points over multiple skills. If the entire party does this you will have the greatest chance for success at any given skill. By contrast, if the party chooses to spread there skill points out you lesson your chance for success. 

This assumes the DM does not compensate the party for its decisions by lowering the DC necessary to succeed. 

Example: A party with four characters who, for arguments sake, have the following skills Character A - Diplomacy 20 ranks, Character B - Knowledge 20 ranks, Character C - Listen 20 ranks, Character D - Use Rope 20 ranks, are more likely to succeed at Diplomacy, Knowledge, Listen, or Use Rope than a party in which characters A, B, C, and D all have 5 ranks each in those particular skills.

The other thought is that a party in which some specialize while others do not will marginalize the ones who do not. They will rarely be able to succeed at a greater level than one who is fully (maxed out) trained in whichever particular skill. 

In the end, your investment in said skill is only valuable by how often it is successful in the game.



ProfessorPain said:


> THis may work for you and the way you build characters, but it doesn't work for me. I much prefer granularity to polarization. I want shades of skill level. And I want the option to take different ranks in my skills. +2 v. +14 is an extreme example, and sometimes the case. More often I am taking 4 ranks here, 5 there, 7 here, and 3 there. For me, this is much more fun, and creates a much more textured character than the binary: untrained/trained approach.




I agree, despite my arguments above I would prefer a system and players who played this way. Luckily, the guys I play with are exactly that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

Greg K said:


> True.
> Furthermore, imo, the DM should be taking into party member skills and skill ranks when designing scenarioes (the players are telling you how important a particular skill is to their character) and not create situations where one bad skill roll brings the whole adventure to a crash. Instead, they should be creating situations appropriate for the DC of the highest  skilled character (if onlly one person matters) or, if the group is forced to split or rely on the other members, the DC of those other members.  And, if you know the low DC of others members may be a problem, create situations where failure creates a complication or setback- even one requiring  the party to regroup and take a new approach rather than something that will bring the game to a halt.  Which is why placing a chase and making it an integral part of the adventure, because the DM thinks it would be cool  without having alternatives (should the characters lack the skills or the players not wanting to bite) is not, imo, good adventure design- it is railroading.
> 
> 
> ...




So what you want is skill challenges and the pretension that skill ranks mean something? The moment you start tailoring the DCs to take into account these ranks, you have the same end effect as if you just have a 1/2 level bonus + ability (+5 for trained) and put the DCs in a chart. Except with less work for the DM.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> What is basically being argued is that you gain more by focusing your skill points on a few skills rather than spreading out your skill points over multiple skills. If the entire party does this you will have the greatest chance for success at any given skill. By contrast, if the party chooses to spread there skill points out you lesson your chance for success.
> 
> This assumes the DM does not compensate the party for its decisions by lowering the DC necessary to succeed.
> 
> ...





then i think he should have paid more attention to my earlier argument about make or break skill checks and party success v. individual success.  Everything is different when the group succeeds as a whole because of one persons success or failure; but that doesn't mean the whole party has to suceed or fail on it. The consequences for success and failure should vary from challenge to challenge. As I said before, just becuase the guy with +20 in diplomacy wants to be the one to address the king, it doesn't mean the king wants to interact with him. It also doesn't mean the other players diplomacy rolls wont have an impact on the story.  Maybe the guy with a +20 gets the king's ear, and secures whatever it is the PCs are looking for. But the guy with no ranks, may end up in the dungeon for accidentally insulting the king. The guy with the +2 might make it by the skin of  his teeth. I understand the concept of everyone specializing in a few areas so that the whole party is covered. But there are times when this doesn't work. And it isn't always appropriate to give the whole party a pass because one member of thier group suceeds.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 16, 2009)

Am I the only one whose group figured out that if you just pick a number of skills equal to your points per level and keep them maxed out, you'll be best off?  Most everyone I gamed with did it that way, and it makes it feel just like 4e, except with more math to do.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Am I the only one whose group figured out that if you just pick a number of skills equal to your points per level and keep them maxed out, you'll be best off? Most everyone I gamed with did it that way, and it makes it feel just like 4e, except with more math to do.




No. I have been in groups that do this. But sometimes you want more skills than that. You may want to make a character who has more of his bases covered.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I
> A given episode of CSI will certainly show you how many tactics and challenges can be derived from something non-combat. Also see: A John Grisham novel, most horror movies, and real life.



It doesn't seem to work for me. All I see is something that I can cover with a skill challenge. "Oh they are using bad cop/good cop. You roll Initmidate, I roll Diplomacy!)



> Combat is not the only place where meaningful tactical choice can take place, and 4e treats that as if it is the case more often than previous editions.



The question is how do you express these in game terms.

Show me.



> Specifically, a lot of noncombat spells, and the access to these abilities varying with class, helped give each character something different to contribute. For instance, in the investigative challenge case, the Rogue might have underworld contacts, or could spy on the secret meeting. The Cleric could uncover imposters. The Wizard could charm the guards. The Fighter could apprehend the wrong-doer when she was uncovered.



And you delivered, at least a beginning.

So, I suppose what one would want to change is to add special ability - spells or story abilities that can replace a skill check.



> Skill challenges being open to almost any skill means that there is no difference between a character who chooses Diplomacy and someone who chooses Perception.



Only if both skills apply to the challenge.
Only if you don't bother about the story created. 
You seem to be combining the eventual success of the scenario with the way it was resolved. That looks a little like saying that your class doesn't have an effect in combat, since in the end, all enemies are at less then 0 hit points. But still a combat where everyone is fighting with swords is very different from one mixing swords and fireballs. 
When you use Perception, you narrate something different as when you use Diplomacy. If you use a sword, you narrate it diferently as when you're using a fireball. Even if at the end, the enemies just loses some hit points.



> There is little strategic dimension in earlier editions, and there is even less in 4e.




I think the D&D "strategic" dimension was usually related to stuff like getting and traveling the equipment and treasure, and managing your daily spell slots and healing. I suppose that's not much, but well, we're only running an adventure party, not an army. 



> Saying "You're wrong, I'm right, you're ignorant, I'm well-learned," isn't a counterpoint, it's just contradiction. I feel like I've stepped into a Monty Python sketch. Go enjoy your game, no one is stopping you.



A contradiction can be part of an argument! [/Python]


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So what you want is skill challenges and the pretension that skill ranks mean something? The moment you start tailoring the DCs to take into account these ranks, you have the same end effect as if you just have a 1/2 level bonus + ability (+5 for trained) and put the DCs in a chart. Except with less work for the DM.




Except he is still allowing for failure to happen, just suggesting making it not a make or break thing. At some point, you have to tailor adventures to the party and their skills. What is being argued is it is less fun for some if everyone 18th level guy who took diplomacy is basically the same at it. Ranks allows for more variety, and for more interesting scenarios where some members make it and some don't. The key to any skill test, no matter what the edition; is to make sure a single failure doesn't ruin the game. That doesn't mean give them a pass. Treat it like a movie. They can't kill of characters who stumble, but they need to increase tension somehow; so the guy who probably should have fallen off the cliff, ends up dangling by his pants; or at the bottom of the ravine on his own--forced to find a way to rejoin the group.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> No. I have been in groups that do this. But sometimes you want more skills than that. You may want to make a character who has more of his bases covered.




But the way expected DCs climb, your choices boil down to max it out or have it be useless.

Splitting between two, or more, instead of putting a point in it every level will only wind up with a useless bonus.  The DCs in the game scale with level, meaning if you want to have a chance to do something useful with a skill for your level it needs to be maxed out.  You might feel like you're 'covering your bases' at lower level, but eventually you'll find all you've done is gotten two mostly useless skills instead of one totally useless skill and a useful skill.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Except he is still allowing for failure to happen, just suggesting making it not a make or break thing. At some point, you have to tailor adventures to the party and their skills. What is being argued is it is less fun for some if everyone 18th level guy who took diplomacy is basically the same at it. Ranks allows for more variety, and for more interesting scenarios where some members make it and some don't. The key to any skill test, no matter what the edition; is to make sure a single failure doesn't ruin the game. That doesn't mean give them a pass. Treat it like a movie. They can't kill of characters who stumble, but they need to increase tension somehow; so the guy who probably should have fallen off the cliff, ends up dangling by his pants; or at the bottom of the ravine on his own--forced to find a way to rejoin the group.



Which is what skill challenges are also doing. My point is that I don't see this flexibility or variety if you tailor the skills to give the PCs a similar "success chance". All you do is adding math that doesn't change how you actually play the game or change the story of the adventure. It really just adds the need for me to look at the character sheet of a PC and figure out his skill bonus.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Which is what skill challenges are also doing. My point is that I don't see this flexibility or variety if you tailor the skills to give the PCs a similar "success chance". All you do is adding math that doesn't change how you actually play the game or change the story of the adventure. It really just adds the need for me to look at the character sheet of a PC and figure out his skill bonus.




i agree with you there. I don't think you should rig skill tests so everyone has the same chance of success. I want the guy who spent skill points on the skill to benefit. What too many GMs do is see skill checks as a make or break moment in the adventure. If you have designed a scenario with a 20 foot jump that must be made, or the adventure comes to a crashing hault, then that is bad adventure design. All kinds of interesting things can develop from a failed jump check. And those are also opportunities to create tension. This is where the concept of a skill test from 4E is a cool one(though I would do them a little differently myself) that you can probably apply. Every once in a while, a jump or die situation is okay (if you don't mind high body counts), but you don't want it to kill the adventure. Same with any other skill check. By making skill failures acceptable outcomes, with in game consequences, you make skills and differing ranks in skills more important. My basic issue with skills in 4E is I would like to have more subskills and the ability to take ranks in them. I also do not like the level being factored into your score. I understand why they did it. But I prefer to have more control over my skill level.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Umm. No it doesn't. You have announced a conclusion, without making a real case for it. And the vague case you made was loaded with assumptions. As if yopuu can prove that my experience of the 3e skill system must match yours. I have been playing role playing games for over fifteen years, and prefer game systems that allow me to take ranks in skills.  Sometime maxing is going to be better. But not if you want to take 7 points and put 5 in Diplomacy and 2 in Knowledge Religion. Especially if you end up using knowledge religion often.




Okay...  I too, have been playing role playing for over fifteen (over twenty, actually) years, and in general, I too prefer game systems that allow me to take ranks in skills.  However, in practice, the D20 method of doing it doesn't work as well as I'd like it to.  From observed experience over the past few years with dozens of gamers, from both the player side and the DM side of the screen, here's what I've seen happen...


Most players either maxed out a skill or left a skill completely empty with no ranks at all.
Skills that have ranks but aren't maxed out were almost always not maxed out for one of three reasons...  1) Meeting the minimum prerequisites for a PrC or a feat, 2) Taking just 1 or 2 ranks for roleplaying purposes,  or 3) The player wanted to max the skill out, but couldn't because skill points were used for 1 or 2.
Unless no one else in the party has that skill maxed out, an unmaxed skill almost never got used.  At best it would get occassional use when Aiding Another.

Granted, it didn't always work out that way, but 9 times out of ten, it did.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So what you want is skill challenges and the pretension that skill ranks mean something? The moment you start tailoring the DCs to take into account these ranks, you have the same end effect as if you just have a 1/2 level bonus + ability (+5 for trained) and put the DCs in a chart. Except with less work for the DM.





It's not pretense. Ranks still matter, because the player still chooses how good they want to be. 

However, that players chose to have low are no ranks does not excuse the  DMs from faiing to account for  the characters  they have  and the setting possible consequence failure when setting the DCs in desigining their adventures (unless you are playing a rat bastard game).
  If you want to challenge the guy whose maxed out , you make success dependent on his roll . If  you want the other players involved,  let the guy shine, but how challenging do you want it to be for the other characters and what are the consequences of failing (and can it be something other than death or bringing the adventure to a complete halt).

And,  if the maxed out character is not going to  be with them, how difficult you want to be for the characters there- slight chance of failure? 50/50? almost certain? Just don't complain if they fail and the adventure comes to a halt, because you , the DM, failed to account for anythingi if they failed  or the players try to find an alternative approach, because you were so set on a scened playing out in a specific matter or failed to account for other options by which they might succeed.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 16, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Okay... I too, have been playing role playing for over fifteen (over twenty, actually) years, and in general, I too prefer game systems that allow me to take ranks in skills. However, in practice, the D20 method of doing it doesn't work as well as I'd like it to. From observed experience over the past few years with dozens of gamers, from both the player side and the DM side of the screen, here's what I've seen happen...
> 
> 
> Most players either maxed out a skill or left a skill completely empty with no ranks at all.
> ...




1) that is the players' choice. If they want to max their skills, they should be able to, and I have no problem with that. 
2) This again, boils down to player choice. 
3) This is the fault of the GM. In the games I have played in and run, relying on one person to suceed for the whole party has been discouraged, because it isn't how things normally happen in real life or in the movies. I gave numerous examples on this in previous posts. 

Every group is different. I am not saying all others must share my experience or prefer one edition over the other. But I personally enjoy having ranks, and I never had much of a problem making them matter in my d20 campaigns. This might be because I ran many skill focused adventures and figured out how to avoid some of the pit falls.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2009)

Mudstrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem to work for me. All I see is something that I can cover with a skill challenge. "Oh they are using bad cop/good cop. You roll Initmidate, I roll Diplomacy!)




And combat could be handled with a skill challenge, too. The thing here is that skill challenges aren't good to use for an entire session the lion's share of a campaign. For something I want the game to focus on, I want more detail and strategy.



> So, I suppose what one would want to change is to add special ability - spells or story abilities that can replace a skill check.




That would really go a long way. Specific noncombat abilities that no one else in the party can get would basically make it more like earlier editions, and cover a lot of open space.



> You seem to be combining the eventual success of the scenario with the way it was resolved. That looks a little like saying that your class doesn't have an effect in combat, since in the end, all enemies are at less then 0 hit points. But still a combat where everyone is fighting with swords is very different from one mixing swords and fireballs.



Right, but in the end, I'm rolling 1d20+5 vs. DC 20, just like my friend, even if I'm using Stealth and he's using Religion. That's a lot more homogenous, right in the rules, than swinging a sword vs. launching a fireball. Some different things to do (rather than just different description of what we do) would be greatly appreciated.



> I think the D&D "strategic" dimension was usually related to stuff like getting and traveling the equipment and treasure, and managing your daily spell slots and healing. I suppose that's not much, but well, we're only running an adventure party, not an army.




Right, and, honestly, there doesn't need to be a LOT. I'd prefer there to be something more robust than in earlier editions (I mean, that would be an improvement!), but 4e kind of took away what we did have in earlier editions, and what replaced it isn't as good. There's still plenty of room for 4e to give us something better than what we had before.


----------



## malraux (Feb 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Am I the only one whose group figured out that if you just pick a number of skills equal to your points per level and keep them maxed out, you'll be best off?  Most everyone I gamed with did it that way, and it makes it feel just like 4e, except with more math to do.




The exception to that was skills that didn't tend to scale with level.  Balance and tumble I remember being one of the better examples; with tumble, for example, once you can always hit the tumble to avoid AoO dc, there was no point to adding more.  With balance, once your skill was high enough, the only possible things that could affect you were DCs so high that the rest of the party couldn't possibly hit, so the DM couldn't possibly ask for them very often.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Depending, it can be (the OP mentioned the optional contact rules) But regardless, I also mentioned hiding and spying. And here's another kicker: with the high level of skill points in 3e, rogues were more likely than even wizards to have a Knowledge skill or two high enough to serve as the "plan-maker" and researcher for the party.



Okay, but what's changed?  Rogues are by default good at hiding and spying (Stealth and Thievery).  The class' skill-based utility powers make rogues even better at such things.  The only other PHB class that has Stealth as a class skill is the ranger, who also had those abilities in 3e (and to a lesser extent in 2e).  Sure, anyone else can blow a feat and become stealthy, but then anyone could blow cross-class skill ranks or take a level of rogue and get the same thing in 3e.  The rogue and ranger will still be better because of their DEX score.

Regarding Knowledge skills in 3e, not bloody likely unless the rogue is multiclassed with wizard or bard, since they're all cross-class (except for knowledge-local in 3.5).  Plus you need most of your points for the critical rogue skills.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Detect Evil and it's kin. Also, Detect Lies. Also, Augury or Clairvoyance/Clairaudience or True Seeing. Divine magic in D&D has usually been pretty stellar for divinations.



Ah, ok, I see what you meant.  There's a lot of overlap with wizard spells there, plus there are divinations that wizards have but that clerics do not.  While the cleric has the edge, it's hardly a protected schtick.  Both wizards and clerics can "reveal imposters" in any edition.  In 4e, both have free access to divinatory rituals, the vast majority of which are Religion-based (a skill that the cleric gets for free).



Kamikaze Midget said:


> The fact that this depends on DM judgment means that there are no solid rules for it.



I don't see how this matters since the DM is the one designing the challenges (or tweaking published challenges).  If you want a solid yes/no determination on which skills can or can't be used, then it's part of your design.  The challenges are just a framework that DMs can build actual encounters on top of, similar to the combat encounter toolbox.  Obviously it's not as well developed, but then it's only been around since the 3e UA.  And it's more than we've had in the past.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e has removed a lot of what I was doing before, in the interest of focusing the game.



Charm spells are gone.  Detect alignment spells are gone (and good riddance).  That's pretty much it.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> You got it right in the last bit. How many people want to be the "second wizard"? Wouldn't you rather do something similar that can contribute uniquely to the scenario?
> 
> 4e doesn't let people contribute as uniquely as earlier editions did.



You keep asserting this but I can't find any actual substance to it, other than a dislike for your strawman every-skill-applies skill challenges (Derren? what have you done with KM?!).  The whole "anyone can do any particular task" thing was just as true with 3e's flexible character creation.

I'm not sure I get your meaning with the "second wizard" comment - wizards had a lot of possible variance between spell selection and specialization in 2e & 3e.  Then you get to other customization options: race & multiclassing, kits & NWPs, skills & feats.  If you meant just in 4e, there's definitely less room to maneuver because there are a lot fewer spells/rituals and a lack of good caster feats; this is a big flaw with the 4e PHB IMO.  It feels like a primer that was meant to have addons (which of course it was) whereas previous PHBs were much more complete.  But after Arcane Power is out, presumably the wizard will be "complete" and will have a lot more options to seperate oneself from the pack.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 16, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Every group is different. And everyone takes home a different impression of each edition.



Of course.  



ProfessorPain said:


> In my group, this would be considered metagaming, and I would ask the party to keep it in character. Even if they persist in metagaming though, you need to spice it up. Sometimes the guy with the highest rank in diplomacy, isn't the person the NPC wants to address. Maybe the mayor of the town, refuses to deal with someone who appears too manipulative, or has a "roguish" manner about them. They might single out the most dim-witted looking member of the party in order to take advantage of them.



All this is certainly true.  But I'd say this sort of thing is rare at best.  And should be.  It's rather unfair of the DM to continually ruin the player's fun and character concept by forcing them to do things they didn't want to do.  I figure if someone puts max ranks in Diplomacy, it's because they want to talk to NPCs and be the friendly one.  The entire point of having max ranks in Diplomacy is that people can't help but trust you.  They WANT to get along with you.  Even if they initially have a problem with you for one reason or another, you can make a Diplomacy check and change their mind.

I certainly, would never have an NPC want to talk to the Half-Orc when the Half-Elf Bard makes a DC 50 Diplomacy check(which according to the rules in 3.5 edition now makes him want to lay down his life in order to protect the Half-Elf).  Players smell this thing a mile away.  I could just hear my players complaining now:  "What?  I made a DC 50 Diplomacy check!?!?  With that check I can get entire villages worth of people to jump in front of Dragons for me and the Bartender says he'd rather deal with the Half-Orc?  You just want us to fail!  This game is no fun!"



ProfessorPain said:


> This is normally true in combat adventures, but in investigations splitting up usually speeds things up a lot. It is much easier if people pair up and follow different leads.



If there is any combat involved ever, then it's a bad idea to split up.  You never know when a combat is going to happen.  When a combat happens, you want everyone there.  You don't want the situation where half the group is gathering information in the inn while the other half follows the mysterious cloaked stranger to the other side of town.  It normally ends with half the party being ambushed in an alley somewhere and doing an hour and a half battle while the other players complain that they showed up for a session in order to watch other people play.



ProfessorPain said:


> No adventure should hinge on a single roll of the dice. There should always be alternatives to jumping the pit. In these circumstances, different levels of skill in different things, allow characters to shine in different ways. A good way to solve this, is to have failure result in making things harder, but not impossible. Think of it like a movie, maybe the guy falls onto a small ledge fifteen to twenty feet down. Sure he takes some damage as punishment, but now the party has to figure out a way to rescue him. In my mind this is more exciting anyways.



I agree.  Nothing should ever hinge on one roll of the dice.  Which is why I don't call for skill checks at all if I want the party to succeed.  I don't put pits that the party needs to cross in an adventure, because I don't know what their jump checks or spells are.  They might not be able to pass it.  I don't record anything at all about the characters in my games.  I don't even know what their names are most of the time.  I let them keep track of their characters and I keep track of my adventures.

If I did plan on their being a pit there, it would be planned in advance.  Exactly how deep it was, whether there were any ledges, and so on.  If someone failed and I had figured out there were no ledges, they fall to their death.

These sort of things aren't all that exciting though...at least not in 3.5e.  Someone falls X feet, a rope is lowered, they climb up, they get healed by the Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Everyone groans, makes fun of the Wizard for not being strong enough to jump over the pit, and the game continues.  There's no real tension.



ProfessorPain said:


> Even if the party leaves him, he can still try to figure his own way out and catch up later (and hey that makes for a great little side trek--plus it is an opportunity to do a split party which is often fun if done well)



There's that splitting up thing again.  The bane of all games.  I've played in games where the DM did this, so I know from experience.  I remember when me and one other person had something similar happen.  6 party members, 2 of us down a pit finding a different way to go, the other 4 were the bigger group, they run into a combat encounter and fight.  Me and the other person sit down on the couch nearby in order to watch a movie.  They finish the encounter, walk into another room and fight another encounter.  We watch another movie.  They fight another encounter, we eat supper.  Then they walk through another corridor and run into us.  We finally join them back at the table.



ProfessorPain said:


> Again this is adventure design. If failure of one roll means the adventure stops, then it is bad no matter what skill system you use, because you either let them fail and everything comes to an end, or you make it a cake walk. You need to be creative with failures, and understand there is always more than one way to overcome a challenge. Okay, so maybe they didn't impress the king.  But maybe the king's uncle saw an opportunity, and offers to get them on the king's good side in exchange for a favor. Or maybe they have to deal with the theives guild instead of the king.



I agree.  But, generally succeeding gives them more advantages than failing.  They want to succeed.  Failing shouldn't be the end of things, but it should end up being harder to solve the mystery.  Which is what the OP was asking about.  When the group fails the Search/Perception check to find the murder weapon, they now have to figure out the mystery without that information.  Not impossible, but harder.  If they fail to convince the passerby on the street to tell them what he saw, it should become even harder.  If they also fail the Heal check to figure out how the victim died, it becomes even harder.  Maybe they never solve the crime and they find a different body and move on to a different mystery.  Maybe, when they fail to catch the killer more people end up dead, but it gives them more chances to get clues.

I think we're in full agreement here.  My point is that in these situations you either succeed or you don't.  The group is working together, so any successes get them closer to their goals, any failures get them further away.

Still, you were saying that individual failures mattered.  You were saying that you wanted to throw in a lot of skill checks where if the Half-Orc failed his Diplomacy then he wasn't favored by the King, while everyone else was.  It just doesn't seem to matter.  Skills are rolled for a benefit or a disadvantage.  The question is: what happens if you gain the favor of the King vs what happens if you don't.  If the point of gaining his favor is that the party gets to investigate the Vault in the castle for clues, then you gain the benefit if he lets even one party member in there.  Individual failures don't matter except maybe that the King glares at you and you have to wait outside the castle while the rest of the party gets the information you wanted.  I suppose it might cost you a reward or something, if the King decides to be petty and reward only the people who made their Diplomacy check or something.  Still, if the game is a cooperative game(which it is in the vast number of cases), then if the group succeeds, all the individuals succeed.



ProfessorPain said:


> Sure. In near impossible situations, people will seek alternate paths. I would argue a clever party can use the theives high rank to get everyone across (maybe he jumps and then throws a rope back for everyone else). In this case, he shines, but the others still get across.



As was said elsewhere, if an individual fails a jump over the pit challenge, then either his failure is negated(by the use of rope, a fly spell or whatever) and the group succeeds in getting over the pit OR there is no way to negate the failure and the entire group turns back and finds another way(perhaps with a penalty).

Although this is far away from the original topic.  The point I was making was that by setting the DC at 25 at level 10, you are saying that all those who have NOT put all (or most) of their ranks into the skill will fail while all those who HAVE put all their ranks into their skill and have skill focus or a really good related stat will succeed nearly 100% of the time.  Which means you are deciding in advance that you are going to punish those who didn't take max ranks in that skill.  The person who put only 2 ranks in the skill for a total bonus of +4 is still going to fail 100% of the time.  He'll fall down the pit and take damage.  And you are telling him he might as well have spent no ranks in it, because 2 ranks are useless in this situation.  On the other hand, if you set the DC at 10, you are saying that you don't need more than 8 or so ranks, because anything beyond that won't matter.

The difference between skills is so great that by setting any DC, you are purposefully punishing one player OR the entire group.



ProfessorPain said:


> They aren't rare at all in my games. Especially if you are playing a non-combat heavy adventure, where skills keep coming up.
> 
> So don't plan around who succeeds. Just make sure there are different paths to success. and that these different paths yield different results.



I was saying that skill checks that have an effect on one member of the group for failing while giving everyone else a benefit for succeeding don't happen that often.  I seriously can't think of any that I'd ever use.  You'd have to give me some examples.  All of my planning goes into branching trees of yes or no.  If the PCs find the murder weapon then they likely will track down the shop that sold the dagger.  If they make the Diplomacy check on the merchant than he will tell them about the symbol on the man's cloak who bought it.  If not, he falsely sends them into an ambush.  And so on.

I've never planned a skill check that gave a specific individual a penalty for failure.  Most of the time it doesn't make any sense.  For instance, there is no penalty for failure on a Search check if someone else succeeds.  You either find what you were looking for or you don't.  If someone succeeds on the Diplomacy check and convinces the NPC to give you the clue, it doesn't matter if the NPC ends up disliking the Half-Orc.  You still get the information.

I'm just looking for some examples of these checks that have a penalty to one person for failing without affecting the rest of the group that come up on a regular basis.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> At some point, you have to tailor adventures to the party and their skills.



I disagree.  You can write an entire adventure without having any idea who is going to play it, WOTC and the RPGA do it all the time.  It works much better in 4e than it does in 3.5e, because you can more accurately predict the chance of success without knowing the characters.



ProfessorPain said:


> What is being argued is it is less fun for some if everyone 18th level guy who took diplomacy is basically the same at it



I argue it is equally less fun to be the guy who spent 10 ranks in Diplomacy at level 20 because you wanted to be pretty good at it only to find out that the DC to succeed is 40, since it is adjusted for the guy who spent 23 ranks in his Diplomacy and Skill Focus.  You find out that everyone in the game hates you just as much as the Half-Orc with no ranks in Diplomacy.  Except, strangely enough, when the guy with 23 ranks in Diplomacy is missing, when all the DCs drop to levels you can succeed at.

It's also equally less fun the have the DCs set to 40 when you have +30 to your Diplomacy skill because the DM doesn't want you to succeed all the time.

It is also equally less fun to spend 23 Ranks in Diplomacy only to have the guy who spent 2 ranks in Diplomacy succeed every time.



ProfessorPain said:


> Ranks allows for more variety, and for more interesting scenarios where some members make it and some don't. The key to any skill test, no matter what the edition; is to make sure a single failure doesn't ruin the game. That doesn't mean give them a pass. Treat it like a movie. They can't kill of characters who stumble, but they need to increase tension somehow; so the guy who probably should have fallen off the cliff, ends up dangling by his pants; or at the bottom of the ravine on his own--forced to find a way to rejoin the group.



If he ends up dangling but is pulled up and doesn't fall, then it wasn't a failure, it was just descriptive text.  Especially if guy with 10 ranks in jump, 2 ranks in jump and no ranks in jump ALL end up dangling from the edge with rolls of 1 through 30.  People catch on pretty quickly that they can't fail.  Their failures mean nothing but a short period of inconvenience.

Either that or they end up punishing the rest of the group by failing.  Removing someone from the group for any reason is NOT an acceptable option for me.  No one gets put in the dungeon unless they get released within 15 minutes of real time.  No one loses their way unless they find their way back within 15 minutes of real time.  They can get lost for days or imprisoned for days in game, but nothing interesting should happen to the rest of the group while they are gone.  Which means, for me, ALL skill checks have to be a yes or no for the whole group.

It is certainly not interesting to be forced to watch other people play the game.  This is equally true for the 4 other players forced to sit around and watch the DM play you through a solo adventure as it is for the 1 person who has to watch the other 4 play while he is lost.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> You will need to define opportunity cost, as that is a term I have never heard before.




Opportunity cost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a economic term that references the cost of choosing one option against all possible options. For example, if your rich uncle leaves you $40,000 on your 18th birthday, you could spend that money on fast cars & loose women, or you could spend it on college. The opportunity cost the the intangible "cost" of choosing one of these options; college is hard work but it means more money in the future (by path of a good career) while fast cars and partying creates enjoyment now at the cost of long term gain. 

Any choice carries an opportunity cost; the cost is what is "lost" by choosing X over Y.

Now, back to D&D. The opportunity cost of devoting two ranks to a skill you will otherwise not use (such as diplomacy) vs. spending those ranks on a skill you use all the time (say, spellcraft) is the frequency of use vs. surprise bonus. 

If I make spellcraft checks regularly (to identify spells, to identify potions, etc) than that +2 (10% boost) is regularly used. Your much more likely to roll that skill and thus have that +2 come into play than a skill you do not use regularly or only use in "forced" situations (such as your "The King dislikes the bard and asks the cleric what he thinks"). 

Sure, that +2 is nice when it comes in handy, but you'll get more miles out of putting those 2 skill points into your spellcraft which you roll multiple times per game session.

Of course, D&D puts a bit of a crimp in that by making certain skills have earlier caps than others. Skills that face a static DC (such as climb, balance or tumble) often have "cut off" points where further ranks is wasted (such as no need to raise tumble over a net +24 bonus, synergy and ability mod included). Those "wasted" ranks often show up in vanity skills or to shore up other skill point oddities (multi-classing, int boosts).


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2009)

The way I see it, there are really only three levels of skill that 99% of players care about. Either you don't care about a skill; or you want to be reasonably good at the skill, since it's appropriate to your character; or you want to be _really_ good at the skill, since it's central to your character.

4E recognizes this by having three levels of skill training: Untrained, Trained, and Trained + Focus. By default, everybody has some class-appropriate skills trained. If you just want to be good at things that your character would logically be good at, that's all you need. If you want to stand out, even among other trained characters - to the extent that you're willing to pay for the privilege - you pick up Skill Focus.

(And before anyone asks, yes, I pick up Skill Focus quite often. My current character has Skill Focus in both Perception and Arcana, and after three gaming sessions the investment has already paid for itself IMO - I've spotted clues pointing us toward a traitor in our ship's crew, and my ritual magic has been a major boon to the party.  In a pirate campaign, Phantom Steed with 30+ on the Arcana check is a seriously awesome spell, especially if your DM lets you tie ropes to them and use them to pull your ship when you're becalmed.)

I would argue that this is all the granularity the system requires for the vast majority of players. In my experience, the granularity of 3E is not merely un-useful but actively bad; it steepens the learning curve, lengthens the character creation process, and lures inexperienced players into making choices they will later regret.

One thing that I have learned, painfully, from being a software developer: *Not only is more options not always good, it is frequently bad.* The cost of making decisions is non-trivial, as is the cost of people occasionally making the wrong decision*. Both of these costs must be counted against the benefit of having the option. Quite often, the cost exceeds the benefit.

[size=-2]* In this case, the "wrong" decision is "the decision which will lead to the character not performing, in-game, the way the player wants him/her to perform."[/size]


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 1) that is the players' choice. If they want to max their skills, they should be able to, and I have no problem with that.
> 2) This again, boils down to player choice.




The problem is that having the choice to do something insanely sub-optimal (which not maxing out skills is, for the most part) is a *bad thing*. If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 17, 2009)

majoru oakheart said:


> 1e:
> Dm: "where are you searching?"
> players: "we take a look around the room."
> *dm: "where?"
> ...




ftfy


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...look, obviously you're a fan. If you're unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ and that people who hold other opinions can actually be valid in holding those opinions, and if you can't somehow engage in a conversation instead of spouting subjectivities that are clearly in dispute, I think we're pretty much done with whatever constructive results could have come from this conversation. You're intractable, and spouting about how ignorant and wrong I am certainly isn't going to convince me that you have anything worth contributing to my perspective.
> 
> Saying "You're wrong, I'm right, you're ignorant, I'm well-learned," isn't a counterpoint, it's just contradiction. I feel like I've stepped into a Monty Python sketch. Go enjoy your game, no one is stopping you.




What is humorous is that this is how you presented your initial position in this thread.  I tried arguing the points rationally with you, but you are unwilling to move past your circular position of:

4e sucks at noncombat
But what about all the noncombat things?
Clearly they suck, didn't I already say that 4e sucks at these things?

Anytime someone responded asking for either clarification of how previous editions were superior or how the current edition's tools "suck", you said you weren't arguing specifics, then continued your unsupported position as if everyone was in agreement with you.

It's funny that when I responded in kind with "nu-uh 4e is better!" that you responded as if you now find that being "unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ" is a bad way to be.

Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well.  They do in our games.  In my games, skill challenges work great.  They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks.  The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat.  For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions.  It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill. 

I've already made that argument throughout here, but you chose instead to ignore that, "not argue specifics", and continue to rant on about how it sucks "just cause" without offering any reasoned debate or detail.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> The problem is that having the choice to do something insanely sub-optimal (which not maxing out skills is, for the most part) is a *bad thing*. If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.





But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense. Especially if the party m


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> The problem is that having the choice to do something insanely sub-optimal (which not maxing out skills is, for the most part) is a *bad thing*. If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.





But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense. Especially if the party member splits and investigates things on his own-- which tends to happen in mysteries;


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.




More to the point, the dabbler is likely to find that his/her skills do not work the way s/he wanted them to. Skill dabbling in 3.X is like the Toughness feat, or the monk class - a trap awaiting the mechanically unsavvy player. It lures you in with promises and then fails to deliver.

People have an instinctive sense that one ought to diversify and not over-focus, and they like the idea of being good at a lot of things. So they spread their skill points around, but once they get into the actual game, they discover that instead of being diverse and good at a lot of things, they are in fact dilettantes who suck at a lot of things.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> People have an instinctive sense that one ought to diversify and not over-focus, and they like the idea of being good at a lot of things. So they spread their skill points around, but once they get into the actual game, they discover that instead of being diverse and good at a lot of things, they are in fact dilettantes who suck at a lot of things.





This just doesn't match the reality. I have played tons of characters in 3E with skills spread out and it works just fine. Lets say you 40 ranks to spread and can max at 5. You could take 5 in eight skills. That works, and it is nice to have eight fully maxed skills. Or you could, if you want a well rounded character, you could take 5 in two skills that are important to you and then take 3 ranks in 10 other skills. You could even play with the numbers more to get greater variety. There isn't anything mechanically unsound about this approach. A +3 isn't that bad compared to a +5. Its not as good, but it certaily isn't useless.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And combat could be handled with a skill challenge, too. The thing here is that skill challenges aren't good to use for an entire session the lion's share of a campaign. For something I want the game to focus on, I want more detail and strategy.




My problem is you keep saying things like that.  You want 4e to do more and you argue it does less.  You wants noncombat things more focused on.  But where was the focus on noncombat skill use in 3e?  4e has a system for handling noncombat scenes ranging from a few seconds to months of game time in skill challenges.  This system is used to play out social scenes and exploration scenes, among others.  

What was 3es complex, detailed, and focused social encounter system?   It was a make a diplomacy/bluff check.

What was 3e's complex detailed system for dealing with exploration?  A survival check and a couple paragraphs on getting lost. 

Where was 1e's complex, detailed system for doing anything noncombat?

They weren't there.  4e has a more complex, detailed, and cohesive system for noncombat encounters than any previous edition has.  An adaptable system that gives you plenty of freedom combined with the weight of character based mechanical support.  The DM has to learn one system to cover practically any noncombat situation and its easy to apply on the fly.

Your positions and expectations are out of whack.  You say 4e is worse than previous editions because it doesn't focus on these things.  But neither did the other editions.  Only in comparison to game system actually built to focus on these things to the exclusion of others do your vague criticisms hold water.  But we aren't talking about other systems, we are talking previous editions of D&D.  It's like you have a hazy memory of prior systems and imagine that the things we did in those games were supported by awesome rules that you can't seem to recall that have somehow just slipped away and covered their tracks like an old school druid.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense.




No it doesn't (at least, beyond 5th level or so, when 5-7 ranks is nearly maxed out). At 10th level, when maxed out is 13 ranks, then 7 ranks sucks. At 15th level, when maxed out is 18 ranks (and there's probably 3 or 4 points difference in ability modifiers), then 7 ranks is useless.

Also, this is why cross-class skills are useless, and you should never put points in them except to qualify for PrCs or to get one rank and be trained.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Opportunity cost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a economic term that references the cost of choosing one option against all possible options. For example, if your rich uncle leaves you $40,000 on your 18th birthday, you could spend that money on fast cars & loose women, or you could spend it on college. The opportunity cost the the intangible "cost" of choosing one of these options; college is hard work but it means more money in the future (by path of a good career) while fast cars and partying creates enjoyment now at the cost of long term gain.
> 
> Any choice carries an opportunity cost; the cost is what is "lost" by choosing X over Y.
> 
> ...




I don't take skills I don't plan on using. If I make a character with loads of skills, it is becuase he is going to be using them. If you only plan on using spell craft, then it makes sense to maximize. But if you plan on doing lots of different things with your character, a diverse range of skills is important. If all you are doing is dungeon crawls, I can see your point. But I find in city adventures, my characters are constantly moving around on their own, talking to people, finding info, researching, sneaking around, etc. It almost always helps me in these situations to have more skills to fall back on.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This just doesn't match the reality. I have played tons of characters in 3E with skills spread out and it works just fine. Lets say you 40 ranks to spread and can max at 5. You could take 5 in eight skills. That works, and it is nice to have eight fully maxed skills. Or you could, if you want a well rounded character, you could take 5 in two skills that are important to you and then take 3 ranks in 10 other skills. You could even play with the numbers more to get greater variety. There isn't anything mechanically unsound about this approach. A +3 isn't that bad compared to a +5. Its not as good, but it certaily isn't useless.




Err... have you played these characters in games with other characters who just maxed out as many skills as they could? Or with DMs who were using stock adventures? You cannot challenge characters who are maxing out their skills and make a dabbler useful. And stock adventurers have to assume PCs max out their skills, because it's the rational thing to do.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> No it doesn't (at least, beyond 5th level or so, when 5-7 ranks is nearly maxed out). At 10th level, when maxed out is 13 ranks, then 7 ranks sucks. At 15th level, when maxed out is 18 ranks (and there's probably 3 or 4 points difference in ability modifiers), then 7 ranks is useless.
> 
> Also, this is why cross-class skills are useless, and you should never put points in them except to qualify for PrCs or to get one rank and be trained.





I have to disagree. It doesn't suck to have a bunch of 7s over nearly half as many 13s, if you want a character who is skilled in a bunch of things. Leaving out the key attribute, that is a +7 on a d20 roll, which is not bad at all. Also, it isn't a choice between all 7s or all 14s.  

If my max rank is 18, I am probably not going to be taking 7 ranks in any of my skills (unless they are strictly for flavor). Even so, it is still just as hard to climb a wall, so 7 ranks doesn't automatically become useless because I have an 18 rank in another skill. A +7 is still a +7.  

Can we please keep it polite. I don't mind sharing my opinions about skills, but the tone is getting harsh here.  I am not attacking your edition of the game. I am just defending mine. I haven't said that 4E is bad.  Or its skills system is no good. It works well for a lot of things, and it is definitely streamlined. But I really do prefer 3E when it comes to skill heavy campaigns. This is just a matter of opinion. there is no reason to get angry, or use hostile language (i.e. sucks) just because you think don't think there is much value in spreading out skills. I have tried to be polite here, and just state my view of the game, without trashing anyone else view. You will note, I never said your way of playing sucks, or your edition sucks. And I wouldn't, because this is just a matter of taste. And your edition of the game, isn't in any kind of danger, because I prefer the skill system from a previous edition for skill heavy campaigns.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It almost always helps me in these situations to have more skills to fall back on.




Definitely. I can see that. 

I have two areas of disconnection with what you assert, however:

The first is that, in 3e, most characters did *not* have the skill points to actually branch out. Rogues and Bards, yes, as with other PCs with Int-based characters. Your average Fighter and Cleric? They could be really struggling to have more than 2 skill points per level. 

So, the idea of putting only a few skill points into a skill was something that was pretty much unachievable for most characters. (I saw more than one character with 1 skill point per level, because Int was the only stat they could dump).

The second relates to DM design of challenges...

...you need to be lucky with your DM for non-maximised skills to be consistently useful.

Resolving a challenge with Skills fall into two basic types:
* There's one task, which the highest roll from the party is counted on the success. (Examples involve Gather Information and Search)
* There's one task, which each party member must face individually (Example includes jumping a chasm with Jump/Athletics).

The design of 4e Skill Challenges seems to have (at one point) been more towards the latter (everyone _must_ participate), then gone towards the former, and ended up in a mess.

However, the framework it's investigated is pretty much the same in 3e: either one person may make the check for the party - in which case you really want someone to have maxed out the ranks - or everyone has to make the check, in which case it's really bad to not have any ranks at all.

Not having any ranks at all? Eep - that's back to my first disconnect: Most PCs in 3e don't have any ranks at all!

You can get away with not maxing ranks (for one character makes check for party) in the case of DCs not being too high, but then the PC who does max ranks doesn't get the benefit of specialising!

Cheers!


----------



## Greg K (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> And stock adventurers have to assume PCs max out their skills, because it's the rational thing to do.




And, the 3e DMG tells DMs it is their responsability to know the abilities of their characters in their campaign and to go through the adventure and make the necessary alterations, because the designers don't know your group, what supplements you use, or what house rules you use.

Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well.  They do in our games.  In my games, skill challenges work great.  They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks.  The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat.  For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions.  It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill.




Well, this player of 4e agreed with him.  This player of 4e brought up the complaint.  (was it a complaint?  I didn't think it was).  And this player got ignored by the 4e boys who pounced on KM for stating his opinions (by the way, I think he's mostly right).  

You say "In your game" - that's an obvious.  And then you keep coming back to skill challenges.

Skill challenges can be fun.  We've had fun with them, every now and then.  But they're not the whole parcel of what I'm getting at. 

Every character class in 3e had non-combat resources (and I'm only going to go with abilities that are used primarily outside of a fight).  Let's take a look at the core classes:

Barbarian: Trap Sense (remember that traps in 3e were more for outside of combat - I prefer this style of play, but not everyone does;  this is cool, and I can totally respect your stance.  It's not the point), and a few skills:  Intimidate, Handle Animal, Craft, CLimb, and Survival.  

Bard:  MANY spells like Charm Person and Silent Image, Fascinate, Bardic Knowledge, Inspire Competence, Suggestion... the bard was pretty much written for non-combat situations.  And we're not even looking at their skill list.

Cleric:  Some good spells (at first level, only a few are that useful primarily out of a fight, like Hide from Undead, or Endure Elements... but this picks up from 2nd level onwards), and a few skills (Diplomacy, Religion, and Heal spring instantly to mind).

Druid:  In my games, Shapechange was primarily a non-combat ability.  Yours may differ, so I'll exclude it here.  But even with that, the druid had Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Woodland Stride (arguably useful in some combats), Resist Nature's Lure, and Timeless body... Plus, there was a buttload of useful spells (Calm Animals, Endure Elements, Charm Animal, Pass without Trace, and, my favourite, Speak with Animals) ... not to mention a few skills.

Fighter:  Arguably the worst off class at non-combat elements in the game, since Charisma was usually the big "dump stat".  the fighter had... extra feats (which could allow their usual feats to be spent on non-combat abilities, but in actual play, this rarely happened), and a few useful skills:  Intimidate, Craft, Handle Animal, Swim...


Monk:  I have to admit, I Hate the monk, and one of the great arguments in favour of BECMI, 2e, and 4e is that they don't have monks.  So, I'll give you points there.  3e has the monk, so it loses points.  

Paladin:  Detect Evil (not a game killer, in my experience, by the way), Divine Health (some use in combat, though), Special Mount, Remove Disease, Aura of GOod... and a few useful skills.  And later, they got some kind of nifty spells... and they got them at a level when they were pretty much useless in a fight!  In other words, they got a game element that was really only useful in non-combat situations!

Ranger:  Wild Empathy, Track, Endurance, Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, and maybe Hide in Plain Sight.  Like the paladin, they got spells that were really only useful outside of combat.  Oh, and they got quite a few nifty skills (Survival springs to mind.  I'd add Search, too, but the argument is that Search is folded into Perception in 4e, so it's a moot point).

Rogue:  Trapfinding and Trap Sense.  And a lot of very useful non-combat skill options.  

Sorcerer:  Sorcerers often focused on combat, becoming war mages.  Or, in my games, they would take one or two combat spells at their two highest spell levels, and focus the rest of their spells on neat utility effects.  They had a lot of great spells available to them, even at level one (Silent Image or Charm person are obvious choices).  they also had a familiar that was so weak in combat that it was tailor-made for non-combat situations - in fact, many 3e games sort of had the familiar disappear in a fight, and only appear when it could be useful.  They even made fun of this in Order of the Stick.  Oh, and the Sorcerer also had some fun skill options (Bluff, Craft, Profession, Arcana).

Wizard:  A buttload of spells.  Like, a lot.  And many of the wizards I've seen run would either carry a bunch of scrolls with utility spells, or they would invest in a wand or two (Magic missile + Fireball), and memorize only utility spells.  Sometimes, they'd use Web to stop themselves from taking falling damage.  Sometimes, they'd use it to tangle their enemies up.  And sometimes, they'd tangle their enemies up, and then light it on fire.    Oh, and they also got some nifty spells.  

Now, in 4e...

Cleric:  You get rituals where, if you spend money and take a lot of time, you can make a skill check for a minor effect.  You also get some fun skills.  

Fighter:  You get some fun skills.  Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.

Paladin:  You get some fun skills.  Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.

Ranger:  You get some fun skills.  Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.  (you also have a few utilities that let you improve your allies' skill checks.  Which is cool... but I've mostly seen that used in combat in my games, and, as with most utilities, it is at least as useful in a fight as outside of a fight)

Rogue:  You get some fun skills.  Also, if you want to spend a feat or two, you can get Ritual Casting.

Wizard:  You get rituals where, if you spend money and take a lot of time, you can make a skill check for a minor effect.  You also get some fun skills.   But hey, you get web, right?  Only, it reads pretty flat, and doesn't really seem to encourage creative play.  Most people looking at it (in my experience, at least), see only the effect and the SINGLE FREAKING DESCRIPTIVE SENTENCE and rightfully assume that the spell creates a batch of bad terrain.  Whether or not the GM will allow the PCs to light a web on fire is in the air in a way that was never present in the culture of earlier games.

***

My point?  4e characters overlap way more than they did in 3e, and almost all of their abilites are made for combat.  While there are powers that can be useful in non-combat situations (Wizards have a few, as to be expected), they are not nearly as ubiquitous as they were in earlier editions.  In effect, you are found lacking.

A big problem I have with 4e (in fact, the biggest problem I have with 4e), is in the powers.  You'll note I brought up web.  In earlier editions, it would say "you create webs.  This is what they look like, feel like, and whatnot.  Here are the rules."  In 4e, you are given a set of rules, and a line of flavour text.  there are good and bads, here.  The good is, it is very easy to "re-skin" (and I LOVE that!)  The bad is, it becomes harder to really encourage creative play.  All you have to work with are the lines of rules, whereas in earlier editions, you could use the flavour text to create extensions beyond those rules.

If 4e was the first edition, and there were no other editions, do you really think "You call into being a giant web made of thick magical strands that hang in midair, trapping those within it?" could be used as a sort of magical safety net?  If a player tried to throw a torch into the webbing, is that really supported by the rules of the effect?  Maybe it is (I have a feeling you'd allow it).  But the problem is, when 95% of the effect is in the rules, you only see the rules.  Doesn't the aura of pure combat rulesage sort of BLOCK such a creative style of play, anyways?  

Now, I should stress it again - I do like 4e.  And I can see myself playing certain types of games with it.  I could even run an investigative game with it... but I'd have to tweak it considerably to do so (see my original post, and you'll see I was asking about possible tweaks to the rules to fit "tougher" game styles... why hasn't anyone offered up their own tweaks to make a cthulu 4e?)  

But my problem with 4e is this:  it shouldn't be a game about combat.  If I want to run a fight against goblins with some buddies, there are numerous video games that allow me to do this these days.  Not only can I play a game that allows me to build weird character combos and work with my friends as a team, but I can actually run many more fights in an hour than I can in 4e.

No, 4e should be trying to offer something that computer games CANNOT do - interact with a creative environment that offers feedback on your actions, and use your powers in unforeseen, creative ways.  And, really, it doesn't do that nearly as well as earlier editions did.  I'd say it is actually the worst edition for that purpose.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

For the record...

THINGS I LIKE ABOUT 4E:

*   The Trained/Untrained system (though I'd like there to be a "half trained" or something)
*   Races, no ability penalties
*   Racial Powers
*   Multi-classing (at least, the theory)
*   AC/Reflex/Fort/Will as Defences.
*   A focus on keeping everyone in the game (I always did it, but not everyone did)
*   Really implementing PC movement and terrain
*   Rituals (they do have a use, I just don't like some of the ripples they make on other facets of the game)
*   Power Sources
*   Hit Points and Healing Surges
*   The way the math works (I like tiers, and the +1/2 level thing is grand)
*   Monster Roles, and a focus on multiple monsters per encounter (big plus over 3rd, but really just going back to BECMI and 1e roots)
*   At-Wills (existed in 3e, though, in a different way)
*   No Monk
*   No monk in the PHB 2.
*   No frigging monk.
*   Easy to retcon flavour.
*   A better DMG
*   Quick to prep games, and easier to DM.
*   Putting magical items in the PHB (hated it at first, but I can see it was a good idea)
*   The folding of some skills into groups.  (I have a caveat, here... I think the game should have done what Earthdawn did, and include open-to-the player "Background skills" like Blacksmithing or 'Dragonborn Scale Weaving'.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> But my problem with 4e is this:  it shouldn't be a game about combat.




It shouldn't?  So it should be unlike EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D EVER?



> If I want to run a fight against goblins with some buddies, there are numerous video games that allow me to do this these days.  Not only can I play a game that allows me to build weird character combos and work with my friends as a team, but I can actually run many more fights in an hour than I can in 4e.
> 
> No, 4e should be trying to offer something that computer games CANNOT do - interact with a creative environment that offers feedback on your actions, and use your powers in unforeseen, creative ways.  And, really, it doesn't do that nearly as well as earlier editions did.  I'd say it is actually the worst edition for that purpose.




No.  It does it better than the other editions, for all the reasons I state above.  It removes the shackles of "system" where they served to constrain rather than free characters to interact meaningfully with the game (such as in the changes to the skill system in general and the way challenges work) rather than 4/5ths of the people gathered watching while the skill monkey did everything.  There was a reason in 3e it came down to a single die roll, watching one player do everything is boring, so it needs to be over quickly.  

3e tried, unsuccessfully, to legislate out of combat play with poorly designed and realized subsystems like crafting and skill monkeys.  4e dismisses that notion of unnecessarily constraining characters (hey, my dwarf can be a fighter AND a master brewer now!) by thinking that everything they can do has to have a stat.  The players and DM are free to play the game, the way we did in the old days of 1e, where you didn't need the books to tell you how to roleplay your character.  If you wanted your elf to be a master musician, you didn't need a perform skill, you needed a note under "background".  NWP grew out of this and was a decent attempt to put some mechanics behind the freedom, but it fell a bit flat.  Then 3e went way too far in the wrong direction.  4e has righted the ship and married the concepts of freedom of character with mechanica; support into a streamlined, easy to run system.  A lot of people don't seem to really get this right now and see it is as less when, in essence, it's more.  You'll hopefully come to realize the system's potential at some point.  It would help to stop trying to spread nonsense comparisons between the game and video games.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> No.  It does it better than the other editions, for all the reasons I state above.  It removes the shackles of "system" where they served to constrain rather than free characters to interact meaningfully with the game (such as in the changes to the skill system in general and the way challenges work) rather than 4/5ths of the people gathered watching while the skill monkey did everything.  There was a reason in 3e it came down to a single die roll, watching one player do everything is boring, so it needs to be over quickly.





You know what I realized?  You only stick to skills.  Why?  Because skills are the only means of interacting meaningfully outside of combat (well, not the "only" way, to be fair).  You don't acknowledge that in 3e, many characters had useful powers that were not skill related at all - I gave you a list.  In 4e, the only useful non-combat powers that PCs have access to are Skills, Rituals, and maybe a handful of utilities (and, as I said, those utilities are iffy, since they were designed with combat in mind).



> It shouldn't?  So it should be unlike EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D EVER?




Whoa, easy there, Tiger. 

Maybe I should have been a bit more careful with my words, since I should have known they would have been pounced upon.  First off, 1e wasn't just about combat.  It was also about getting treasure and exploration.  If you read the rules-as-intended for 2e, a huge focus was put on RP and world-building.  3e was combat-centric, much like 4e... but many non-combat elements were kept in.

If earlier editions of D&D were all about combat, there wouldn't have been spells like Charm Person, or Phantasmal Terrain, or Knock.  Think about it - if D&D was always about the combat, then knock wouldn't exist, because it is a spell that is pretty much ONLY useful outside of a fight.  

I think earlier editions of D&D were jst as much about mapping and exploration as they were about Combat.  I think the only edition of D&D that was about only combat was Chainmail.  

4e did some smart things.  The designers said "Hey, combat is where the majority of the imbalances lie", and went to fix that.  Unfortunately, they took out all of the non-combat abilities that differentiate characters.  Many of these powers wound up as feats, which was a dumb design idea - because now we have characters choosing whether they want combat-focused feats, or non-combat focused feats.  Meaning, if I choose combat feats, and you choose non-combat feats, I'm better than you in a fight.  (Ideally, they should have had combat feats and non-combat feats purchaseable from seperate pools, to keep some of this balance, but that's another thread)

Now, the reason people keep saying 4e is more about combat is because so much more of the book is dedicated to combat.  Most of the PHB.  Most of the DMG.  All of the monster manual (since most monsters have lost their uses outside of a fight, except in flavour elements, unfortunately).  Not only that, but fights take longer in 4e, with the possible exception of 3e (and I say POSSIBLE exception... it wasn't the case in my games, but I've heard horror stories).  In the time you can run one fight in 4e, I could run 3 in BECMI.  

In my experience, about 75% of our sessions are combats, and the rest is non-combat "Light exploration".  in 3e, it was about 50/50.  In earlier editions, more like 25/75.  In other systems, 25/75, or even less combat.  

OH, and one other funny thing you said:



> 4e dismisses that notion of unnecessarily constraining characters (hey, my dwarf can be a fighter AND a master brewer now!) by thinking that everything they can do has to have a stat.




Okay, cool (and, by the way, I kind of agree with you, here - that is a nice part of the game... if you're running a game where that sort of thing doesn't come up often)



> The players and DM are free to play the game, the way we did in the old days of 1e, where you didn't need the books to tell you how to roleplay your character.  If you wanted your elf to be a master musician, you didn't need a perform skill, you needed a note under "background".




Also cool.  Here's where it gets funny:



> NWP grew out of this and was a decent attempt to put some mechanics behind the freedom, but it fell a bit flat.




Kind of admitting that having no rules for non-combat skills was a problem, eh?  



> A lot of people don't seem to really get this right now and see it is as less when, in essence, it's more.  You'll hopefully come to realize the system's potential at some point.  It would help to stop trying to spread nonsense comparisons between the game and video games.




A lot of people have tried to explain WHY they have a different viewpoint from you, only to have their opinions called "nonsense".  And when you say things like "Hopefully, you'll come to realize the system's potential at some point", I almost feel like you're a missionary trying to convert me.  

And, for what it's worth, my video game comparison wasn't a direct one between the rules.  It was simply saying that trying to make an RPG that is primarily combat-based is not necessary, because a video game can do this better.  An RPG should focus on what video games cannot do, and that is - encourage creative play.  Power Listings and pre-made, DM-fabricated skill challenges do not encourage creative play.  Creative play can come out of them, but the rules do not facilitate it.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This just doesn't match the reality. I have played tons of characters in 3E with skills spread out and it works just fine. Lets say you 40 ranks to spread and can max at 5. You could take 5 in eight skills. That works, and it is nice to have eight fully maxed skills. Or you could, if you want a well rounded character, you could take 5 in two skills that are important to you and then take 3 ranks in 10 other skills. You could even play with the numbers more to get greater variety. There isn't anything mechanically unsound about this approach. A +3 isn't that bad compared to a +5. Its not as good, but it certaily isn't useless.




Sure, at 2nd level, if you aren't dabbling much and have a whole lot of skill points to play with (if you have 40 ranks to spread around and your max is only 5, that means you're getting 8 skill points per level, which is a lot more than most characters get).

Now suppose you have a ranger character with no Int bonus. You look at the skill list. "Well," you think, "my character is a pretty typical ranger. I have to be able to survive in the wilderness, of course, and I should be pretty athletic - I can swim and jump and climb. I want to be stealthy, and I want to be alert. So, let me see: That's Survival, Swim, Jump, Climb, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen. Eight skills."

Then you look at your skill points. As a 1st-level ranger, you get 16 skill points to spread around.  So you put +4 in Survival and Spot, because you want to be a hotshot eagle-eyed tracker. You put +2 each in Hide and Listen, and +1 in the other four. That's not bad, right?  Only a 3-point difference. You'll feel it, certainly, but it's not the end of the world... though it bugs you a bit that some of the other PCs are outperforming you off raw stat bonuses.

Fast-forward to level 5. Now you've earned another 16 skill points and spread them around. You've got +8 in Survival and Spot, +4 in Hide and Listen, and +2 in Move Silently, Swim, Jump, and Climb. You're not too bad in Hide and Listen, but you're starting to wonder what you put all those points in athletic stuff for, since it's not having a whole lot of impact.

On to level 9, and you've got +12 in Survival and Spot, and +6 in Hide and Listen. And you're coming to realize that all those +3 modifiers aren't doing you much good. The DM is calibrating his skill DCs to the characters with +12 - the barbarian who can leap great chasms, the rogue who can scale any wall. You're 9 points behind those fellows. When a check poses any kind of challenge to them, your odds of making it are slim to none.

Meanwhile, the points you sacrificed to get here are really starting to sting. When you try to sneak around, you're barely competent at not being seen, and even when you do manage that, you always step on a twig and get heard (once again, the DM is calibrating his DCs to the rogue who maxed Hide/MS). Your eyes are sharp, but your ears are no better than those of the cleric, who hasn't put a single rank into Listen and is just going off his crazy pumped-up Wisdom bonus. The only place you really shine is tracking and spotting things.

What I've just described is the sort of thing novice players often go through in 3.X if they don't have someone to steer them away from it. They have this idea of being a wilderness ranger, like Aragorn, stealthy and alert, athletic and an expert tracker... and what they end up with is a tracker who's a little stealthy and a little athletic, but is nowhere near stealthy or athletic enough to keep up with the challenges the party will be facing, and so might as well not have bothered.

Now, is it possible to make a ranger who really is good at all those things? Sure, if you know the system. But novices by definition don't know the system, and they don't know that the "dabbler" approach won't deliver. Dabbling is what the system puts in front of them - why have skill points if not to spread them among the skills you want? - so they use it without realizing it's not actually what they need.

Try the same thing in 4E. You're a ranger, which gives you Nature plus four other skills. You pick Athletics, Perception, Stealth, and Endurance. There you are, you have your Aragorn. But wait, you wanted to be a hotshot eagle-eyed tracker; not just good but the _best_. Well, pick up Skill Focus (Perception) and there you go. Maybe you want to be a healer, too, so you get Skill Training (Heal). The system does not lead you astray; it asks you, very simply, "What do you want to be good at? What do you want to be really good at?" And then it makes you good at the former and really good at the latter, and you stay that way throughout your career.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> snip




Your math is wrong.  A 1st level ranger gets 24 skll points with no int bonus, or 28 if he's a human.  Rnagers get 6 skill points per level, not 4.  

But I get your point.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> Now, in 4e...




I feel as though your list ignores the following class-specific powers:

Cleric
======
Divine Fortune
Holy Lantern
Astral Refuge
Knights of Unyielding Valor
Clarion Call of the Astral Sea
Cloud Chariot
Good Omens

Paladin
==========
Astral Speech
One Heart, One Mind

Ranger
==========
Crucial Advice
Skilled Companion
Forest Ghost

Rogue
=======
Fleeting Ghost
Great Leap
Master of Deceit
Mob Mentality
Nimble Climb
Certain Freedom
Foil the Lock
Hide in Plain Sight
Cloud Jump
Hide from the Light

Warlock
=======
Beguiling Tongue
Shadow Veil
Dark One's Own Luck
Ambassador Imp
Shadow Form
Eye of the Warlock

Warlord
=======
Bolt of Genius

Wizard
=======
Cantrips
Feather Fall
Jump
Disguise Self
Invisibility/Greater
Levitate
Fly/Mass Fly
Mordenkainen's Mansion

I compiled that list just from PHB classes. It's all the powers I could find that had very easy to imagine non-combat uses. More specifically, I looked for things that could function inside a skill challenge, but I didn't limit myself to that. 

I have to admit, I think it would be much more exciting to run your CSI Eberron game in 4E, not only for how skill challenges work but also thanks to some of the things that weren't carried over from earlier editions. I know, blasphemy, right? Who can think that leaving things out could be a good thing?

I do. I kind of feel like a lot of *Kamikaze Midget*'s arguments really boil down to the lack of charm and divination spells in 4E. I think this is further tied into the changes in the alignment system. Spells like _detect evil_ and _zone of truth_ gave you very concrete knowledge; they told you "this guy is lying" or "this guy is evil," and that was the end of it. On the one hand, that can be seen as part of the "progress" of the non-combat side of the game. I found out this guy was lying, I succeeded in moving the story along.

However, I personally much prefer the ambiguity of not knowing these things. Too often I feel like my players fell back on _charm person_ rather than actually try and convince the NPC to help them. Too often I felt like I needed to give every villain _mind blank_ so he could interact with the party paladin without setting him off. I like the fact that the only thing I have to go on in knowing whether or not the guy I suspect is actually guilty of committing a crime is through the facts I gathered, through skill use and occasionally the use of a power or ritual. 

The key distinction, I think, is that those spells that got left out of 4E were the thing you used to get the result you want. I need to know if this guy is evil, so I cast _detect evil_ and I find out. 4E uses powers and rituals to _facilitate_ getting the result you want, but they are not the actual thing that gives you the result. You still have to rely on skills and, yes, roleplaying. It sounds like KM is lamenting the ability to use spells to get a direct result, as opposed to having them by a tweak you use to increase your chances of success. 

While I don't think using a spell to get your results is always bad, the ability to do it reliably and constantly (think about how low-level some of those spells were) throws a monkey wrench in a lot of plots. To steal your CSI: Eberron idea, I find it a lot more interesting when I have to go to the suspected serial killer's house, interview him, let the rogue pick around for clues, etc. instead of just casting _detect evil_ on him. As a player, I like that my character has suspicions about people that turn out to be wrong, and I like that it doesn't require the DM to jump through spellcasting hoops to explain why none of us knew that the noble ally we had was actually a demon-worshipping doppelganger the whole time. Furthermore, I like the fact that the fighter who spends a feat has a chance to contribute to the process of uncovering said doppelganger's true colors through a skill challenge. 

I will be the first person to say I think we should offer more mechanical support for skill challenges. I think it's a great idea, and could live in utility powers, rituals, feats, class features, and a number of other places. I don't think that means that you can ignore the fact that powers, rituals, and skill challenges offer _different_ ways of playing out non-combat scenes. You and I may want more of those things, but they are there, and as the game grows older more stuff will appear. I know the argument is that since they weren't there in the first place then they are obviously "second priority" but I don't think that, even if it were true, that would necessarily mean they weren't a priority at all. 

I guess all I'm saying is: I think 4E lets me do non-combat encounters with ease (thanks to the organization of skill challenges) while still offering some opportunities for characters to shine as individuals.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> You know what I realized?  You only stick to skills.  Why?  Because skills are the only means of interacting meaningfully outside of combat (well, not the "only" way, to be fair).  You don't acknowledge that in 3e, many characters had useful powers that were not skill related at all - I gave you a list.




You gave a very skewed list, exaggerating things in 3e and downplaying and excluding things in 4e.  You left out cantrips, cleric and paladin healing, dismissed rituals as ineffective.  And you seem to not understand that you are not comparing two directly related things in the two skill systems.  In 3e skill use was a single roll to accomplish an immediate goal, most often.  In 4e, skill use is often part of an encounter in which multiple skill use, teamwork, and strategy are necessary.  In 3e, a skill check got you up a wall.  In 4e, a skill challenge is an XP giving encounter with rewards and consequences for failure.  The value of skills and their impact on the gameworld have been increased in this edition.



> In 4e, the only useful non-combat powers that PCs have access to are Skills, Rituals, and maybe a handful of utilities (and, as I said, those utilities are iffy, since they were designed with combat in mind).




Yes.  Because as I've said, 4e blends freedom of character with mechanical support.  This is a good thing.  No instant win non combat spells.  The players have to actually do things to "win" social encoutners, not just cast dominate.  Characters have more balanced skill numbers against level based DCs so skill checks aren't mostly just auto-fail and auto-win.  There are still plenty of ways to get creative with power use, many utilities useful outside of combat.  You act like spells have to tell you how to be creative with them.  You talk about web a lot, and some editions have a note on setting webs on fire.  But no edition talks about using it as a safety net for a falling character.  That is something the DM had to rule then and now.  You aren't casting creatively if what you are doing is just part of the rules for the spell.




> First off, 1e wasn't just about combat.  It was also about getting treasure and exploration.  If you read the rules-as-intended for 2e, a huge focus was put on RP and world-building.  3e was combat-centric, much like 4e... but many non-combat elements were kept in.




First off, I didn't say "just about".  But combat-centric.  Yes, it was.  As was OD&D, Red Box, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, 6e.  That's what D&D is.  



> Now, the reason people keep saying 4e is more about combat is because so much more of the book is dedicated to combat. Most of the PHB. Most of the DMG. All of the monster manual (since most monsters have lost their uses outside of a fight, except in flavour elements, unfortunately).




So is the PHB in every edition.  The combat chapter of 3e and 4e is right at equal in length, and, as many people point out, 4e has fewer words per page.  Most of the DMG is NOT dedicated to combat.  Look at the table of contents again, you appear to have missed a few chapters.  And every MM is about combat, in all editions.  That's what we need monster stats for.  We don't need stats to determine if goblins collect ceramic unicorns.  We need to know stats, so adventurers can kill them.  Anything else is story consideration and you don't need a stat for it.  



> Kind of admitting that having no rules for non-combat skills was a problem, eh?




Go back, read what I wrote again, and this time, really read it, try to understand it.  What I said, and have said from the beginning, is that 4e is a great blend of freedom of character and mechanical support.  Yes, mechanical support for certain things is good.  Having rules for conflict resolution, which is an accurate description of the whole of the 4e rule system, is a good thing.  You don't need mechanics to determine if your character is happy or sad.  You need them to determine if your high charisma noble convinced the king to aid the party.  You don't need them to say that your character can play an instrument or weave a basket or paint a picture.  You need mechanics to support using your skills and abilities to overcome challenges.  4e does that better, with a streamlined, more flexible system than any other edition of the game.  



> If earlier editions of D&D were all about combat, there wouldn't have been spells like Charm Person, or Phantasmal Terrain, or Knock.




So since all those things are still in 4e, 4e is not all about combat. Undone by your own twisted _web_ of justifications.  Now THAT'S some creative casting.


----------



## tyrlaan (Feb 17, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> No.  It does it better than the other editions, for all the reasons I state above.  It removes the shackles of "system" where they served to constrain rather than free characters to interact meaningfully with the game (such as in the changes to the skill system in general and the way challenges work) rather than 4/5ths of the people gathered watching while the skill monkey did everything.  There was a reason in 3e it came down to a single die roll, watching one player do everything is boring, so it needs to be over quickly.



I think the OP has made it quite clear at this point that he's not just talking about the skill system. In fact, I'd argue the skill system/skill challenges is the least of his concerns. 

Of course I can't resist putting my 2 copper into the ring  While I understand and somewhat agree with the argument that the 4e skill system "removes the shackles" of the system from non-combat skill use, I believe this interpretation is somewhat polarized by your experiences. 

Firstly, there are GMs/players out there that will interpret the lack of an Appraise skill to mean characters just can't appraise things. We can argue until we're blue in the face over the relevancy of Appraise to a game and that's not my point. My point is, not everyone is the type to be able to just finagle some ad hoc rules if someone wants to, for example, play a jeweler turned adventurer (who would arguably be quite capable of sizing up items of worth). And while I use the omission of a skill as an example here, the OP's comments about how the Web power is written is another demonstration of this. While /you/ might be capable of going very outside of the box with these things, and therefore less is more to /you/, it's quite the opposite for others. And in their cases, less is just less.

Secondly, in 4e everyone is reasonably good at everything. Sure it prevents everyone waiting for the skill monkey to do her thing, but it introduces other problems. The two big problems I see are that it's just not very plausible and it's certainly not all that interesting when everyone can do everything. 



Thasmodious said:


> 3e tried, unsuccessfully, to legislate out of combat play with poorly designed and realized subsystems like crafting and skill monkeys.  4e dismisses that notion of unnecessarily constraining characters (hey, my dwarf can be a fighter AND a master brewer now!) by thinking that everything they can do has to have a stat.  The players and DM are free to play the game, the way we did in the old days of 1e, where you didn't need the books to tell you how to roleplay your character.  If you wanted your elf to be a master musician, you didn't need a perform skill, you needed a note under "background".  NWP grew out of this and was a decent attempt to put some mechanics behind the freedom, but it fell a bit flat.  Then 3e went way too far in the wrong direction.  4e has righted the ship and married the concepts of freedom of character with mechanica; support into a streamlined, easy to run system.  A lot of people don't seem to really get this right now and see it is as less when, in essence, it's more.  You'll hopefully come to realize the system's potential at some point.  It would help to stop trying to spread nonsense comparisons between the game and video games.




It's a bit insulting to post up that "a lot of people" apparently have it all wrong and that their brains haven't pieced it together yet. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer if you could refrain from implications that if I or others don't see your point of view we are somehow mentally behind the curve.

Furthermore, comparing 4e to video games isn't a nonsense comparison. The OP makes a very arguable point. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make it "nonsense." 4e is clearly /heavily/ influenced by MMOs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a whole different topic. But the simple fact that 4e plainly takes inspiration from video games makes comparisons to video games anything but nonsense. A tad off topic if we truly delve into it, but not nonsense.

All of this aside, I think the OP spelled out some pretty solid examples of non-combat /class features/ (not just skills) that existed in 3e but have went the way of the dodo in 4e. I've seen heaps of talk about skills but not a lot about class features. What I have seen rings a bit contradictory to me, however. A few folks have spoken out that they are happy spells like Speak with Dead are gone and that their absence /strengthens/ 4e non-combat resolutions (basically the less is more argument). I have two issues here:
 1) In a world of magic, which DnD is, why wouldn't it be second nature to use magic to solve crimes? Conversely, why wouldn't it be second nature for villains/criminals to use magic to mask their crimes? Are folks running mysteries for the local police but sending the SWAT team (aka the PCs) in to investigate?
 2) The less is more argument is based on the foundation that players and GMs alike can think outside the box, working out details and unwritten effects of abilities free of the "shackles" of written rules. So how can someone possess the creative chops to handle all of this but be completely foiled by Detect Evil?


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

Greg K said:


> And, the 3e DMG tells DMs it is their responsability to know the abilities of their characters in their campaign and to go through the adventure and make the necessary alterations, because the designers don't know your group, what supplements you use, or what house rules you use.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.




... but reality says the DM probably threw things together in the one hour he's had free since the last game, and so is running something pretty much off of an adventure and tweaking on the fly.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Can we please keep it polite. [...] There is no reason to get angry, or use hostile language (i.e. sucks) just because you think don't think there is much value in spreading out skills.




There isn't much value in spreading out skills. This isn't a value judgement. This is math. Sorry.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 17, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> 1) In a world of magic, which DnD is, why wouldn't it be second nature to use magic to solve crimes? Conversely, why wouldn't it be second nature for villains/criminals to use magic to mask their crimes? Are folks running mysteries for the local police but sending the SWAT team (aka the PCs) in to investigate?
> 2) The less is more argument is based on the foundation that players and GMs alike can think outside the box, working out details and unwritten effects of abilities free of the "shackles" of written rules. So how can someone possess the creative chops to handle all of this but be completely foiled by Detect Evil?




How fun is playing the fighter in this world?  Or the monk, or the ranger, or the barbarian?  

3e forces murderers to have magical sophistication and to plan things out, how is that not constraining?  

Truthfully, detaching alignment from anything mechanical was probably the biggest single improvement in roleplaying in D&D ever.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> Firstly, there are GMs/players out there that will interpret the lack of an Appraise skill to mean characters just can't appraise things. We can argue until we're blue in the face over the relevancy of Appraise to a game and that's not my point. My point is, not everyone is the type to be able to just finagle some ad hoc rules if someone wants to, for example, play a jeweler turned adventurer (who would arguably be quite capable of sizing up items of worth). And while I use the omission of a skill as an example here, the OP's comments about how the Web power is written is another demonstration of this. While /you/ might be capable of going very outside of the box with these things, and therefore less is more to /you/, it's quite the opposite for others. And in their cases, less is just less.




Skills weren't "omitted".  A different system, based loosely on the previous one, was designed and put into place.  It's semantics, a bit, but it's also an important distinction.  3e didn't have a skill for everything.  It had a skill for a bunch of things, and a number of those weren't about the business of conflict resolution.  They were a nod to the idea that you have to rules to do something.  The 4e books talk about this distinction, between roleplaying and mechanics in both the PHB and DMG.  The intent of the DMG is to teach players that have a problem with the kind of open play that has largely defined D&D for its history, with the exception of late 2e (the rules heavy Options years) and 3e with its significantly different take on such things.



> Secondly, in 4e everyone is reasonably good at everything. Sure it prevents everyone waiting for the skill monkey to do her thing, but it introduces other problems. The two big problems I see are that it's just not very plausible and it's certainly not all that interesting when everyone can do everything.




Little differences are big differences in 4e.  In 3e, it didn't matter if the fighter had a +3 in a skill and the wizard a +10, they were irrelevant to the +23 of the rogue, and their only use was in aiding the rogue against tough DCs.  In 4e, a difference of a couple points is the difference between adequate and masterful.  A warlock with a moderate dex of 12 and trained in thievery is going to pale in comparison to the rogue with his extra +4.  In a system that does not use static DCs (much), that +4 is a consistent and significant difference through all levels of play.  The rogue is also certainly more likely to take feats and items that enhance the skill.  

4e characters don't get better at "everything".  They get better at adventuring, and this makes a nice bit of sense.  The fighter is going to pick up a few things about magic while traveling for years with a wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, facing magical creatures, arcane traps and puzzles, and all the wide weird world of magical effect.  The studious wizard is going to pick up a bit of athletics and acrobatics from all that dungeon delving, mountain climbing, and exploring.  The 4e skills don't pretend to cover everything, just the job skills of the adventurer.  And even then, just those with real consequences for success and failure within conflict resolution, and not extras like appraise or use rope.  



> It's a bit insulting to post up that "a lot of people" apparently have it all wrong and that their brains haven't pieced it together yet. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer if you could refrain from implications that if I or others don't see your point of view we are somehow mentally behind the curve.




Noted.  And I apoligize. It was meant to be condescending, responding in kind to Wik, but Wik is not the only one to have that opinion.  Behind the condescension, though, there is some truth to that.  I think a lot of people have just not clocked enough experience, whether in play or in working with or thinking about, what is a fairly different way of going about things that looks, on the surface, quite similar to 3e.  In reality, it's not at all, and is a fairly strong departure from 3es method.  I think as the life of this edition goes on this is one of those arugments that will die a quiet death, like many of the early 3e arguments.  Only to be replaced by some actual problems/disparities emerging in the system, no doubt, just like 3e.



> Furthermore, comparing 4e to video games isn't a nonsense comparison. The OP makes a very arguable point.




Argumentative, not arguable.  It's nonsense meant to offend and not inform.  It's the same kind of tripe that was thrown at 3e by 2e grognards when that system came out.  Video games are an entirely different medium, based largely on ours, but in a very limited fashion.  It emulates aspects of RPGs.  4e is not heavily influenced by MMOs.  They used an aspect of MMO design to inform their ideas of character balance.  Balance is of high importance to MMOs and how they build off the powers of traditional character roles and achieved balance helped inform game designers of how to do that in tabletop gaming.  



> A few folks have spoken out that they are happy spells like Speak with Dead are gone and that their absence /strengthens/ 4e non-combat resolutions




Those people would be arguing from ignorance of 4e, since Speak with Dead is a level 6 ritual and not absent from the game at all.  What 4e has done is remove the instant win spells from the noncombat arsenal.  Really, how much fun is investigative games when detect evil, zone of truth, and charm person completely eliminate the need for actual investigation.  Casting one spell and winning is hardly the way to run an investigative campaign.  There are a number of divination rituals that would be useful as tools in an investigative game.  They all offer help, but wouldn't instantly "win" the investigation.  Only move it forward or in a new direction.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> snip




Okay.  I'm done with you.  I'm tired of watching you spit at people because they disagree with you.  You like 4e, and apparently, it has no faults.  Cool, I can dig it.  I don't appreciate being spoken to the way you are speaking, so I'm done.

You're right, I missed cantrips.  I don't count healing as a non-combat ability, since 9/10 of the time, healing comes about as a result of combat.  As I've said, I don't care about skills - we can rule them out as roughly equal between 3e/4e... hell, I'll even give you the edge and say 4e wins in skills.  When I do speak of other mechanical benefits in non-combat situations, you tell me I haven't read what you've said, and so on.

Let's go back to Web, because it's a perfect microcosm of the editions.  You're right, the game never said how to use web as a safety net... and that was one of the great things about the game.  It DID say "It's this long, and it anchors between two places, and it does this, and it does this, etc..".  4e gives you a game effect, and a bit of flavour.  In other words, it makes it HARDER to use your spells creatively, because all you have is a pure mechanical result.

I can see using Web in creative ways, but only because I have prior experience with the spell in other editions.  most of the powers pointed out in the Wizard section are combat-related, and the utilities seem much more limiting than they did in other editions (for the most part;  I recognize there are corner cases).

Apparently, I've been deliberately insulting to you.  I didn't feel I was.  I can't see it in my writing.  I was trying to argue my point.  You freely admit you were being condescending.  So, fine, you win.  I really don't care enough about this to get worked up over. 

But, I've said my piece, and you have said yours.  I do not agree with many of your points, and you apparently think I'm a flaming idiot because of it, so let's just leave it there.  'Nuff said.

***

Moridin:   I'll admit that I didn't really pick out some of the non-combat powers in the PHB.  I have only GM'ed 4e (and have been since it came out), and I'm not as familiar with the Player Powers.  However, I've seen many of them have either very limited effects (Holy Lantern is only a lamp, after all), or are useful just as much in a combat as outside of it (Dark One's Own Luck).  



> The key distinction, I think, is that those spells that got left out of 4E were the thing you used to get the result you want. I need to know if this guy is evil, so I cast detect evil and I find out. 4E uses powers and rituals to facilitate getting the result you want, but they are not the actual thing that gives you the result. You still have to rely on skills and, yes, roleplaying. It sounds like KM is lamenting the ability to use spells to get a direct result, as opposed to having them by a tweak you use to increase your chances of success.




Yeah.  You're right, that some can see them as "I wins".  I instead see them as tools.  In CSI, just because they can use DNA to link someone to the crime, it doesn't explain everything.  I think, using 3e as a starter, the game follows that same pattern.  The corpse won't tell you everything.  Using Object Read on the murder weapon won't give you a motive.  And Skill Challenging witnesses won't do everything, either.  

You can run CSI: Eberron if you want using 4e, but I still don't feel that 17 skills and a handful of rituals accessible by all PCs if they're willing to burn a feat is enough to differentiate characters in a setting that is primarily non-combat in nature.  That was my initial question - how would you tweak the game's rules to get the effect you want?  

I'd do it by increasing the skill list, breaking rituals up into groups, so that PCs can specialize in a ritual of the type they like (one could specialize in Divination Rituals, while another could specialize in transport rituals).  I'd encourage the purchasing of non-combat feats, perhaps by splitting feats into two grades, and requiring PCs to balance their choices.  And I'd add in the optional Contact Rules from 3e's Unearthed Arcana.  

Personally, though, I feel as if 3e suits the genre better, and would generate better results (and more interesting results from the players' perspective).  Your tastes may vary, and all that jazz.

Really, I think the big difference in this argument (and most threads that turn into "Edition Wars" - which is unfortunate here, because I enjoy both systems!) comes down to this:  3e is mostly Simulationist, whereas 4e is staunchly Gamist.  I think a Simulationist game is the way to go, because I think if I want to play a Gamist approach, I'll turn on my Xbox.  Not everyone agrees with me, and that's cool. 



			
				nightson said:
			
		

> How fun is playing the fighter in this world? Or the monk, or the ranger, or the barbarian?
> 
> 3e forces murderers to have magical sophistication and to plan things out, how is that not constraining?
> 
> Truthfully, detaching alignment from anything mechanical was probably the biggest single improvement in roleplaying in D&D ever.




I'll defend Tyrlaan, since he so reasonably defended my own points.  

1)  Playing a fighter can be great in that world.   Ditto for the other classes (except for the monk, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth... like broken dreams).  In an investigation-based game, being a fighter COULD suck - so, don't play a fighter.  Or, if you are a fighter, then when the fights do break out, you'll be awesome.  And, at least in how I'd run CSI: Eberron, there will be combats.  Just not as many of 'em.  

2)  3e does NOT force murderers to be uber-sophisticated.  You can have a feral killer still be a mystery... the GM just needs to think things through.  But, in any Mystery RPG, the GM damned well BETTER think things through, regardless of system, or the game will flop.  Mysteries are, after all, the hardest adventure type to prepare.

The Feral Killer could accidentally be killing the enemies.  Or it could be unaware that it's the killer.  You cast Speak With Dead, and the corpse doesn't really know much, or speaks cryptically.  Each "game-breaking" spell the PCs cast, you give 'em a clue, but they still have to INTERPRET those clues.  That's where the fun lies.

3)  And I agree.  Good riddance to alignment.  It was a great improvement, and it should've gone a long time ago.  Mind you, I dropped it years ago.  It wasn't present in my 2e DARK SUN games, and it wasn't really a factor in my 3e games, either.  But yeah, cutting alignment loose from the rules was a good call.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2009)

The more of this discussion I read, the more I'm reminded how much I disliked 3e's skill system.  I haven't tried 4e's, so I'm not sure if that'd work for me either.

I somewhat suspect 4e can handle a lot more than the as-written rules suggest it can, but there's one big problem:  each of the books needs to have written in great big letters as often as it'll fit "THESE RULES ARE BUT A FRAMEWORK - IF A RULE DOES NOT MATCH THE SITUATION OR FIT WITH YOUR GAME, MAKE A RULING OR AMEND WHAT IS WRITTEN."

That said, there *is* a lot of room for non-combat stuff to go (back) in - some would call it fluff, perhaps, but even something as simple as 1e's previous profession tables...were you a brewer, an engineer, a jeweller, or what before you took up adventuring...can help add background to a character and occasionally give it an advantage in the field (a good example upthread is the jeweller being able to appraise on the fly).  It sounds like lots of non-combat spells are gone - and since when is Charm Person a non-combat spell, and why did they take it out - and skills are being asked to replace them, and-or to replace DM's common sense.

It occurs to me that someone coming straight from 1e into 4e might find the transition easier than coming from 3e to 4e, at least in terms of how the game expects the DM to run it.

Lanefan


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> Your math is wrong.  A 1st level ranger gets 24 skll points with no int bonus, or 28 if he's a human.  Rnagers get 6 skill points per level, not 4.



Depends on which version of 3e you're talking about.  3e rangers get 4 skill points per level.  3.5e rangers get 6.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Lane:  yeah, Charm Person can be a combat spell.  I never really saw it as such, though, in common play.  You cannot, after all, use the charmed foe to attack his allies, and he's still going to protect them.

You've pretty much got the jist of what 4e has done with the non-combat element of hte game.  Some of the spells have been made into rituals (Which cost money, take time, and are very widely accessible to the party... I think this is a good idea with Raise Dead scrolls, and a bad idea in most other ways).  The rest have gone bye-bye.

The other big problem is that when something is pure mechanics, there's sort of a vibe that I get (and my players get it, too) that it's hard to bend the mechanics of the effect to fit the flavour.  Cleave, for example, is described as cutting through one foe to hit another... can I use my cleave to hit one foe, and then cut a nearby rope?  And so on.  

Truth be told, I'm tempted to just drop both 3e and 4e, and play BECMI.  Most of my favourite D&D memories happened there, or in DARK SUN.  Keep the things I like from 4e (already posted my list), and revert to an earlier edition.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Depends on which version of 3e you're talking about.  3e rangers get 4 skill points per level.  3.5e rangers get 6.




Good point.  I assumed you meant 3.5E.  3.0E rangers were a little.... top-heavy.... for my taste.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> However, I've seen many of them have either very limited effects (Holy Lantern is only a lamp, after all)



It's more than just a lamp.



Wik said:


> or are useful just as much in a combat as outside of it.



Why does that matter?  If it's useful, it's useful.  Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e?  You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications.  Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> Lane:  yeah, Charm Person can be a combat spell.  I never really saw it as such, though, in common play.  You cannot, after all, use the charmed foe to attack his allies, and he's still going to protect them.



Unless the caster can convince the target to step aside for a chat, in effect removing both from combat.  I've seen that done numerous times.

Its most common uses in my game, however, are to get info from captives or as yet another weapon for party infighting. 

Lanefan


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> It's more than just a lamp.
> 
> Why does that matter?  If it's useful, it's useful.  Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e?  You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications.  Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.




Intimidate is primarily a non-combat skill - demoralizing enemies was a waste of time, unless you had a feat.  Bluff DOES have combat uses, which I forgot about.  Haven't played 3e in a while.  And Heal?  Doesn't really do much in 95% of most D&D fights I've seen.  

As for the mount, most paladins I've seen dismount before getting into a fight.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a 3e mount used in a combat. Ever.  I guess our experiences differ.  

When I listed my non-combat powers per class, I was trying to only show powers that were almost entirely useful outside of a fight.  That's why I didn't put in things like Shapechange (since a lot of players used it as a combat thing), or many of the rogue evasion powers.  Or the ranger's hiding powers.  I was just trying to make a point - that classes tended to have more in the way of non-combat powers available to them.

You can mention that 4e characters have powers that have non-combat uses... and you're right.  But they are usually pretty limited (the lantern grants some light, doesn't need to be held, and gives a perception bonus... but it doesn't encourage too much creative play.  I can't use it to gonzo things with it... it's "just" a lamp).  

Another point, a bit on the side, is that if you and I make the exact same character, but you choose a power that is more "non-combat", and I choose one more for combat, we're goign to be unbalanced in a sense - you'll be slightly better in a fight (which is, in my experience, 75% of the game), while I'll have a neat power outside of a fight.  Add those up over time, and you can get the same situation as the 3e bard - someone who is balanced much more towards the outside of combat then the inside.

But that's a side topic, and maybe better left to another thread.  Feel free to fork it if you'd like.


----------



## Wik (Feb 17, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Unless the caster can convince the target to step aside for a chat, in effect removing both from combat.  I've seen that done numerous times.
> 
> Its most common uses in my game, however, are to get info from captives or as yet another weapon for party infighting.
> 
> Lanefan




Our most common combat use of charm person was sort of a "Operation: Human Shield" thing.  Or as a way to get ourselves a hostage, if we didn't really want to enter the fight ourselves.

Y'know, though, Charm was never a major spell used in our games.  Silent Image got much more use.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Why does that matter?  If it's useful, it's useful.  Or why does it only matter for you with regards to 4e?  You listed Intimidate, Bluff, Heal, and other skills as "cool non-combat stuff" for 3e classes, when all of those skills have combat applications.  Heck, you listed the paladin's mount, which is mainly there for combat.



Intimidate and Bluff don't have much combat use that I ever saw - they're social-interaction skills.

Heal is, pretty much, a combat skill; if not for combat, you'd rarely if ever need it. 

And I always saw the paladin's mount as just really imposing-looking  transportation from one adventure to the next; most times the mount wouldn't fit down the dungeon passages (or couldn't handle stairs, shafts, etc.) and so was left behind at the entrance...and thus was not a factor about 97% of the time.  'Bout the only time mounts of any kind got involved in combat is if we were attacked in the open field.

I mean, take the first two iconic adventures from 3e - Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury.  I'd like to see anyone get a mount into either of those.

Lanefan


----------



## MerricB (Feb 17, 2009)

Moridin said:


> I will be the first person to say I think we should offer more mechanical support for skill challenges.




That would be great, Rodney! 



> I guess all I'm saying is: I think 4E lets me do non-combat encounters with ease (thanks to the organization of skill challenges) while still offering some opportunities for characters to shine as individuals.




I like the concept of skill challenges greatly; I also like how 4e organises the skills.

Where I do have a problem is in participation in skill challenges: at present, it seems too easy for a group to find an obvious skill (say Diplomacy for a negotiation) and then have their best character (with aid from the others) just make all the rolls. It's something that I think can be fixed, but needs more thought.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 17, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Intimidate and Bluff don't have much combat use that I ever saw - they're social-interaction skills.




In 3e, Bluff was used to Feint in combat (by Rogues, mainly).
In 4e, Intimidate may be used to make a bloodied opponent surrender. Interestingly, there are also powers that have additional "fear" effects if you're trained in Intimidate (the Rattling powers of the Rogue in Martial Power).



> And I always saw the paladin's mount as just really imposing-looking  transportation from one adventure to the next; most times the mount wouldn't fit down the dungeon passages (or couldn't handle stairs, shafts, etc.) and so was left behind at the entrance...and thus was not a factor about 97% of the time.  'Bout the only time mounts of any kind got involved in combat is if we were attacked in the open field.




Pretty much mostly how I saw it as well (which is why I love Phantom Steed and similar spells). Mind you, I have some wonderful memories of one player _failing_ to jump on his horse a small pit...

There have been certain campaigns I've run which have been a lot more wilderness based where the mounts come into it, but for more standard dungeon-crawls; no, not so much!

Cheers!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And combat could be handled with a skill challenge, too. The thing here is that skill challenges aren't good to use for an entire session the lion's share of a campaign. For something I want the game to focus on, I want more detail and strategy.



Yes, it could. But it can also be handled with more detail. Tell me how these details look in your non-combat scenario!



> That would really go a long way. Specific noncombat abilities that no one else in the party can get would basically make it more like earlier editions, and cover a lot of open space.



Rogue and Ranger utilty powers seem to be full of this, other classes are more mixed. But I think it would be neat to have a specific "non-combat" power system for characters. 



> Right, but in the end, I'm rolling 1d20+5 vs. DC 20, just like my friend, even if I'm using Stealth and he's using Religion. That's a lot more homogenous, right in the rules, than swinging a sword vs. launching a fireball. Some different things to do (rather than just different description of what we do) would be greatly appreciated.



Assuming both skills apply to the challenge. 
But what I really need now is: More details. How would such a system look like? Would it be "Wizard cast Charm Person" vs "Rogue uses Diplomacy"? Or is it something else? I don't quite understand what you think this could look like. Give me some example scenarios or special abilities! (I am assuming you have some idea, because otherwise whatever you wish might simply not be possible?) Give me an example of another game system, if necessary.



> Right, and, honestly, there doesn't need to be a LOT. I'd prefer there to be something more robust than in earlier editions (I mean, that would be an improvement!), but 4e kind of took away what we did have in earlier editions, and what replaced it isn't as good. There's still plenty of room for 4e to give us something better than what we had before.



What did 4E take away?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> Intimidate is primarily a non-combat skill - demoralizing enemies was a waste of time, unless you had a feat.  Bluff DOES have combat uses, which I forgot about.  Haven't played 3e in a while.  And Heal?  Doesn't really do much in 95% of most D&D fights I've seen.
> 
> As for the mount, most paladins I've seen dismount before getting into a fight.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a 3e mount used in a combat. Ever.  I guess our experiences differ.




Heh. You, sir, have clearly never seen a 10th-level paladin with a lance, Power Attack, and Spirited Charge. Scariest _smite evil_ I've ever seen.

(To be fair, that was an NPC paladin against a group of evil PCs. Still, if I'd been making a 10th-level paladin to use as a player, I'd have built along those lines... though I might have made a halfling paladin as a nod to dungeon crawls.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

Greg K said:


> And, the 3e DMG tells DMs it is their responsability to know the abilities of their characters in their campaign and to go through the adventure and make the necessary alterations, because the designers don't know your group, what supplements you use, or what house rules you use.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.



I disagree. it can be a neat information to have, but I shouldn't be required to do it. Especially when you are not using house rules because you're happy with the rules as is and want have an easy time running modules. If I have to modify most of the content of it, this lessens its usefulness a lot. 

You also lose a lot of the fun in uncertainity - you don't know if the PCs are "fit" for a challenge. You'll see how they adapt, and you react if they fail or succeed. If you tailor things, you can pretty much predict the most likely case. Now, I will not claim my plots are a masterpiece of avoiding railroads (more the contrary  ), but I'd like to have at least this. 

There are situations where I want to "tailor" to the PCs specific abilities, but that is usually motivated by setting up scenarios where they can really shine, in turn motivating them to go further in the adventure. And in some other cases to make them feel unsafe and show off their ability to adapt. But I can achieve all this without knowing the specifics most of the time, too.
It is usually more important for character backgrounds to add this in.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> There isn't much value in spreading out skills. This isn't a value judgement. This is math. Sorry.





No it isn't. And I demonstrated that to you in my previous post. Just saying it is so; doesn't make it so. 

Again it depends on how important skills are in the game, and how often individual successes are important. I just don't see the math you are talking about here. For every post where someone has tried to demonstrate this I have given tons of examples where spreading it out can be just as optimal. Again, you have 40 points to spread out at max rank 5. Why is it always better to put 5 in 8. When you can mix it up and get as many as 13 skills at 3; or not lose the extra skill point and take 5 in 2, and 3 in 10. You have more skills, and they still pretty good. I have done this numerous times, and always made good use of the skills I selected. So you get +3 instead of a plus five. But you can fall back on so many more things. And as I pointed out in another post, when the gap widens, there is nothing bad about having a lot of +7s, and a couple of +13s.


----------



## Gimby (Feb 17, 2009)

Its worth pointing out then that the Jack of All Trades feat in 4e lets you effectively replicate the "spend a few points in lots of skills" position.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Gimby said:


> Its worth pointing out then that the Jack of All Trades feat in 4e lets you effectively replicate the "spend a few points in lots of skills" position.




I think for people who prefer ranks, it is a matter of controlling your skill level in each skill. I may really want a few +10s, a +5, a couple of +7s, a +8, some +3s, etc. When it comes to 4E, my gripe is the number of skills (not everyone prefers consolidation), and the lack of a point buy system with ranks. This isn't just a 4E thing for me.  When I first encountered this approach in star wars saga, I really didn't like it. But I have always been a fan of point buys and ranks. That said, 3E is really the only edition that does that.  So 4E is more in keeping I think with previous editions when it comes to skills. But my two favorite things about 3E when it came out were: its skill system and its multiclass system. And I know a number of people who felt the same way. This doesn't make 4E a bad game, it just means, I was expecting something different when it came out (maybe I should have been following the info leaks more). Just like some people prefer Savage Worlds to GURPS (or vice versa), I prefered 3E to 4E, specifically on the subject of multiclassing and skills. I still play 4E; still enjoy it. But if I am going to run a mystery adventure, 3E is probably the system I will use.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 17, 2009)

Well, after several months of actual play with 4e, I keep coming back to the same old refrain:It *PLAYS* a lot better than it READS, and this includes flexibility. 

Survival horror: Maybe it's different at higher levels, but at heroic tier play (we just hit 5th level), Healing Surges are gold. It doesn't matter if you refresh your encounter powers after each little breather, those healing surges don't come back until you've had a good nap, and part of "survival horror" is that the chance for a nap doesn't come up very often.  Given that a lot of undead "eat" surges, and you can definitely do the "running out of steam/must find someplace safe" game. I understand that at paragon/epic tiers healing surges are less important, but you don't have demigods in a survival horror game, in general.

Non-combat: The main problem with the skill challenge system is that it's virtually a different game -- other than the small number of feats or powers which affect skills, there's no mechanical connection to the rest of the system. (And the connection which does exist is wonky -- since a SC is an "encounter", you can only use a skill-affecting encounter power once, even if if the SC covers hours of time and there's opportunities for 'short rests' during it.) However, if SCs are done well, with an eye towards encouraging roleplaying, they can provide a structured way to resolve out-of-combat encounters without relying on PLAYER skill (One of the issues with role-vs-roll play is, do you let the naturally charismatic person who has no social skills be the faceman because he acts it so well, or do you honor the asocial nebbish with a +20 in Diplomacy with success even when his attempt at winning the favor of the King is 'Yo, king-man! If we save your kingdom, I get to bang your hot wife, right?")

Last Sunday, a large chunk of game time was taken up with social maneuvering/information gathering at a 'coming out' party for a merchant's son. We were basically given a list of NPCs (about 8), and told we needed 12 successes before 6 failures, and which skills could be useful. We couldn't get more than 3 succeses from any one NPC, though. Diplomacy, Streetwise, and Perception (most of us are Trained in at least 2 of those 3) were the key skills, though we could use others if we needed to. We didn't just roll dice, though -- each 'interaction' consisted of description and a good bit of roleplaying -- a few back-and-forths, enough to set the tone and give us an idea of the NPCs personality, without it bogging down too much on any one encounter.

I think the 4e writers, whether by personal preference, editorial fiat, or limited page space, chose to severely downplay non-combat actions or campaigns which were not especially combat heavy. The 3e rulesbooks spent a lot of time on worldbuilding, NPC creation, and so on, and most of this CAN be done just as well in 4e -- but the designers chose to ignore or minimize the book space dedicated to it, giving the impression the game is meant to be played as nothing but a string of encounter set pieces taking place on virtual soundstage. While experienced gamers can use the 4e rules to tell as many stories as the 3e rules (with some tweaking, but had to tweak 3e for a lot of things, too), new gamers will probably not realize the potential exists, and that's a shame.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 17, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Where I do have a problem is in participation in skill challenges: at present, it seems too easy for a group to find an obvious skill (say Diplomacy for a negotiation) and then have their best character (with aid from the others) just make all the rolls. It's something that I think can be fixed, but needs more thought.
> 
> Cheers!




Our solution is simple -- the DM doesn't let us get away with it. He'll either have an NPC directly address a PC or make sure the challenge requires several skills to succeed, you can't get ALL your successes with one skill.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> No it isn't. And I demonstrated that to you in my previous post. Just saying it is so; doesn't make it so.
> 
> Again it depends on how important skills are in the game, and how often individual successes are important. I just don't see the math you are talking about here. For every post where someone has tried to demonstrate this I have given tons of examples where spreading it out can be just as optimal. Again, you have 40 points to spread out at max rank 5. Why is it always better to put 5 in 8.




You've made the assertion that's it worth it, but it's not. You're thinking in terms of one character, and that's a totally screwed-up assumption (well, unless you play solo games, but I don't, and that's not the standard assumption for D&D by a long shot). As has been pointed out up-thread, the vast majority of skill checks are resolved by the single PC who has the highest modifier. It's in the best interest of the party that the 'best' character at any skill is as good as possible. If everybody spreads out their skills, then no one is maxed out, and the party is objectively worse off; you cannot contribute more than a +2 from Aid Another, after all. This is not vector calculus here.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Lizard said:


> Our solution is simple -- the DM doesn't let us get away with it. He'll either have an NPC directly address a PC or make sure the challenge requires several skills to succeed, you can't get ALL your successes with one skill.




This is how I do things as well. It makes individual character creation choices matter more. And it mixes things up a bit. 

I think this is a fundamental difference in approach between 3E and 4E.  The former places more stock in individual characters, and the later places it in team work. Neither one is wrong, but they do lead to very different games.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> You've made the assertion that's it worth it, but it's not. You're thinking in terms of one character, and that's a totally screwed-up assumption (well, unless you play solo games, but I don't, and that's not the standard assumption for D&D by a long shot). As has been pointed out up-thread, the vast majority of skill checks are resolved by the single PC who has the highest modifier. It's in the best interest of the party that the 'best' character at any skill is as good as possible. If everybody spreads out their skills, then no one is maxed out, and the party is objectively worse off; you cannot contribute more than a +2 from Aid Another, after all. This is not vector calculus here.




I have not just made the assertion, I have built a case for my position. And I have managed to do it without being insulting. You disagree, and maybe in your games the spread doesn't work, because you rely more heavily on team work. Again, this all depends on how you play the game. Not all adventures are dungeon crawls. City adventures tend to favor characters with spread out skills, as splitting up and following leads independently occurs frequently. You are also assuming that one characters success always makes the whole party succeed, and that is simply not the case with many skill checks (Rondo being able to walk accross the log, doesn't mean everyone else can; Rondo being able to impress the landlord and get a free room, doesn't mean everyone else gets a free ride). Your math makes sense if you can consistently rely on the person with the high skill getting the whole party through. But that isn't how skills are supposed to work. Sometimes it is. But like I said, when you using skills like diplomacy, Rondo making a good impression doesn't automatically mean the whole party does. And your example doesn't account for parties that split up in the city and seek out clues indiviudally (which has happened consistently in every mystery campaign I have run). Nor does it account skills that you must make indivudally (climbing the wall for example). 

Drothgery, I am happy to have this discussion with you. But when I make valid points (and I know my points are valid rebuttals here) then please don't respond with snarky remarks about this not being "vector calculus here", or my assumptions being "totally screwed up". I have already established, that individual characters are important in my games, that I try to avoid the one guy succeeds so everyone else does (and I have provided good reasons for why I do it, why it makes sense, and why it leads to more suspense and fun). You have insulted me repeatedly, and implied my math skills are sub optimal. I will not respond to any more of your posts if you insist on maintaining this tone. Especially when you ignore every point I make, in favor of insulting me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This is how I do things as well. It makes individual character creation choices matter more. And it mixes things up a bit.
> 
> I think this is a fundamental difference in approach between 3E and 4E.  The former places more stock in individual characters, and the later places it in team work. Neither one is wrong, but they do lead to very different games.




Regarding the original question - how is the campaign scope changed between 3E and 4E due to skill points vs skill training?


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 17, 2009)

Regarding skill systems, 1e essentially had none. 2e had the crude non-weapon proficiency system. Only 3e and 4e have a fully developed skill system. Its debatable whether the Trained/Untrained 4e model, or skill point 3e model is better, but functionally the systems are the same. Its purely personal preference over which method is better. But 4e does offer the mechanical framework for the skill challenge system which 3e does not.

Therefore, with the addition of the skill challenge framework, 4e does offer more in a skill system than any prior edition of D&D. This is a material fact.

Regarding character options and customization, a lot of class abilities such as Rage, Trap Sense, Evasion etc. either don't make sense in the new rules, or have been folded into the 4e feat and powers system instead of being prescribed abilities built into a class. The feats, powers, and rituals that 4e offers at every level for every class exceeds or matches the character options available in all prior editions of D&D.  The only classes that even come close to the sheer amount of options available to a 4e character are the 3e fighter, 3e spellcasters, or 3e multi-classed characters. 1e/2e classes are not even close.

Really, the only thing at issue is whether open-ended abilities are good or not. For example, is Charm Person broken? Is it a valid tactic to get information from an NPC, or is it an end-run around the DM's plot and a crutch for players? Purely a matter of personal opinion but an interesting discussion.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Regarding the original question - how is the campaign scope changed between 3E and 4E due to skill points vs skill training?




I answered that question, and I was immediately attacked for suggeion that 4E doesn't handle mystery and investigations very well. The OP wanted to know what styles 4E wasn't well suited for out of the box. That was my answer. And the reason is the trained/untrained skills, and the consolidation of skills (which matters if skills are important in the game). 

To the person who says skills in 4E are given more treatment than 3E and it is material fact. I think that is highly debatable. Though it does offer the skill test-which I think most people who really like skills were not all that impressed with (though it is an interesting idea)-it rolled skills together (which some might like from a balance perspective, but it is a simplification and it allows for less variety) and the section itself is much smaller.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> The only classes that even come close to the sheer amount of options available to a 4e character are the 3e fighter, 3e spellcasters, or 3e multi-classed characters. 1e/2e classes are not even close.




But 3E was built around multiclassing. The only characters I rarely saw multiclassed were wizards and druids. You could do a lot, even with just the core books, by multiclassing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I answered that question, and I was immediately attacked for suggeion that 4E doesn't handle mystery and investigations very well. The OP wanted to know what styles 4E wasn't well suited for out of the box. That was my answer. And the reason is the trained/untrained skills, and the consolidation of skills (which matters if skills are important in the game).



But how does this reduce the ability to handle mysteries or investigations? Is it a gut feeling, can you give an example on how this reduces it? 

The way I see it, the consolidation of skills and the removal of skill ranks makes it more likely that the party has skills that can contribute them to such a scenario and be able to do something in such a scenario. 

If that is a sign that 4E can't handle mystery or investigation, it also can't handle combat, because classes gets lots of tools for that, too, and every character is important and useful in combat!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But 3E was built around multiclassing. The only characters I rarely saw multiclassed were wizards and druids. You could do a lot, even with just the core books, by multiclassing.




I disagree with that. D20 Modern was build around in multiclassing might be true, but D&D 3E was not.

There were to many flaws. Multiclass Fighter/Barbarian, and you have a character that is mostly better then a single classed character of either race. Multiclass Wizard with Sorcerer, and you get one worse then a single classed character. Fractional BAB lead to problems if you didn't multiclass only Full BAB classes. On the other hand, saves skyrocketed.

The 3.0 Ranger was extremely front-loaded (Two-Weapon Fighting, Ambidexterity and Track at 1st level) and made him a very good multi-classing choice, while he later gained little to motivate taking levels in it. And even in 3.5, this didn't change much.

Unless you mean "built around" means you could easily break or gimp your character and it was an important choice to make when to multiclass and with what. That's certainly true. 

Of course, with the idea of "system mastery" build into the design, maybe I am wrong. Maybe this was all intentional?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But how does this reduce the ability to handle mysteries or investigations? Is it a gut feeling, can you give an example on how this reduces it?
> 
> The way I see it, the consolidation of skills and the removal of skill ranks makes it more likely that the party has skills that can contribute them to such a scenario and be able to do something in such a scenario.
> 
> If that is a sign that 4E can't handle mystery or investigation, it also can't handle combat, because classes gets lots of tools for that, too, and every character is important and useful in combat!




It reduces 4Es ability to handle mysteries, because it reduces the overall significance of skill choices, and that is what makes a mystery work well. It would be as if they had taken the same consolidation-trained/untrained approach to combat. What if everyone was either trained or untrainedtrained in ranged attack, AC, HP, Melee attack? Sure more people would probably be able to contribute their abilities to the scenario, but the flavor and the stakes are gone. And what if the powers were all consolidated to smaller groupings that everyone had access to? Maybe all wizard ranged attacks would be called Blast, and all characters could take trained or untrained in it. And to top it off, the number of powers to choose from would be greatly reduced. With skills in 4E there really isn't that much variation from character to character, and certainly not party to party. For a mystery to be intersting, in my view, you really need that richness and texture that comes out when there are tons of skills to choose from and varying grades of ability in each one. 

Also this notion that everyone has to be equally important and useful in every scenario, doesn't suit my style of play. I don't really enjoy the whole tightly coordinated team thing every time. Sometimes it is fun to have a party of all wizards for example. Or just fighters and clerics.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> But 3E was built around multiclassing. The only characters I rarely saw multiclassed were wizards and druids. You could do a lot, even with just the core books, by multiclassing.




I think that 3e multi-classing was indeed a very elegant and powerful game mechanic. I'm still not entirely sold on the 4e feat based multi-classing. But 3e multi-classing did have some issues. It was oftentimes either too good, or resulted in subpar characters. Prestige classes like the Eldritch Knight, or the Mystic Theurge existed solely to patch the flaws in the 3e multi-classing system.

ToB seemed to offer some innovations with other martial classes counting as your effective Martial Adept level, and SW Saga multi-classing seems to work better than 3e primarily because the rate at which feats and talents are gained is not affected by multi-classing.

I would really be interested in seeing a balanced classless system for 4e. The uniformity of class mechanics would seem to lend itself well to such a system.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I disagree with that. D20 Modern was build around in multiclassing might be true, but D&D 3E was not.
> 
> There were to many flaws. Multiclass Fighter/Barbarian, and you have a character that is mostly better then a single classed character of either race. Multiclass Wizard with Sorcerer, and you get one worse then a single classed character. Fractional BAB lead to problems if you didn't multiclass only Full BAB classes. On the other hand, saves skyrocketed.
> 
> ...




Multiclassing always played a huge role in my campaigns and in the characters I made (both as a GM and as a player). Class dipping was fun, and I enjoyed it alot. Yes, system mastery was important. And without it, you were at a disadvantage, which could be a problem. I thought the intention of 4E was to fix that, but retain the full range of multiclassing. Which is why I was dissapointed. Instead they went the other way completley, and some people like it. But I feel like my choices don't matter. No matter what character I build, it feels like it is designed to make everyone equal no matter what. I understand some people enjoy this. But for me, it just isn't my game. 4E just doesn't get me excited. That doesn't mean it is an objectively bad system, any more than it means 3E is objectively good. They perform different functions. 4E is tight and balanced. 3E is a little chaotic, but its great if you like lots of choices and variety in power levels when building a character. It also had a very loose multiclassing system. Which made it very easy to realize character concepts. I know many have pointed out you can build anything in 4E, but I have found it is much harder to do so. 

The fun, for me, of 3E was using multiclassing to create characters that really excelled at something specific or had a unique niche. And you did that by multiclassing. It didn't have to be about power either.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> However, I've seen many of them have either very limited effects (Holy Lantern is only a lamp, after all), or are useful just as much in a combat as outside of it (Dark One's Own Luck).




I don't think I understand why that's a problem. If I can give a player a tool that is useful both in and out of combat, why is that worse than one that just works in one, or the other? To me, that sounds like the mentality that believes that to be good at combat, you have to sacrifice non-combat ability, and vice versa. 4E doesn't make you do that, nor do I think it should. I think it's a conceptual fallacy that was introduced by point-based roleplaying games that treated game balance like a see-saw, rather than like a series of silos.



Wik said:


> Yeah.  You're right, that some can see them as "I wins".  I instead see them as tools.




I actually don't like calling them "I win" buttons, because that implies that a kind of smug, "I used the rules to outsmart the DM" attitude in my mind. As I said, they are spells that provide the result directly, rather than providing assistance in finding the result.



Wik said:


> You can run CSI: Eberron if you want using 4e, but I still don't feel that 17 skills and a handful of rituals accessible by all PCs if they're willing to burn a feat is enough to differentiate characters in a setting that is primarily non-combat in nature.




Practically speaking, how many 4E parties have multiple ritual casters with the same rituals? I suspect that parties who have PCs that get Ritual Caster as a bonus feat rarely see their fighters, rogues, warlords, etc. spending a feat on Ritual Caster. You really only need one or two, depending on what skills the ritual caster is trained in. And, as a further point, I think that the ritual system keeps the magic option open to parties that DON'T have a wizard, or a cleric. I think it's a benefit of Ritual Caster's flexibility that I can have an all-martial party and someone can spend a feat on Ritual Caster to give the party access to those bits of magic.

As for skills, I don't think the number of skills really matters much here. The only skills that really got left behind were Craft, Profession, and Perform...and none of those do much more than tinker with the economy. I can see the argument that skill overlap does make individuals "less special," but even in my game with 7 PCs everyone has at least one or two skills that are specifically in their own domain. 



Wik said:


> I'd do it by increasing the skill list,




What skills are you adding/unfolding?



Wik said:


> breaking rituals up into groups, so that PCs can specialize in a ritual of the type they like (one could specialize in Divination Rituals, while another could specialize in transport rituals).




I suspect parties with multiple ritual casters do this anyways, though I think the division line is more along Arcane/Divine. 



Wik said:


> I'd encourage the purchasing of non-combat feats, perhaps by splitting feats into two grades, and requiring PCs to balance their choices.




I'd think that if you told your players up-front that the balance between combat and non-combat was going to tip toward non-combat that your players would actually pick these feats on their own, without needing a numerical incentive. Given the fact that XP and treasure are rewarded for skill challenges and quests alike, it seems like the players will want to maximize their ability to complete those challenges and achieve those quest rewards.



Wik said:


> And I'd add in the optional Contact Rules from 3e's Unearthed Arcana.




Fair enough, but worth pointing out that you're talking about an optional rule in the first place. Incidentally, I have done some stuff with contacts in Saga Edition that I think would work pretty well in 4E; if you are a Star Wars player, you might check out the noble talents in _The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide_.  



Wik said:


> Personally, though, I feel as if 3e suits the genre better, and would generate better results (and more interesting results from the players' perspective).  Your tastes may vary, and all that jazz.




Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. I think it ignores or undervalues a lot of things in 4E (skill challenges, powers that work outside of combat, the robust improvisation guidelines) and overvalues having a lot of skills and the supposedly non-combat only nature of many 3E spells. 

One last observation and then I'll fade back into the ether. It seems like part of your bone of contention is that it's harder in 4E to have "exclusive" abilities that a character can use in non-combat situations. Since "anyone" can take Ritual Caster, obviously this means individuals are less specialized. How many of those non-combat spells in 3E are specific to an individual class? It seems to me that many of them are on multiple class' spell lists, which is comparable to having multiple ritual casters in the party. Likewise, given the powers I listed in my earlier post, I think that provides a decent number of powers in the exclusive domain of that class, since those powers don't appear in any other class' powers list.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> I would really be interested in seeing a balanced classless system for 4e. The uniformity of class mechanics would seem to lend itself well to such a system.





The way 3E was meant to be balanced, was by GMs taking a close look at each prestige class and splat book before allowing them into his campaign. They really could have done a better job balancing new material and old material. No doubt. But if you were attentive when players requested things (and if you paid some attention to what was going on on the character optimization boards) most of these problems could be averted. 

In order to make the multiclass system more balanced, each new addition to the game, should have been vetted more. Simple as that. They just didn't do a good job checking powers and combinations against one another in 3E.


----------



## DandD (Feb 17, 2009)

Having only the one character with many skillpoints being able to participate well while the other characters with few skillpoints having to stand-bye or their player to doze off/play with a NDS/chat about sports makes 'mystery investigation' pointless, because only few, or even worse, one can participate, until combat commences, where everyone can finally participate, not only the many-skillpoint-character.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 17, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Regarding the original question - how is the campaign scope changed between 3E and 4E due to skill points vs skill training?




There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value. (You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC? No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you. (Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))

The scope of 4e campaigns, thus, is narrowed to "Those campaigns where skills other than those listed never come into play", unless, of course, you design some house rules to account for them. I feel my old 3.5 Swashbuckler would have been less of a character without his Perform (Oratory) and Profession (Poet) ranks -- just "writing them down" would not have had nearly the same impact; the fact he spent skill points (a precious resource) on those things defined a lot about who he was. "Just write it down" is not, IMO, merely poor game design; it's actively contemptuous towards a style of play. It reduces non-combat abilities to the same status as eye color or hair style, something which should never enter play or be meaningful. This isn't "freedom to roleplay" -- it's stating that any aspects of your character not related to hitting things are irrelevant. I do not know if this was a design intent or just an emergent property of time/space constraints, but I consider it a significant flaw. (Yes, it can be houseruled very easily. This doesn't make it any less of a flaw.)


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It would be as if they had taken the same consolidation-trained/untrained approach to combat. What if everyone was either trained or untrainedtrained in ranged attack, AC, HP, Melee attack?




Actually, they did take that approach to combat...

In 4E, everybody gets a bonus to attacks, AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will equal to 1/2 their character level (the same as skills).  Weapon proficiencies act as "training" for different weapon groups, giving you a flat bonus to hit based on the weapon.  Either you are proficient ("Trained") or you aren't ("Untrained").  Either way, anyone can still use a sword, just not everybody gets that extra +3 bonus for being trained to use it.

Likewise, the defenses all get the 1/2 level bonus, but your class determines which ones you are "trained" in...  Rogues get a "trained" bonus to Reflex and are "untrained" in Fortitude and Will, Wizards get a "trained" bonus to Will, etc.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 17, 2009)

Lizard said:


> Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter"



Now, now... you know that non-combats skills exist in 4e. 



> (You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC?



Where are the rules that cover this in 3e? I don't remember seeing any target DC's for ale-tasting in any of the books I own.



> No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you.



In 4e no ranks means roll primary ability+1/2 level+ any modifiers the DM chooses to assign. Also, the "I'm a master brewer too!" problem can be neatly sidestepped by not gaming with people who act like spoiled children. 



> (Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))



You need to stop thinking everyone games with people who act like spoiled children.



> The scope of 4e campaigns, thus, is narrowed to "Those campaigns where skills other than those listed never come into play", unless, of course, you design some house rules to account for them.



Or if you're comfortable accepting ad-hoc DM rulings for things not directly covered by the rules. Given just how often that happens when my friends and I play D&D, I'm pretty comfortable, but YMMV... 



> I feel my old 3.5 Swashbuckler would have been less of a character without his Perform (Oratory) and Profession (Poet) ranks



My 4e paladin is a poet. When he needs to make a skill check we use Diplomacy --for his performance in slams-- Insight --for composing works that peer into the soul-- and raw CHA checks, to cover anything else. 



> "Just write it down" is not, IMO, merely poor game design; it's actively contemptuous towards a style of play.



It's not contempt, it's just efficiency. How _big_ would the skill list/system have to be to cover every oddball, outlier concept that a gamer might want to make? --and I say this a gamer with a large number of oddball, outlier characters to his credit. 

The 4e designers chose to focus on common, adventuring skills. Seems reasonable to me, given the alternative... trying to cover, in some meaningful way, everything else.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 17, 2009)

Lizard said:


> There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value. (You're a "master brewer"? Does that mean you can identify any kind of ale by taste? Fix a complex brewing mechanism? Train an apprentice? Out-brew an NPC? No ranks means no rolls, no rolls means it's all handwaving, and any of your fellow PCs can perk up and say "I'm a master brewer, too!" and have the exact same skill as you. (Oh, and they're also a master sailor, a hardened mercenary, a skilled blacksmith, and a tapestry weaver. Hey, it's all "written down", right? What MORE do you need?))




First off, there IS room for hobbyists or dabblers; its called the 1/2 your level skill rise. Sure, a 5th level wizard is in no regards the talented liar a rogue trained in bluff is, but he sure picked up a few simple con's listening to his friend, which accounts for that +2 bonus from level. 

Secondly, the obvious answer is that a DM should account for these background elements as he see's fit. Does your DM make you role a profession:brewer check to tell the difference between a goblin tahl and a dwarven stout? Is he really concerned if you'll make the DC 10 to fix a brewing machine? Roll check after check to train an apprentice? Perhaps I can see a check for a dual of beers, but even then I could make it a wisdom check with a +2 circumstance bonus for "being a master". Otherwise, I'd hand-wave those things in 3.5, I don't care HOW many ranks you put in that skill. They are rarely worth my time to take to dice. I got monsters to fight, worlds to save and damsels to woo!

Lastly, isn't the obvious answer that "a character's background determines his aptitude in these things?" Do we really need to bust out the secondary skills rules from 1e again?


----------



## Scribble (Feb 17, 2009)

Lizard said:


> There is no room for dabblers or hobbyists, which cuts off a lot of character concepts. Since all non-combat skills have been reduced to "Just write it on your character sheet, it doesn't matter", there's no way to focus on improving those aspects of your character, or competing with them, or using them in any kind of challenge or test, since they have no mechanical value.




I get what you're trying to say, but I dissagree.

I think that designing along those ideas is what made 3e so bulky (in my opinion) and strict in the first place. If it's something we can do we need a rule for it stat! In my opinion that fostered the rules lawyer mentality of "this is the way x is accomplished. If this is not met, then x cannot be done."

I prefer looking at the intent behind the skill check in the first place. IE say a poetry contest between two Bards 8 Mile style- Is there really an official measure of how "good" a poem is? (Or any art for that matter?) It's entirely subjective. So I think to "win" the contest the bard has to do one (or both) of two options. Win over the crowd with his mad rhymin skillz (Diplomacy.) Or cower his foe with his comebacks and jabs (Intimidate.)

If you really wanted to you could design a skill challenge... Maybe knowledge nature gives you a bonus because you know exactly what type of animal his mother would best resemble... Or knowledge history lets you know just what events or people resonate with the crowd. (I gots more props then Slick Willy in a cigar factory?)


----------



## Greg K (Feb 17, 2009)

Scribble said:


> IWin over the crowd with his mad rhymin skillz (Diplomacy.) Or cower his foe with his comebacks and jabs (Intimidate.)




Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!


----------



## Mallus (Feb 17, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!



What's the benefit of having a multitude of separate Perform/Create Art skills?


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Drothgery, I am happy to have this discussion with you. But when I make valid points (and I know my points are valid rebuttals here) then please don't respond with snarky remarks about this not being "vector calculus here", or my assumptions being "totally screwed up". I have already established, that individual characters are important in my games, that I try to avoid the one guy succeeds so everyone else does (and I have provided good reasons for why I do it, why it makes sense, and why it leads to more suspense and fun).




I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in, every published adventure I've ever read, and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills. You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.







Sigh.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in,



Fine


> every published adventure I've ever read,



Fine, but, maybe, that only applies to those you read



> and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills.



Your data?  



> You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.



Reading minds, now? Maybe they expected  characters to take some cross class skills, but wanted certain classes to shine in certain skills.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 17, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!




Care to elaborate on why?

I'm also glad that "craft" was taken out as one of the yes/no type skills. It seems strange to have a skill like that.  Spend a few points, and now using the amazing power of your brain you can make anything... A sword? No problem I'll think one up no sweat! 

I prefer what 4e seems to be putting in place (admitedly currently you'd have to house rule making normal stuff) of a feat to have the background knolwedge, and then "blueprints" for making the thing. (Alchemical stuff, rituals etc...)

To me this style will allow for much more variation on what you can make. 

Were it my campaign and someone wanted to have his "brewmaster" backgroun come into play I'd implement a feat for it, then let him pick up recipeis for various drinks... Since it's D&D some of which would have magic like effects on the drinker, and such...


----------



## Lizard (Feb 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What's the benefit of having a multitude of separate Perform/Create Art skills?




Character definition.

What's the benefit of ANY skill system? At the most extreme, you could argue there's only one needed skill:"Do Stuff". You can take the feat "Be Real Good At Stuff" for +3. 

Some games (such as C&C) basically have just Attribute checks, with some Attributes getting a bonus (more technically, the check is lower). Other games (such as, say, GURPS) have exhaustive skill lists, breaking skills down to very fine levels of detail. Which is preferable depends on playstyle and personal tastes. Some people like being able to say, "I can dance well, but I can't sing; I'm a good speaker but a poor writer.", and have this mechanically reflected.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Where are the rules that cover this in 3e? I don't remember seeing any target DC's for ale-tasting in any of the books I own.




You can set a DC and roll against a skill. There's no roll against "I am the brewing GOD!!!" written on your character sheet at first level -- and that's the point of my entire rant. It boils down to "The DM decides to allow you to succeed" or "The DM doesn't decide to allow you to succeed", and if people liked that style of play, Theatrix would be known for more than its softcore porn supplement.



> You need to stop thinking everyone games with people who act like spoiled children.




But the reason we have rules AT ALL is because of that factor. How would most gamers react to "Just write down if you're good at combat, or not, on your character sheet."




> It's not contempt, it's just efficiency. How _big_ would the skill list/system have to be to cover every oddball, outlier concept that a gamer might want to make? --and I say this a gamer with a large number of oddball, outlier characters to his credit.




GURPS, Rolemaster (as of Companion II, at least), and HERO (as of 4th edition) all managed to have enough skills for me, and probably for you. Hell, so did D&D 3e, because it had broad "umbrella" skills (Craft, Perform, Profession, Knowledge) which could be used to cover almost anything a character might want to do.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 17, 2009)

I think there really ARE two types of people who game... Those that want the rules to reflect what their character can do, and those who want to use the rules to reflect what happens when we do something we've decided they can do.

I would say I'm in the later type, because I would prefer to fit the rules to my situation then my situation to the rules. IE I want to sing a song to impress the Noble Lady. Can I use diplomacy to do so? 

If you need/want a skill to reflect everything your character can do wouldn't the list of available skills have to be infinitely long? Otherwise aren't you essentially doing what I do anyway?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 17, 2009)

Yeah I would say I would fit into Scribble's later group as well. He described it pretty well my own view on it.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Actually, they did take that approach to combat...
> 
> In 4E, everybody gets a bonus to attacks, AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will equal to 1/2 their character level (the same as skills). Weapon proficiencies act as "training" for different weapon groups, giving you a flat bonus to hit based on the weapon. Either you are proficient ("Trained") or you aren't ("Untrained"). Either way, anyone can still use a sword, just not everybody gets that extra +3 bonus for being trained to use it.
> 
> Likewise, the defenses all get the 1/2 level bonus, but your class determines which ones you are "trained" in... Rogues get a "trained" bonus to Reflex and are "untrained" in Fortitude and Will, Wizards get a "trained" bonus to Will, etc.




Yes, and this is a system that doesn't suit my taste. But at least it does offer powers tied to your class. So there is some depth and texture to the game.  So while I would have prefered they treated combat differently, I wouldn't say it lacks what the skill system lacks.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in, every published adventure I've ever read, and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills. You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.




-Can you please refrain from insults and sarcasm. This is the last time I am going to ask. All I am doing is telling you how I enjoy the game, and you are telling me I am wrong. And you are responding in a tone that doesn't invite polite responses; but I have made every effort to consider your statements and reply in a reasoned manner.-

The experience clearly breaks down on edition lines. People who play 3E have stated over and over that they agree with me. The 4E people agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I think cross class skills are bad, and I believe classes should have been given more skill points overall. But that doesn't mean the ranking system had to be junked. They could have improved it, by fixing a few details, rather than go in the direction they did. Though I don't see how that proves it wasn't the intention of the designers. Maybe that they wanted certain classes to shine more in non-combat situations; but it is no indication they wanted everyone to maximize their skills every time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 17, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Ugh! Glad it works for you, but no thank you!



I don't know... That was one of the problems specifically of Profession, but to a lesser extent of Perform.

The standard example was always Profession (Sailor). Shouldn't this cover balance and use rope? And maybe Knowledge (Nature) in regards to the sea?

And Perform (Oratory) - how can it be it doesn't offer any help with Diplomacy? Being able to "craft" words before an audience to entertain them and to make them feel emotions, why can't this be applied for convincing someone of your position? 

I think that this might actually be the way I will handle Craft, Profession and Perform in the future. 
Pick a Profession or Craft and one skill that fits its common task. This is now your Profession skill.

Craft (Alchemy) might become Arcana or Nature
Craft (Armorsmithing) might become History (tradition of smithery) or Nature (knowledge of materials)
Profession (Sailor) becomes Nature (Knowledge of the Sea, Weather, Navigation) or Acrobatics (movement on a ship, handling knots etc.)
Perform becomes Diplomacy or Bluff.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 17, 2009)

I think a nice way to handle it with 4e Skill System for those that want Craft, Perform, Profession, etc. back into the game be something like the Storytelling System.

After you pick your initial Trained Skills. You can choose three Skills to "Specialize" in. When your using this Skill in a task that involves this specialization your Skill bonus goes up (lets say by 5). 

So, if you put Sailing into Acrobatics for instance you would get a +5 bonus to Acrobatics when sailing.

I could see a whole series of feats based off this too. You could take more of them for a more minor bonus (+2), or increase the bonus of your Specialized Skills. Perhaps even have Specializations built into all Paragon Paths (sorta like what we have seen for a couple PPs).

One thing I like about this is that it makes it more, "personal". Since the background behind this isn't as broad. So, to continue with Sailing and Acrobatics. You can say you worked the crows nest on a ship and thus have gotten good at scrambling up the ropes and such. But it doesn't mean you know how to sale a ship or fire a cannon as would be mechanically suggested by a simply broad "Profession: Sailing".

I think too this could be used to specify already established parts of Skills even more. So Thievery you could Specialize in Disarming Traps or Pickpocket.


----------



## keterys (Feb 17, 2009)

I've been pretty happy just being able to say what my background is, without worrying that I was taking away points from skills I might need for a prestige class, or skills that might actually come up in play. 

I mean, Brewing only comes up so often, so it's nice if the system doesn't punish me for wanting a dwarf that can do it. Or a fighter that can sing passably on journeys. A halfling wizard who whittles designs into staves and wands and occasionally makes a toy for children.

Things that add a touch of color to the game, but for which devoting skill points would be mathematically inefficient or possibly even completely wasteful.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 17, 2009)

The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.

At chargen, you answer two questions.  What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time?  Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill.  There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.

I played with the skill system as well in 3e, granting an extra 2 points per level for everyone.  Still rarely had anyone split up skill points.  Even with cases like tumble, where once you got +14 you could do 95% of what you wanted tumble for, I've seen people keep on moving up tumble, because having half points in something felt like a waste.  So for me, 4e's trained/untrained is functionally very similar.

I would agree that 4e is not the best system to use for a mystery game.  That's because its a fantasy adventure game.  They chose to focus on making 4e the best fantasy adventure game they could, for good or ill.  I'd suggest either sticking with what you got or look into one of the excellent mystery games on the market.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Sigh.



I think the disconnect here is that ProfessorPain is after character variation as an end unto itself, whereas you and the others who have tried to reason with him see the goal as character effectiveness instead.

As an example from our current game, my ranger/psion has 4 or 5 ranks in Hide & Move Silently.  They're effectively wasted points - even with magic stealth items, I can't even come close to Leopold's abilities in that regard.  So when it comes time for scouting, I _mindlink_ the group and sit back while Leopold heads out to get the lay of the land.  But I still value those points for what they say about my character - he's a hunter, a silent killer, a vengeful ghost in the rugged border regions of Riedra.  Of course the mechanics don't really back this up (a handful of ranks doesn't make one very stealthy except perhaps against peons, who aren't worthy of screen time with us at this point), but they make me feel better.

Incidentally, I would have increased those skills, but: not enough skill points.   A persistant problem in 3e, unfortunately.

Of course, in an ideal game, my character concept would be fully realized and I would actually be able to hang with the party rogue on scouting expeditions.  By say... using the 4e skill system and taking Skill Training: Stealth.  That way I get to play the character I want *and* be good at it (even if I'm slightly worse at it, since I don't have Leopold's insane DEX).  Best of both worlds, IMO, but some people value the process over the result.  Showing them that your results are better isn't going to have much impact because that's not what they're after.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2009)

Lizard said:


> But the reason we have rules AT ALL is because of that factor.



I thought it was because we were playing a game.

If one player picks "master brewer" as his character's background, and another player hears this and then says, "I'm a master brewer too!" in order to step on the first player's toes, you have bigger problems than a lack of brewing rules.


----------



## malraux (Feb 17, 2009)

One of the 4e precepts, at least in my opinion, is that PCs are first and foremost adventurers.  So if you want to be a master zymurgist, that kinda precludes also being an adventurer, so having a skill system around being a master craftsman doesn't exactly make sense.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I think the disconnect here is that ProfessorPain is after character variation as an end unto itself, whereas you and the others who have tried to reason with him see the goal as character effectiveness instead.
> .




A good game should balance both. Where we may split is they are much more interested in the effectiveness of the party as a group (which does make sense in things like dungeon delves), and I am giving more weight to effectiveness of individual PCs (which makes sense in city adventures). Also, you can't always rely on other party members succeeding to help you make a skill check. There are skill checks that you have to make on your own. It isn't always a bad thing, to be adequate at a large number of skills, when those situations arise. 

But here I am arguing it isn't less effective to diversify. Of course it does depend on how your GM handles things like skill checks, but in every game I have played, being diversified has helped.


----------



## malraux (Feb 17, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.
> 
> At chargen, you answer two questions.  What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time?  Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill.  There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.




I'd probably change it up slightly.  Previous profession = you count as trained when you are using a skill that's arguably part of that previous profession.  For example, you picked sailor as your previous profession.  So you might count as trained when using nature to navigate at night, identify fish, forage for food along a seacoast, sense weather changes, etc.  It obviously wouldn't help you identify land animals, hunt for wild game, etc.  For hobbies, I'd do the same thing, but with skill focus instead of trained.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> As an example from our current game, my ranger/psion has 4 or 5 ranks in Hide & Move Silently. They're effectively wasted points - even with magic stealth items, I can't even come close to Leopold's abilities in that regard. So when it comes time for scouting, I _mindlink_ the group and sit back while Leopold heads out to get the lay of the land. But I still value those points for what they say about my character - he's a hunter, a silent killer, a vengeful ghost in the rugged border regions of Riedra. Of course the mechanics don't really back this up (a handful of ranks doesn't make one very stealthy except perhaps against peons, who aren't worthy of screen time with us at this point), but they make me feel better.





When you diversify you are not going to be better than Leopold at stealth. If you want to be the best at stealth, that will have to be something your character focuses on and maximized. You are creating a broad range of competencies that will allow you to shine in a number of circumstance. You still have 5 ranks, which isn't too bad. So you probably are not terrible at being stealthy on your own. And you probably have more skills than Leopold (Unless he is a thief, in which case, I sympathize and think this part of the system needs reworking-- the other classes just don't get enough skill points). Also, if you want your skills to be relevant in encounters with bigger and badder foes, you will want to keep upgrading them, even if they are not maximized. You don't want to take 2 points in something early on, and then neglect to take more ranks as you advance, unless it is part of the character concept. And this can still work. Having 2-5 ranks in something, still works against many people in the city.  My advice to people who are not satisfied with their skills: work them during down time. You can still get good use out of them when you have time on your own in the city. 

What level are you?


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 17, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I get what you're trying to say, but I dissagree.
> 
> I think that designing along those ideas is what made 3e so bulky (in my opinion) and strict in the first place. If it's something we can do we need a rule for it stat! In my opinion that fostered the rules lawyer mentality of "this is the way x is accomplished. If this is not met, then x cannot be done."
> 
> ...




I agree completely.  Also with the comments by Remathalis and mallus above scribbles.

I've mentioned in another thread before that I had a player whose elf was a musician who found his way to adventuring (his concept was basically what if Led Zeppelin really got to go to Middle-earth).  He played often, and this was RP, he expressed his character through these actions and others and there was never a need for a roll.  In a new town, one day, he decided to play for his supper at a local tavern.  As he played, word spread through the small town that a new musician was entertaining over at the Grumpy Kruthik.  Well, at the rival inn nearby, the local minstrel was playing and was very put off when his crowd began to wander off to the other location.  He interrupted, words were exchanged and a bard off ensued.  I ran it as a skill challenge, fun was had by everyone, some of the other party members even found ways to contribute.  The wizard used cantrips every time the local was playing to distract him, make off key sounds, and generally mess him up.  The barbarian spent an entire song sharpening his dagger and staring intently at the rival bard (intimidate).  The cleric used some religion to recall some popular songs involving the locally favored deity.  And the musician himself used insight and diplomacy for his checks, plus a memorably described acrobatics check to throw some advanced rock star moves on the unsuspecting crowd.  He blew the local out of the water and it was fun, dramatic, and led to positive benefits for the group (free room and board, +2 to positive social checks throughout their stay).


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 17, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> The best fix I've seen is Rel's house rule, which I'm eagerly stealing.
> 
> At chargen, you answer two questions.  What did you do before becoming an adventurer? and What do you do in your free time?  Whatever the player answers, the GM will assign an ability score and treat that as a trained skill.  There you go - your poet, brewmaster, herbalist, whatever.




Another option I saw somewhere (maybe in Dragon or Dungeon recently?), was rules for "backgrounds"...  There was a whole list of backgrounds, and each gave a few assorted bonuses based on that background.  The bonuses might be making a skill a class skill for your character, giving a small bonus to a couple skills, giving a large bonus to a single skill, granting weapon proficiency or two, and so on.  You can find the list in the DDI Character Builder.

I kind of liked the idea, and will likely use it for my next campaign.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> When you diversify you are not going to be better than Leopold at stealth.



Not my intent, as I alluded to in my previous post.  Even if I had max ranks in Hide & Move Silently, the rogue would still be better because of ability scores.



ProfessorPain said:


> So you probably are not terrible at being stealthy on your own.



Against peons, maybe.  But we're 15th level (and started at 8th level) so that doesn't really come up.  And the thing is, if I accompanied the rogue on scouting missions, I would just bring him down - his super-high rolls don't matter much when he's walking next to my +8 or whatever.  So I don't get to use that part of my character.  There's no situation that calls for stealth that we wouldn't simply say, "let the rogue do it."  He's great at it, my character is better than the rest of the group but is terrible in comparison to his scores.

As I said in my post, I can't keep upgrading those skills because I don't get enough skill points.  6 per level, with priority going to Concentration, various Knowledge skills that no one else in the party has, Psicraft, and Survival.  Hide & Move Silently are cross-class.  Now, as a 14th level psion, I have a lot of other power to make up for the lack of skills, and that's the trade-off, and I'm ok with that.  I could have taken more ranger levels, but didn't because 3e's multiclassing screws over casters.  In the end, the character concept wasn't possible to bring to life in 3e without sacrificing some major effectiveness somewhere.  But that's true of any caster/X hybrid that doesn't have a PrC tailored for it, and is getting off-topic. 

My point was simply that those skill points are wasted, and I spent them anyway knowing that, because they were appropriate for the character.  And I know the rules well enough to be able to sacrifice some points here and there without losing a lot of overall effectiveness at my specialties.  I'd prefer to be able to make some use of that part of my character though, and I would have been able to if the character was built in 4e (given rules for a kalashtar race and a psionic teleporter class).


----------



## MerricB (Feb 17, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Another option I saw somewhere (maybe in Dragon or Dungeon recently?), was rules for "backgrounds"...  There was a whole list of backgrounds, and each gave a few assorted bonuses based on that background.  The bonuses might be making a skill a class skill for your character, giving a small bonus to a couple skills, giving a large bonus to a single skill, granting weapon proficiency or two, and so on.  You can find the list in the DDI Character Builder.
> 
> I kind of liked the idea, and will likely use it for my next campaign.




They're in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Dragon #366, and, yes, they're a very neat idea to distinguish characters. I may need to implement them in my campaigns and expand the list and purpose of the backgrounds.

Cheers!


----------



## drothgery (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I think the disconnect here is that ProfessorPain is after character variation as an end unto itself, whereas you and the others who have tried to reason with him see the goal as character effectiveness instead.




No, that's not it. If he said that it was more fun for him to do things that way, or it better matched his concept for the character, I'd be fine with that. I've done that with a lot of PCs (remember my Ranger who had a lot of ranks in profession (artist)?). Arguing that spreading skill points around is not a poor decision from a pure game-mechanics perspective is what's bothering me.



Spatula said:


> As an example from our current game, my ranger/psion has 4 or 5 ranks in Hide & Move Silently.  They're effectively wasted points - even with magic stealth items, I can't even come close to Leopold's abilities in that regard.  So when it comes time for scouting, I _mindlink_ the group and sit back while Leopold heads out to get the lay of the land.  But I still value those points for what they say about my character - he's a hunter, a silent killer, a vengeful ghost in the rugged border regions of Riedra.  Of course the mechanics don't really back this up (a handful of ranks doesn't make one very stealthy except perhaps against peons, who aren't worthy of screen time with us at this point), but they make me feel better.




Heck, for much the same reason, Neel (my fighter, same game) took a feat that made some Knowledge skills class skills for him, because I saw him as a well-educated guy, and by default it's hard to make a fighter that way. Would it have been more mechanically useful to take Cleave or some other combat feat? Yup.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 17, 2009)

This topic may of worth your time to check out.  

Non combat things like crafting were never seemed to be the focus of D&D.  If it really was important, there would have been a "Complete Craftsman" 3.5 book or something like that.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Not my intent, as I alluded to in my previous post. Even if I had max ranks in Hide & Move Silently, the rogue would still be better because of ability scores.
> 
> Against peons, maybe. But we're 15th level (and started at 8th level) so that doesn't really come up. And the thing is, if I accompanied the rogue on scouting missions, I would just bring him down - his super-high rolls don't matter much when he's walking next to my +8 or whatever. So I don't get to use that part of my character. There's no situation that calls for stealth that we wouldn't simply say, "let the rogue do it." He's great at it, my character is better than the rest of the group but is terrible in comparison to his scores.
> 
> ...





Here I do agree. Non rogue classes should have been given more skill points. But the problem isn't the ranking system. It is not having enough points to do what you want.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> This topic may of worth your time to check out.
> 
> Non combat things like crafting were never seemed to be the focus of D&D. If it really was important, there would have been a "Complete Craftsman" 3.5 book or something like that.




Wizards didn't release one, but I do remember an experts book being released by a third party.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> No, that's not it. If he said that it was more fun for him to do things that way, or it better matched his concept for the character, I'd be fine with that. I've done that with a lot of PCs (remember my Ranger who had a lot of ranks in profession (artist)?). Arguing that spreading skill points around is not a poor decision from a pure game-mechanics perspective is what's bothering me.
> .




And for dungeon delves, what you are saying is mostly correct. Though I would much rather spread out and increase my chances of not falling down a cliff or getting stuck halfway up the cliff. Since Rondo's jump skill won't really impact my leap over the chasm. But most of what I said applied to city adventures, and those are very different in terms of skill use. You have yet to engage me on any of the points I made. Choosing instead to insult. I have yet to be in a city adventure campaign, where individual successes are not very important. In city adventures, you tend to split up number one, so there is a good chance your ace man might not be there when you need to succeed at diplomacy.  Having a 6 or 7 to his 12 or 13 in this case, is still useful. Also, as I said multiple times, having one guy succeed for everybody isn't always good for things like diplomacy roles (especially if that person is clearly a rogue). What is effective in any game, depends on how the game is being played. If your group relies heavily on the best guy in the group getting the whole party through, then sure it is much better to coordinate the party's skill selection. Personally, I find the one guy success thing, a little unrealistic, and discourage it in most of my games (unless it makes sense in the indidual case). Again, much of this comes from your focus on overall party sucess, and my focus on individual success. But to just declare that a two 7s are useless when you could have a single 13, doesn't mean anything outside the context of how the game is played. Sure the 13 will be a sure bet for that one skill. But on occassions where you really want to succeed at both skills, the two 7s is a better bet.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 17, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Wizards didn't release one, but I do remember an experts book being released by a third party.




And how many were sold, to the 5-6 million D&D players? 240? Just because something was released does not mean it was a necessity, nor something people actually wanted.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm going to jump over most of this with the general idea that Wik (and others) are basically making the same points I would. 

I did want to tease out this, because I think it's illustrative of the difference in focus:


> You can mention that 4e characters have powers that have non-combat uses... and you're right. But they are usually pretty limited (the lantern grants some light, doesn't need to be held, and gives a perception bonus... but it doesn't encourage too much creative play. I can't use it to gonzo things with it... it's "just" a lamp).




Compare that lantern with even the lowly _light_ spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.

In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)

In 4e, that spell is an effect -- it basically generates _that effect_. The tool used to accomplish that is mostly up to you (making it easy to reskin, and also very clear in its effect). Anything else is not given real support.

In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).

In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.

It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.

I'm OK with 4e. I play and DM 4e. I'll probably end up doing some 4e design sooner or later (I can't resist tinkering with whatever I'm playing with). But that doesn't mean that 4e couldn't do better in many areas.

One of the areas that 4e really and honestly could do better in is in providing more variety and strategy in the rules for solving noncombat challenges.

It has the potential to do better than any edition before it for that. 

It just depends on if the designers have any interest in doing that.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> And how many were sold, to the 5-6 million D&D players? 240? Just because something was released does not mean it was a necessity, nor something people actually wanted.




Not everyone plays the game like you.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> And how many were sold, to the 5-6 million D&D players? 240? Just because something was released does not mean it was a necessity, nor something people actually wanted.




I never said it was a necessity. I just said someone released it. My guess is it didn't do terribly well. But I haven't checked any reviews or numbers. 

Numbers don't really matter though. If a few gamers enjoy it, that is their right. Why does it matter so much that others might take a different track than you? If they find an aspect of the game interesting and want to explore it more, more power to them. 

I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm going to jump over most of this with the general idea that Wik (and others) are basically making the same points I would.
> 
> I did want to tease out this, because I think it's illustrative of the difference in focus:
> 
> ...





This is a good point. I am definitely more on the simulationist side of things.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.




There's a difference between noting that some people play the game differently and asserting that the game should be designed differently because you don't enjoy how it was designed.

The discussion in this thread has mostly been of the latter.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> And for dungeon delves, what you are saying is mostly correct. Though I would much rather spread out and increase my chances of not falling down a cliff or getting stuck halfway up the cliff. Since Rondo's jump skill won't really impact my leap over the chasm. But most of what I said applied to city adventures, and those are very different in terms of skill use.




You do realize that you're using as your examples skills that are easily replaced by low-level magic and many magic items in D&D 3.x, right? And that if Rondo climbs up first or jumps across first and throws your character a rope, that's enough to make the task easy even for someone with no ranks, right? 



ProfessorPain said:


> But to just declare that a two 7s are useless when you could have a single 13, doesn't mean anything outside the context of how the game is played. Sure the 13 will be a sure bet for that one skill. But on occasions where you really want to succeed at both skills, the two 7s is a better bet.




No, it's not. Because half-max ranks is so far below max ranks at mid-levels or beyond that it's the difference between a likely success and a likely fail. With the one 13, you'll likely succeed at one task and you can try to work around the other (by using magic or other means). With the two 7s, you'll likely fail at both tasks unless the GM is throwing far-too-easy-for-your-level tasks at you just to cater to your gimped character.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.
> 
> It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.




See I see this again as some people want or need the game rules to tell them what can be done and what can't. (Or imply that much.)

Vrs 

Some people want to use the game rules to arbitrate what happens when they choose to do something in the game.

Again I find myself in the later category, and feel contrary to what you feel, that THIS is the real reason tabletop RPGs are so much better then computer games to me.

With a tabetop RPG we have a human involvement that can take a basic concept (fireball causes fire damage) and apply other ideas on the spot. Something a computer can't do very well.

If my player says, hey man, fireball does fire damage... Can I use it to set a tree on fire? I would probably think.. hrmm trees are wood... fireball does fire damage... Sure if you do enough fire damage to the tree it will light ablaze.

Games like GURPS, Rolemaster, and to an extent 3e start to move me away from this ability. By adding in specific rules for everything they start to nullify what I find great about tabletop RPGS and turning the DM into just a script monkey that needs to memorize lots of rules.

Worse yet, if I say hrmm ok  you can use fireball to light that tree ablaze... I risk annoying the player who wasted a feat that granted him the ability to start fires with fireball. 

Give me the basics of what something does, and I'll run with it. Start getting more specific, and I feel like I'm locked in by what it IS.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.




Pot. Kettle.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> There's a difference between noting that some people play the game differently and asserting that the game should be designed differently because you don't enjoy how it was designed.
> 
> The discussion in this thread has mostly been of the latter.




I understand, and I am not a fan of system trashing, since I understand the difficulties of designing a game that appeals to everyone. But the subject of the thread was what 4E has difficulty handling. I have tried to give my opinion of 4E without saying everyone should agree with it. There is nothing wrong with prefering one system over another. What I take issue with is the hostility it seems to generate.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Pot. Kettle.





Not at all. Please show me where I have been angry because someone disagreed with my position. You like the 4E skill system, and thats fine. I don't think it makes you wrong. We just disagree on preferences. And the only time I have expressed anything approaching "heat" is when you have insulted me. And that is a different thing entirely. We can disagree politely. But if you are going to call my intelligence into question because of my position, that is not acceptable.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

drothgery said:


> You do realize that you're using as your examples skills that are easily replaced by low-level magic and many magic items in D&D 3.x, right? And that if Rondo climbs up first or jumps across first and throws your character a rope, that's enough to make the task easy even for someone with no ranks, right?




Spells are not always an option. Charming the guard to get information is usually a back up plan, since people don't like having spells cast on them. 

Sure. But Rondo can't always do that. It depends on the obstacle. And you still have to make a check even if you are using rope. If he throws the rope and you tie it to two objects, you are still going to have to use the rope to climb accross. If Rondo simply holds the rope, then he better be strong if you don't make it. 





> No, it's not. Because half-max ranks is so far below max ranks at mid-levels or beyond that it's the difference between a likely success and a likely fail. With the one 13, you'll likely succeed at one task and you can try to work around the other (by using magic or other means). With the two 7s, you'll likely fail at both tasks unless the GM is throwing far-too-easy-for-your-level tasks at you just to cater to your gimped character.





It depends on what you are setting the DCs at. But even then a +7 isn't that bad compared to a +13.  A plus 13 is much better. But a +7 certainly beats a +0 if your going up against a DC 20. This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 18, 2009)

I think this thread really clearly illustrates one of the fundamental differences in philosophy between 4e and 3e:

If a tree falls in the woods, and there are no PCs around, is it difficult terrain?

In the 4th edition mindset, mechanics are a means to an end - namely, the adjucation of actions and internactions. If a game mechanic exists and isn't used for anything, then it _shouldn't_ exist. It misses the point of having mechanics. This is why Dungeon submission guidelines don't want backstory beyond what the PCs are likely to actually learn; if it doesn't appear in game play, it doesn't have a place in the rules.

In the 3rd edition mindset, mechanics are their own end; their existence justifies itself. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned putting skill points in stealth skills even though it wouldn't be enough to make them really viable at using those skills, because merely having the points in the skill said something about his character, even if he never rolled a Hide check.

This is why Profession and Craft skills aren't in 4th edition, and why they are in 3rd edition. They never get used in-game unless you're really going out of your way to do so, which justifies their removal in the 4e mindset, and means absolutely nothing in the 3e mindset.



As for the original question - does 4e limit the scope of campaigns? Yes. Any RPG system that is good at any particular kind of campaign is poorer in other kinds of campaigns, and anybody who says otherwise is fooling themselves. There's a lot of systems that can be used for any kind of game, but just because you can doesn't mean you should; GURPS can run a "kick in the door, fireball everything, stab anything that's still moving" kind of game, but it can't run it as smoothly as 4e, because 4e specializes in that kind of game.

In the case of an Eberron investigative game, 3e is your best bet, but for a somewhat nonintuitive reason. It's not because 3e is better suited to mysteries than 4e; it's because Eberron is better suited to 3e than 4e (or, at least, it is until they release a 4e Eberron campaign setting) and inquisitive games are very well suited to Eberron. Eberron was designed from the ground up to make the quirky bits of the 3rd edition rules a little more internally consistent (very much a 3e mindset concern, you'll note) and with 4e's wholesale removal of said quirky rules, Eberron loses its great mechanical design and is left with only its (still great) thematic design.

Go find a back issue of Dungeon #133; "Chimes at Midnight" is an Eberron-designed mystery, one of the best short modules I've ever played, and eventually turned into a trilogy.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.




If you're giving the guy with 7 a shot then the guy with 14 is going to find it trivial even before you throw in ability modifiers.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Not at all. Please show me where I have been angry because someone disagreed with my position. You like the 4E skill system, and thats fine. I don't think it makes you wrong. We just disagree on preferences. And the only time I have expressed anything approaching "heat" is when you have insulted me. And that is a different thing entirely. We can disagree politely. But if you are going to call my intelligence into question because of my position, that is not acceptable.




There's the thing. I haven't insulted you. I have said that you're making a mathematically unsound argument. That's it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Compare that lantern with even the lowly _light_ spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.
> 
> In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)
> 
> ...




Like I said several posts ago this is the crux of the argument. Are open-ended effects good or bad? And it really depends. In 2e, featherfall gave you the mass of a feather. This made it so you didn't take damage from falling, but also opened itself to all sorts of ridiculous abuses. In a 2e game I played in way back in the day, four PCs once rode across the country on a single horse because everyone had feather fall cast on them.

This is certainly a creative use of an open-ended spell, but the game took on a Piers Anthony Xanth-like silliness. Realistically speaking, why don't whole armies start traveling like this?

And Light is another example. Once the player's realize they can use a 1st level spell effect to blind an enemy why cast anything else? It becomes the defacto tactic from there on out. Who needs a paltry 1d4+1 magic missile when another first level spell not only makes an effective weapon it provides light too.

Animate Dead can create whole hordes of undead in 1e. Unlimited labor you don't have to feed and that can work all day and all night without rest? You can revolutionize the economy with that. So why isn't it being done already?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It depends on what you are setting the DCs at. But even then a +7 isn't that bad compared to a +13.  A plus 13 is much better. But a +7 certainly beats a +0 if your going up against a DC 20. This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.




Hmm.

One of the major troubles I have with 3e is the scaling of the mathematics. I bring this up because it's a factor with non-maximised skills. The trouble 3e faces is emphasised at the higher levels, so I'll give a few examples for 16th level characters (which is where several of my 3e campaigns finished).

Imagine a Wizard. By 16th level, his initial Intelligence of 16 has been increased to 20 by stat increases, and another +6 from a magic item. At this point, we're talking about a +8 bonus to Intelligence skills. Meanwhile, his initial 10 Strength hasn't changed.

Now, let's give him four types of skills: untrained, half-ranks, full ranks, and full ranks + skill focus. I'm ignoring magic items that further increase skills, including them in the skill focus.

Ranking the combinations from lowest to highest:
Strength, untrained: +0
Intelligence, untrained: +8
Strength, half-ranks: +9
Intelligence, half-ranks: +17
Strength, full-ranks: +19
Strength, focused: +22
Intelligence, full-ranks: +27
Intelligence, focused: +30

By this point, the disparity between the half-ranks and full-ranks have reached a point where the gap is just too big for both types of characters to participate on the same action. It's much, much worse when the ability scores are taken into account.

Yes, there's a time during earlier levels when the disparity isn't so big, but once stat-boosting items start becoming part of the standard kit, skills give 3e a lot of problems (as does a lot of the mathematics of the system).

Cheers!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

drothgery said:


> There's the thing. I haven't insulted you. I have said that you're making a mathematically unsound argument. That's it.




1) The math isn't unsound. It is campaign and expectation dependent. 

2) You have been insulting. I suggest you re-read your own posts. They are clearly meant to antagonize and insult. There is a difference between saying "that math doesn't look right to me" (which wouldn't have bothered me) and "this isn't vector calculus here". One makes the point you disagree with my numbers, which is fine. The other implies I am having trouble with simple math, and I lack the intelligence to see it.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).
> 
> In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.




To me, I read the 3E _Fireball_ spell and I see exactly what you're saying 4E does.  The 3E version seems much more clear and unambiguous, explicitly stating what the spell does - and the implication is, for me, that it does nothing more than this.

Since 4E is pretty bare-bones, the way I read it is that you can do whatever you can imagine you can do with a "globe of orange flame" that "you hurl at your enemies".

This includes blowing people off their feet with the force of the blast.

It also seems to me thta 4E is set up to work this way; allowing a Fireball to knock someone Prone is not going to break anything.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Hmm.
> 
> One of the major troubles I have with 3e is the scaling of the mathematics. I bring this up because it's a factor with non-maximised skills. The trouble 3e faces is emphasised at the higher levels, so I'll give a few examples for 16th level characters (which is where several of my 3e campaigns finished).
> 
> ...




Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the skill system in 3E was perfect. I was just saying in a typical game, diversifying is fine and can be beneficial.  Most games of 3E I played in  peaked at level 10, because after that much of the system starts to fall apart. I do agree many of the numbers (not just in skills) start to break down at much higher levels. But not when it is a difference between a rank 13 or 7. The reason it doesn't work is a that skill levels advance too much over time. What they should have done was given people lots of skills off the bat, and rigged it so the skills advanced at a much slower rate or were capped at a reasonable number (say a range of 1-10). I just don't think the solution was to scrap the ranks. Better to build a tighter ranked skill system in my view.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Nightson said:


> If you're giving the guy with 7 a shot then the guy with 14 is going to find it trivial even before you throw in ability modifiers.




Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party. It is a question of what you would rather have. Lets say you take the 13, and as a result you find one obstacle trivial, but then you are stuck with a +0 on the check for the skill you didn't take any ranks in. This is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. But I have had plenty of characters be better off taking the two +7s. So that they a fair chance of overcoming both checks.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Imagine a Wizard. By 16th level, his initial Intelligence of 16 has been increased to 20 by stat increases, and another +6 from a magic item. At this point, we're talking about a +8 bonus to Intelligence skills. Meanwhile, his initial 10 Strength hasn't changed.




For comparison, here's that same character at 1st level.  10 Strength, 16 Int, no other stat boosts:

Ranking the combinations from lowest to highest:
Strength, untrained: +0
Strength, half-ranks: +2
Intelligence, untrained: +3
Strength, full-ranks: +4
Intelligence, half-ranks: +5
Strength, focused: +7
Intelligence, full-ranks: +7
Intelligence, focused: +10



Now, just to take it to an absurd extreme, depending on how much your players like to powergame, here's something that's not necessarily uncommon at 1st level...

A halfling (bard, ranger or rogue) with a 20 dexterity.

Hide: +16 (4 ranks, +5 Dex, +4 Race, +3 Skill Focus)

Even without Skill Focus you've got a +13 to Hide, and a Halfling Rogue with a 20 Dex is not especially uncommon even at 1st level.



ProfessorPain said:


> Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party.




Such as what...  

Hide and Move Silently?  Invisibility Sphere and Silence take care of that.
Balance, Climb or Jump?  Levitation, Fly, Teleport, Spider Climb and Tenser's Floating Disk.

I can't honestly think of any other skills that fit that bill, other than Swim...  And let's be honest, any adventurer who finds themselves swimming is in for trouble, whether their skilled at it or not.

That's the trouble...  I understand what you're saying, I largely agree with the general idea of what you are saying, but in practical play for most players, it simply doesn't work that way.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the skill system in 3E was perfect. I was just saying in a typical game, diversifying is fine and can be beneficial.  Most games of 3E I played in  peaked at level 10, because after that much of the system starts to fall apart. I do agree many of the numbers (not just in skills) start to break down at much higher levels. But not when it is a difference between a rank 13 or 7. The reason it doesn't work is a that skill levels advance too much over time. What they should have done was given people lots of skills off the bat, and rigged it so the skills advanced at a much slower rate or were capped at a reasonable number (say a range of 1-10). I just don't think the solution was to scrap the ranks. Better to build a tighter ranked skill system in my view.




Is there that much a difference between giving people lots of skills and consolidating the skills? Certainly, 4e gives PCs more skills (in general; not quite true of characters that were Int-based in previous edition or Rogues, although "Thievery" covers a multitude of skills in 4e).

Doing a similar analysis of the skill bonuses for 4e...
A 16th level character in 4e is likely to have a 11 in their lesser stat (Strength) and a 22 in their primary stat (Intelligence).

The levels of skills becomes Untrained, Trained, Focused

Strength, Untrained: +8
Strength, Trained: +13
Intelligence, Untrained: +14
Strength, Focused: +16
Intelligence, Trained: +19
Intelligence, Focused: +22

Well, at least they're closer! 

There are two additions to the system which change the values around a bit:

* Jack-of-all-trades: +2 to all untrained skill checks. In effect, half ranks (insofar as how training just gives a +5).
* Backgrounds. With between a +1 and +3 to one or two skill checks, you have the effect of half-training as well.

Cheers!


----------



## Spatula (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> It depends on what you are setting the DCs at.



Yes.

If task DCs are what they are (e.g. the Balor has a +38 Spot bonus), it is suboptimal to not maximize skills.

If task DCs are set by the DM with the group's (or a particular character's, if the group is split up) capabilities in mind (e.g. you have a chance to successfully hide from the Balor regardless of your skill bonus), then it doesn't really matter _what_ you do with your skills.  Specialize, or not, the DM will set the DC so that you can succeed.  I'm not sure why you'd even bother with skill points in this case.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Compare that lantern with even the lowly _light_ spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e).



Wouldn't the 4e _light_ cantrip be the equivalent of the lowly 3e _light_ spell?  And light spoiling darkvision - wha?  There's nothing about that in the 3e spell description.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)



That's a bit extreme.  _Flaming sphere_ would light fires and cause less collateral damage in the process. 

Of course, this illustrates a problem with rules-based effects.  Some fire spells (_fireball, flaming sphere, flame blade_) have text stating that they can light combustible materials on fire.  Other fire spells do not, and so by implication, cannot.  Which is pretty silly to me, but I've heard it before.  As Scribble and LostSoul note, the enumeration of what a spell is capable of can be just as limiting (it says it does X, therefore it doesn't do anything else).


----------



## MerricB (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party. It is a question of what you would rather have. Lets say you take the 13, and as a result you find one obstacle trivial, but then you are stuck with a +0 on the check for the skill you didn't take any ranks in. This is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. But I have had plenty of characters be better off taking the two +7s. So that they a fair chance of overcoming both checks.




What happens to the characters who haven't put ranks into that skill at all?

How important is the obstacle? Must every character pass it or the group fails? In that case, surely there's an alternative method of passing it (which makes the ranks somewhat irrelevant in the first place). If it's not relevant to the success of the party, then the ranks are irrelevant as well.

Can you give some actual examples of these challenges and use of skills?

Cheers!


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Such as what...
> 
> Hide and Move Silently?  Invisibility Sphere and Silence take care of that.
> Balance, Climb or Jump?  Levitation, Fly, Teleport, Spider Climb and Tenser's Floating Disk.
> ...




Just because spells exist that can take over the function of a skill, that doesn't mean your character will have access to the spell. It is also a waste of a spell slot for the day if you do have access and spend it instead of rolling a skill check. And it isn't limited to physical skills that allow you escape dangerous situations. Again, what I am saying applies to city adventures, where groups tend to split up and investigate, or pursue personal goals. I can think of all kinds of scenarios where I may be in a tavern without the rest of the party and need to make a diplomacy check. Or where another character's success doesn't automatically give me a pass (the example I gave earlier where the Rogue gets on the King's good side but he is still sizing my guy up). 

Any skill could, it all depends on how it is being used.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> Is there that much a difference between giving people lots of skills and consolidating the skills? Certainly, 4e gives PCs more skills (in general; not quite true of characters that were Int-based in previous edition or Rogues, although "Thievery" covers a multitude of skills in 4e).




Options. It is fun to have more skills to choose from and be able to focus on specific skills rather than broad categories of skill. In my opinion 3E could have used more skills. The problem is, they need to break them into logical categories, and give out skill point pools, so you can put points into the skills that are obviously more important to survival. Consolidation makes it harder to fine tune character concepts. I may want a character who is good at some very specific skills. And the more specific the skill system, the easier that is for me to do (provided all the numbers are sound). Personally I don't want all of my specific skills wrapped up in groups. This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more generalized skill list. In D&D, the only time I really care about the skill system, is city adventures. Because those tend to be more in the style of modern genres. Which usually means using lots of skills. If you are in a dungeon hacking at something, skills really are not that important. So the distinction in a medieval fantasy game, isn't enough to make me not want to play one system or the other, just because it has a consolidated skill list. But for modern games I can't stand consolidated skill lists. I want to get into the nitty gritty with my skill selection in those kinds of games.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> What happens to the characters who haven't put ranks into that skill at all?
> 
> How important is the obstacle? Must every character pass it or the group fails? In that case, surely there's an alternative method of passing it (which makes the ranks somewhat irrelevant in the first place). If it's not relevant to the success of the party, then the ranks are irrelevant as well.
> 
> ...






I addressed this in earlier posts. The adventure should never hinge on a single skill check roll. If one bad roll means everything falls apart, then the GM is either going to have to fudge, or stop the adenture mid way through. You need to have creative consequences for failure. If you have a ravine and the party knows the guy with no ranks, isn't a good jumper,  they should seek an alternate path (and there should probably be one). If they want to risk it, they can do so. Say the characters who took the skill make their Jump Skill Check. But the last guy, who has no ranks, fails. If you are a tough GM, you have him fall to his death (which doesn't mean the party has failed, just been gimped a little). In my campaigns, I would make the failure mean further challenges before the party can move on. Maybe the guy falls down into a river and is forced to find his way back to the party. And so the group is split for some of the adventure (trust me, splitting the party up can be lots of fun-- you just want to throw encounters at the lone party member that he can handle alone). Or perhaps the party doesn't want to go on without him, so they organize an expedition into the ravine to save their pal. These are the kinds of suspensful and exciting scenes we see in movies all the time, and they are normally a product of a character failing his "skill roll". Even though failing the roll, hasn't caused the party to fail at the adventure, it has raised the stakes and is therefore relevant.  If failing a skill check means that the adventure comes to a halt, and there is not other path around, then you are always going to rig it so the players pass. In that case, the skills themselves are not even relevant. What you need to do, is make failure a possibility, but know how to keep things going and keep things interesting when the failures occur. Besides you don't want to rail road the party or have adventure bottlenecks. The whole point is to create excitement, suspsense and fun.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Options. It is fun to have more skills to choose from and be able to focus on specific skills rather than broad categories of skill. In my opinion 3E could have used more skills. The problem is, they need to break them into logical categories, and give out skill point pools, so you can put points into the skills that are obviously more important to survival. Consolidation makes it harder to fine tune character concepts. I may want a character who is good at some very specific skills. And the more specific the skill system, the easier that is for me to do (provided all the numbers are sound). Personally I don't want all of my specific skills wrapped up in groups. This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more generalized skill list. In D&D, the only time I really care about the skill system, is city adventures. Because those tend to be more in the style of modern genres. Which usually means using lots of skills. If you are in a dungeon hacking at something, skills really are not that important. So the distinction in a medieval fantasy game, isn't enough to make me not want to play one system or the other, just because it has a consolidated skill list. But for modern games I can't stand consolidated skill lists. I want to get into the nitty gritty with my skill selection in those kinds of games.




I'm going to guess your games feature A LOT of city-based, "lets-split-up" style of gaming.

I think the general argument we're having boils down to this.

"I want a PC who has some training in open locks, a bit of training in sleight of hand, and a lot of training in disable device, and no real skill in forgery."

"Meh, I want a decent score in thievery in case I need to make any of those checks. I'll take training in it."

Personally, I've found D&D at the former micro-management level to be boring and tedious. However, I can understand how some people love to grind out every last skill point, feat, and such. 

Where we've missed point is on effectiveness vs. "vanity", where the former makes senses mechanically (it makes sense for your typical 5 person party to max out a variety of different skills, with little/no overlap) the latter can sometimes be rewarding (see the ranger/psion and his stealth skills). 

There are a lot of people who are arguing the former is much better for gameplay (having a PC who has a near-certain chance of success in the party generally is sufficient coverage of said skill) based on the escalation of DCs for many skills (such as disable device, open lock, diplomacy or opposed skills) vs having a few insurance points in case that roll gets called upon (so you have a minor edge if you find yourself talking to someone while the bard is neutralized). The latter can be rewarding though for those who either believe it "fits the PC" or "wants a chance to roll a 20" on a skill check.

Neither is wrong, but I generally prefer having PC trained a selection of broad skills (as a DM) since I feel I can call on a variety of different tasks and know my PCs have a good chance at making the skill checks without worrying about vast differences in skill (-2 vs. +13) and not having proper training (sorry, knowledge: nobility in trained only). However, I don't like fiddly systems, pick 4-6 skills and lets roll.

As always YMMV.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 18, 2009)

So how did we move from a potentially cool thread about which game system is better for which kind of game style, to a thread about whose skills can beat up the other one's skills?

I mean, really, it's obvious that 3e has a better system for people who want to tweak and minutely manage their skills.  If you want your campaign to be largely skill-dependent, 3e will suit your game better than 4e - but probably a skill-based game like GURPS, HERO, or even WFRP would be a better fit.  You can argue about whether or not 3e and 4e are functionally identical for skills, or about the utility of diversifying, but this is a clear difference to me.

Of course you can use 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e to run any kind of D&D game you want.  Each does some things better than the others - systems matter, after all.  I think discussing which is better at which kind of game is potentially a very good and productive thread.

Clearly not here, though.

-O


----------



## Wik (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Compare that lantern with even the lowly _light_ spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.
> 
> In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)
> 
> ...





Said exactly my point, in a much better way.  Hats off, sirrah.  

For what it's worth, in our 4e session today, we sort of broke from the "rules-only" mindset and played things by ear.  It was definitely more interesting.  Powers are still limited (in comparison to non-combat abilities possessed by pre-4e classes), but the game experience was still fun.  



			
				lostsoul said:
			
		

> To me, I read the 3E Fireball spell and I see exactly what you're saying 4E does. The 3E version seems much more clear and unambiguous, explicitly stating what the spell does - and the implication is, for me, that it does nothing more than this.
> 
> Since 4E is pretty bare-bones, the way I read it is that you can do whatever you can imagine you can do with a "globe of orange flame" that "you hurl at your enemies".
> 
> ...




See, I thought that, too. BUT.  It doesn't work that way.  If I had an effect like Fireball knock my PCs prone, they'd flip - I was essentially taking away their move action, and not following rules.  And why would I allow them to use Fireball to knock all the bad guys prone?

Yeah, Fireball can light stuff on fire in 4e - but really, only if the GM either writes it into the terrain description, or thinks on his feet.  And Fireball is a limited spell in most editions.

Imagine, say.... Silent Image (one of my favourite spells).  In 3e, there was a LOT you could do with it.  In 4e, it's a spell that inflicts damage (in the wizards Dragon article).  Maybe it'll be a utility one of these days.  



			
				obryn said:
			
		

> So how did we move from a potentially cool thread about which game system is better for which kind of game style, to a thread about whose skills can beat up the other one's skills?




I've been thinking that, too.  It makes me sad.  

I think that thread should be made.  And make the thing flame-retardent.


----------



## Wik (Feb 18, 2009)

Alright.  A spin-off thread, re-askign the original question, has been asked here.  This thread is interesting, and let's keep it going, but I kind of want to see what sort of answers I can get if I narrow my question down a bit.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I mean, really, it's obvious that 3e has a better system for people who want to tweak and minutely manage their skills.  If you want your campaign to be largely skill-dependent, 3e will suit your game better than 4e




I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second one.

The first is obvious: you have skill points in 3e, you mostly only have training/focus in 4e.

However, to make a game skill-dependent  - which I take you mean a game where most challenges are resolved by skill use - does not have anything to do with the first. What you need there is a good skill resolution system... and the success of that in 3e is quite debatable. As we've discussed, at higher levels the numbers become quite disparate and problematic. (Indeed, they can do that at lower levels with specific application of feats and magic items).

Do the skills cover the actions your characters need to take?
Do the PCs have enough skills to face the challenges?

One of the biggest failures of specific 3e character design occurred in one of the early adventures I ran of the Mark of Heroes Eberron campaign. My good friend Sarah took the pregenerated Changeling Rogue... only to discover, a short time into the adventure, it didn't have the Disable Device skill. Of course, as she was the only "rogue", she was the only one with the possibility of even using it for trapfinding.

That's the reason I like the Thievery skill in 4e so much: the Rogue always has the skill to carry out the tasks most associated with the class.

But 4e does go further than that: characters are more skilled than in 3e; and that is a key point for making it a much better system for me for skill-based challenges.

Cheers!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Sure. But we are talking about skill checks where one guy can't get a success for the entire party. It is a question of what you would rather have. Lets say you take the 13, and as a result you find one obstacle trivial, but then you are stuck with a +0 on the check for the skill you didn't take any ranks in. This is fine, there isn't anything wrong with it. But I have had plenty of characters be better off taking the two +7s. So that they a fair chance of overcoming both checks.




It really depends what you set the DCs at.  As someone else mentioned, if you use opposed checks against any monster with a CR close to theirs, they are all going to fail except for the one who has maxed out ranks.

If you set the DC to 20, then it is fine having +7.  But it's going to be extremely easy for the 11th level guy with a +5 modifier in the stat.  So, the question is, are you going to plan around the fact that the guy with the high modifier will be there?

I think this depends heavily on how often the group splits up.  Mine never does.  I've been playing Living Greyhawk in 3.5e and Living Forgotten Realms in 4e.  I've played in 8 or 9 different cities now with strangers from various locations.  I've gotten a good cross section of playstyles and learned things I like and don't like about the way other people play.  However, one constant remains, and that's that NO group I've ever played with splits up.  Even in city adventures.  We work together.  The person with the +27 Diplomacy is always in the group and is always the one making the check.  Anyone who doesn't work WITH the party tends to be berated with not being a team player.  The feeling is "we are all here to play the game together, we all want to accomplish our goal, the point of the game is for us all to contribute our individual skills to the cause".  This seems to be the major difference between how I think of the situation and how you do.

There's a number of reasons we don't ever split up, most of which I made in a previous post(mostly, it involves not wanting to sit around and watch other people play for 1-2 hours before the DM gets back to you).



ProfessorPain said:


> I have not just made the assertion, I have built a case for my position. And I have managed to do it without being insulting. You disagree, and maybe in your games the spread doesn't work, because you rely more heavily on team work.




I don't believe you built the case that half ranks are worthwhile.  You made the case that half ranks are worthwhile in a small subset of circumstances.

For instance, is it worthwhile to have +7 to your skill check in these situations:

1) The DC of the check is 28 or higher.

2) It doesn't matter who uses the skill, your entire party is together, someone in the group has +30, and he is willing to use the skill.

3) Someone has a spell that allows the entire group to bypass the check and there is no need to use the spell for anything else in a day(for instance, Mass Fly to avoid jumping over the pit and there is no need to fly for the rest of the day)

4) The DM gives you the benefits of succeeding even if you fail.

Mathematically, it just doesn't matter at all in these situations.  It matters when:

1) The highest skill check character is unavailable(or something prevents him from using his skill), the DC is lower than 28, and no one has a spell to bypass the skill check.

To me, this seems a small subset of "times a skill check will be made in all styles of D&D game".  A very, very small subset.  It may work in your game, but understand that your game appears to work very different from the average game, from what I've heard.

On the other hand, even when the biggest difference between skill checks happens in 4e, there's still a minor chance to succeed.  For instance, if you start with a 8 the stat for a skill and never increase it or train in the skill, then at level 30, you have +15 to the roll.  If someone starts with a 20 in the stat and increases it every chance they get(including taking Demigod as their Epic Destiny for another +2) and train in the skill, and have skill focus, they have +33.  If the DC is 35, you still have a chance of succeeding and the expert still has a chance to fail.  The DM can set that as a DC and know that there is a reason to roll the die because the party MIGHT fail.  And everyone should roll the die because they have a chance of contributing.  It also still lets the person who is good at the skill shine.

And this is in the most extreme case.  Most of the time, the numbers will be closer together than that.  If no one has a stat quite that maxed out and no one took skill focus, the difference should be closer to 10.  When the DC is 35 and the lowest is +16 and the highest is +26, there is a real sense of "I can still help out the group here.  I still have a 10% chance."


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It really depends what you set the DCs at.  As someone else mentioned, if yOn the other hand, even when the biggest difference between skill checks happens in 4e, there's still a minor chance to succeed.  For instance, if you start with a 8 the stat for a skill and never increase it or train in the skill, then at level 30, you have +15 to the roll.  If someone starts with a 20 in the stat and increases it every chance they get(including taking Demigod as their Epic Destiny for another +2) and train in the skill, and have skill focus, they have +33.  If the DC is 35, you still have a chance of succeeding and the expert still has a chance to fail.  The DM can set that as a DC and know that there is a reason to roll the die because the party MIGHT fail.  And everyone should roll the die because they have a chance of contributing.  It also still lets the person who is good at the skill shine.
> 
> And this is in the most extreme case.  Most of the time, the numbers will be closer together than that.  If no one has a stat quite that maxed out and no one took skill focus, the difference should be closer to 10.  When the DC is 35 and the lowest is +16 and the highest is +26, there is a real sense of "I can still help out the group here.  I still have a 10% chance."



Nitpick: magic items can boost skill checks.  At the high levels, you've probably picked up something to boost your prime skills.  And of course, skill boosting items are another method of customizing your exact skill rank level in 4e.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> The problem is, they need to break them into logical categories, and give out skill point pools...
> 
> ...Personally I don't want all of my specific skills wrapped up in groups. This is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more generalized skill list.




I lawl'd.

But in all seriousness, if I'm understanding your skills wishlist correctly, you probably want to look into GURPS.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Not everyone plays the game like you.



Well obviously not. Did I claim that?


ProfessorPain said:


> I never said it was a necessity. I just said someone released it. My guess is it didn't do terribly well. But I haven't checked any reviews or numbers.
> 
> Numbers don't really matter though. If a few gamers enjoy it, that is their right. Why does it matter so much that others might take a different track than you? If they find an aspect of the game interesting and want to explore it more, more power to them.
> 
> I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.




I couldn't care less how other people play the game, at least as long is is so few that WOtC keeps making a D&D that I like. My point was however simply that just because something has been released doesn't mean 1) that it covers an aspect of the game missing 2) that it is an improvement 3) that it is any good. WotC, unlike most other RPG companies, design their game so that it appeals to millions, not hundreds or thousands. That means it is very hard to make a game that is perfect for every one of those millions.

Do you honestly believe WotC should include rules that only a few hundreds (lets just say a vast minority) out of millions will use?


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think this depends heavily on how often the group splits up.  Mine never does.  I've been playing Living Greyhawk in 3.5e and Living Forgotten Realms in 4e.  I've played in 8 or 9 different cities now with strangers from various locations.  I've gotten a good cross section of playstyles and learned things I like and don't like about the way other people play.  However, one constant remains, and that's that NO group I've ever played with splits up.  Even in city adventures.  We work together.  The person with the +27 Diplomacy is always in the group and is always the one making the check.  Anyone who doesn't work WITH the party tends to be berated with not being a team player.  The feeling is "we are all here to play the game together, we all want to accomplish our goal, the point of the game is for us all to contribute our individual skills to the cause".  This seems to be the major difference between how I think of the situation and how you do.




This has almost never been the mood in the games I have played in. Typically our players want a more cinematic style of play, and don't mind cut scenes (it really isn't boring if you know how to manage them). You are still working toward the same goal, but when it makes sense, you split up to pursue different leads. Again, if you are doing a city adventure that is really just a cleverly disguised dungeon crawl, this probably wont work. But for most city adventures I have played in (and I have played in at least ten gaming groups for extended periods), splitting up on city adventures was the norm. 


> There's a number of reasons we don't ever split up, most of which I made in a previous post(mostly, it involves not wanting to sit around and watch other people play for 1-2 hours before the DM gets back to you).




This is not how you run a game where the party has split (remember they are touching base and pairing and grouping as the adventure unfolds). You can't let anyone sit there doing nothing for more than 10-15 minutes. Otherwise, people get bored. What is great about cut scenes is you can shift to the other scene just as this start taking an interesting turn. Think of any great mini series or movie. The groups split up all the time, and the shift in point of view keeps things interesting. 



> I don't believe you built the case that half ranks are worthwhile.  You made the case that half ranks are worthwhile in a small subset of circumstances.




But I established that those circumstances were the norm in my game. 



> For instance, is it worthwhile to have +7 to your skill check in these situations:
> 
> 1) The DC of the check is 28 or higher.
> 
> ...




1) No. But that seems like a high DC for a party whose cross class skills are maxed at 7.  But a +7 still has value when the DC is 20. 

2) Sure. But he can't jump across the chasm for your, or down into the pit for you. Some skills you will have to make. And in a skill heavy game, it is still likely you will need to make your own check. This depends on what the obstacle is. Just having someone there willing to make a check on the party's behalf, doesn't mean he is always able to do so. 

3) If someone has a spell that can do that, then the skill is worthless in that situation no matter how many skill ranks you took. 

4) I never do that. If someone fails, they fail. As I pointed out, this doesn't mean the party fails the adventures. A failed skill check should just introduce a complication to the plot. 


> Mathematically, it just doesn't matter at all in these situations.  It matters when:
> 
> 1) The highest skill check character is unavailable(or something prevents him from using his skill), the DC is lower than 28, and no one has a spell to bypass the skill check.




DCs are frequently lower than 28. 


> To me, this seems a small subset of "times a skill check will be made in all styles of D&D game".  A very, very small subset.  It may work in your game, but understand that your game appears to work very different from the average game, from what I've heard.




I have been playing for over fifteen years and in a number of different groups. It is the style have seen a lot of. 


> On the other hand, even when the biggest difference between skill checks happens in 4e, there's still a minor chance to succeed.  For instance, if you start with a 8 the stat for a skill and never increase it or train in the skill, then at level 30, you have +15 to the roll.  If someone starts with a 20 in the stat and increases it every chance they get(including taking Demigod as their Epic Destiny for another +2) and train in the skill, and have skill focus, they have +33.  If the DC is 35, you still have a chance of succeeding and the expert still has a chance to fail.  The DM can set that as a DC and know that there is a reason to roll the die because the party MIGHT fail.  And everyone should roll the die because they have a chance of contributing.  It also still lets the person who is good at the skill shine.




Again. My issue with the 4E skill system isn't the numbers, which I agree work fine. It is the lack of ranks, the consolidation and the fact that it makes characters pretty similar when it comes to skills. A character who doesn't take any ranks in something, should fail at it most of the time in my view.  




> And this is in the most extreme case.  Most of the time, the numbers will be closer together than that.  If no one has a stat quite that maxed out and no one took skill focus, the difference should be closer to 10.  When the DC is 35 and the lowest is +16 and the highest is +26, there is a real sense of "I can still help out the group here.  I still have a 10% chance."




I don't really have a problem with skill disparity in a party.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Well obviously not. Did I claim that?
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less how other people play the game, at least as long is is so few that WOtC keeps making a D&D that I like. My point was however simply that just because something has been released doesn't mean 1) that it covers an aspect of the game missing 2) that it is an improvement 3) that it is any good. WotC, unlike most other RPG companies, design their game so that it appeals to millions, not hundreds or thousands. That means it is very hard to make a game that is perfect for every one of those millions.
> ...




1) Every game has aspects missing to some players. For every player who says this part rocks, there is a player who wants less of it and more of something else. 

2) This is entirely subjective. If the people who buy the supplement see it as an improvement, then for them it is. 

3) This is also subjective.

I think most game companies try to make games that will appeal to millions, but it is a difficult industry to achieve wide success in. Wizards has lots of money to spend on market research (which is very expensive), has a top notch design team, has the D&D name brand recognition, and has the spectacular success of 3E to build on. Most companies don't have these resources. But there are a number of games out there by other companies that lots of people are excited about. I think wizards has done a great job, and I hope they stay succesful, because it helps the hobby overall. I just am not a fan of the new skill system. But I like skill based games. And was hoping 4E would go even more in that direction. 

I don't think wizards should do something just because I want to see. But I do like to give my opinion. I think there is more interest in a robust skill system than lots of people seem to think. And I think that when 4E was designed, they paid more attention to the critics of 3E, than to the people who loved 3E, which is why there is such a split. That said, they did what they set out to do. They definitely won over the people that had problems with or reservations about 3E. And they even converted some of the die hard 3E people. At the end of the day, there are loads of different games out there, and it is always better if you play the one that suits your tastes. But it is also good to stretch and play a system that you are not familiar with or that has elements you don't like.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 1) Every game has aspects missing to some players. For every player who says this part rocks, there is a player who wants less of it and more of something else.



 Difference is when 1,000,000 players say this rocks, and 500 says it sucks..



> 2) This is entirely subjective. If the people who buy the supplement see it as an improvement, then for them it is.



Obviously, but that doesn't make it an improvement for the majority of those who are playing the game. Which is what you have to design for, if you want to sell stuff.


> 3) This is also subjective.



If the majority thinks it is, then it probably is.



> I think most game companies try to make games that will appeal to millions, but it is a difficult industry to achieve wide success in. Wizards has lots of money to spend on market research (which is very expensive), has a top notch design team, has the D&D name brand recognition, and has the spectacular success of 3E to build on. Most companies don't have these resources. But there are a number of games out there by other companies that lots of people are excited about. I think wizards has done a great job, and I hope they stay successful, because it helps the hobby overall. I just am not a fan of the new skill system. But I like skill based games. And was hoping 4E would go even more in that direction.
> 
> I don't think wizards should do something just because I want to see. But I do like to give my opinion. I think there is more interest in a robust skill system than lots of people seem to think. And I think that when 4E was designed, they paid more attention to the critics of 3E, than to the people who loved 3E, which is why there is such a split. That said, they did what they set out to do. They definitely won over the people that had problems with or reservations about 3E. And they even converted some of the die hard 3E people. At the end of the day, there are loads of different games out there, and it is always better if you play the one that suits your tastes. But it is also good to stretch and play a system that you are not familiar with or that has elements you don't like.



 But 4e has a very robust and popular skill system. Far better than anything we have previously had for D&D. The fact that you do not like it because it isn't 3e's skill system doesn't make it bad or any less robust. It simply shows that your taste run opposite that of the vast majority, since, if you look at the many threads here on ENworld, the 4e skill system is one of those things that people usually like - if they have an issue with 4e, it's not because of the skill system. Obviously some do, but by all anecdotal evidence, those are in the minority.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> This has almost never been the mood in the games I have played in. Typically our players want a more cinematic style of play, and don't mind cut scenes (it really isn't boring if you know how to manage them). You are still working toward the same goal, but when it makes sense, you split up to pursue different leads. Again, if you are doing a city adventure that is really just a cleverly disguised dungeon crawl, this probably wont work. But for most city adventures I have played in (and I have played in at least ten gaming groups for extended periods), splitting up on city adventures was the norm.



Yeah, I got the impression this was the case for your group.  Our groups have split up when it made sense to do so, but that was very rare.  I'm guessing it is very rare for your group to run into fights in a city, then.

I wouldn't classify our city adventures as a cleverly disguised dungeon crawl.  I would classify them as D&D adventures.  Even though they take place in a city, there is still 2-4 combat encounters in a 5 hour long session.  I purposefully plan things like "After the PCs ask the innkeeper about the cultists, he'll get word to them the next chance he gets.  In an effort to stop their questions, the cultists send assassins to kill the party.  They attack about 30 minutes after they leave the inn" into the adventure in order to add some excitement and curveballs to the investigation.  As well, it gives the players an excuse to use all those cool combat powers they have(and players just love to use).

When I write this in advance and the party decides to send JUST the Bard to go talk to the innkeeper, then I need to run a combat(designed to challenge the whole party) for just a Bard, likely killing him.  It also takes nearly an hour to finish the battle.  It only happens once before all the players tend to learn their lesson: Don't split up the party.  Either that or they just send the fighter to talk to the innkeeper and he keeps failing all his Diplomacy checks and gets nothing, only to walk back to the party and ask the Bard to go try asking the questions, realizing he got nowhere.

We'll split up if there is a REALLY good reason to.  But the danger of splitting up often outweighs any reason we might have.  If told "You have 15 minutes to collect these 6 items from all corners of the city"...well, sure, we'll split up.  If it's something like "We need to solve this murder by tomorrow", we just have confidence that we can better solve it as a group than alone.



ProfessorPain said:


> This is not how you run a game where the party has split (remember they are touching base and pairing and grouping as the adventure unfolds). You can't let anyone sit there doing nothing for more than 10-15 minutes. Otherwise, people get bored. What is great about cut scenes is you can shift to the other scene just as this start taking an interesting turn. Think of any great mini series or movie. The groups split up all the time, and the shift in point of view keeps things interesting.




I certainly try to do that whenever a split party happens(which is rare, but it still does).  It's just that sometimes you get really involved in a conversation you are having between an NPC and a PC and it goes on for 20 minutes or 30 minutes without even noticing.  Sometimes a battle happens because of choices the PCs make, even if you aren't planning on it.  Plus, most of the people I've played with just have a short attention span.  Even 5 minutes of the game not being about them and they start to wander away from the table or talk over me about out of game stuff.



ProfessorPain said:


> 1) No. But that seems like a high DC for a party whose cross class skills are maxed at 7.  But a +7 still has value when the DC is 20.



True.  But here's the situation.  You want there to be a negotiation between the King and the players.  They will all be summoned by him and asked into his antechambers where they have the chance to ask him for help.  He doesn't care which one of them he negotiates with, as far as he is concerned whichever one they claim is their leader can speak for them.

You want them to have a chance to succeed, but not guarantee it(otherwise, you don't need to make a skill check, you could just tell them the King agrees).  You'll give them +2 or -2 based on their role playing.  The party is 16th level and has a Half-Elf Bard with +33 to Diplomacy.  It also has a Druid with half ranks in Diplomacy for a total of +11.  What do you set the DC at?

It has to be above 34 for there to be any chance of failure.  But if the Half-Elf doesn't talk to the King for some reason or another(he doesn't show up for the session, he tells the rest of the group he doesn't feel like going, etc) then the Druid has no chance of success unless you lower the DC on the fly in order to make it easier.

To make the scenario even harder, as a secondary exercise, assume you are writing the adventure for a group that doesn't even have characters yet or you will have no idea what those characters are(you are writing a published adventure or writing one in preparation of finding players).  You only know that they will be making 16th level characters from the PHB.  What DC do you set the Diplomacy check at so that the "average" group only has a 25% chance of success?  Or do you simply say that they need to get the DC 30 listed in the PHB to take an Indifferent person to Helpful?  Of course, a DC 30 check makes it near impossible for the group whose highest Diplomacy is only half ranks like the above.



ProfessorPain said:


> 2) Sure. But he can't jump across the chasm for your, or down into the pit for you. Some skills you will have to make. And in a skill heavy game, it is still likely you will need to make your own check. This depends on what the obstacle is. Just having someone there willing to make a check on the party's behalf, doesn't mean he is always able to do so.



True.  This does contain some skill checks where less ranks are useful.  Especially if your goal is just to hurt those who fail slightly.  Someone falls into a pit and take 2d6 damage only to walk across and have someone lower a rope to him on the other side.  But there are so many different ways for a party to even avoid making this check after 10th level that it likely will never happen.

In the pit situation, it normally involves one teleport-like spell or fly like spell.  Or, when all else fails, jump across, throw a rope back to the other side, have them climb the rope across.  But, if any of those things are done, then the half-ranks in jump were not helpful.



ProfessorPain said:


> 3) If someone has a spell that can do that, then the skill is worthless in that situation no matter how many skill ranks you took.



Yep, and this is one of my big beefs about the supposedly extensive non-combat features of 3e.  No matter how many skill ranks you have, you are outmatched by one spell, making skill ranks near useless after a certain level.



ProfessorPain said:


> 4) I never do that. If someone fails, they fail. As I pointed out, this doesn't mean the party fails the adventures. A failed skill check should just introduce a complication to the plot.



Me neither.  As I said before, most of the time failed skill checks just give you less information or less help.  Don't make the search check, don't find the dust on the ground or the bits of decaying flesh near the body.  Don't make the diplomacy check, don't get the beggar's help.  Don't make the Spellcraft check, don't know that the powder on the ground is a necromantic spell component.  Don't make the Sense Motive check, don't know that the shop keeper is lying.  But good luck figuring out that a zombie walked through the back door and killed the man and that he was hired by a shopkeeper to kill him due to a disagreement they had over money if you fail ALL the checks.

No ONE check fails adventures.  However, lots of them in a row can.  After a certain number of complications, you just have to fail.  And sometimes one check and still be the difference between something really good and something really bad.  As an example, there was on



ProfessorPain said:


> DCs are frequently lower than 28.



They can be.  Depends on what you are trying to do.  Once you are level 16+, you should assume that any group can make any DC 20 check without rolling and have a reasonable chance of passing most DC 30 checks.  If they can't, than they won't be able to finish most published adventures/Living Greyhawk adventures.  LG adventures frequently had DC 20+Average Party Level checks in them.  Which means DC 36 at 16th level.  The EASY ones were 10+APL, and those would have been 26.  Any group with entirely half rank skills would start failing ALL adventures



ProfessorPain said:


> I have been playing for over fifteen years and in a number of different groups. It is the style have seen a lot of.



I've run into this playstyle a couple of times as well.  But it isn't nearly as common as you think.  The DM I knew who used to run games this way would get complaints from his players on a regular basis that all their cool combat powers were useless and the game was no fun for them.  Mostly he told them to stop complaining about his game and leave if they didn't like it.  That pretty much shut them up...at least, while he was around.



ProfessorPain said:


> Again. My issue with the 4E skill system isn't the numbers, which I agree work fine. It is the lack of ranks, the consolidation and the fact that it makes characters pretty similar when it comes to skills. A character who doesn't take any ranks in something, should fail at it most of the time in my view.



I think this view is mostly due to the numbers being different.  Most people don't realize that a +1 vs a +9 in a skill is a fairly huge difference.  If you set the DCs at 20 in order to give the +9 guy a 50% chance of success, then the +1 only has a 10% chance of success.  He DOES fail most of the time, even though he got the +1 for being level 2.  Since DCs in 4e should scale with level, at level 30, he should still only have a 10% of succeeding.  He'll fail most of the time.

I think this is still a fairly large difference in characters.  But the difference is supposed to be in WHAT people do, not how good they are at it.  As a Wizard, I'm the one who has studied magic and knows about it.  As a Rogue, you are good at sneaking around and opening locks.  As a Fighter, you are tough and strong.  We are all good at what we do.  It allows us to avoid stepping on each other's toes(much).

I know one of the most annoying moments for me when playing D&D was when my 15th level Cleric who put max ranks in Diplomacy(my highest skill) for +20 was forced to play second fiddle to the Bard/Marshal with the +35.  My character is supposed to be charismatic, and here is this guy who is SO charismatic that I might as well not bother.  My non-combat role(the guy who talks to people nicely) was completely usurped by someone who just was better at my role than I was.  This was during a Living Greyhawk adventure, so luckily, I didn't have to play with him again.  But during that 5 hour long game, I felt like I might as well not be at the table, because I didn't have any usefulness to the group except when combat started.



ProfessorPain said:


> I don't really have a problem with skill disparity in a party.



You should let me play.  I can create one pretty quickly.    *grin*

Nothing makes people feel better when they say, "I try to convince him to tell us what we need to know, I get 15 on my Diplomacy check" and someone else in the group says, "15?  That's pretty good.  That's what I'd get if I rolled a 1.....and had -15 to my roll.  Maybe you should just let me talk to him and you can go back to doing what you do best...which is apparently nothing, based on the skill ranks listed on your character sheet."

And we've had this conversation in our group before.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 1) The math isn't unsound. It is campaign and expectation dependent.
> 
> 2) You have been insulting. I suggest you re-read your own posts. They are clearly meant to antagonize and insult. There is a difference between saying "that math doesn't look right to me" (which wouldn't have bothered me) and "this isn't vector calculus here". One makes the point you disagree with my numbers, which is fine. The other implies I am having trouble with simple math, and I lack the intelligence to see it.




If you think you have been insulted, this would be an offense against the board rules. Instead of dwelling on it and side-tracking the discussion, report the offending post to the mods. They can then handle the matter without this matter getting expanded on.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 18, 2009)

Wik said:


> See, I thought that, too. BUT.  It doesn't work that way.  If I had an effect like Fireball knock my PCs prone, they'd flip - I was essentially taking away their move action, and not following rules.  And why would I allow them to use Fireball to knock all the bad guys prone?




Well, it's different for monsters, though if you give them "open-ended" powers you could probably use them in different ways.  There are rules for what the attack bonus is and how much damage the attack does; if your NPC's Fireball normally just does 3d6+4 in a Burst 2, changing it so that it knocks them prone should reduce the damage to (checking books) 1d8+5.

Though, like I said, it's different for monsters.

Why would you allow Fireball to knock bad guys prone?  Because it doesn't break the game, and it might make it more fun, opening up avenues for creativity from the players that's lacking otherwise.  

It's basically a stunt, so just change the 3d6+Int mod damage to 1d6+Int mod damage and Prone.  (That is, you switch to a low-damage Normal Expression because it carries significant control and targets multiple opponents.)



Wik said:


> Yeah, Fireball can light stuff on fire in 4e - but really, only if the GM either writes it into the terrain description, or thinks on his feet.  And Fireball is a limited spell in most editions.




"DM, I want to use my Fireburst to blow away the rickety balcony the bad guys are standing on."

Which happened in a game of mine.  I hadn't planned on it; it was the player who did this.  It worked wonders for them in the encounter.

I've also had PCs burn webs, catching a ghoul that was in them for some extra fire damage.



Wik said:


> Imagine, say.... Silent Image (one of my favourite spells).  In 3e, there was a LOT you could do with it.  In 4e, it's a spell that inflicts damage (in the wizards Dragon article).  Maybe it'll be a utility one of these days.




Silent Image is covered by the _Prestidigitation_ cantrip.  "Produce out of nothingness a small item or image that exists until the end of your next turn."  You can do it every round so I don't see why you can't "keep it up" from round-to-round.

Now here's why I think it's easier to ad-lib creative stuff with 4E.  The math seems to work well, so that I can trust it to resolve creative actions without having to worry about breaking the game.  If a PC wants to do something with his action, I can use the monster's defenses as the DC.  If he wants to use Mage Hand to disarm an enemy, I can have him roll Int vs. Fort.  Or if he wants to shove an enemy back a square or something.

I would love to have more guidelines on it - how much damage should I trade for a condition, and does that change at different levels? - but I think I have a pretty good instinctive feel for what's balanced and what's not, using the damage guidelines and what's possible with other actions as a baseline.  (If Thunderwave pushes bad guys and deals damage, dealing no damage but allowing a slide at range 5 seems like a fair trade.  Not always what you want to do, but in some situations a good choice.)


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 18, 2009)

drothgery said:


> I give up. Given the play style of ever game I've ever played in, every published adventure I've ever read, and what seems to be the experience of the vast majority of players, it clearly makes much more sense to maximize skills. You may be playing in a game where that's not the case, but the existence of cross-class skills and the low number of skill points that most classes have make it pretty clear that's certainly not the expectation of the designers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Drothgery - tone it down, or leave the thread.  Disagreeing is fine, but your tone has been over the top - such as in this post.
-Kid Charlemagne, ENWorld Mod
*


----------



## Obryn (Feb 18, 2009)

MerricB said:


> I don't see how you get from the first sentence to the second one.
> 
> The first is obvious: you have skill points in 3e, you mostly only have training/focus in 4e.
> 
> ...



That's not really what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about a game style wherein characters are mostly defined by their skills rather than their classes.  Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of the 4e skill system - but if you are running a game where skills are the primary focus of _character differentiation_, players can more easily tweak a 3e character.

How characters are differentiated is a major contributor to gameplay.  For some kinds of games, it's important that someone have access to most any skill.  For others, it's more important to have specialized characters who don't always have the perfect tool for the job.  And, for some campaign styles, this is important.

As a non-D&D example, I'm running Call of Cthulhu d20 right now.  I would never consider using the 4e skill system for it.  The 4e system does an awesome job for my group when we're playing D&D; in a game like CoC d20, skills are really all you have.

It's also important for some campaign styles that skills be more granular.  That is, instead of a skill like "Science" or whatnot, it would help to have "Biology," "Physics," "Chemistry" and so on.

That's what I'm talking about when I'm referring to a skill-based campaign.  No, I don't think it's the default way of playing D&D.  It is, however, _a_ way of playing D&D.  Are there better systems out there for a skill-based campaign?  Personally, I think so, but if you want to play one of the D&D's, 3e offers a degree of character customization that 4e presently does not.

I agree 100% that the math can get wacky at high levels for 3e skills - high level math is a problem endemic to the entire system.  And yes, skill challenges are an excellent framework for non-combat encounters.

Both ways of approaching skills have their perks and their problems.  It's silly to speak in general terms about which one is better.  I think, though, that there's an interesting conversation to be had about which system is better for which style of gameplay.

-O


----------



## Lizard (Feb 18, 2009)

There's really two debates here: Whether skill granularity is good and whether 3e had balanced DCs for skill checks. I think it's worth noting, though, that 4e also has some balance issues with skill checks, though tilting the other way -- the DCs are set so that every shmuck has a chance, and thus, the specialists don't even need to roll.

At first level, the difference between an expert and a non-expert can be immense: +5 trained, +3 focus, +1 from background (if being used), +4 from stat (minimum +2), and +2 from race (often). This can be a +15 bonus at first level, enough to make a "hard" skill check (using errata'ed DCs) 100% of the time. An untrained person with an average attribute is at +0. Since skill bonus magic items are still pretty common, this difference will only grow with level, even assuming no more feats which can raise skill checks (but we now have Tribal feats for an additional +2 to +5, kicking the bonus up even more). In order to keep the "Everyone gets to play!" feature, the DCs have to be low enough that 1/2 level alone has around a 25% chance of success. 

Maybe this is deliberate design, 4e's version of "system mastery" -- the munchkin who pours everything into being an expert at a skill will not gain a meaningful mechanical advantage since the DCs are scaled back; he'd be just as well off taking fewer skill bonus feats and tricks since, if a DC is 25, the difference between a +26 bonus and a +30 bonus is meaningless, success is success.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 18, 2009)

Wik said:


> Yeah, Fireball can light stuff on fire in 4e - but really, only if the GM either writes it into the terrain description, or thinks on his feet.  And Fireball is a limited spell in most editions.




Now, I don't have my books with me, but isn't there a passage in the 4E DMG that reads (paraphrasing) something like, "Some materials are especially vulnerable to certain types of damage (like fire vs. paper), while others are virtually immune (like fist vs. stone wall).  You are the DM, so you can use a little common sense and decide."

In other words, if you want a fire ball to ignite paper and cloth and dry leaves and other combustibles, go right ahead.  If you don't want PCs to carve their way through a stone wall with a magical dagger, then they can't.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> In other words, if you want a fire ball to ignite paper and cloth and dry leaves and other combustibles, go right ahead.




How much fire damage can these items take before they are useless? How resistant to it are they? Does this burning cause other things in the room to set on fire? Do things that aren't immediately combustible take fire damage, and if so, how much? Do they continue to burn, and if so, how long?

And I'm not saying that 3e necessarily had the answers to all these questions, either, though it did to some.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> How much fire damage can these items take before they are useless? How resistant to it are they? Does this burning cause other things in the room to set on fire? Do things that aren't immediately combustible take fire damage, and if so, how much? Do they continue to burn, and if so, how long?
> 
> And I'm not saying that 3e necessarily had the answers to all these questions, either, though it did to some.




Since the DM is already adjudicating that the fire damage effect is going to have a "rider" then he can as easily adjudicate the rest of those questions.

Damage per item? 1d6 for paper, 1d4 for dry leaves, 1d8 for cloth.
How resistant? Not resistant at all.
Immediately combustible? No
Continue to burn? Yes
How long?  Until the end of the next turn

It took me longer to type those answers than to come up with them on the fly.  It would also take longer to look that information up in a manual if there was a "rule" for everything, which was one of the "problems" with the previous design paradigm.  I'm really glad 4e's design did away with that idea.  That is what DM empowerment is about.  The majority of DMs don't need a rule for every situation, that is why the DMG states to use your own common sense.  Being able to adjudicate those "corner" cases is what a Pen & Paper RPG really excels at.


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> How much fire damage can these items take before they are useless? How resistant to it are they? Does this burning cause other things in the room to set on fire? Do things that aren't immediately combustible take fire damage, and if so, how much? Do they continue to burn, and if so, how long?




[superhero voice]This sounds like a job for.....DM MAN[/superhero voice]

Seriously, this sounds like something that the DM is perfectly capable of adjudicating without further guidelines.  If I light a book, pile of leaves, or oil soaked rag, I could come up with decent rulings on what happens next without rules in the book.  In fact, if there were rules in the book, overall I'd see that as a bad thing, because now I need to memorize the rules or lug the book around to games, check it to see if it has rulings on this, etc.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> 1. How much fire damage can these items take before they are useless?
> 2. How resistant to it are they?
> 3. Does this burning cause other things in the room to set on fire?
> 4. Do things that aren't immediately combustible take fire damage, and if so, how much?
> 5. Do they continue to burn, and if so, how long?




1. Int vs. DC attack roll.  Hit = useless.
2. No special resistance at all; it's covered by the DC.
3. It does if the player wants it to, or if I as DM specifically made that a feature of the terrain.  How does he set things on fire?  Int vs. DC attack roll.
4. Same answer as above.  The DC might be higher to melt stone than it is to burn leaves, but if you're a more powerful wizard you can melt that stone.
5. Until the end of the encounter.  And they do 5 damage per tier of the character who created the effect if you begin your turn in that square or enter that square.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

D'karr said:


> It took me longer to type those answers than to come up with them on the fly.




Fire is an easy one. There are certainly more difficult things to adjudicate, and adjudications take time if you want to (1) try to make sure that your adjudication is reasonable and (2) want to keep track of your adjudications so that the same effects (lighting things on fire with fireball) has roughly the same effect in roughly the same sorts of situations.



> It would also take longer to look that information up in a manual if there was a "rule" for everything, which was one of the "problems" with the previous design paradigm.




No, you're right, having a rule specifically pointing out how much fire damage objects take when lit on fire with fireball would be ridiculous.

However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

malraux said:
			
		

> [superhero voice]This sounds like a job for.....DM MAN[/superhero voice]




I, as a DM, am interested in having an internally-consistent setting, which is achieved - at least partially - by having a consistent ruleset. Requiring adjudications from me opens room for that internal consistency to be put into jeopardy, because I may not always be consistent in my rulings or decisions.


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> No, you're right, having a rule specifically pointing out how much fire damage objects take when lit on fire with fireball would be ridiculous.
> 
> However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.




The issue is that having to look up rules can greatly slow down the game.  That's the trade off for slightly increased consistency.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.




Once again I point to the opinion that it is generally more time consuming to stop the game in mid-stream while a "rule" is researched, than to adjudicate it on the fly.

Will some adjudications be "more difficult"?  Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going.  Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO.  Just make a ruling and move on.

In 3e there was nothing more frustrating to me, than to spend 10-15 minutes waiting for a DM to go figure out how X or Y interacted.  Or for a player to argue the point and then have to spend time while he researched his point.  I'm really glad that nonsense is over.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

malraux said:


> The issue is that having to look up rules can greatly slow down the game.  That's the trade off for slightly increased consistency.




I am more than willing to spend a few extra moments of time to gain some amount of consistency.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

D'karr said:


> Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going.  Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO.  Just make a ruling and move on.




You and I clearly play the game for different reasons.

If the Green Fungus Acid is something the DM has deemed important enough to have it affect the characters, then it is something that is important enough to warrant time to determine its effects. Whether it is part of "the action" or not is irrelevant; it is part of the world, and has such-and-such effects, and the characters should - as members of that world - be affected by the GFA.

It is also preferable that these effects remain consistent, or have a logical reason for varying over time (and "it's magic" is a valid logical reason in a setting with magic, though a weak one).


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 18, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> 1) Every game has aspects missing to some players. For every player who says this part rocks, there is a player who wants less of it and more of something else.






Jack99 said:


> But 4e has a very robust and popular skill system. Far better than anything we have previously had for D&D. The fact that you do not like it because it isn't 3e's skill system doesn't make it bad or any less robust. It simply shows that your taste run opposite that of the vast majority, since, if you look at the many threads here on ENworld, the 4e skill system is one of those things that people usually like - if they have an issue with 4e, it's not because of the skill system. Obviously some do, but by all anecdotal evidence, those are in the minority.






Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've run into this playstyle a couple of times as well.  But it isn't nearly as common as you think.




Is it possible for one of the three of you to offer some industry wide statistics that back up these claims? More so than "The impression I get..." or "Anecdotal evidence I see..." or "The groups I play in..." or "A poll at enworld said..."

My fifteen years of gaming experience with over fifty different players and game masters tells me that there is some truth in what all three of you have said. I am interested to know just how much of a "minority" ProfessorPain's position actually is. 

(And I understand the irony of using anecdotal evidence to make this point )


----------



## Imaro (Feb 18, 2009)

Lizard said:


> There's really two debates here: Whether skill granularity is good and whether 3e had balanced DCs for skill checks. I think it's worth noting, though, that 4e also has some balance issues with skill checks, though tilting the other way -- the DCs are set so that every shmuck has a chance, and thus, the specialists don't even need to roll.
> 
> At first level, the difference between an expert and a non-expert can be immense: +5 trained, +3 focus, +1 from background (if being used), +4 from stat (minimum +2), and +2 from race (often). This can be a +15 bonus at first level, enough to make a "hard" skill check (using errata'ed DCs) 100% of the time. An untrained person with an average attribute is at +0. Since skill bonus magic items are still pretty common, this difference will only grow with level, even assuming no more feats which can raise skill checks (but we now have Tribal feats for an additional +2 to +5, kicking the bonus up even more). In order to keep the "Everyone gets to play!" feature, the DCs have to be low enough that 1/2 level alone has around a 25% chance of success.
> 
> Maybe this is deliberate design, 4e's version of "system mastery" -- the munchkin who pours everything into being an expert at a skill will not gain a meaningful mechanical advantage since the DCs are scaled back; he'd be just as well off taking fewer skill bonus feats and tricks since, if a DC is 25, the difference between a +26 bonus and a +30 bonus is meaningless, success is success.





Yeah, honestly doesn't it create the same problems being cited in 3.5, without DM intervention you can have skill ratings so far apart they can't meaningfully interact with the same skill DC's. You can have the master of a skill with (+4 attribute, +5 trained, +2 background, +3 focus, +2 race)  a +16  dominating and making the character with (+2 attribute and +5 training) +7 pointless... at least according to the arguments leveled at 3.5.  Why don't you just sit back and let this character handle anythng concerning this skill  (and with less actual skills it's easier to dominate a wider variety of in game actions through dominating in one skill.)? 

So really what is the difference if people choose to max their skills out in 4e as opposed to 3.5?  How has any of this actually been solved, except through player agreement or DM fiat (same as in 3.5) in 4e?


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I am more than willing to spend a few extra moments of time to gain some amount of consistency.




A few extra moments, maybe.  A few extra minutes, if I can't find the right chart, or left the proper book in another room, or need to check if books have a different entry than paper, in the middle of combat?  I really don't think that sort of rigid consistency is worth it.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 18, 2009)

D'karr said:


> Once again I point to the opinion that it is generally more time consuming to stop the game in mid-stream while a "rule" is researched, than to adjudicate it on the fly.
> 
> Will some adjudications be "more difficult"?  Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going.  Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO.  Just make a ruling and move on.
> 
> In 3e there was nothing more frustrating to me, than to spend 10-15 minutes waiting for a DM to go figure out how X or Y interacted.  Or for a player to argue the point and then have to spend time while he researched his point.  I'm really glad that nonsense is over.




And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1).  Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.?  I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

malraux said:


> A few extra moments, maybe.  A few extra minutes, if I can't find the right chart, or left the proper book in another room, or need to check if books have a different entry than paper, in the middle of combat?  I really don't think that sort of rigid consistency is worth it.




*shrug*

You're welcome to your opinion.


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1).  Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.?  I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?




Because of rules knowledge specialization.  The DM might not know how power x works, but the player does.  In addition, the use of things like power cards means there isn't a need to look things up.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.




This is pretty much how it works.  Is it an attack?  Make an attack roll vs the DC that's right there in the stat block.  Is it a check?  Figure out the level of the check and set the DC.

Then you work out the effects.  If it is pure damage, there's a table for it.  If it's not pure damage it's a little tricky but not _too_ bad.  Does this make sense?  Is it balanced?  If both answers are yes, go for it.  (Balance for non-damaging effects is a mostly unsupported part of the game.)


----------



## D'karr (Feb 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1).  Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.?  I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?




If that was the case you would only need a handful of "spells" in 3e.  Since spells are the classic discrete exception based rules, and you could adjudicate everything else.  But that is not the case.  BTW Savage Worlds works a lot like that.  

The big difference there is that I've been running 4e games for almost 12 months now and the times that I've had to go to the book to look up a "rule" are few and far in between.  As a matter of fact for the last few months I've been running the game using only the DM Screen.  The "powers" are exceptions but they work in such a way that I don't need to look each and everyone of them up.  They usually have pretty consistent general rules.  If I need to adjudicate something it usually has to do with something that is not stipulated in the power itself.  For example, does the curtain catch on fire if I use X.  Then it's adjudication time.

Internet boards are full of arguments, saying that 4e has more or less of them because it uses exception based rules is ridiculous at best.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 18, 2009)

D'karr said:


> If that was the case you would only need a handful of "spells" in 3e. Since spells are the classic discrete exception based rules, and you could adjudicate everything else. But that is not the case. BTW Savage Worlds works a lot like that.




But 3e had rules for everything...right? 



D'karr said:


> The big difference there is that I've been running 4e games for almost 12 months now and the times that I've had to go to the book to look up a "rule" are few and far in between. As a matter of fact for the last few months I've been running the game using only the DM Screen. The "powers" are exceptions but they work in such a way that I don't need to look each and everyone of them up. They usually have pretty consistent general rules. If I need to adjudicate something it usually has to do with something that is not stipulated in the power itself. For example, does the curtain catch on fire if I use X. Then it's adjudication time.




What exactly, except in the most broadest sense of the word, are the general rules of powers? The only one I can think of is roll a d20 add mods and target defense (and even this isn't universal)... beyond that I'm not seeing it, even moreso for monsters.



D'karr said:


> Internet boards are full of arguments, saying that 4e has more or less of them because it uses exception based rules is ridiculous at best.




Huh?  Where did I say anything about "more" my point was exactly what you said... those who want to argue rules will do so in 4e just like in 3.5, I wasn't making a comparison... just citing evidence to support my position.


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 18, 2009)

To be fair, GW, the 4E DMG does include a chart with the sort of stats you're looking for.  

The difference is that the text includes the disclaimer I mentioned above, so that a DM can legally rule that fireballs set dry leaves on fire or that you can't tunnel through solid stone with an adamantine spoon.


----------



## avin (Feb 18, 2009)

Wait, all this discussion is about 4E being good for lovecraft and mysteries?

Being a full time 4E DM these days I can say: if you want a mystery go Wod or GURPS. 4E is crap for terror, i mean C R A P


----------



## Imaro (Feb 18, 2009)

malraux said:


> Because of rules knowledge specialization. The DM might not know how power x works, but the player does. In addition, the use of things like power cards means there isn't a need to look things up.




Yeah, I guess if you write out the rules you need on cards you don't have to look them up... in the book... technically.

How doesn't the DM need to know how the powers work, he is an arbitrator in those situations where things may not be clear, how can he do this if he doesn't know what the powers do?  It's akin to saying a referee in a basketball or football game doesn't need to know what is illegal for specific positions... since the players already know.  And please let's not pretend like players don't make mistakes, yet if the DM isn't knowledgeable... I guess it doesn't mater whether the powers are being usd correctly or not...


----------



## Scribble (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I, as a DM, am interested in having an internally-consistent setting, which is achieved - at least partially - by having a consistent ruleset. Requiring adjudications from me opens room for that internal consistency to be put into jeopardy, because I may not always be consistent in my rulings or decisions.




I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe "internal consistancy" to be a big selling point.

The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some "internally consistant" reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random "it takes five clicks this time" moment.

Internal consistancy to me feels too clockwork, and unatural. Again I feel this is a big difefrence between computer games and people. Computers have a HARD time not being consistant. They do what they're told, and can't do what they're not told. 

If I have a fire spell in a computer it can't light fires unless the programing says so. If I have a fire spell in a Tabletop game, even if the "programing" says nothing about lighting fires, we, as humans, can say otherwise.

The more "consistant" rules a game has, the more it makes me feel as if that's how it wants me to rule things. When a designer thinks putting soemthign like "it melts soft metals" in there makes the world more consistant, I find it usually just ends up being a reason someone has for another use not to function. "They said it can do this, if it could do that why wouldn't they also have put that in the description???"

I prefer it gives me guidelines, and lets me go from there. I'm not a computer, I can make judgement calls.

Yep- sometimes this means it'll take a PC five clicks to light his fireball... But I'm ok with that. I prefer it even.


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, I guess if you write out the rules you need on cards you don't have to look them up... in the book... technically.
> 
> How doesn't the DM need to know how the powers work, he is an arbitrator in those situations where things may not be clear, how can he do this if he doesn't know what the powers do?  It's akin to saying a referee in a basketball or football game doesn't need to know what is illegal for specific positions... since the players already know.  And please let's not pretend like players don't make mistakes, yet if the DM isn't knowledgeable... I guess it doesn't mater whether the powers are being usd correctly or not...




Well, my general objection to looking stuff up is the time it takes to find the rule, not the time it takes to adjudicate stuff once the rule is found.  Power cards mean that no one has to take time to look stuff up, thus cutting out the largest time sink in rules adjudication.

As for players following the rules: first, in general we all make mistakes, I'm ok with that as long as its not a constant thing.  second, the literal reading of powers is for the most part pretty straight forward, especially if you have the power exact text.  Finally, because you have more or less the same powers from level to level, you get used to how the power works.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> D'karr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've highlighted the part you omitted.  In essence I agree with you; people that want to argue will do so, regardless of edition.

Your point *seemed to be* that 4e had all these things, without taking into account that 3e did too.  Therefore my point of having "more or less".

To answer the OP's original question, I don't think that any specific set of rules limits the *scope of campaigns* within the genre that they "emulate".  

I think that most DMs do that all on their own.  For example I've successfully run the types of adventures that you mentioned using 1e, 3e and 4e.  Those adventures all had a measure of investigation, horror, or "cthuluesqueness."

In 1e, everything was mostly freeform.  In 3e and 4e, I used the skill system.

Are there rulesets that emulate somethings better?  Absolutely.  It doesn't mean that other rulesets limit you on that, you just have to work harder at it.  Does that limit you?  That is for each DM to decide for himself.  As it stands, I can't find any adventure type that I could run in previous editions that I could not run in the current edition.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Yeah, honestly doesn't it create the same problems being cited in 3.5, without DM intervention you can have skill ratings so far apart they can't meaningfully interact with the same skill DC's.



The skill DCs in 4e fall in a predictable range - the players can interact with them by design.  I'm personally of the opinion that the errata'd DC values are too low, but leaving that aside, at the extreme end of things (level 30), easy DCs are 19, moderate 28, hard 33.  Your minimum bonus at that level is +15, putting any check within reach, although hard checks will require a lot of luck and/or help.  Max bonus would be around +39 at the very extreme end (race bonus, skill focus, +6 skill item).

* the downside of the errata'd DCs is that specialization isn't really rewarded - just being trained and involving your primary stat will put those DCs into near automatic success territory, which is why I think the DCs should be somewhat higher.  But it's a question of what you're designing for - should an untrained character with no stat bonus have a chance of making a hard DC at level 30?  I'm ok with saying no, but the WotC guys apparently felt differently.  The bonus gap would be lessened greatly without the skill items, which provide a _huge_ benefit at the upper end (+6) and don't exist for all skills.

So the issue of there being a "skill gap" still exists, sure, but it's smaller and the DCs are designed around it (even though I disagree with their design priorities).  Compare with 3e, where both the gap and the DCs are essentially unbound.


----------



## malraux (Feb 18, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> To be fair, GW, the 4E DMG does include a chart with the sort of stats you're looking for.
> 
> The difference is that the text includes the disclaimer I mentioned above, so that a DM can legally rule that fireballs set dry leaves on fire or that you can't tunnel through solid stone with an adamantine spoon.




For a general distinction, 4e prioritizes balance above consistency, as page 42 shows.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe "internal consistancy" to be a big selling point.




Which is fine.



> The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some "internally consistant" reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random "it takes five clicks this time" moment.




Internal consistency does not mean that A causes B, no questions asked, always. It would would mean that, in general, A will _usually_ cause B. There are all kinds of random things that happen IRL that seem strange, such as a lighter taking five clicks to light rather than one.

I'm sure that, if you were able to take into account all possible variables, you could see exactly why the lighter took five clicks the other day, and only one today.

However, we are not able to get such a view of the world, much less model it in reasonable page-space in a game. For all intents and purposes, these events are random, as we are unable to ascertain their cause.

Such "random" things are represented by dice. Sometimes the guy with a +5 move silently is amazing (rolls a 20)... others, not so much (rolls a 10), and sometimes he can't even get his act together (rolls a 1).



			
				malraux said:
			
		

> For a general distinction, 4e prioritizes balance above consistency, as page 42 shows.




I am willing to sacrifice or change or even add a good many things for game balance.

I am not willing, however, to put _anything_ above consistency of the setting. Not even game balance.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Internal consistency does not mean that A causes B, no questions asked, always. It would would mean that, in general, A will _usually_ cause B. There are all kinds of random things that happen IRL that seem strange, such as a lighter taking five clicks to light rather than one.
> 
> I'm sure that, if you were able to take into account all possible variables, you could see exactly why the lighter took five clicks the other day, and only one today.




I agree, there probably was some reason that if I were able to take a step back and have a more omnicient view (or study it in a lab which amounts to a similar idea) then I could see the "coding" that makes it so. 

Since I can't though... It just seems random, and different. All I know is I had to try again for some reason. It makes life interesting.



> However, we are not able to get such a view of the world, much less model it in reasonable page-space in a game. For all intents and purposes, these events are random, as we are unable to ascertain their cause.




Which is where things break down for me. Because a game can't have rules for every event (and we can't memorize them) when it has rules for small effects, it feels like a push towards this is how the game world works. This does X, and never Y. So there's not enough variation for me. It begins to loose some of that randomness. Rather then being a realistic feeling world for me, it begins to be too clockwork.



> Such "random" things are represented by dice. Sometimes the guy with a +5 move silently is amazing (rolls a 20)... others, not so much (rolls a 10), and sometimes he can't even get his act together (rolls a 1).




Dice help a bit, but not quite enough. Even though the roll is random, the effect isn't. If I roll too low I know I failed because I rolled too low. "I didn't successfully light the lighter because I rolled a 5" instead of "Why the heck isn't this stupid piece of junk working?!?!"

I guess for me it looses some of that "sense of wonder" people talk about when too much is detailed.

Just like in real life when my character tries something I don't want to think ok it will work provided X doesn't happen. I want to think hrmm is it worth it to try? I think I have a reasonable chance, but you never know...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> *shrug*
> 
> You're welcome to your opinion.




I am, by the way, always a little surprised by how different priorities can be.

Spending time on finding the right rule seems to me as having the game come to an halt, bringing me out of my immersion in the scenario and stopping the action. It's almost as if I'd ALT-TAB during a resource intensive computer game to look for a tip from the Internet or something. I hate it when I have to do that.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am, by the way, always a little surprised by how different priorities can be.




To be fair, I'm unemployed and a philosophy major. I have a lot of time on my hands, and have no problem spending hours committing rules to memory.

For me, gaming is not just about killing things and "racking up the XPs," a phrase that irks me to no end. The purpose of gaming is to experience and immerse oneself in the setting at hand, and that includes having consistent in-game physics. For 3.5, people will point to OotS and say how ridiculous such a stance is, and my argument is that OotS is what the world *should* look like, as a result of the way the rules function (though OotS is a bit more metagame-y than necessary).

That isn't to say that I dislike combat. In the sorts of worlds in which we game, violence tends to be a viable solution, and my players are free to resolve the issues at hand with whatever means they see fit. Since we have largely played D&D in the past, which has heavy leanings towards combat, most conflicts have been resolved via combat.

Dealing with things like whether or not a fireball sets things on fire, or what the precise effects of that strange fungus on the cave floor are, is an important part of gaming. It's important because it shows the players that they are not the center of the universe, that the world continues to function around them even when they are not around to see it happen. It speaks to the idea that actions have consequences, and that things will continue to happen whether the PCs interact directly with it or not.

To use a GNS term, I am firmly in the simulationist camp.

To try to bring this post back in line with the idea of the thread, my heavy simulationist leanings are why I feel 4e is incredibly limited in terms of what it can offer me. Mechanics are trimmed in such a way as to make a multitude of processes all follow the same mechanics, which is nonsensical to me. The same action has differing DCs based upon the level of the PCs, which irks me - why should this lock be more difficult to pick because you are higher level?

While the equalization of martial and spellcasting classes is not something that bothers me, the streamlining of spells to make them have only obvious combat utility irks me. Removal of various subsystems makes it difficult for me to play the sort of game that I want to play, because the processes matter; I don't enjoy the "black box" approach to how things happen.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> I guess for me it looses some of that "sense of wonder" people talk about when too much is detailed.




The kind of game I want to play, I want the PCs to worry about how much food they can reasonably carry on their trek to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

I want their wounds from weeks before to - if left untreated - impact their performance today.

I want them to pay attention to the surrounding terrain of a city, so that they can understand the sort of raw materials that city is abundant with, and in turn understand the local economy to some degree.

I want the idea of doing something typically termed "heroic" to be a generally bad idea, because then it means that much more if a PC does it.

I want them to spend their evenings repairing their gear, and after a fight with orcs, take what is valuable - and not just magic, but normal run-of-the-mill weapons and armor, because such things can be turned into raw materials for other equipment.

The game I want to play is as much about exploration as it is combat, as much about economics as it is uncovering ancient mysteries, as much about crafting your own equipment as it is about building an artifact from pieces scattered across the globe. There is wonder to be found there, because the extraordinary must be couched in the ordinary in order for it to *be* extraordinary - or else it becomes ordinary.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 18, 2009)

I read up to page 6. I can't read anymore! But I wanted to chime in on why 4E non-combat r0x0rz 3.x non-combat.

See, I always play paladins. It's... my thing. Here's a transcript of how I handled "inter-character conflict resolution" in 3E:

ME: Ok! I cast _detect evil_. Is he evil?
DM: Umm... yes.
ME: Excellent! Mystery solved! I take off his head.

Now, in 4E:

ME: Ok! I cast _detect evil_. Is he evil?
DM: Umm... you don't have that anymore.
ME: Dangit! Err... I... uh... okay. I _talk to him_.

The same thing happens across the board. What once was handled via the pure mechanics of non-combat skills/spells ("zone of truth", "charm person", etc.) are now handled by pure roleplay. We replace dice-rolling with talking.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 18, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> The same action has differing DCs based upon the level of the PCs, which irks me - why should this lock be more difficult to pick because you are higher level?




Because it's a different lock.

See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary. 

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:


			
				DMG Page 23 said:
			
		

> The people and creatures of the world should behave with consistency in ways that players can understand. Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent. It's fine for one door to be harder to break down, but your description should give cues about why one door is so much sturdier than the other...




So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in. 

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open. 

The PCs should face challenges with level-appropriate DCs, but it's up to the DM to describe those challenges in a way that makes sense why it's harder. Climbing a cliff at 26th level has a higher DC than climbing a cliff at 3rd level because at 26th level you should be climbing the Cliffs of Death where to rocks bleed a slick ichor and steam vents blast scalding water on you every few seconds...and at 3rd level you should be climbing the rocky cliffs by the beach outside of town. 

But if you ARE 26th level, the cliffs outside of town shouldn't have their Athletics DC to climb changed...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Feb 18, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Because it's a different lock.
> 
> See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.
> 
> ...




D&D tends to scale upward in power levels a lot (in every edition), and this makes it hard not to make DCs for things like skills scale up as well to keep things interesting. If you want DCs that are more static, the best bet is a game where power level ranges are more narrow, and advancement is more about taking more skills, but not increasing them by +15 or something. There are plenty of games that do this.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 18, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Because it's a different lock.




I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."

Based on the rest of your post, that is not what was intended, and fair enough; but that is how I honestly read it.



> Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.




I don't like the assumption that the PCs are always going to be up against something vaguely their level.

I like the idea of high-level PCs having to deal with things that are significantly lower-level than they are, because that sort of thing happens sometimes - and so does the converse.

The problem is that, by assuming the PCs are always going up against something appropriate, you have made the game feel as though it is all about the PCs, and just about the PCs. And from the game perspective, that's all well and good - but for someone like me, who isn't interested in just that perspective, I find it irksome. The PCs aren't the center of the universe, and assumptions like this make it feel like they are.



> However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.




This is not level-based, this is world-based. Give me world-based DCs, and I will determine what I should throw at my PCs based upon their level.

The end result is most likely the same, sure, whether we use your method or mine. But I value processes as much as I do results.



> ...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.




...with volcanoes erupting in the background, no doubt. 

It really does come down to a matter of _why_ the DCs are different. You are trying to tell me that it's due to the PCs being higher-level, and that that means that the DCs should reflect that and be more difficult. And I would agree, because otherwise the game would be a cakewalk, and that wouldn't be fun.

The problem is the reason. I want tables with varying DCs based upon the world; I like the 3.5 open locks table, which describes the difficulty based on the kind of lock (admittedly not very well, but it's the principle behind the lackluster execution). The 4e open locks table is based on level, which just rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Blue (Feb 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e is a very *focused* game. What it's focused on is combat. It doesn't give a real kobold's tail about anything else -- to 4e, combat is *the* fun part of D&D. Everything else -- espionage, horror, exploration, survival, etc., etc., is boring to 4e.
> 
> It nods at the other stuff, but the fact of the matter is that skill challenges and rituals (which are going to be the first two answers that leap to mind for those who think it DOESN'T restrict) cannot support a campaign that revolves around them -- there's not enough variety and depth (and balance) in them to hold up a campaign that heavily uses them.
> 
> Any style of play that doesn't heavily focus on combat is not supported very well in 4e right now.




I have to agree.  As a Game, 4e is a tight piece of design - well done.  But that Game isn't aimed at providing an easily adaptable foundation to various fantasy sub-genres.  

Heck, on game I run is low wealth game where we have combat maybe once every three sessions.  Given a choice of systems, 4e wouldn't be my first choice if I was starting that campaign today.  But for other styles games it could be.

Earlier editions had more rules to mimic "this is how this should work if it was real" so were fairly easy to use for various adaptations.  This was at times both a strength and a weakness.  4e has more rules on "this is how the game fits together".  It's is also a strength and a weakness.  One point is that working outside the boundaries of what were considered is either unsupported (no rules) or negatively supported (need to adjust existign rules because they are contrary to it.)

4e is like chess.  Chess is a fantastic game, but not particularly adaptable.  There are variations on it, but those are "not chess".

Cheers,
=Blue


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Because it's a different lock.
> 
> See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.
> 
> Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc..




See this is a definite problem, as those charts on page 42 are the "improvisation" charts and there is no mention of anything close to what you've stated here on that page. 

In fact I would even go so far as to argue that, if what you stated is the actual intent and not just one interpretation... then why is there an example on page 41 of the DMG where it explains that searching a room to find "anything valuable in a chest full of junk" is always an "easy" test... not a set DC dependent upon the world...let me guess this is a different more tricky chest and different more tricky junk as you go up in level?? Well if this is the case why on earth isn't it clearly laid out or stated anywhere?

The funny thing is that the PHB gives DC's for skills that appear to be determined not as level appropriate challenges (except some of them like Open Lock, Knowledge, etc.?? ) but based upon relative difficulty of examples... 

So maybe it is a case of something not being conveyed effectively, the skill DC's being kind of schizophrenic in how they are determined or something else. Wouldn't it have been better if they had chosen to base the skill DC's on one or the other so as to direct people towards a consistent way to view the game? 




Moridin said:


> At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:
> 
> 
> So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in.
> ...





This sounds really good but it isn't explained like this anywhere in the DMG or PHB...


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> This sounds really good but it isn't explained like this anywhere in the DMG or PHB...



I suppose it should have been spelled out clearer, but the DMG does allude to it in the encounters chapter and probably elsewhere as well.  It seemed pretty obvious to me, at least.

Frankly I don't see how anyone could look at the open lock table and conclude that the same lock is harder to open depending on the _character's_ level.  The table lists lock quality by tier, not lock DCs by player level.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I suppose it should have been spelled out clearer, but the DMG does allude to it in the encounters chapter and probably elsewhere as well.  It seemed pretty obvious to me, at least.
> 
> Frankly I don't see how anyone could look at the open lock table and conclude that the same lock is harder to open depending on the _character's_ level.  The table lists lock quality by tier, not lock DCs by player level.



*Nods* Same, though then again if one already has that mindset as to how the game runs that may make it more obvious. As it was in my case, and probably yours Spatula.


----------



## Murad (Feb 19, 2009)

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, failure the critical.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> The purpose of gaming is to experience and immerse oneself in the setting at hand, and that includes having consistent in-game physics.




This is an extraordinarily dangerous statement, and if I was feeling less charitable about your intended meaning, I'd go so far as to say that it's objectively and demonstrably wrong - but even then, you've still inadvertently brought up an important point.

The purpose of gaming is to have fun.

Let me repeat that.

*The purpose of gaming is to have fun.*

This is The Most Important Thing anybody can know about gaming. 85% of Internet Arguments about D&D are because somebody forgot this.

Gaming is not inherently about killing things and racking up the XPs, but it's one of many means to an end of having fun, which means it's Totally Cool to game like that. A big portion of what I enjoy in gaming falls into the category of "kick in the door, kill the awesome monster, take his awesome loot".

To the best of my knowledge, the _only_ time it's wrong to have fun is when your fun is coming at the expense of everybody else's fun.


On a related subject, any use of the phrase "roll-playing" is implicitly derogatory to a legitimate gaming style.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Blue said:


> 4e is like chess.  Chess is a fantastic game, but not particularly adaptable.  There are variations on it, but those are "not chess".




This. Anytime somebody lists 4e's limited range of effective game styles as a flaw, they're missing the point. It's better for your system to do a few things really well than for your system to be mediocre at a lot of different things.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> This is an extraordinarily dangerous statement, and if I was feeling less charitable about your intended meaning, I'd go so far as to say that it's objectively and demonstrably wrong - but even then, you've still inadvertently brought up an important point.




I stand by my original statement - it is my take that the purpose of gaming is experience and immerse oneself in a fictional setting. I also happen to enjoy this, which makes the game fun.

Some would say that the purpose of playing football is "to have fun." I would argue that such a definition is incorrect; there is a goal in such a game, and it is not "to have fun." Those who enjoy such a pasttime generally have fun in pursuit of the goals of their chosen game, but the having of fun is not the direct goal, it is a by-product.


----------



## Murad (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> This. Anytime somebody lists 4e's limited range of effective game styles as a flaw, they're missing the point. It's better for your system to do a few things really well than for your system to be mediocre at a lot of different things.




No. My game I want everything good, like the GURPS game or the old editions. Why fun to do one thing? This is not fun.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

4th Edition DMG said:
			
		

> The last essential component of a D&D game is fun...
> ...
> Different people have different ideas of what's fun about D&D. Remember that the "right way" to play D&D is the way you and your players agree on and enjoy.






			
				Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering said:
			
		

> Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as GM is to make your games as entertaining as possible for all participants.
> ...
> There is only one way to roleplay: the way that achieves the best balance between the various desires of your particular group.




I'm pretty sure there was something about this in the 3.5 DMG, too, but I have to find mine first.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> See this is a definite problem, as those charts on page 42 are the "improvisation" charts and there is no mention of anything close to what you've stated here on that page.
> 
> In fact I would even go so far as to argue that, if what you stated is the actual intent and not just one interpretation... then why is there an example on page 41 of the DMG where it explains that searching a room to find "anything valuable in a chest full of junk" is always an "easy" test... not a set DC dependent upon the world...let me guess this is a different more tricky chest and different more tricky junk as you go up in level?? Well if this is the case why on earth isn't it clearly laid out or stated anywhere?



I don't know if I'm having a Dr. Midnight moment, but I think he's one of the guys who's worked on the game...

-O


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> I'm pretty sure there was something about this in the 3.5 DMG, too, but I have to find mine first.




If I did not enjoy the purpose of gaming, as I have defined it, then I would not game. If the purpose of gaming is "to have fun," then why would anyone - in their right mind - not join in?

I know what it is that I want out of gaming. If I get what it is that I am looking for, I am having fun.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I suppose it should have been spelled out clearer, but the DMG does allude to it in the encounters chapter and probably elsewhere as well. It seemed pretty obvious to me, at least.
> 
> Frankly I don't see how anyone could look at the open lock table and conclude that the same lock is harder to open depending on the _character's_ level. The table lists lock quality by tier, not lock DCs by player level.




Where does it say anything about lock quality?  And why are we rating the quality of a lock in an arbitrary measurement used to denote the level of play PC's have attained in the game...Especially when other skills, like climb, are rated like this...

Balance:
Narrow or Unstable 20
Very narrow (less than 6 inches) +5
Narrow and Unstable +5


What are we measuring here 4e team?  Are DC's measured by tiers and if so what exactly is refrenced in using the tier (PC tier, tier level of the challenge, tier level of the item...which actually makes no sense since it's not used consistently)?  Or by pseudo-reality based descriptors (which are sometimes used and sometimes not).  Or are we just using whatever, and while we're at it throwing in an arbitrary improv tale that uses a totally different way of determining and measuring DC's than the above ways.

Side Note: Interpreting the OL DC's as dependent upon the player's tier is actually more consistent with how the improvisation tables work in the DMG than interpreting it as the "tier" of the lock... which again makes no sense as the "quality" of the lock.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."




So did a lot of people. I was one of them. However, in various forums, I have seen a number of people interpret it as Rodney wrote it was meant to be.  I went back took a look and it made more sense that it would be a challenge appropriate for characters of a given level than varying DCs of a particular challenge based on the characters current level (e.g, the character's encountering a slippery surface at one level and then returning to find the same surface was now more slippery (higher DC) simply, because they were higher levels).


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I read up to page 6. I can't read anymore! But I wanted to chime in on why 4E non-combat r0x0rz 3.x non-combat.
> 
> See, I always play paladins. It's... my thing. Here's a transcript of how I handled "inter-character conflict resolution" in 3E:
> 
> ...




Your DM was, frankly, incompetent.

Here's how it worked in the games I was in.
Me: My paladin casts detect evil. Is he evil?
DM: Sure.
Me: "Surrender or die, varlet!"
DM: Well, let's see. The guards -- who are not evil, by the way -- move in to disarm you. If you explain you used Detect Evil on a member of the Jarl's retinue while oaths of protection, if you're VERY lucky, they'll just exile you and your friends from the territory and you can forget about the peace treaty you've been trying to forge. Do you have ANY evidence that the man has ACTUALLY done ANYTHING illegal, anything you can present to a council of judges? Remember, they've known this guy for years and just met you yesterday. 
Me:Uhm... can I take that back?

In the campaigns I've been in, detection spells aren't admissable evidence and using them is a gross violation of manners and protocol. Besides, "Evil" and "guilty" are not the same thing -- a "good" man might commit a crime because he believed it to be the right thing to do, an "evil" man might never break the law in any way.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."
> 
> Based on the rest of your post, that is not what was intended, and fair enough; but that is how I honestly read it.




Then obviously it needs to be communicated better. I think the concept is communicated--such as, in the quote from the DMG I provided--but it may be worth including elsewhere down the line.



GnomeWorks said:


> I don't like the assumption that the PCs are always going to be up against something vaguely their level.
> 
> I like the idea of high-level PCs having to deal with things that are significantly lower-level than they are, because that sort of thing happens sometimes - and so does the converse.




Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. However, the improvisation rules make that assumption because the _majority_ of the challenges the heroes will face are going to be level-appropriate. Facing vastly lower-level challenges, in many cases, aren't actually challenges at all. In the example of the 26th level rogue breaking into the mayor's house, at that point there's likely no roll even involved--it's auto success. That's fine, but it's also not something that the DM is likely to need to improvise in the first place. It's either something he already improvised (at low levels, and thus has those numbers for his reference already), or it's something that isn't intended to stand in the players' way and the DM just narrates it rather than requiring a roll.



GnomeWorks said:


> The problem is that, by assuming the PCs are always going up against something appropriate, you have made the game feel as though it is all about the PCs, and just about the PCs. And from the game perspective, that's all well and good - but for someone like me, who isn't interested in just that perspective, I find it irksome. The PCs aren't the center of the universe, and assumptions like this make it feel like they are.




Well, maybe it's just a philosophical difference between you and I, but the game is all about the PCs. Your world, as the DM, only actually matters when the players are interacting with it. I'm not saying that other details about the world--such as, what is the economy of this city based on--don't matter unless the PCs are going to interact with them. They do, because they help you as the DM have a more clear picture of the world, and that, in turn, makes it easier for you to both design adventures that used logical consistency as well as improvise more consistently. However, I personally think that the campaign world exists for the PCs to adventure in. 



GnomeWorks said:


> This is not level-based, this is world-based. Give me world-based DCs, and I will determine what I should throw at my PCs based upon their level.
> 
> The end result is most likely the same, sure, whether we use your method or mine. But I value processes as much as I do results.




I think that the two are inextricably linked, actually. When you design your world, you are probably creating it with some idea of what level the heroes are going to interact with what element. We assume that players will be interacting with the City of Brass at epic level, so when we create the adventure and other elements of the city we do so with that in mind. 

World-based DCs absolutely, 100% do exist in 4th Edition, but they're in a different place. Now, they're in adventures. What the DMG gives you is the guidelines to build your own locations, with their own DCs. Instead of giving you six locks, we've given you every possible lock in existence (or, close enough). When you buy or write an adventure, you're using those tools to create the DCs of your world. You're not choosing a pre-made lock and inserting it into your world; you're creating the lock for your world, and assigning the right DC to it.



GnomeWorks said:


> It really does come down to a matter of _why_ the DCs are different. You are trying to tell me that it's due to the PCs being higher-level, and that that means that the DCs should reflect that and be more difficult. And I would agree, because otherwise the game would be a cakewalk, and that wouldn't be fun.
> 
> The problem is the reason. I want tables with varying DCs based upon the world; I like the 3.5 open locks table, which describes the difficulty based on the kind of lock (admittedly not very well, but it's the principle behind the lackluster execution). The 4e open locks table is based on level, which just rubs me the wrong way.




The truth is, though, that lock DCs are different because you need them to be different. The reason why those different locks exist is to provide you with different challenges for your heroes. The idea that there's some academic reason why the locks in the City of Brass are better is really just an illusion; what it boils down to is that the City of Brass is a place where epic adventures take place, and so it needs to be able to provide epic challenges. Part of that, of course, is that it makes sense. After all, if the City of Brass didn't have epic locks, then the epic inhabitants would just barge through any door. 

I feel like what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are almost the same thing. However, I think it's like you're approaching the same endpoint from the same direction. It's like I say that locks in the City of Brass are DC 35, which makes sense because it's guarding against epic threats like the PCs; you're saying that the locks in the City of Brass are designed to guard against epic threats like PCs, so they are DC 35.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Because it's a different lock.
> 
> See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.




Yeah, it might be a good subject for a Dragon article or even some errata. Because, frankly, as I read the DMG, I got the impression that if the PCs encountered a wall at 3rd level and the same wall at 15th level, the climb DC should be increased. (The famous "chart on page 42" seems to feed into this, with the same maneuver doing more damage the higher levels the PC are -- I guess when an epic PC slides down a bannister to kick a monster in the teeth, he slides REALLY fast!)



> Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.




This really is not as clear as it could be in the text. As written, it seems that you should interpret it as "If the PCs are level X, the DCs are Y", rather than "A DC of Y is a challenge for a level X party". Some parts of the PHB and DMG seem to use "objective" DCs (i.e, this kind of door is DC 10, this kind is DC 20) while others use "subjective" DCs ("This is a Hard DC for the party"). Skill challenges, in particular, seem infinitely scalable -- the exact same challenge can work for a 1st level party or a 30th level one. Whether this is a bug or a feature depends on design goals and context: For example, should a group of Epic level PCs REALLY have a hard time persuading a petty duke to do their bidding? By the same token, should 1st level PCs be able to bargain with an Efreet prince? Use of skill challenges for wilderness survival, etc, has the same issues -- does Aragorn have as much trouble scavenging for food in the Shire as he does in the depths of Mordor?

I get what the DMG is trying to do -- to say, "At party level X, here are how tough the challenges should be" -- but it comes across as very Morrowindish, where the same dungeon that held level 1 monsters when you were level 1 holds level 10 monster if you're level 10. (And, my gawd, was THAT a turnoff when I realized it. Killed the whole game for me. Really.)

To a certain extent, "auto scaling" has always been a part of D&D and any other "zero to hero" style game. If you're 15th level, you rarely, if ever, run into first level monsters -- or 25th level monsters. This is explained in all kinds of ways, from "Yes, you've met a lot of orcs on your journey. You killed them in seconds and got no XP" to "You have left behind the old lands and entered the deeper dungeons" and everything else. There's always been a background assumption that you'll encounter "level appropriate" challenges whether in terms of monsters, skills, or whatever. Older editions of D&D have devoted more space to helping DMs justify these things, whether it's "monsters by dungeon level" in 1e, or extensive details of just how tough a door is based on what it's made of in 3e. 4e just eliminates the middleman and says "If your party is 10th level, the DCs should be between X and Y", and leaves it mostly up to the DM to figure out why that is and convey it to the players. Experienced DMs will have no trouble saying, "Not only is this lock exceptionally well made, it seems to be slightly enchanted -- your lockpicks bend and twist as you struggle to work them". Less experienced DMs might not be conditioned to convey this kind of information, or, even worse, not to include "too high" DCs to let the PCs know when they've wandered off track. ("You want to pick the lock on the high wizard's tower? Uh, well, you're first level, so I guess that's DC 12".)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Then obviously it needs to be communicated better. I think the concept is communicated--such as, in the quote from the DMG I provided--but it may be worth including elsewhere down the line.




I'll admit that your interpretation makes more sense than my initial one did. But yes, it could have been clearer.



> Well, maybe it's just a philosophical difference between you and I, but the game is all about the PCs.




Oh yes, we most definitely have a philosophical difference.



> Your world, as the DM, only actually matters when the players are interacting with it.




No, it doesn't.

I DM for multiple groups, which means that the world needs to matter when a group isn't adventuring in it, because another group *could* be. When I'm not DM'ing, I write fiction based in my setting. This is not just a place for gaming - it is a setting in which gaming happens to take place.



> I think that the two are inextricably linked, actually. When you design your world, you are probably creating it with some idea of what level the heroes are going to interact with what element.




That... strikes me as a completely alien approach to world design, actually. I design the world in such a way that it includes elements that interest me and that make sense. Nothing is put there specifically for PCs.



> The idea that there's some academic reason why the locks in the City of Brass are better is really just an illusion; what it boils down to is that the City of Brass is a place where epic adventures take place, and so it needs to be able to provide epic challenges.




This seems to be circular, to me, though I'm not quite able to put my finger on how or why.

Things need to be the way they are for a reason. Not necessarily a readily-obvious one, but there needs to be one, and one that is based on the world, not a metagame concept like level.

Why are all the threats in the city of brass epic - why are all the _inhabitants_ epic? The premise of why you need the open lock DCs to all be higher based on tier seems to be based on the idea that everyone the PCs interact with at a given tier is also going to be at that same tier, which seems awkward.



> I feel like what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are almost the same thing. However, I think it's like you're approaching the same endpoint from the same direction. It's like I say that locks in the City of Brass are DC 35, which makes sense because it's guarding against epic threats like the PCs; you're saying that the locks in the City of Brass are designed to guard against epic threats like PCs, so they are DC 35.




That would seem to be the way it is going. We are arriving at the same destination, but again, it is not just results I am interested in, but also processes.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> World-based DCs absolutely, 100% do exist in 4th Edition, but they're in a different place. Now, they're in adventures. What the DMG gives you is the guidelines to build your own locations, with their own DCs. Instead of giving you six locks, we've given you every possible lock in existence (or, close enough). When you buy or write an adventure, you're using those tools to create the DCs of your world. You're not choosing a pre-made lock and inserting it into your world; you're creating the lock for your world, and assigning the right DC to it.




This is an area where the DMG could have used quite a few more examples. Because, to a lot of DMs, you're NOT giving them every lock in the world -- you're giving them a seemingly arbitrary DC and no tools to help convey the world TO the players in a way which makes it make sense. You seem to be saying, "It's limiting to make DMs pick 'adamantine door' from a list if they need a door to challenge a 20th level party -- we should just say 20th level doors have a Break DC of 30. Then the DM can make up whatever kind of door he wants." The problem is, it can be hard, especially for newbie DMs, to "make up" an appropriate door (or lock, or surface to climb, or whatever), and the "Level->DC" chart doesn't do much to fire the imagination. I know that if I saw a list of, say, six doors with DCs from 10 to 40, I'd be a lot more likely to make up a dozen more than if I just saw a generic DC by level chart. A tiny nudge to the imagination can go a long, long, way, and it also helps make the world more real. 

A list of "typical challenges" at DCs 10, 15, 20, etc, for various skills, would be very helpful. I think a lot of DMs start with a cool idea, vision, etc, and would like to know "how hard would that be", instead of starting with "I want a DC 20 challenge" and working forward to thinking what it should look like. 

Sure, a tremendous amount of D&D (or any RPG) is pure illusion, all handwaving and "magician's choice". The more obvious the illusion is, though, the less fun it is. The players need to suspend disbelief, too -- they need to believe the door is made of treant wood and banded with iron dragon skin because that's how it was built a thousand years ago, not because they're 20th level and that's the level of door they're going to be challenged by. They need to believe if they'd found that door 10 levels back, it would have been impassable, and if they find it 10 levels from now, they will laugh at it. The world must feel like it exists beyond the game table, beyond the PCs -- that they're walking through a world, not standing still on the holodeck as the world forms around them.

At least, that's what I try to do, for better or worse, in my games, and since my players keep coming back, I must be doing something right.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2009)

Murad said:


> Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, failure the critical.





Welcome to EN World Murad!

We want to be heartily open to discussion of differing opinions.  However, when you come into a thread and say, "This thing stinks!" you are not giving any food for discussion.  This amounts to simple dumping of negativity in the middle of otherwise constructive talk - something we might call "threadcrapping".  It adds no value to the discussion, and takes a lot away from goodwill among posters, so we don't encourage it.

Folks, feel free to talk about what you do and don't like about various editions, but please don't threadcrap.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Where does it say anything about lock quality?



The table is headed "Locks", not "Player Level".  Heroic tier locks have an Open DC of 20, Paragon tier locks have an Open DC of 30, etc.



Lizard said:


> Skill challenges, in particular, seem infinitely scalable -- the exact same challenge can work for a 1st level party or a 30th level one. Whether this is a bug or a feature depends on design goals and context: For example, should a group of Epic level PCs REALLY have a hard time persuading a petty duke to do their bidding?  By the same token, should 1st level PCs be able to bargain with an Efreet prince?



A petty duke is pretty clearly a heroic-level challenge.  Efreets are epic-level.  There's nothing that says challenges are the same level as the party.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> I know that if I saw a list of, say, six doors with DCs from 10 to 40



DMG page 64.  And the section above it notes that you should think about the DCs as they relate to the player's abilities (i.e. scaling the environment to the players).


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Spatula said:


> The table is headed "Locks", not "Player Level". Heroic tier locks have an Open DC of 20, Paragon tier locks have an Open DC of 30, etc.




So it doesn't mention lock quality at all in the table or descriptive text...right?  Again if I walk up to someone on the street and state I have a "paragon"  quality lock that means... what exactly?  Why not just state it as a mediocre, average and superb "quality" lock?  In other words why use heroic, paragon and epic?  How are using these descriptors in any way intuitive if it has nothing to do with using the number based on the actual tier a player's character is at?


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> This is not just a place for gaming - it is a setting in which gaming happens to take place.



Why did you create it then? 



> That... strikes me as a completely alien approach to world design, actually.



It's just form following function. Wait, make that 'form acknowledging function'.


----------



## keterys (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I design the world in such a way that it includes elements that interest me and that make sense. Nothing is put there specifically for PCs.




Fwiw, I consider this one of the most common and ultimately damaging mistakes of world design that DMs make.

From start to finish, I want the game to be about everyone having fun - which means that as a DM I have to determine what will be fun for the players and produce that.

For some players, that might mean a very simulationist realistic world, where they tailor their characters to the campaign world that is exceptionally detailed and available. For other players it means that it's far more important to put in certain NPCs to interact specifically off their own playing styles and quirks, challenges to fit them, even running gags.

If I'm running for multiple groups and they want different things, then I should probably run different styles of campaign for them - or find a different group.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 19, 2009)

Murad said:


> No. My game I want everything good, like the GURPS game or *the old editions*. Why fun to do one thing? This is not fun.



I'm boggling at the bolded part.

D&D is not, never was, and never will be a general-purpose roleplaying game. If it were, it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

In all honesty, not to be snarky _at all_, I seriously think that Murad and GW have picked the wrong ruleset. In GW's case, I don't even see how 3.5 could be satisfying, given that it's closer to 4E than to any universal system like GURPS. The game system to use is something less gamey hack-n-slash (which D&D, from its very inception, is), and more focused on internal consistency.

Unfortunately, D&D _can't_ be all things to all people. If it became your dream game, it would be unplayable to me. So it continues as it does, doing its one thing really well, hacking the bad guys, taking their loot, gaining the next level, and telling stories along the way.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> From start to finish, I want the game to be about everyone having fun



But weren't you paying attention? Gaming isn't about having fun. It doesn't matter if you're having fun.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Why are all the threats in the city of brass epic - why are all the _inhabitants_ epic?




The City of Brass and its inhabitants are epic because there needs to be a level-appropriate city for epic heroes to go to.

Stop thinking about it, you'll only hurt yourself. You parted ways with the 4e design philosophy when you said gaming doesn't need to be fun.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So it doesn't mention lock quality at all in the table or descriptive text...right?  Again if I walk up to someone on the street and state I have a "paragon"  quality lock that means... what exactly?



Be sure to ask them what they think of vancian magic systems, while you're at it.  Or throw other random game terms at them and watch their confusion.

If you're unfamiliar with 4e's tiers, they're discussed in the PHB, the DMG, can be easily inferred from perusing the MM, and have been talked about quite a bit by the WotC designers.  A paragon-tier lock is something you would find in paragon-tier adventure locales, along with paragon-tier monsters, paragon-tier traps, and paragon-tier loot.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

To be more specific, the Paragon tier is levels 11-20, so a paragon lock is the sort of lock a person buys if their power and wealth is that of a character of level 11-20, broadly speaking.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Be sure to ask them what they think of vancian magic systems, while you're at it. Or throw other random game terms at them and watch their confusion.
> 
> If you're unfamiliar with 4e's tiers, they're discussed in the PHB, the DMG, can be easily inferred from perusing the MM, and have been talked about quite a bit by the WotC designers. A paragon-tier lock is something you would find in paragon-tier adventure locales, along with paragon-tier monsters, paragon-tier traps, and paragon-tier loot.





Now for the prize, tell me... what type of ledge, to balance on, do you put in a paragon tier locale? Because it's DC isn't connected in any way to tiers... this is where I find the problem with the clarity of skills in 4e.

Edit: Or what type of walls are found to climb in Paragon-tier or Epic-tier locations...here, I'll even help...

Climb DC's...
Surface

Ladder 0
Rope 10
Uneven Surface (Cave Wall) 15
Rough Surface (Brick Wall) 20
Slippery Surface +5
Unusually Smooth Surface +5

It's a consistency issue that could have easily been resolved if the designers had decided on one way to represent DC's for in-game challenges...either through objective description or tier based assignment... but why both?


----------



## Halivar (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now for the prize, tell me... what type of ledge, to balance on, do you put in a paragon tier locale? Because it's DC isn't connected in any way to tiers..



Well, none of the other environment tables than page 42 have anything to do with level, either. Doors, for instance, have fixed break DC's.

The sidebar on page 65 has the best explanation I can think of:


> The D&D game would become a bloated mess if we tried to cover every possible obstacle or terrain. If you want to use something not covered in this chapter, refer to the examples here as a guideline. Don't be afraid to make something up *based on a logical interpretation of what you think should happen.*



Emphasis mine. Page 42 is supposed to be a facilitator of off-the-cuff play, not a strait-jacket telling you that the same ledge gets harder just because you went up a level.

EDIT: Me? I'd say "just a ledge" is always DC 10. In order to justify a paragon-level DC, it must be more than a ledge. Lava and cattle-prod's could help.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now for the prize, tell me... what type of ledge, to balance on, do you put in a paragon tier locale? Because it's DC isn't connected in any way to tiers... this is where I find the problem with the clarity of skills in 4e.



You mean the actual physical in-game ledge? Well there is numerous ways, probably hundreds of different ways this ledge could be like. It is whatever fits the current setting, mood, etc. You want a feeling of it being a treacherous one have it be slick with slime, or it be raining, etc. The DC is just a decider of its mechanical difficulty nothing more, it is up to the DM through the narrative and descriptions to translate this to the players.


----------



## Primal (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> The City of Brass and its inhabitants are epic because there needs to be a level-appropriate city for epic heroes to go to.
> 
> Stop thinking about it, you'll only hurt yourself. You parted ways with the 4e design philosophy when you said gaming doesn't need to be fun.




I don't think that's what GW said. "Fun" is a relative concept -- I may think RPGs and computer games are fun, but some of my friends don't. Likewise, I may think that a vivid, breathing, internally-consistent setting and playing in intrigue-laden, combat-light campaigns is more fun than, say, participating in a more combat-heavy campaign such as 'Scales of War'. You might have a different concept of "fun", but that's just as "legit" as mine.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now for the prize, tell me... what type of ledge, to balance on, do you put in a paragon tier locale? Because it's DC isn't connected in any way to tiers... this is where I find the problem with the clarity of skills in 4e.
> 
> Edit: Or what type of walls are found to climb in Paragon-tier or Epic-tier locations...here, I'll even help...




The Acrobatics skill's "Balance" section lists the DC for moving across a narrow (less than one foot wide) or unstable surface as DC 20. +5 if it's less than 6 inches, +5 if it's both narrow and unstable. DC 20 is a Moderate challenge for characters of level 16-18, so if our characters are in the second half of the tier, the appropriate type of ledge is one that is less than one foot but greater than six inches in width. If your party is on the lower half of the tier, make the ledge, say, 16 inches, and throw a -5 to the DC on it. Alternately, you could make it a flat 20 across the tier, and it would be Hard for characters in the beginning of the tier, but it would scale down to somewhere between Easy and Moderate by the end of the tier.

Similarly, brick walls or slippery cave walls might be good for Climb at paragon, and by epic... well, brass is pretty smooth, so a DC of 30 might not be out of the question.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Well, none of the other environment tables than page 42 have anything to do with level, either. Doors, for instance, have fixed break DC's.
> 
> The sidebar on page 65 has the best explanation I can think of:
> Emphasis mine. Page 42 is supposed to be a facilitator of off-the-cuff play, not a strait-jacket telling you that the same ledge gets harder just because you went up a level.
> ...





But do you at least see my point here... why not just be consistent with how the DC's for skills are determined... why are some challenges abstracted out to tier levels (though not in any way related to the tier of the PC's) while others are based on description and difficulty levels that are independent of tier?  



Fallen Seraph said:


> You mean the actual physical in-game ledge? Well there is numerous ways, probably hundreds of different ways this ledge could be like. It is whatever fits the current setting, mood, etc. You want a feeling of it being a treacherous one have it be slick with slime, or it be raining, etc. The DC is just a decider of its mechanical difficulty nothing more, it is up to the DM through the narrative and descriptions to translate this to the players.




Huh?  So there are paragon-tier locks that show up in paragon-tier places... but no paragon-tier ledges to balance on... or paragon-tier walls to climb or... well you get what I'm saying now don't you?  Why aren't DC's determined and measured in the same way for all skills?


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Primal said:


> I don't think that's what GW said.



No, that's what he said:



GnomeWorks said:


> I stand by my original statement - it is my take that the purpose of gaming is experience and immerse oneself in a fictional setting. I also happen to enjoy this, which makes the game fun.
> 
> Some would say that the purpose of playing football is "to have fun." I would argue that such a definition is incorrect; there is a goal in such a game, and it is not "to have fun." Those who enjoy such a pasttime generally have fun in pursuit of the goals of their chosen game, but the having of fun is not the direct goal, it is a by-product.







Primal said:


> "Fun" is a relative concept -- I may think RPGs and computer games are fun, but some of my friends don't. Likewise, I may think that a vivid, breathing, internally-consistent setting and playing in intrigue-laden, combat-light campaigns is more fun than, say, participating in a more combat-heavy campaign such as 'Scales of War'. You might have a different concept of "fun", but that's just as "legit" as mine.




It is 100% true that different people have different ideas of what is fun. GnomeWorks thinks immersion is fun. I think tactics are fun. I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, and I requote, with emphasis:


			
				Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering said:
			
		

> Roleplaying games are entertainment; your goal as GM is to make your games as entertaining as possible *for all participants.*
> ...
> There is only one way to roleplay: the way that achieves the best balance between the *various* desires of your particular group.




I don't think the different ways in which people have fun is an issue that people are at odds about. The question here is if the goal of a game is to have fun. GnomeWorks asserts that the goal of a game is immersion, and you readily admit that immersion will not equal fun for all people, but in admitting this you have not taken any position regarding the goal of gaming.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But do you at least see my point here... why not just be consistent with how the DC's for skills are determined... why are some challenges abstracted out to tier levels (though not in any way related to the tier of the PC's) while others are based on description and difficulty levels that are independent of tier?




Because they can't list every single possible circumstance requiring a skill check?  The DC table is letting you know the math behind level appropriate DCs.  The specific examples are giving you examples, they are not an exhaustive list.  The idea isn't, "As you go up in level wooden doors magically become harder"  The DMG explicitly says this isn't what's supposed to happen, wooden doors are supposed to be consistent with other wooden doors.  What happens as the players go up in level is that fewer and fewer doors are made out of wood.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> why are some challenges abstracted out to tier levels (though not in any way related to the tier of the PC's)



Imara could you first explain what you mean with this to me, if a DC chart includes tiers there is only one tier being talked about. That is the PC tier, so the PCs being Heroic, Paragon, and Epic. Whether or not whatever is being discussed in that chart has a DC appropriate for the tier of the PCs is up to the DM. Now one would assume that to give a appropriate challenge it be in the same tier.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Because they can't list every single possible circumstance requiring a skill check? The DC table is letting you know the math behind level appropriate DCs. The specific examples are giving you examples, they are not an exhaustive list. The idea isn't, "As you go up in level wooden doors magically become harder" The DMG explicitly says this isn't what's supposed to happen, wooden doors are supposed to be consistent with other wooden doors. What happens as the players go up in level is that fewer and fewer doors are made out of wood.




And you missed the point... I'm talking about the DC's in the skill section of the PHB. The designers should have either determined DC's by tiers or determined them by objective comparison (like the Climb DC's) but mixing and matching them only causes confusion.  IMO, if the DC's for Climb are determined by ... rough walls, slipery surface, etc.  Why aren't the DC's to Open Locks determined by poor quality, expertly crafted, etc.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Why aren't the DC's to Open Locks determined by poor quality, expertly crafted, etc.




They are, why do you think the paragon lock is harder to open then the heroic lock?


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Imara could you first explain what you mean with this to me, if a DC chart includes tiers there is only one tier being talked about. That is the PC tier, so the PCs being Heroic, Paragon, and Epic. Whether or not whatever is being discussed in that chart has a DC appropriate for the tier of the PCs is up to the DM. Now one would assume that to give a appropriate challenge it be in the same tier.




Ok what I mean is this...

Open Lock

Heroic Tier 20
Paragon Tier 30
Epic Tier 35

As opposed to...

Climb DC's...
Surface

Ladder 0
Rope 10
Uneven Surface (Cave Wall) 15
Rough Surface (Brick Wall) 20
Slippery Surface +5
Unusually Smooth Surface +5

It's a consistency issue. In one example the DC's are derived through an objective comparison of negative attributes that effect the difficulty... in the other it is abstracted into "tiers" which honestly mean what? All I'm saying is that there would have been less confusion if they had stuck with a single way of setting DC's... either as tiers or as the negative attributes that affect the skill.



Nightson said:


> They are, why do you think the paragon lock is harder to open then the heroic lock?




No, they're not. The reason for the increase in DC is not defined for this skill, like it is for Climb and that is my point. When you look at the climb skill it lists the negative attributes, as examples of what causes the DC to climb a wall to become harder... this isn't explained with OL...unless Paragon is a negative quality that causes locks to become harder to open. 

You interpreted it a certain way to mean a certain thing... but as has been evidenced by other posters it wasn't made exactly clear and could be interpreted (the same way as the skill chart, and no the DMG doesn't explicitely say that these numbers are based on challenges of this level) in different ways.

As an example... couldn't a lock whose mechanism had rusted or become clogged, or even had a lockpick broken off inside of it have become harder to open?  So then is this a paragon-tier lock just like the one of better quality... if so then the tiers don't necessarily represent the increasing quality of the lock.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 19, 2009)

PHB pg.178 said:
			
		

> The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check *if circumstances call for one.*
> 
> The DC depends on what you’re trying to accomplish and is ultimately set by the Dungeon Master. The skill entries in this chapter give sample DCs for each skill. The DM sets the DCs for specific situations based on *level, conditions, and circumstances*, as detailed in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.







			
				DMG pg.42 said:
			
		

> If a character tries an action *that might fail*...
> 
> A *quick rule of thumb* is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level




There's no difference in any of the examples, they're all examples, some are just more abstract then others.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Ok what I mean is this...
> 
> Open Lock
> 
> ...




Would you have preferred "Cheap", "Average", and "Difficult" locks? Or would you have rather had warded locks, disc tumbler locks, bit key locks, and a list of modifiers like double-bitted keys or unusually large numbers of levers?

Walls are a list of types with modifiers because everybody knows what a wall is. Locks are lumped into three broad categories because the details of how the locks are different are too technical for a mass-market RPG.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> Would you have preferred "Cheap", "Average", and "Difficult" locks? Or would you have rather had warded locks, disc tumbler locks, bit key locks, and a list of modifiers like double-bitted keys or unusually large numbers of levers?
> 
> Walls are a list of types with modifiers because everybody knows what a wall is. Locks are lumped into three broad categories because the details of how the locks are different are too technical for a mass-market RPG.




I would have liked consistency, where they just put everything in the heroic, paragon, epic categories... and explain what these categories actually mean and how to use them in a clear and concise manner.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> EDIT: Me? I'd say "just a ledge" is always DC 10. In order to justify a paragon-level DC, it must be more than a ledge. Lava and cattle-prod's could help.




A ledge of elemental ice...
A ledge of searing brass...
A ledge on a plane where gravity is randomly variable...

I have no problem imagining a DC 40 Acrobatics check ledge. I only have a problem with the idea it becomes a DC 10 ledge if a 1st level PC walks on it.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> Would you have preferred "Cheap", "Average", and "Difficult" locks? Or would you have rather had warded locks, disc tumbler locks, bit key locks, and a list of modifiers like double-bitted keys or unusually large numbers of levers?




I would have.

Mostly because I DON'T know much about locks, and I'd like to be able to use cool descriptive terms like "disc tumbler" (whatever that is) when telling the party rogue about the DC 30 lock he's found. Or I'd like to know how tough a non-magical lock could "Reasonably" be in a low iron age culture vs. a high Renaissance culture -- it would make it interesting if the PCs found that "average" locks in one city were much more complex than those in another, NOT because the PCs were higher level but because the cities had different levels of local craftsmen. And if the PCs want to buy a DC 25 lock, I'd like to have an idea of how skilled a locksmith would need to be to make one, so I can decide if there's going to be one in a tiny village or if they'd need to travel to a big city. I want the world to feel as if it exists for some purpose other than to satisfy the PCs whims, that there aren't Gypsy Magic Item Buyers in every village just because the PCs might have magic items to unload. I feel the game is more fun -- yes, FUN -- if the world feels real, if it's not painfully obvious how thin the veneer of "realism" is. A set made of paper maiche is still preferable to one made of tissue paper.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Seems a lot of people understand the 4e rules as written, get the intent, follow the examples and meanings, understand what is meant by exception based design and what is meant by challenges scaling with level (as Mr. Thompson explained).  It seems a lot of people don't.

This is just speculation, but I wonder if a lot of the people that don't "get" 4e possess considerable game mastery of 3e (or another edition)?  You hear a lot of talk about how 4e "removed" craft skills or "took away" half orcs and other things that show the person writing the message is reading 4e as an extension of 3e, comparing everything to how it was done in 3e.  Doing this leads to a lot of misconceptions, such as the idea that the intent of scaling DCs is that things actually become harder to do with level.  Or that sliding down a bannister and kicking an opponent does a massive amount more damage at epic tier than it does at heroic tier.  

This is not meant to be insulting in any way.  I don't mean that some people who have problems with 4e didn't read it right or just aren't smart enough to understand it.  On the surface, 4e looks like an extension of 3e, but is really a considerably different philosophy, so if you apply the "3e mindest" to it, a lot of things don't make sense or are easily misintepreted.  Similarly, 4e plays a lot like 1e but doesn't look anything like it.  If a 1e player who never moved on read 4e they would hardly recognize the game, despite the fact that many people who have played both editions find the experience of the latter is evocative of the first.

I have a pair of friends who are big time CharOps guys, both post regularly on the CharOps board and both are experts with 3e and know it inside and out.  Both read 4e and just really didn't "get it" for exactly the reason I mentioned above, making some of these same common misconceptions.  They were viewing the game as a sequel to 3e and expected it to follow 3e's general philosophy when that is definitely something 4e does not do.  A huge difference in philosophies is static DCs versus PC based interaction.

On the other hand, I never quite got 3e, and I didn't realize it until after 4e had come out.  I played and DMed it for years, tweaked and houseruled the crap out of it to cover what I wanted it to do, grumbled about its multiclassing limitations, etc.  Whenever I needed to create a character I went to the two guys mentioned above.  They were experts.  I said "here's my concept, how do I pull this off".  They replied "take the following 4 classes at these levels, take these 7 feats from these 5 different books..." and they did this without needing much time to consult, they just knew things cold, knew how the system worked and how to get the most out of it.  But there was an underlying philosophy to 3e that I just didn't really "get" and it caused me to misconstrue many things and, of course, dislike many things because that just isn't my approach.  

I get 4e, I get the philosophy behind the game, it makes sense to me and works with the way I want to run games.  I like that it plays fast and loose like the old school and that effort was put in to streamline rules into broadly applicable sets of easily understood and manipulated mechanics like the power framework, skill challenges, pg 42.  I like and get the weight of the mechanics and intent behind them.  I understood on reading that the intention of level scaling DCs was that the PCs are expected to be facing challenges their level and the same lock has the same DC if encountered twice.  

Again, I really want to stress that I'm not denigrating anyone, as I realize it could sound like that, especially given my tendency to get sucked into editionwarz.  Instead, I am just trying to stress that its important to realize 4e is a new edition, not a sequel, and that reading it as such can lead to some of these misinterpretations.  That doesn't mean Wizards wrote a bad book or that some people aren't smart enough to get it, its just inevitable.  If you show the same paragraph to a 1000 people and ask them to tell you what it means you are going to get a lot of different interpretations.

That banister example someone mentioned a page or two back is a good example.  Someone thinking about a stunt like that might interpret pg 42 to mean that an epic PC must somehow pack such a wallop by sliding super fast or something that it does a massive amount more damage at lvl 26 than it did when he kicked an orc at 2nd level off the same banister.  It doesn't.  Hit points are abstract.  The stunt does enough damage for the opponent to notice it.  Sliding off the banister and doing a set 4 points of damage is a waste of an action at epic level.  With the rules as they are, it has the same relative effect at lvl 2 and lvl 26, it does enough for the level appropriate challenge monster to notice.  Hit points and damage are abstract and whether the opponent is a lowly kobold or an efreet noble its going to be demoralizing to get a whole bootfull of your awesome right up in its grill in front of everyone.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So really what is the difference if people choose to max their skills out in 4e as opposed to 3.5?  How has any of this actually been solved, except through player agreement or DM fiat (same as in 3.5) in 4e?



It isn't as big of a problem.  Keep in mind that the difference between +16 and +7 is still such that a DC 20 is an appropriate challenge for both of them.  The +16 guy is likely going to be the guy doing it, however.

I don't have a problem with specialists.  This is exactly the difference between characters in 4e.  In 3e, the math works out such that there are specialists(those with race, feat, class, other modifiers or a high stat with max ranks), people who are good at the skill(anyone who just took max ranks with a low stat modifier and no other bonuses), and people who can't use the skill(anyone with less than 75% of the max ranks in the skill).  In 4e, there are specialists(trained while stacking feat, race, backgrounds), people who are good at the skill(trained in it and a high stat modifier), people who are ok at the skill(trained in it with a bad stat modifier, or not trained in it with a good stat modifier), and people who are poor at it(anyone not trained in it with a bad stat modifier).

Even with your example, if you have a DC 20 challenge, the guy with +16 it going to fail some of the time and the guy with +1 due to a 12 in the stat and no training is going to succeed some of the time.  That's the key.  You never run into a situation where you CAN'T set a DC without guaranteeing success or preventing anyone but the specialist from contributing(before anyone tries it, I am aware that at the absolute maximum difference it is possible to make a DC that breaks it.  But you have to REALLY work at it).

The thing is, at 1st level, if I set a DC of 15, I know that anyone who super specializes will succeed automatically(+14-16).  Anyone who trains in the skill and is good at it(+10-12) will succeed most of the time.  Anyone who simply trains it in or has a good stat with no training(+5-7) succeeds a lot of the time, with a significant chance of failure, anyone who doesn't train at all in it(+0-2) has a bigger chance to fail than they do to succeed, but a real chance of succeeding.

This creates an fairly accurate way of setting DCs based on how you want a group to do.  DC 20 is the sort of check that the average group(one without a specialist) succeeds roughly 55% of the time, a poor group succeeds 30% of the time, and an exceptional group succeeds 80% of the time.  It's the "hard" check at 1st level.  You can easily adjust this up and down.  DC 10 for "easy" checks, DC 15 for "moderate" checks, DC 25 for "nearly impossible" tasks.  This holds true all the way through level 30.  Where the highest bonus is +31 and the lowest is +15.  If you set a DC at 20 and the specialist is away from the party, not showing up for the session, or if you have no idea if the group has a specialist....then the group still has a chance of succeeding.

As a side note, before anyone points out that the Skill Challenge DCs are lower than these, I've gotten word from the people at WOTC that the reason the DCs are so low in the errata'd version is because they assume that PCs will often be forced to roll their low skills.  If you allow the PCs to choose their own skills every time in a skill challenge, it's recommended that you up the DCs at least 5 points.

This is in contrast to the 3e method, which could range from -2 through +55(or slightly higher) at level 20.  So, if you set the DC at 60 so that the specialist has an 80% chance and he is unable to make the check, the guy with +30 due to "only" having max ranks, a 20 in the appropriate stat and a racial bonus can't possibly succeed.

In summary, specialists aren't the problem.  The gap between specialists and the lowest person in the group is a problem.  As a side note, ranks would work fine house ruled into 4e as long as the most ranks you could put in was 5 and you kept the +1/2 level, and there was no "trained" skills.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> I would have.
> 
> Mostly because I DON'T know much about locks, and I'd like to be able to use cool descriptive terms like "disc tumbler" (whatever that is) when telling the party rogue about the DC 30 lock he's found. Or I'd like to know how tough a non-magical lock could "Reasonably" be in a low iron age culture vs. a high Renaissance culture -- it would make it interesting if the PCs found that "average" locks in one city were much more complex than those in another, NOT because the PCs were higher level but because the cities had different levels of local craftsmen. And if the PCs want to buy a DC 25 lock, I'd like to have an idea of how skilled a locksmith would need to be to make one, so I can decide if there's going to be one in a tiny village or if they'd need to travel to a big city.




That's all well and good, but I think it's hard to argue that considerations like those should take up precious space in the core books.  Nor could it all actually.  If you are going to insist on that level of detail, it needs to be across the board, not just about one thing.  Even highly detail oriented rules systems don't approach the level of detail that would be needed to cover all the things you would need to cover to justify describing locks in that level of detail.  You would need a few dozen break DC tables to cover all the variations of locks, ropes, chains, windows, doors, walls, manacles, all divided up by the technological capabilities of the society that crafted said materials.  It would be unworkable, even if it would be kinda cool.  Maybe someday when RPGs are entirely integrated with technology the game system database would instantly produce such detail.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That banister example someone mentioned a page or two back is a good example.  Someone thinking about a stunt like that might interpret pg 42 to mean that an epic PC must somehow pack such a wallop by sliding super fast or something that it does a massive amount more damage at lvl 26 than it did when he kicked an orc at 2nd level off the same banister.  It doesn't.  Hit points are abstract.  The stunt does enough damage for the opponent to notice it.  Sliding off the banister and doing a set 4 points of damage is a waste of an action at epic level.  With the rules as they are, it has the same relative effect at lvl 2 and lvl 26, it does enough for the level appropriate challenge monster to notice.  Hit points and damage are abstract and whether the opponent is a lowly kobold or an efreet noble its going to be demoralizing to get a whole bootfull of your awesome right up in its grill in front of everyone.




That was me with the bannister.

And, yes, what you're describing makes my head go all splodey-like. I "get" that hit points are abstract -- they always have been. However, most means of reducing hit points are not. A longsword doesn't scale with level -- if your epic level character is somehow deprived of his magic longsword and forced to use a normal one, his basic attack is 1d8+Str, just like it was at first level, no matter how many hit points his enemy has. So why should his stunt damage scale? "Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth doing"? Well, then, maybe it's NOT. Wizards do not cast Magic Missile at Orcus (unless they're out of all dailies, encounters, magic items, etc). Fighters DON'T use basic attacks if they have any other choice. And if you want epic-level stunt damage, IMO, you'd better come up with an epic-level stunt: Don't slide down a bannister, dive from 50 feet up with your blade pointed straight down, skewering the foe in a way no first level character could imagine doing (not if he wanted to live...)

What I, and others, are complaining -- or at least non-plussed -- about is *inconsistency*. Is 4e a wholly narrative game where everything is scaled, so that you could just as easily describe damage as a fixed % of hit points? (i.e, this attack does 5% damage to a level appropriate monster, plus or minus 1 percent for each level above/below the PC)? Or does "10 hit points" *mean* something: Enough to bloody a kobold, not enough to scratch a dragon, and it means the same thing whether the source of the 10 hit points is a first level character or a 20th level one? Are DCs objective or subjective? Should the DM use "common sense", or simply say whatever it says in the rules, goes? (Before you wholeheartedly say "the former", consider that official party line is that the DM should ignore "common sense" when it comes to "How do you knock an ooze prone?" and "How do you 'pin' a flying monster which is not next to any surface?") The game design seems to be caught midway between old-style simulationism and new-style narrativism, and it seems fans tend to support whichever interpretation puts 4e in the most positive light. If simulation plays better in a given situation, 4e is simulationist; if narrativism plays better, 4e is narrativist. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

4e is, indeed, a lot of fun to play and I look forward to our weekly game a lot, but in order to have fun with it, I have to disconnect a lot of logic circuits and, especially in combat, stop trying to imagine myself "in" the action and instead go into full on Tactical Minis Game mode, so I'm not bothered by "immobilized" creatures being shoved all over the map, non-Euclidean geometry, and the fact I can be immobilized inside a gelatinous cube and whirl my twin bastard swords around with no penalty whatsoever (as I did last week). "Common sense" says that someone who is grabbed, held, or otherwise restrained should not be as effective in combat as a free man, but 4e's "immobilized" condition merely keeps me from leaving my square under my own power -- I can fight just as effectively as anyone else, and as a melee combatant, I usually don't even WANT to move.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> It's a consistency issue that could have easily been resolved if the designers had decided on one way to represent DC's for in-game challenges...either through objective description or tier based assignment... but why both?



I generally agree with that, but also note (backing up Halivar's point) that the DMG DCs are under a section titled, "Actions the Rules Don't Cover."  OTOH, they show up again (page 60-something) for DCs for hindering terrain, and I do think there is some potential confusion there.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> That's all well and good, but I think it's hard to argue that considerations like those should take up precious space in the core books.  Nor could it all actually.  If you are going to insist on that level of detail, it needs to be across the board, not just about one thing.  Even highly detail oriented rules systems don't approach the level of detail that would be needed to cover all the things you would need to cover to justify describing locks in that level of detail.  You would need a few dozen break DC tables to cover all the variations of locks, ropes, chains, windows, doors, walls, manacles, all divided up by the technological capabilities of the society that crafted said materials.  It would be unworkable, even if it would be kinda cool.  Maybe someday when RPGs are entirely integrated with technology the game system database would instantly produce such detail.




You could probably do a fairly simple chart of "Base Values" and "bonus per tech level" for a lot of things, though. But that's a different thread.  Some game systems do come close, though not in core rules -- Dark Champions and Ultimate Skill, for example, go into excruciating detail on just these issues. GURPS has some basic formulas to calculate changes in a base object for each TL after introduction, and so do some versions of Traveller.

Ultimate point is, I prefer rules stated in the form "This kind of lock is DC 25" to "PCs of 10th level should encounter DC 25 locks." The actual dice roll, at the end of the day, is the same, but one form of phrasing makes more "sense" to me than the other.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> And, yes, what you're describing makes my head go all splodey-like. I "get" that hit points are abstract -- they always have been. However, most means of reducing hit points are not. A longsword doesn't scale with level -- if your epic level character is somehow deprived of his magic longsword and forced to use a normal one, his basic attack is 1d8+Str, just like it was at first level, no matter how many hit points his enemy has.



Actually, it does scale.  Aside from STR increases (which are innate and can't be taken away), feats and so on, an epic character will be doing 2d8 with a longsword instead of 1d8.



Lizard said:


> So why should his stunt damage scale? "Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth doing"? Well, then, maybe it's NOT. Wizards do not cast Magic Missile at Orcus (unless they're out of all dailies, encounters, magic items, etc). Fighters DON'T use basic attacks if they have any other choice. And if you want epic-level stunt damage, IMO, you'd better come up with an epic-level stunt: Don't slide down a bannister, dive from 50 feet up with your blade pointed straight down, skewering the foe in a way no first level character could imagine doing (not if he wanted to live...)



Sure, that works.  For me, I would simply say the damage increases because the character is a more powerful being.  Stronger, faster, better than he or she was at 1st level.  But of course it's up to DM adjucation as to whether a stunt is possible, how hard it is, and what its effects are.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> And, yes, what you're describing makes my head go all splodey-like. I "get" that hit points are abstract -- they always have been. However, most means of reducing hit points are not. A longsword doesn't scale with level -- if your epic level character is somehow deprived of his magic longsword and forced to use a normal one, his basic attack is 1d8+Str, just like it was at first level, no matter how many hit points his enemy has. So why should his stunt damage scale? "Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth doing"? Well, then, maybe it's NOT. Wizards do not cast Magic Missile at Orcus (unless they're out of all dailies, encounters, magic items, etc). Fighters DON'T use basic attacks if they have any other choice.




A small correction, at wills and basic attacks do scale by tier.  

Reducing hit points is still abstract though.  Sure, you use a weapon, but its not always physical damage.  20 points from a longsword doesn't always represent a cut, or at least not 20 points of cut, some of that is morale, defensive damage, etc.

"Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be worth doing" is exactly the kind of philosophical difference I'm talking about.  I'd guess we are in about reversed positions.  I played and Dmed 3e since it came out, loved it, had a blast, but never fell into agreement with the system about how it approached D&D.  4e does for me.  Designing the rules based on the idea that they are pretty useless if the PCs aren't interacting with them (if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and the PCs aren't there, does it need to have a stat?) is something that makes sense to me.  I scaled DCs on the fly in 3e all the time to keep rolls relevant.  



> What I, and others, are complaining -- or at least non-plussed -- about is *inconsistency*.




That's the trick, though.  That's the philosophical disconnect I'm talking about.  It is inconsistent if looked at a certain way.  It's not inconsistent when looked at by someone who shares the philosophy of the edition, it's actually rather cohesive.  There are exceptions of course, individual examples, but there always are.



> (Before you wholeheartedly say "the former", consider that official party line is that the DM should ignore "common sense" when it comes to "How do you knock an ooze prone?" and "How do you 'pin' a flying monster which is not next to any surface?")




Don't get too caught up in the terminology.  Prone is the generally correct term for what you are doing mechanically in that situation because most things have legs.  An ooze, obviously does not, but the mechanical effects, and the general condition are not hard to explain.  Knocking an ooze prone would consist of interrupting its form to a significant degree such that it must spend a move action to reform (think about Terminator 2, when Arnie nails Robert Patrick with an explosive round and he just stands there for a few seconds, an exploded mess, until he can reform and continue moving), its get a minus to attacks because your hammerblow just splatted it six ways to Sunday and it has trouble forming pods of goo to smash your allies with, just for a few seconds though.  




> The game design seems to be caught midway between old-style simulationism and new-style narrativism, and it seems fans tend to support whichever interpretation puts 4e in the most positive light. If simulation plays better in a given situation, 4e is simulationist; if narrativism plays better, 4e is narrativist. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!




Meh, first I think the GNS model is complete crap, but if you want to stick to those terms, I don't think I've seen anyone describe 4e as simulationist.  It doesn't go for that at all.  And the implication that fans of the edition swing intepretations in whatever way fits is a bit insulting.  It's just a difference in how the game is approached.  Does a lock need a DC if the PCs aren't trying to pick it?  Does an NPC crafter need a craft stat, and if so why?  3e and 4e answer those questions very differently.  You're either a fan of one approach or the other.  



> but in order to have fun with it, I have to disconnect a lot of logic circuits and, especially in combat, stop trying to imagine myself "in" the action and instead go into full on Tactical Minis Game mode




It's not logic circuits, you have a philosophy you buy into, 4e violates that in some ways, you have a problem with that.  It's not like 3e has flawless internal logic and 4e doesn't.  You just have things you accept as "right" and things you don't.  And there is no need to attempt to push buttons with nonsense like 'tacitcal minis game' or by implying fans of 4e are the functional equivalent of Billy Mays with OxyClean.  Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> It's a consistency issue. In one example the DC's are derived through an objective comparison of negative attributes that effect the difficulty... in the other it is abstracted into "tiers" which honestly mean what? All I'm saying is that there would have been less confusion if they had stuck with a single way of setting DC's... either as tiers or as the negative attributes that affect the skill.




I think that's because there are 2 distinct reasons you want people to roll skill checks.  One is for a psudo-simulation reason.  You want to know how hard it is to jump over a pit or you want to know how hard it is to climb a wet ladder.

The other reason you want a DC is when the players want to attempt something that's not so common, very complicated, or that you always want to have a chance to fail(for thematic or plot reasons).  You can't have static DCs listed for everything, there's just too many things you can do.

And sometimes, you just want a chance of failure.  You want to know that the lock will be hard for the group and you don't know what their modifiers are.

Each of these reasons requires a different way of figuring out the DC.  If the players just happen to want to climb a wall, you want to quickly know how hard it is.  You don't care if its really easy or really hard, you just want an objective answer.  If it's DC 5 and everyone can make it on a 1, don't bother rolling.  If it's DC 30 and no one can make it even on a 20, don't bothering rolling.

Sometimes, you want to make a challenge that has an "average" chance of success for a party of their level and give them a benefit if they have a character who specializes in that skill and a disadvantage if everyone is below average in the skill(thereby rewarding those who choose to be good and giving a real disadvantage to those who choose to be poor).  In this case you want to start with the DC and work backward.

Both of them are tools to be used in certain circumstances.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Why did you create it then?




For it's own sake. Because I could. Because I wanted to. Because I find the creative exercise enjoyable.



> It's just form following function. Wait, make that 'form acknowledging function'.




Yes, because clearly there is no other reason to exercise one's imagination and construct a fictional world other than for the playing of a rather specific game in a rather specific manner.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Fwiw, I consider this one of the most common and ultimately damaging mistakes of world design that DMs make.




My world has more purpose than to be your freaking playground.

Anyone else like to tell me I'm doing it wrong?



			
				Burrito Al Pastor said:
			
		

> Stop thinking about it, you'll only hurt yourself. You parted ways with the 4e design philosophy when you said gaming doesn't need to be fun.




Oh, so not only am I doing it wrong, I'm stupid, too.

As pointed out above, I didn't say that gaming doesn't need to be fun. I said that the fun is a byproduct of pursuit of other goals, because fun is not a goal in and of itself.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 19, 2009)

Augh, I just had a whole huge post responding to a bunch of people, and then my computer ate it. For the love of...this is going to be much more brief than it was intended to be.



Lizard said:


> Yeah, it might be a good subject for a Dragon article or even some errata. Because, frankly, as I read the DMG, I got the impression that if the PCs encountered a wall at 3rd level and the same wall at 15th level, the climb DC should be increased. (The famous "chart on page 42" seems to feed into this, with the same maneuver doing more damage the higher levels the PC are -- I guess when an epic PC slides down a bannister to kick a monster in the teeth, he slides REALLY fast!)




I think it's easy to dismiss the abstraction here as not making sense, but I can think of a number of ways it does. Maybe you're just better at improvising maneuvers, maybe you're physically stronger, maybe both. Why does a longsword do more damage at higher levels (not just 4E; think about how stuff like Power Attack worked in 3E). We accept the abstraction as a function of your general prowess increasing.



Lizard said:


> Some parts of the PHB and DMG seem to use "objective" DCs (i.e, this kind of door is DC 10, this kind is DC 20) while others use "subjective" DCs ("This is a Hard DC for the party").




I think, in many cases, they are clearly called out as examples. You start with the tools (page 42 and 61) and create specific examples. That being said: the quote from page 23 talks about the importance of realism. Those static numbers are examples of how to create realism and consistency. They are not the be-all, end-all, though, and we give the ability for DMs to improvise challenges when those fixed rules don't cover it.



GnomeWorks said:


> Why are all the threats in the city of brass epic - why are all the _inhabitants_ epic? The premise of why you need the open lock DCs to all be higher based on tier seems to be based on the idea that everyone the PCs interact with at a given tier is also going to be at that same tier, which seems awkward.




Not everyone and everything that the PCs interact with--just the people that are meant to challenge them! It's perfectly OK to have lower-level peons in the City of Brass, but they're not going to be as much of a challenge. The idea of putting epic threats in the City of Brass is to present a challenge to the heroes. If you want to present a lesser challenge, or none at all, then by all means do so. However, it's just as easy to assume that the City of Brass has epic locks on the doors to keep out the epic thieves that roam the city, not just the PCs. 



Lizard said:


> I know that if I saw a list of, say, six doors with DCs from 10 to 40, I'd be a lot more likely to make up a dozen more than if I just saw a generic DC by level chart. A tiny nudge to the imagination can go a long, long, way, and it also helps make the world more real.




So a list of 5 doors isn't good enough, but 6 is? Of course, I'm just ribbing you here, but it does bring up a point: how much is enough? How many examples do you need? I could give you a list of a description of doors/locks/walls/whatever at every DC from 1 to 40...or I can give you the tools to make your own and 5 ideas, which is what was done.

Also: I believe that there is some truth to the saying, "to define is to confine." If I give you too many definitions, you have the problem of the DM/players/designers being straightjacketed in the definitions you've already given in the DMG. You should be consistent, but some people will say, "OK, I need a DC 24 door for the PCs to break down...guess it HAS to be an adamantine-banded door made of treant wood." And, of course, the first time you do something different in a published module, well, suddenly your designers are hacks, your editors should be fired, and you're not publishing quality material. 



Imaro said:


> Now for the prize, tell me... what type of ledge, to balance on, do you put in a paragon tier locale? Because it's DC isn't connected in any way to tiers... this is where I find the problem with the clarity of skills in 4e.




This is exactly what the DMG section on Realism is talking about. If it's just a ledge, you can use the sample DCs which assume it's Just a Ledge. If it's a ledge of ice covered in jagged shards of icicles, it might just be a paragon tier ledge...so you use the scaling DCs. Just because you become paragon tier doesn't mean that every ledge is a paragon ledge; it only is a paragon ledge if you, the DM, need it to be. And then you need to describe it accordingly.



Imaro said:


> It's a consistency issue that could have easily been resolved if the designers had decided on one way to represent DC's for in-game challenges...either through objective description or tier based assignment... but why both?




Because sometimes you want specificity, and sometimes you don't? Because unless you know a lot about how locks work, specific descriptions don't help you visualize it any easier? You can argue that the Open Lock DC descriptions are not to your taste, and I'll buy it. To say it's some larger flaw of game design seems more like a stretch, since playing and DMing a roleplaying game demands some level of common sense and the ability to put together different mechanical concepts. We can safely assume you understand both what specific examples mean, and what "paragon tier" means.



Lizard said:


> I have no problem imagining a DC 40 Acrobatics check ledge. I only have a problem with the idea it becomes a DC 10 ledge if a 1st level PC walks on it.




I think this is where the section on Realism from page 23 has to come into play. Besides, if you've already defined the ledge at DC 40, then that's the DC. You use the improvisation rules to define, mechanically, the current situation. If you tie a description to a DC, it's a two-way street; once you've tied a DC to a description, you should stick with it.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Oh, so not only am I doing it wrong, I'm stupid, too.



Sorry, not my intended meaning. I had intended to convey that... hmm... that trying to find the game you want in 4e was like trying to find an elephant in Alaska, perhaps? The thing you are seeking exists, but if you're on the wrong continent, you're not going to be getting anything except a lot of bother.



GnomeWorks said:


> As pointed out above, I didn't say that gaming doesn't need to be fun. I said that the fun is a byproduct of pursuit of other goals, because fun is not a goal in and of itself.




Stop me when I get this wrong.

You suggest that the purpose of gaming is to "experience and immerse oneself in a fictional setting.".

That sounds like the most boring kind of game possible to me. I would not have fun in a game in which I was "experiencing and immersing" myself. (I'm fairly confident that this isn't where I misunderstand your argument.)

It is fair to say that if you are doing something in a way that leads astray from its purpose, you're doing it wrong, in much the same way that you're doing it wrong if you use your CD drive as a cupholder.

Therefore, by your standards, I'm doing it wrong if I'm having fun, because if I'm having fun then I'm playing in a game that is working contrary to the purpose of gaming.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> Because it's a different lock.
> 
> See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.
> 
> ...




For what it is worth, there are plenty of people who think the books explained it quite fine. Some people just won't understand, which is why I do not think a Dragon article for people like those in this thread will help. It might be good for other new DM's.



Burrito Al Pastor said:


> The City of Brass and its inhabitants are epic because there needs to be a level-appropriate city for epic heroes to go to.
> 
> Stop thinking about it, you'll only hurt yourself. You parted ways with the 4e design philosophy when you said gaming doesn't need to be fun.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> For what it is worth, there are plenty of people who think the books explained it quite fine. Some people just won't understand, which is why I do not think a Dragon article for people like those in this thread will help. It might be good for other new DM's.



FWIW, there are clearly _at least_ as many pro-4e people who do it wrong as anti-4e people who are wrongly critical of it.

To me it is six of one and half a dozen the other because I'm going to use the right DC for the task.  I have always done it that way in 3E and, were I to play 4E, would continue.

That said, when the intent is to tie DCs to the task, having the rules describe them assuming they are always relative to the players is really really dumb.  It doesn't make actual game play worse for people who get it, but it does make the explanation more tortured to no value.  After all, if you really get it, you should just be doing it this way.  And if you don't get it then it makes the game experience worse.

The DC of the lock on the starting town manor is fixed.  cool
Saying it is a simple lock is a simple lock is a simple lock is the smart way to say it.

Saying the lock is relative to the character level, but on another page explaining that the character level may or may not be connected to assumed character level is a really dumb way to say it.  
It is horrid design either way.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 19, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Some people just won't understand




Avoid making broad-brush characterisations of people who disagree with you.

Goes for anyone in this thread of course.

Thanks


----------



## Blue (Feb 19, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> This. Anytime somebody lists 4e's limited range of effective game styles as a flaw, they're missing the point. It's better for your system to do a few things really well than for your system to be mediocre at a lot of different things.




I agree with your comment - 4e does a limited range of things very well.  However, expand out to the OP's question if that limits different types of play styles.  It does.

Just because Chess is a great game doesn't mean that I can't enjoy Settlers of Catan.  Just because 4e is great at what it does doesn't mean that it does everything for everyone.  That doesn't reduce 4e as a game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 19, 2009)

Though I don't know how we got here from there, ultimately, I agree with Moridin's last post:

4e's DC's aren't supposed to change by level, but the challenges you face ARE supposed to change by level. Just like you'll be fighting harder monsters, you'll be climbing harder cliffs and Religioning harder deities and such. 

That doesn't break realism for me, and it can help in world-building. The Cliffs of Death are always level-appropriate for level 26, no matter what level you decide to visit them at -- 1, 15, 26, or 30, or several times.

My own games rarely assume the PC's are going to climb anything -- that's up to them to decide; they get to pick their challenges, basically. But they will say that this is a level X challenge, and it doesn't care if the party is level X or not.

There is some confusion, but there's quite a bit of confusion over many of the noncombat aspects of 4e (and probably over the combat aspects, too!), just as there was in every other edition of D&D: this game is hard to explain clearly.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> This is exactly what the DMG section on Realism is talking about. If it's just a ledge, you can use the sample DCs which assume it's Just a Ledge. If it's a ledge of ice covered in jagged shards of icicles, it might just be a paragon tier ledge...so you use the scaling DCs. Just because you become paragon tier doesn't mean that every ledge is a paragon ledge; it only is a paragon ledge if you, the DM, need it to be. And then you need to describe it accordingly..




Section on realism??... a paragraph or two on one page of the DMG is hardly a section on realism and I stand by my assertion it could have been more clearly conveyed and stated... especially in the actual section dealing with DC's (both in the PHB and in the DMG). In fact all this paragraph says is that if two doors look similar they should have similar DC's...or the DM should come up with a reason for why they don't.



Moridin said:


> Because sometimes you want specificity, and sometimes you don't? Because unless you know a lot about how locks work, specific descriptions don't help you visualize it any easier? You can argue that the Open Lock DC descriptions are not to your taste, and I'll buy it. To say it's some larger flaw of game design seems more like a stretch, since playing and DMing a roleplaying game demands some level of common sense and the ability to put together different mechanical concepts. We can safely assume you understand both what specific examples mean, and what "paragon tier" means..




Please name me another roelplaying game with a skill system where determining the difficulty for said skills is done in two different (arbitrary) ways. I can't think of any off hand. It's confusing and unnecessary.

On an aside... so how do I describe a "paragon-tier" lock then. I mean if it's to complicated for the game's writers and designers to describe it, how am I suppose to do it in game...that's why I don't really buy that reasoning.




Moridin said:


> I think this is where the section on Realism from page 23 has to come into play. Besides, if you've already defined the ledge at DC 40, then that's the DC. You use the improvisation rules to define, mechanically, the current situation. If you tie a description to a DC, it's a two-way street; once you've tied a DC to a description, you should stick with it.




And again all of this could have been more clearly and better stated. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, that they did a great job conveying this... because with so much initial confusion I would say no they didn't ... or that ranking DC's by descriptors in some skills and then by "tiers" in others is intuitive, consistent, and coherent? Again I would say it's not. 

explain to me why the rule of thumb for an improvised action is 10(easy) 15(moderate) or 20(hard) +1/2 the PC's level? This would seem to indicate PC level and not the level of the challenge is used to determine the DC...right? Well then again we hit a wall where everything PC's are attempting on the fly is perfectly scaled to their level. That's not realistic...and it also informs (at least in my mind) how the chart on page 42 is supposed to be used. If this is not the casse...again it could have been conveyed in a much clearer fashion.

Now, by frequenting forums, messageboards, etc. I understand how it all relates... but how many gamers don't frequent messageboards?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> For it's own sake. Because I could. Because I wanted to. Because I find the creative exercise enjoyable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*raises hand*

So, _are_ you running any campaigns at the moment? With players?

My opinion on this matter is that you could build a game that is pleasing and entertaining if not played and just used to create a world or something. But that's not really the goal of most games, and certainly not 4E. The game is meant to be played, at a table with multiple players, entertaining players and DM alike.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That doesn't break realism for me, and it can help in world-building. The Cliffs of Death are always level-appropriate for level 26, no matter what level you decide to visit them at -- 1, 15, 26, or 30, or several times.



Wouldn't just saying "The cliffs of death are a level 26 challenge" be a whole lot easier than saying "The challenge of the cliffs of death are level appropriate for the characters*"  With a note somewhere else stating "* - Level appropriate assumes the characters are level 26".




> There is some confusion, but there's quite a bit of confusion over many of the noncombat aspects of 4e (and probably over the combat aspects, too!), just as there was in every other edition of D&D: this game is hard to explain clearly.



I'm sorry, but this particular thing is REALLY easy to explain.  The challenge of a thing is X. If you are below X it will be difficult.  If you are above X, it will be easy.
In this particular case an absurdly simple concept was turned into a pointlessly complicated one.

Seriously, wotc really thinks that they need to explain to their players that challenges should tend to be level appropriate??!!??  That is a real shame.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And again all of this could have been more clearly and better stated. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, that they did a great job conveying this... because with so much initial confusion I would say no they didn't ... or that ranking DC's by descriptors in some skills and then by "tiers" in others is intuitive, consistent, and coherent? Again I would say it's not.
> 
> explain to me why the rule of thumb for an improvised action is 10(easy) 15(moderate) or 20(hard) +1/2 the PC's level? This would seem to indicate PC level and not the level of the challenge is used to determine the DC...right? Well then again we hit a wall where everything PC's are attempting on the fly is perfectly scaled to their level. That's not realistic...and it also informs (at least in my mind) how the chart on page 42 is supposed to be used. If this is not the casse...again it could have been conveyed in a much clearer fashion.
> 
> Now, by frequenting forums, messageboards, etc. I understand how it all relates... but how many gamers don't frequent messageboards?




So, would you count it as an house rule that's so much more work than just playing whatever you played before or plan to play instead if you exchanged "PC Level" with "Challenge Level" in these tables? 

Pretend for a moment that this is what actually was what stood in the DMG there? How would this change your view on 4E? If it doesn't, why? 
I generally would not assume that one or two pages in the DMG or PHB will turn a game from "Holy Grail of Gaming" to "Disappointment" or vice versa...


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> So, _are_ you running any campaigns at the moment? With players?
> 
> My opinion on this matter is that you could build a game that is pleasing and entertaining if not played and just used to create a world or something. But that's not really the goal of most games, and certainly not 4E. The game is meant to be played, at a table with multiple players, entertaining players and DM alike.



I agree with you, but only to an extent.

For the past 30 years my enjoyment of RPGs at the table has been very real.  But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real.  And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.

And I am certain that games I have enjoyed were meant to be enjoyed BOTH ways.  4E has conciously rejected one of those ways and as you rightly state, is simply meant to offer the at-table enjoyment.  

IMO the presumption of an audience that only cares about at-table activty and the presumption of an audience that needs the concept of level appropriate challenges hard wired onto the mechanics dove tail cleanly.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, would you count it as an house rule that's so much more work than just playing whatever you played before or plan to play instead if you exchanged "PC Level" with "Challenge Level" in these tables?
> 
> Pretend for a moment that this is what actually was what stood in the DMG there? How would this change your view on 4E? If it doesn't, why?
> I generally would not assume that one or two pages in the DMG or PHB will turn a game from "Holy Grail of Gaming" to "Disappointment" or vice versa...




First, as I cited with the difficulty plus 1/2 character level rule... I'm still not convinced that the levels were intended to represent the level of the challenge as opposed to the PC's level... but let's say they do...

Why do you care whether it then becomes the holy grail for me? I can say, and I'm not sure if you remember... this was a major contention for me in the artificial/boardgamey/whatever feel of the game... but answering whether I would like a game more or less if something had been different originally is futile, first impressions are exactly that and hard to rectify if done badly. I honestly can't answer whether it would have become "Holy Grail of Gaming" to me or not... I can say I would have been more favorably inclined towards 4e in the beginning. In fact in a more general statement, if the designers had spent more time tightening up the skill system in general I think I would have enjoyed 4e alot more than I did when I first played it.

I do think it's strange to defend something as "good" or "easily grasped" when so many, pro and anti alike had all kinds of different interpretations of how this particular system in the game works. To me that clearly shows it wasn't intuitive or well explained.

EDIT:  I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e.  I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called "revolutionary" mechanics for skills.  The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game.  Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 19, 2009)

I can see a case where some things should have been expressed a little more consistently and could have been clearer in terms of how to scale, and how to adhere to some realistic logic, etc, etc. 

I don't think its as bad as some are making it out to be though. You have to be able to improvise and scale things realistically if you're going to DM a game, regardless of what the rules/guidelines may or may not say. 

It's kind of funny how this edition is supposed to be easier for new DM's and inexperienced DM's, but so much of the DM's guide is written from the point of view that the person reading it is going to be an experienced DM. 

If I were new to the game and hadn't DM'd before, I'd have some trouble with some of those tables and charts myself.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> For the past 30 years my enjoyment of RPGs at the table has been very real.  But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real.  And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.



I'm having the opposite effect. While 3.x was by no stretch of the imagination the most internally consistent game on the market, it still had a set of game-physics that I could not create game-worlds without acknowledging. The effect is that, when planning campaigns, I spent more time bookkeeping and itemizing than brainstorming.

So, in 4E, I don't have as much scaffolding, but by the same token, I'm no longer constrained by that scaffolding, either. The physics of the game world are now completely up to what I can imagine, and not up to what tables upon tables upon tables forced on me by the assumptions of the PHB. I spend literally hours musing over my game world, while the actual bookkeeping takes minutes to the hour.

One criticism I've heard of this design philosophy I've heard in other threads, and is a valid criticism, is "why even buy a DM's guide if you're going to make everything up yourself?" To be honest, it's been six months since I cracked open the DM's guide. I haven't had to. It had some good advice, that I read once. I keep a little copy of page 42 on my DM screen to keep the math in sync with player abilities. This is in stark contrast to 3.x, where I had to constantly reference the DMG during world-building, or risk breaking the assumed physics of the PHB to the detriment of the campaign.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Seriously, wotc really thinks that they need to explain to their players that challenges should tend to be level appropriate??!!??  That is a real shame.




Well, obviously they didn't do a good job of that, or more than half the "arguments" on this thread alone would be invalid.

Some people understood that the table shows DCs for what an Easy, Moderate, and Hard *challenge* should be at each level.  Then there were some others that understood it to be that the a specific task that had a DC 5 at level 1 should now be DC 19 at level 25.  The second group is left scratching their heads.

So it obviously should have been better explained.  However, arguing that WotC is saying that the same task becomes harder as you go up in level completely misses the point of the guidelines.

As for providing a table with every single type of "lock", I disagree.  They have already provided a table that can be used to create that table many times over.

With the table on page 42, I can easily ascertain on the fly what type of "CHALLENGE" would be appropriate for the characters and I have 3 different difficulty settings (Easy, Moderate, or Hard).

So if my players are level 1 and they are sneaking into the Sewers of Despair (a level 1 dungeon) and they find a lock all I have to do is decide if opening the lock (the challenge) is going to be Easy, Moderate, or Hard.  I decide that this particular lock is easy, so the DC is 5.  A trained character can do it with his eyes closed.

On their second foray into the Sewers of Despair, opening that lock will still be a DC 5.  If they return to the Sewers of Despair (A level 1 dungeon) when they are level 10, the lock should still be a DC 5 lock, but by that point it is not even a challenge, even the untrained guys do not need to roll to open it.

However, when the 10th level party goes into the Sewers of Insanity (a 10th level dungeon) the *challenges* should most probably be designed for their level.  If I design using the same methodology it allows me to still challenge them at that level, just not with the same trappings.  I could have described the "cheap lock" in the level 1 adventure as being so thin that a sharp tug simply opened it.  Now the party is faced with a "cheap lock" that though slightly tougher still easily opens for those trained in the skill.

As someone mentioned, the table on page 42 does not give you "6" locks.  It gives the DM the potential to create 30 different locks each with a different level of difficulty.  By not "defining" each iteration, the designers did not "confine" the DM to just their predetermined table with 6 locks.

In addition, with the encounter design philosophy that 4e adopts, you could have a really tough challenging "lock" included as part of an encounter.  What if that door that you are trying to get through to escape the host of troglodytes that just surrounded you, is not an easy, level appropriate challenge but a hard one and to top it off is 4 levels higher than your current level?  All of a sudden that DC went from 5 to 19.  Add some circumstance modifiers, like rain or low-visibility and all of a sudden the trained rogue might need a 14 or 15 on his roll to open that lock.  That is what the table on page 42 enables.  Personally I prefer that to a static DC of X on a table of 6 locks.

Could it have been explained better?  Yes.  But are the tools provided inadequate?  No, not by a long shot.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> First, as I cited with the difficulty plus 1/2 character level rule... I'm still not convinced that the levels were intended to represent the level of the challenge as opposed to the PC's level... but let's say they do...



We're pretending it was intended. I don't think that the writer (or editor) "worried" about whether it should be party level or challenge level. 



> Why do you care whether it then becomes the holy grail for me?



1) Me =f4nboi. Everyone has to like my choices. 
2) Rhetorical exaggeration. What I am really interested how "fundamental" the disagreement with the system is. While I wish it was as easy as changing a word in a table heading, I don't think it is. But if we keep discussing about these "small" things, we might never get the big picture. Though maybe the big picture is just all the small things that could have been done a tiny little better?



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I can say, and I'm not sure if you remember... this was a major contention for me in the artificial/boardgamey/whatever feel of the game... but answering whether I would like a game more or less if something had been different originally is futile, first impressions are exactly that and hard to rectify if done badly. I honestly can't answer whether it would have become "Holy Grail of Gaming" to me or not... I can say I would have been more favorably inclined towards 4e in the beginning. In fact in a more general statement, if the designers had spent more time tightening up the skill system in general I think I would have enjoyed 4e alot more than I did when I first played it.
> 
> 
> I do think it's strange to defend something as "good" or "easily grasped" when so many, pro and anti alike had all kinds of different interpretations of how this particular system in the game works. To me that clearly shows it wasn't intuitive or well explained.



People believe a lot of things, but only in discussions do we learn we might be wrong on some things - for example how easy it is to grasp things. The party level => challenge level became obvious to me the moment someone complained about "internal consistency" or world building. Before, I hadn't worried about it...



> EDIT:  I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e.  I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called "revolutionary" mechanics for skills.  The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game.  Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles.



I can't help you here, I am afraid. I was told I could use Unearthed Arcana or 3rd party supplement to fix some issues I might have had with 3E, and I am sure to have a "complete" Fantasy game for GURPS, I might need some more then the core rulebooks. It's a sad fact of life that not only don't core rules contain _everything_ possible in a game system, even the stuff they can contain might need some work. It is still a disappointment when it happens with something you were interested in.
I don't think it would help you that I have had some succesful skill challenges (made myself or by others), and that I also have read some nice examples in DDI or supplements.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> 4E has conciously rejected one of those ways and as you rightly state, is simply meant to offer the at-table enjoyment.




I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with the notion that 4e has rejected the "world-building" aspects of the game.  If anything the tools that 4e has provided reinforce the DM's role in world-building.

The difference is that instead of giving the DM "a fish", the have given the DM the tools "to fish."

I'm doing as much world-building now as I was 30 years ago.  However, now I have more tools to help make that relevant to the players.  If the players decide to go seek level 10 dragons at level 1 they are going to get stomped just as much as they were before.  4e does not do away with that.  But it does give the DM better tools to gauge how to effectively challenge the characters, and that is not a bad thing.  It is a wonderful thing, and it does not get in the way of world-building at all.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I agree with you, but only to an extent.
> 
> For the past 30 years my enjoyment of RPGs at the table has been very real.  But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real.  And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.
> 
> ...



So, explain this for me.  I run 4e.  Are you saying that I can't or don't...

(1) World-build
(2) Enjoy world-building
(3) Have the ability to create and enjoy a self-consistent game world
(4) Create new creatures with the tools provided
(5) Enjoy creating characters
(6) Create a setting or adventure that is independent of the adventurers' levels.
(7) Use the tools and advice provided in the 4e DMG to do any or all of the above.

-O


----------



## RodneyThompson (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Section on realism??... a paragraph or two on one page of the DMG is hardly a section on realism and I stand by my assertion it could have been more clearly conveyed and stated... especially in the actual section dealing with DC's (both in the PHB and in the DMG). In fact all this paragraph says is that if two doors look similar they should have similar DC's...or the DM should come up with a reason for why they don't.




It says, concisely, that things need to make logical sense in your game, and it's up to you, as the DM, to convey that logic through description. I won't argue that such a concept could be expanded upon, but it _is_ there. 



Imaro said:


> Please name me another roelplaying game with a skill system where determining the difficulty for said skills is done in two different (arbitrary) ways. I can't think of any off hand. It's confusing and unnecessary.




D6 Star Wars describes skill targets both with a word description (Hard, Moderate, etc.) and with numerical values.



Imaro said:


> And again all of this could have been more clearly and better stated. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, that they did a great job conveying this... because with so much initial confusion I would say no they didn't ... or that ranking DC's by descriptors in some skills and then by "tiers" in others is intuitive, consistent, and coherent? Again I would say it's not.




I'm not actually arguing anything, I don't think. Instead, I feel like I've been trying to explain how the rules can be used to create internal consistency in the campaign world, and show how that was the intent of the design. I'm likewise hoping to understand why some people didn't feel this was communicated well, and use what I learn here to inform any future writing I might do on the subject.



Imaro said:


> Now, by frequenting forums, messageboards, etc. I understand how it all relates... but how many gamers don't frequent messageboards?




I think that's an excellent point, and part of the reason I'm continuing to participate in this thread is to find out what needs to be better communicated. However, rather than taking everything at face value, I do want to dig deeper into the real reasons behind the confusion, so I can understand it better.


----------



## La Bete (Feb 19, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with the notion that 4e has rejected the "world-building" aspects of the game.  If anything the tools that 4e has provided reinforce the DM's role in world-building.
> 
> The difference is that instead of giving the DM "a fish", the have given the DM the tools "to fish."
> 
> I'm doing as much world-building now as I was 30 years ago.  However, now I have more tools to help make that relevant to the players.  If the players decide to go seek level 10 dragons at level 1 they are going to get stomped just as much as they were before.  4e does not do away with that.  But it does give the DM better tools to gauge how to effectively challenge the characters, and that is not a bad thing.  It is a wonderful thing, and it does not get in the way of world-building at all.




Speaking as a 4e fan, to a certain degree I feel  4e emphasises "at the table play" over "worldbuilding". The sections on roleplaying, on how to work with you players, etc. seem pretty prominent compared to the classic worldbuilding sections.

That said I'm happy with that - and I don't feel that worldbuilding has been totally deemphasised (as others do).


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real.  And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.
> 
> And I am certain that games I have enjoyed were meant to be enjoyed BOTH ways.  4E has conciously rejected one of those ways and as you rightly state, is simply meant to offer the at-table enjoyment.



My group and I built a setting specifically for our 4e campaign. We don't feel 4e 'rejected' anything vis a vis worldbuilding. 

The 2nd link in my sig. leads to thread detailing the creation of the setting. Check it out. It's good. 

4e might not be the right tool for you, but saying that it's somehow an antithetical to world-building is a gross exaggeration/generalization.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 19, 2009)

Off-topic:



Moridin said:


> D6 Star Wars describes skill targets both with a word description (Hard, Moderate, etc.) and with numerical values.




After years of playing that game, I started to assign things dice values instead of difficulties.  Just to increase the "I don't know what's going to happen" effect.  It had a nice side-effect of allowing us to roll out for all sorts of different things.  

"I want to get to the rebel base before the Imperial Strike Team does."  
"Okay, let's roll our Astrogation + Hyperspace Dice.  Whoever wins gets there first.  We'll use the damage chart to determine how much time you have."


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Moridin said:


> It says, concisely, that things need to make logical sense in your game, and it's up to you, as the DM, to convey that logic through description. I won't argue that such a concept could be expanded upon, but it _is_ there.




 And perhaps this is why you're having a hard time understanding one of the reasons it wasn't clear.  Technically it was there, some 20 pages before the improv DC's are introduced, never brought up again in the actual sections on determining DC's.




Moridin said:


> D6 Star Wars describes skill targets both with a word description (Hard, Moderate, etc.) and with numerical values.




I'm sorry but I'm not understanding this... are you saying some skills in Star Wars D6 have a difficulty of Hard while other skills have a difficulty of 2?  Because that would be akin to the D&D 4e skill descriptions in the PHB.  Or are you saying they have a descriptor and a mechanical value that relates to that descriptor...like most rpg's I've played.




Moridin said:


> I'm not actually arguing anything, I don't think. Instead, I feel like I've been trying to explain how the rules can be used to create internal consistency in the campaign world, and show how that was the intent of the design. I'm likewise hoping to understand why some people didn't feel this was communicated well, and use what I learn here to inform any future writing I might do on the subject.




Yes, I understand that, I just get the impression that when a poster says well X is one of the reasons... you're aren't really trying to say... well yes I could see how that might have been misunderstood.  Perhaps I am taking your comments the wrong way, if so I apologize.



Moridin said:


> I think that's an excellent point, and part of the reason I'm continuing to participate in this thread is to find out what needs to be better communicated. However, rather than taking everything at face value, I do want to dig deeper into the real reasons behind the confusion, so I can understand it better.




Well i feel like I've stated this before but here are a few reasons I see....

1. Arbitrary way of describing the difficulty of skills...a wall is DC 30 because it's slippery and slick, a lock is DC 30 because it's listed as  paragon-tier...

2. Books that are hard to read straight through combined with putting the single reference to realism almost 20 pages before the skill section plus never actually referencing it in the actual skill section.

3.  Never clearly and concisely stating challenges should be created based on the level of the challenge you wish to create not on the level of the PC's... (I could be wrong, but I don't think in 3.5 level was used except in reference to characters.  The "level" of a challenge was very specifically referenced as EL or Encounter Level)

I mean these are just some of the reasons I think it may have not been all that clear.  

Hey Rodney, just wanted to say that while I'm not currently a huge fan of D&D 4e... I am enjoying the whole line of SWSE and am waiting for my Clone Wars book to be delivered, you guys do great work and please keep it up.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 1. Arbitrary way of describing the difficulty of skills...a wall is DC 30 because it's slippery and slick, a lock is DC 30 because it's listed as  paragon-tier...




I don't think it's arbitrary, so much as some sections have more detail than others.

In general, the DCs of the challenges are listed as sort on an "A=B, and B=C, so therefore A=C" thing, but they aren't in a nice, neat table.  

Ideally, the wall table would be 3 columns, with Tier and Type of challenge in column A (Heroic, hard challenge), DC in column B (20), and type of wall in column C (rough marble wall).  

The table could also have types of conditions which increase or decrease DC, allowing the DM to have multiple types of description available (if designing the challenge in a gamist fashion) or be aware of how difficult the challenge will be for the players (if designing the encounter in a simulationist manner).


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

BryonD said:


> And I am certain that games I have enjoyed were meant to be enjoyed BOTH ways.  4E has conciously rejected one of those ways and as you rightly state, is simply meant to offer the at-table enjoyment.




C'mon, seriously?  Your position is that 4e has "conciously rejected" world building?  Have you even actually seen pictures of the DMG, let alone read it?


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> 1. Arbitrary way of describing the difficulty of skills...a wall is DC 30 because it's slippery and slick, a lock is DC 30 because it's listed as  paragon-tier...




It's not arbitrary.  Rodney explains the intent well, and I think its quite clear.  In the DMG you are given the tools to handle any mechanical aspect of world building and adventure design.  You are shown how to assign appropriate DCs to tasks.  The PHB, under skills, has a few DC examples based on common adventuring tasks that were created from the guidelines to assigning DCs (or maybe a bit of chicken and egg, either way).  A DC 30 wall is paragon tier.  Between the two, you have the understanding that DCs should be based on level and examples of what that looks like in a couple of cases.  You know from the DMG that a paragon tier wall should be around a DC 30 and from the PHB that a DC 30 wall is going to be very tough to climb, it will be smooth and slick.  The two aren't contrary to each other, the DCs in the skill section are illustrative.  A paragon tier lock would match the difficulty of that paragon tier wall.  What does that mean?

Well, unless you or your group are experts on locks, it doesn't require a lot of specific description. 

Paragon lock:
Paragon Rogue:  I examine the lock
DM:  It's quite complex.  You think you could get through it, but it may take awhile.

Low epic lock:
DM: You've never seen a lock this extraordinary.  You seriously doubt you  have the skill to get past it, but you won't know unless you try.  And with the right tools and a bit of luck, who knows...


And of course, story matters.  If the PCs are encountering the lock, it is often because they are meant to go through it (I said often, not always).  You may through an epic lock at a paragon party because you don't want the PCs to just stroll through it like a standard obstacle.  In which case, you have probably seeded other areas of the adventure or situation with some aid, - perhaps a skill challenge to get some information on how to get past a layer or two of the lock (like the vault security layers in the first Die Hard movie), or a set of tools that can be acquired to give a bonus, or maybe just a collective effort on the party with the bard increasing competence, the aid of a magic item or a potion that boosts dex based checks for a moment, things to take it out of the ordinary.  

Also, Imaro, it is not a fact that these things are not clearly explained in the books.  Comprehension is as much a part of communication as writing.  A lot of people had no trouble understanding it, so it was not "clearly" badly presented.  Some things maybe could have been presented better (skill challenges I'm looking at you), but many 4e players seem to have gotten the message.  

I really do think a significant source of the disconnect is going from an edition that supported strict RAW, and the legion of players who whole-heartedly embraced that have difficulty wrestling with an edition that rejects strict RAW in favor of a more DM and story interpretive approach.  "The DC is whatever you need it to be, now here's some guidelines" is anathema to certain types, but its freeing and liberating to many others and easy enough to follow for a lot of casual players who don't think about these things nearly as much as those of us spending hours online discussing these things do.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> It's not arbitrary.  Rodney explains the intent well, and I think its quite clear.  In the DMG you are given the tools to handle any mechanical aspect of world building and adventure design.  You are shown how to assign appropriate DCs to tasks.  The PHB, under skills, has a few DC examples based on common adventuring tasks that were created from the guidelines to assigning DCs (or maybe a bit of chicken and egg, either way).  A DC 30 wall is paragon tier.  Between the two, you have the understanding that DCs should be based on level and examples of what that looks like in a couple of cases.  You know from the DMG that a paragon tier wall should be around a DC 30 and from the PHB that a DC 30 wall is going to be very tough to climb, it will be smooth and slick.  The two aren't contrary to each other, the DCs in the skill section are illustrative.  A paragon tier lock would match the difficulty of that paragon tier wall.  What does that mean?
> 
> Well, unless you or your group are experts on locks, it doesn't require a lot of specific description.
> 
> ...




And I think you're wrong... but then again we are both entitled to our opinions.  Rodney asked for reasons why certain things might not be clear (no one said it was a fact they were unclear to everyone... but it is a fact they were unclear to some of the fan base.), I gave some thoughts on it... all you did was basically insinuate that, it's not the books that are unclear...it's that all the people who didn't get it actually just don't think in the right way.  Well I'm glad you brought that up for Rodney to consider ...maybe that is it, of course then there's basically no way for these people to get it since it's their brain not the books...of course it's funny how some got it after discussing it on messageboards and other places...but you're probably right it really was just them all along. 

And yes IMO, describing everything else with descriptors except locks and traps is arbitrary.  It certainly isn't consistent.  YMMV of course. 

Also, I thought the table on page 42 was for  actions the rules don't cover... aren't you suppose to use the actual skill DC's for those things covered?  Or am I not understanding this part of the game either?  If that's the case why am I creating tiere'd locks and traps but using an organic away to determine other challenges?


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And I think you're wrong... but then again we are both entitled to our opinions.  Rodney asked for reasons why certain things might not be clear (no one said it was a fact they were unclear to everyone... but it is a fact they were unclear to some of the fan base.), I gave some thoughts on it... all you did was basically insinuate that, it's not the books that are unclear...it's that all the people who didn't get it actually just don't think in the right way.  Well I'm glad you brought that up for Rodney to consider ...maybe that is it, of course then there's basically no way for these people to get it since it's their brain not the books...of course it's funny how some got it after discussing it on messageboards and other places...but you're probably right it really was just them all along.




Apparently it is just you.  Because, instead of reading my rather clear post as an effort to help the discussion, you decide it's an attack on your intelligence or something and respond as a snarky jerk instead of understanding it for what it was.  YMMV


----------



## Imaro (Feb 19, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Apparently it is just you.  Because, instead of reading my rather clear post as an effort to help the discussion, you decide it's an attack on your intelligence or something and respond as a snarky jerk instead of understanding it for what it was.  YMMV




Thas,
 I think that perhaps I'm just a little testy because I did feel like you were attacking my intelligence and admittedly I am a little irritated I have spent the money on a game I have loved for years and now find myself not really enjoying it and honestly finding it hard to articulate exactly why.  I could have read your post in a better light instead of jumping the gun and for that I apologize.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Thas,
> I think that perhaps I'm just a little testy because I did feel like you were attacking my intelligence and admittedly I am a little irritated I have spent the money on a game I have loved for years and now find myself not really enjoying it and honestly finding it hard to articulate exactly why.  I could have read your post in a better light instead of jumping the gun and for that I apologize.




That's cool.  I appreciate the apology.  One love, ma brudda.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 19, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> I really do think a significant source of the disconnect is going from an edition that supported strict RAW, and the legion of players who whole-heartedly embraced that have difficulty wrestling with an edition that rejects strict RAW in favor of a more DM and story interpretive approach.  "The DC is whatever you need it to be, now here's some guidelines" is anathema to certain types, but its freeing and liberating to many others and easy enough to follow for a lot of casual players who don't think about these things nearly as much as those of us spending hours online discussing these things do.




I kind of agree... I think it speaks again to the two mindsets thing again.

One side wants a baseline to start with. The DC for picking a normal lock is 15. Modifiers are then added to it if you want a more difficult lock. It's rusty +2 to the DC, it's effected by magic +10 to the DC etc...

The other side doesn't want or care about a baseline, they just want the end result. This lock is difficult to pick, the DC is 25. 

I think 3e spoke more to the first group. It seemed to support the idea of a universal baseline for things, with modifiers to change it. 4e seems to support the second group more. The end result is king.

Again I find myself (probably why I like 4e a lot) in the second group. I want the lock to be harder to pick, so it is. The reason could be evident, it might not be evident. If your haracter wants to spend the time to investigate and test the lock to discover why, I'll give them a reason, but until that point in time, it's not that important.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Imaro said:


> EDIT:  I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e.  I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called "revolutionary" mechanics for skills.  The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game.  Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles.




I like skill challenges; my only real complaint is that they aren't well integrated with the rest of the rules. That is, aside from skill bonus feats and a very small number of reroll powers (which work differently within a skill challenge than outside it), there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> I like skill challenges; my only real complaint is that they aren't well integrated with the rest of the rules. That is, aside from skill bonus feats and a very small number of reroll powers (which work differently within a skill challenge than outside it), there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.



I somewhat agree, for the most part I am fine with Skill Challenges being oriented just around Skills and such, and having a grand time with it.

But, I like seeing Powers interact as well. Now that being said I don't want Powers made specifically for just Skill Challenges and such (partially since it could take away from Skills and also I fear return of Powers like old Wizard spells that circumnavigate any need for Skills and such). While I have been able to Houserule it/DM fiat it be interesting to see official rules for how both combat and non-combat Powers interact with Skill Challenges.

I so far have done stuff like allowing a Power that is movement based to give bonuses to a chase, or if it hinders the movement of another give negatives to another person running. A attack Power to influence someone, such as intimidate, etc.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.




I'm not really following this here.  Would you mind elaborating more on this.  It sounds like an interesting "disconnect" but I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.


----------



## keterys (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> My world has more purpose than to be your freaking playground.




That's an interesting response. It's probably important to note that it's a _different_ purpose, not 'more' purpose.

If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.

If you're designing a world to play adventures in it, you design it differently than you would to write novels about it.

If you're designing a world as an exercise, such as for historical, philosophical, linguistic, or anthropological analysis, you design it differently...

That doesn't mean that these all can't function together in the same design space, but they have very different requirements and goals. Even with those goals, you still need to consider your audience... where the intended audience may even almost entirely be yourself.

For example, I have one player in one group who is a very serious and grim player, where I'd want to make sure that things felt realistic, there were serious repurcussions, death, destruction, etc. I have one player in another group who would stop playing entirely if the barest hint of depression ended up in the game and focuses on jokes and more beer and pretzel combat. 

Now, let's say that I have designed a world and intend to write short stories and/or novels in it - that's fantastic. I might want to DM characters playing in that world too, but that doesn't necessarily make it an optimal situation. If I start making concessions to the setting for the PCs I might hinder the novelization, and vice versa. Especially in writing stories you might easily hit a point of 'My god, it'd be perfect if X were Y!' and not being willing to change that because of some outside reason is a limitation.

At any rate, world building is fun and awesome no matter how or why you do it, but it's tremendously useful to understand why you make different decisions in world building.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I'm not really following this here.  Would you mind elaborating more on this.  It sounds like an interesting "disconnect" but I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.




The SC system sits "outside" the rest of the rules. The DC are determined by the level of the challenge, not by the nature of the beings (if any) involved -- in other words, if the challenge is "Win a riddle contest with a dragon", it can be given to a level 1 party or a level 20 party, and the dragons bluff, insight, or whatever score don't play into it. (It's strongly recommended that SCs not be opposed checks). Now, you can choose to ignore this, or to set the DCs based on the dragon's attributes, but the default, as I read it, is not to.

There are no feats or utility powers which specifically address "skill use within a challenge". For example, there's nothing which might let you substitute one skill for another even if it's not supposed to be part of the challenge -- for example, "You may always use Acrobatics instead of Athletics in a skill challenge, at the same DC". The fact a skill challenge, no matter how long it takes, is considered to be a single "encounter" interacts poorly with "encounter powers recharge after a short rest". To use a real-world example, my ranger has Crucial Advice (or as I call it, "You're doing it wrong.") In a skill challenge where each "round" represents an hour or more of time, and we're not physically stressed, he should (by the "five minutes" rule) be able to use that power once per round, since he would have had more than enough time to recharge it. However, since the SC is a single "encounter", he can only use it once. Ditto the various other reroll/luck type powers. (We could also discuss why a high dexterity gives you a bonus to going first during a debate... )

It's a good system, and if you make sure that there's roleplaying involved as well as skill checks, it provides a good balance between player skill and character skill, but it has a "bolted on" feeling to me, as if it were developed apart from the main rules.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> That's an interesting response. It's probably important to note that it's a _different_ purpose, not 'more' purpose.
> 
> If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.




Uhm....
Amazon.com: forgotten realms novels
Amazon.com: warhammer novels
Amazon.com: dragonlance novels
Amazon.com: greyhawk novels
Amazon.com: shadowrun novels

I think the prosecution rests... or is it the defense? I lose track...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> The fact a skill challenge, no matter how long it takes, is considered to be a single "encounter" interacts poorly with "encounter powers recharge after a short rest". To use a real-world example, my ranger has Crucial Advice (or as I call it, "You're doing it wrong.") In a skill challenge where each "round" represents an hour or more of time, and we're not physically stressed, he should (by the "five minutes" rule) be able to use that power once per round, since he would have had more than enough time to recharge it. However, since the SC is a single "encounter", he can only use it once. Ditto the various other reroll/luck type powers. (We could also discuss why a high dexterity gives you a bonus to going first during a debate... )



This is one reason I changed Encounter and Daily Powers. Encounters are now Per Scene and Daily are Per Chapter. It may be too narrativist oriented for some but it works well for us, since it makes it more flexible how they are used, it also cuts down on resting.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.
> 
> If you're designing a world to play adventures in it, you design it differently than you would to write novels about it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting what I was going to post, only clearer and quicker!

The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form. 

Isn't a setting a kind of _fiction_? A collection of information, easily and endlessly mutable. One can an instance of setting meant for fiction and another more suited for use w/your gaming group (with all the assumptions about setting that games imply), both variations on a theme.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> ]I think the prosecution rests... or is it the defense? I lose track...



That list demonstrates that people write (and consume!) novels based on games. 

The question is how faithful those books are to those games (my limited experience is 'not very'), to what extent did they need to be altered in order to work as fiction (I think anyone who writes a Story Hour here can attest to the fact alterations need to made when making the jump from Cheeto-stained graph paper to page).


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form.
> 
> Isn't a setting a kind of _fiction_? A collection of information, easily and endlessly mutable. One can an instance of setting meant for fiction and another more suited for use w/your gaming group (with all the assumptions about setting that games imply), both variations on a theme.




Why would you want to separate the two?

I enjoy working on my setting. I also enjoy gaming. The setting is not anathema to gaming, and since most of it is written with 3.5 in mind, gaming functions rather well in the setting.

I enjoy the idea of gaming groups having an impact on the setting. I also enjoy using it as a setting for writing. These two can co-exist in the same setting without instancing.

It's not like the setting is immutable. A gaming group can - and has! - impacted the direction of the setting's future. But I don't change the setting for the sake of the group; I change the setting based on what makes sense and what has happened, which includes the group's actions.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Why would you want to separate the two?



Because I don't neccessarily want role-playing game assumptions/conventions in my fiction. And vice versa. What makes a good novel (usually) doesn't make a good game. And vice versa (redux!). 

The needs of fiction and the needs of gaming are different. 



> But I don't change the setting for the sake of the group; I change the setting based on what makes sense and what has happened, which includes the group's actions.



Why not change things for the player's sake, play to your audience a little, let them bull around in your finely-wrought chinashop (pardon my compound wording, I've been reading Cormac McCarthy)? It's not like they can damage anything, you've always got a pristine version of your setting safely stored away...


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form.




I do, or at least I understand where he is coming from. It is an issue of consistency. If a group of first level characters travel to a city that city should, in all ways, be the same city that a group of eighteenth level characters encounter. The same holds true for dungeons, dragons, wizards, mountains, etc. 

Does it matter that it is made up before the characters choose to adventure there or after? I think not. What matters is that everyone enjoys the story.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Because I don't neccessarily want role-playing game assumptions/conventions in my fiction. And vice versa. What makes a good novel (usually) doesn't make a good game. And vice versa (redux!).




I find it interesting to try to make fiction deal with the ramifications of the game physics. It makes me really think about the system from an in-world standpoint, which is good for immersion when at the table.



> Why not change things for the player's sake, play to your audience a little, let them bull around in your finely-wrought chinashop (pardon my compound wording, I've been reading Cormac McCarthy)? It's not like they can damage anything, you've always got a pristine version of your setting safely stored away...




Because then - for me - there is no point in gaming.

Right now, I'm playing in a 4e game that one of my regular players is running. Everyone involved knows that he wrote this setting specifically for this game, and that once we're done, the setting is done - we're never going to see it again.

That makes it rather difficult for me to get involved in the game, because it doesn't really matter. We could completely trash the setting, and... there aren't any repercussions. It has no reality, even of an imaginary sort.

When I run a game in my setting, the actions of the group impact the world. There are consequences and ramifications. My groups are both aware of the fact that when they do things, those actions won't just vanish - they have an impact.

Without that, IMO, there is almost no reason to sit down at the table to begin with.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> That makes it rather difficult for me to get involved in the game, because it doesn't really matter. We could completely trash the setting, and... there aren't any repercussions. It has no reality, even of an imaginary sort.
> ...
> Without that, IMO, there is almost no reason to sit down at the table to begin with.



What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.



Or to see the completion of the plot/campaign, or simply the joy of running around doing unbelievable things. Or well, simply to have fun with friends with make-believe (since really that is all we are doing sure it is matured and has rules and everything but it goes back to childhood make-believe which was about just plain fun).


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.




I'm not really certain where you get the idea that I'd be against character development?



			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Or to see the completion of the plot/campaign, or simply the joy of running around doing unbelievable things.




There is plot completion. Why is it so hard to envision playing in the same setting after finishing up one plot?

As for running around and doing unbelievable things... though I try to restrain my players from doing things incredibly ridiculous, they still do ridiculous things.

It's not as if, when running a game, I'm putting my setting up on a pedestal and telling my players to behave themselves. The approach is simply different; the setting isn't there because of them, and has existence independent of that one game.

If they really wanted to, and really put their minds to it, they could trash my setting. And as much as that would irritate me, I would do what I could with the remnants to make the world interesting and playable again. I would not simply ignore their actions.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> The SC system sits "outside" the rest of the rules. The DC are determined by the level of the challenge, not by the nature of the beings (if any) involved -- in other words, if the challenge is "Win a riddle contest with a dragon", it can be given to a level 1 party or a level 20 party, and the dragons bluff, insight, or whatever score don't play into it. (It's strongly recommended that SCs not be opposed checks). Now, you can choose to ignore this, or to set the DCs based on the dragon's attributes, but the default, as I read it, is not to.




I suggest this is another version of the lock that is DC 10 at the Heroic tier and DC: 20 at the Epic tier.  In other words, that there is an implicit assumption that the skill challenge is tailored to the party's level.  1st Level parties are assumed to riddle with very young, easily gulled dragons.  20th Level parties are assumed to riddle with older and wiser wyrms.  

I don't think this is explicitly spelled out in the DMG.  But it is certainly how I would handle it.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Right now, I'm playing in a 4e game that one of my regular players is running. Everyone involved knows that he wrote this setting specifically for this game, and that once we're done, the setting is done - we're never going to see it again.
> 
> That makes it rather difficult for me to get involved in the game, because it doesn't really matter. We could completely trash the setting, and... there aren't any repercussions. It has no reality, even of an imaginary sort.



I think you're giving too much credence to the independent reality of an imagined construct.

You say that this DM has said, once this adventure is over, we won't play in this game world again.

How would this be different from him saying that there would be further adventures, but with those adventures never materializing?  Say, he moves away or the game disbands.

Or, he's said the game world is gone once the adventure is over, but then changes his mind?

As a player, I can't tell the difference.  Nothing really matters - in any case, we're doing imaginary things in an imaginary world, perhaps seeing imaginary repercussions of our imaginary actions.  It's great for a story, but I'm not going to pretend that it somehow exists outside of the imaginations of myself and my players, nor am I going to pretend that each of our imaginings is coherent with the others.



> When I run a game in my setting, the actions of the group impact the world. There are consequences and ramifications. My groups are both aware of the fact that when they do things, those actions won't just vanish - they have an impact.
> 
> Without that, IMO, there is almost no reason to sit down at the table to begin with.



So do you have multiple campaign worlds?

Have you run any modern-world campaigns set on Earth?

How can your players distinguish from something that has existed all along in your head, and something you've made up at the spur of the moment due to unexpected questions at the game table?  Should they be able to make a distinction?

I dunno.

-O


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> When I run a game in my setting, the actions of the group impact the world. There are consequences and ramifications. My groups are both aware of the fact that when they do things, those actions won't just vanish - they have an impact.




That's an interesting perspective - a campaign world that is almost a living-breathing entity. Let me ask you then... do your players ever feel as though the situation has become hopeless? What I mean is that does the world's story ever eclipse the players story? I have always gamed with the belief that the DM brings the setting and the players bring the story. The players are the focus of the game. Your way of doing things certainly intrigues me. I am curious to know how it works.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 19, 2009)

Lizard said:


> The SC system sits "outside" the rest of the rules. The DC are determined by the level of the challenge, not by the nature of the beings (if any) involved -- in other words, if the challenge is "Win a riddle contest with a dragon", it can be given to a level 1 party or a level 20 party, and the dragons bluff, insight, or whatever score don't play into it. (It's strongly recommended that SCs not be opposed checks).




This is like the lock DC issue.

I'd set the level of the challenge equal to the Dragon's level.  That's generally what I do; whatever the opposition is, it has a level, and I use that as the level of the skill challenge.  I don't _exactly_ use the level of the creatures, it's more the like the level of the encounter, but it boils down to the same thing.  The level of the challenge is derived from the opposition.



Lizard said:


> It's a good system, and if you make sure that there's roleplaying involved as well as skill checks, it provides a good balance between player skill and character skill, but it has a "bolted on" feeling to me, as if it were developed apart from the main rules.




I've let players use their Powers in skill challenges.  My basic thought is that, if it's an at-will, it allows the PC to do something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do - roll the attack vs. the DC.  If it's an encounter power, then I'll give them a +2 bonus to the roll.  If it's a Daily, then a +4.

An example would be: the PCs are being chased by some spined devils; the warlock uses Eldritch Blast to drops some rock in their way.  He rolls his attack vs. the DC of the skill challenge, makes it.  The spines that the devils shoot are blocked by the falling rubble just in time.

Anyway.  Since attack rolls are the same as a skill check (1d20+mods) you can substitue them in for a skill check in a skill challenge.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I'm not really certain where you get the idea that I'd be against character development?



When you said that if you don't have a persistent setting, you don't care about your character or the story.

EDIT: Not "against"... I never said that... but it certainly doesn't sound like a priority.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think you're giving too much credence to the independent reality of an imagined construct.




It's not like I'm saying "Oh yes, this really is real somewhere."



> How would this be different from him saying that there would be further adventures, but with those adventures never materializing?  Say, he moves away or the game disbands.




It's like... the difference between a movie and real life.

You know that, when you get towards the end of the movie, things are going to wrap up. There is going to be finality to it, and then - that's it.

Reality keeps going.

If he were to say that we would keep playing in this setting, then it would be more like reality. The way it is now, it is more like a movie.



> As a player, I can't tell the difference.  Nothing really matters - in any case, we're doing imaginary things in an imaginary world, perhaps seeing imaginary repercussions of our imaginary actions.  It's great for a story, but I'm not going to pretend that it somehow exists outside of the imaginations of myself and my players, nor am I going to pretend that each of our imaginings is coherent with the others.




Look, if you disagree with my take, that's fine.



> So do you have multiple campaign worlds?




No.



> Have you run any modern-world campaigns set on Earth?




No.



> How can your players distinguish from something that has existed all along in your head, and something you've made up at the spur of the moment due to unexpected questions at the game table?  Should they be able to make a distinction?




I attempt to head off unexpected questions at the table for this very reason (by providing a wiki, it's not like I try to keep my players in the dark), because I don't like giving off-the-cuff answers because it could possibly mess with versimilitude or - perhaps worse - I may have answered the question on the wiki, but it's been so long that I've forgotten about it and give a different answer now.

Should they be able to make a distinction? I'm not really sure it matters.



			
				The_Ghost said:
			
		

> That's an interesting perspective - a campaign world that is almost a living-breathing entity.




That is the thing I'm attempting to get at.



> Let me ask you then... do your players ever feel as though the situation has become hopeless? What I mean is that does the world's story ever eclipse the players story? I have always gamed with the belief that the DM brings the setting and the players bring the story. The players are the focus of the game. Your way of doing things certainly intrigues me. I am curious to know how it works.




That's a bit difficult to answer.

There are things going on in the background, almost always. The world doesn't stand still.

However, whatever game I'm running, the PCs are the focus of that game. It is their story, and while the world story - or even the stories of other simultaneous PC groups - may have an impact on it, we're more interested in the story of the group, for the purposes of a game.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Halivar said:


> When you said that if you don't have a persistent setting, you don't care about your character or the story.




Oh! I thought you meant in my setting, when I'm running a game, not the game I'm playing in.

Initially, I did. The reason I stopped up is because the DM took our backgrounds (which I spent a good deal of time on) and pretty much threw them out the window. Our characters had no real reason to care about what we were doing - it was primarily a "we'll do this so we can get back to what we were doing prior to the start of the game." Character development options were stunted because of the irrelevance of our backgrounds, and since it's all going to not really matter in the end anyway...


----------



## Obryn (Feb 19, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> It's not like I'm saying "Oh yes, this really is real somewhere."



No, I'm presuming you're not crazy.  You are however treating it as if there were an independent reality to it.



> It's like... the difference between a movie and real life.
> 
> You know that, when you get towards the end of the movie, things are going to wrap up. There is going to be finality to it, and then - that's it.
> 
> ...



But if that later play didn't materialize?  Or the DM said there would be further play but was actually lying about it?  That's what I don't get.  In both cases, the fact of the matter is the same - and it's your decision to treat the game world with any given degree of legitimacy.



> Look, if you disagree with my take, that's fine.
> 
> No.
> 
> No.



I have to ask - why not have several campaign worlds?  Wouldn't it be freeing in some ways?



> I attempt to head off unexpected questions at the table for this very reason (by providing a wiki, it's not like I try to keep my players in the dark), because I don't like giving off-the-cuff answers because it could possibly mess with versimilitude or - perhaps worse - I may have answered the question on the wiki, but it's been so long that I've forgotten about it and give a different answer now.
> 
> Should they be able to make a distinction? I'm not really sure it matters.



I think it kinda does matter.  By writing it down, you're asserting that the act of writing it has made it semi-permanent.

If you have written in the Wiki that Bob is the head of the thieves' guild in some remote city, and you instead say that Adam is the head of the thieves' guild in a session, and neither Bob nor Adam have influenced the game in any way... I don't know that there's a value to keeping consistent to something that has never come up in the game and has never passed your players' minds.  I don't see how an edit would destroy the game world's integrity or what have you...

At what point does an idea in your head become canonical for the world?  On the point of imagining it?  On the point of writing it down?  Can you later change your mind about it and revise?

-O


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, I'm presuming you're not crazy.  You are however treating it as if there were an independent reality to it.




Yes, I am treating it that way. I feel it necessary to continue explaining that I do not actually think it is real because there are some folks who would pounce upon that idea and spend hours arguing with me about it.

Like the whole "how can you care about realism when there are dragons that breathe fire" argument... *sigh*



> But if that later play didn't materialize?  Or the DM said there would be further play but was actually lying about it?  That's what I don't get.  In both cases, the fact of the matter is the same - and it's your decision to treat the game world with any given degree of legitimacy.




It's all about perception, then, at that point. If I think that the game might matter in the future, I might care about it more. But because I have no reason to think that, I find difficulty getting into the game.



> I have to ask - why not have several campaign worlds?  Wouldn't it be freeing in some ways?




To what end? This is my approach to world design and gaming in general; having multiple settings wouldn't change that.



> I think it kinda does matter.  By writing it down, you're asserting that the act of writing it has made it semi-permanent.




Hrm. Fair enough.



> I don't know that there's a value to keeping consistent to something that has never come up in the game and has never passed your players' minds.  I don't see how an edit would destroy the game world's integrity or what have you...




Because _I_ would know.

There are varying degrees of inconsistencies and edits, such as this. Some are more important than others - and while I would like for there to be no inconsistencies, I am only human, and have only so much time and memory capacity.

It greatly depends on the level of detail surrounding the inconsistency. If Bob had a massive backstory written up, if there were all kinds of things based upon that fact, and then I go and screw it up... well, that's the kind of error I want to avoid. I may cover up the error by in-game reasoning (for instance, if the players heard from some guy that it was Adam in charge, it may in fact still be Bob, and their source was not reliable), depending upon how the information was presented.

If it was just a casual conversation, and I later find out that I was inconsistent with the wiki, the wiki takes precedence.



> At what point does an idea in your head become canonical for the world?  On the point of imagining it?  On the point of writing it down?  Can you later change your mind about it and revise?




I don't think canonical status is boolean like that; I imagine it's a lot more of a gradient, insofar as my setting goes. Something written on the wiki, that has a lot of information interacting with it, is pretty much irrefutable canon. Something on the wiki that is just sort of there... I'd like to avoid contradicting it, but if I do, it's not really a big deal.

If something on the wiki contradicts an idea I had, then I work to modify the idea so that it fits. So ideas are less canonical than the wiki, though they may have some amount of canonical status given that I don't put everything I think of on the wiki (my plans for my next game, for instance).

Revising information, that again falls under the "how important and ingrained in the setting is this" idea. If an earlier idea seems to not be working out, or I've had a better one that would be better, my willingness to change it is dependent upon how important the information is. I have revised things, in the past, though as time goes on I do so less and less.


----------



## keterys (Feb 20, 2009)

Lizard said:


> Uhm....
> Amazon.com: forgotten realms novels
> Amazon.com: warhammer novels
> Amazon.com: dragonlance novels
> ...




I'd say those are tremendous evidence to support my case, yes. In their ups, downs, treatment of game-related topics, repercussions on game play, etc.

For example, it's often interesting to consider what facets of a game setting are actively ignored by writers of fiction for that game setting, and how characters, items, rituals, etc from books are portrayed in game terms.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 20, 2009)

Lizard said:


> The fact a skill challenge, no matter how long it takes, is considered to be a single "encounter" interacts poorly with "encounter powers recharge after a short rest".



Is this fact stated in the DMG?  I don't recall reading anything like that, but it's been a while (and then that whole chapter got rewritten in the errata...).


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 20, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, I'm presuming you're not crazy.  You are however treating it as if there were an independent reality to it.




Which is probably the point.  I'm not a big fan of that kind of play (unless it's Call of Cthulhu), but it's cool.  I think it's awesome that GW has put all this creative effort into his game.  Creative effort that I think will be rewarded in play by his player's engagement into the world he's created.

And together they end up changing the world, following the PC's choices to their natural consequences.

This is Simulationism and it's a good, creative, engaging way to play the game.


----------



## keterys (Feb 20, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> This is Simulationism and it's a good, creative, engaging way to play the game.




For some DMs and some players, yes. Which is the whole point - if you've got the players who want that, that's what you do. That's what they find fun, so it's the right choice.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Is this fact stated in the DMG?  I don't recall reading anything like that, but it's been a while (and then that whole chapter got rewritten in the errata...).




I asked about this on ENworld a few weeks back, when the issue of my using Crucial Advice more than once during a long-term challenge came up in play, and the hivemind consensus was, barring extremely unusual circumstances, the CS was "an encounter" and any encounter power could be used only once.


----------



## keterys (Feb 20, 2009)

That's odd - you can use it as often as you can short rest. That said, only some skill challenges would allow a short rest.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 20, 2009)

Well, it seems like a reasonable interpretation.  I was curious about it being a "fact" since you referred to it as such a few times here - the DMG section on skill challenges is kinda skimpy as I recall and I don't think it gets that specific.

And after reading the latest skill challenge article from Mearls, where he constructs one that covers many days and is concurrent with other events, I don't know that that interpretation necessarily holds water.  I would probably go with Keterys' take, myself.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 20, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> However, whatever game I'm running, the PCs are the focus of that game. It is their story, and while the world story - or even the stories of other simultaneous PC groups - may have an impact on it, we're more interested in the story of the group, for the purposes of a game.



Keep in mind also that it is quite possible to have multiple "worlds" all use the one base design, provided it's deep enough.  

To use the world I'm currently running as an example, if I may.  Right now I'm running a dual-party campaign in the Greek-like lands.  But once that winds down I could turn around and start an entirely different campaign in a far-away Celtic-based land, or Norse, or whatever; the point is the players don't need to know it's the same world I used for the last campaign, only recycled.    Meanwhile, if I ever got so ambitious I could be writing a book about events in a third part of the same world....

Never mind the colossal amount of use you can get out of a single world if you start using different times in its history as the backdrop for your stories/campaigns/whatever.

Lanefan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2009)

Lizard said:


> I asked about this on ENworld a few weeks back, when the issue of my using Crucial Advice more than once during a long-term challenge came up in play, and the hivemind consensus was, barring extremely unusual circumstances, the CS was "an encounter" and any encounter power could be used only once.




I think it's never spelled out, theoretically a short rest would suffice. But I tend would use this interpretation, though if you had for some reason multiple simultaneously occuring challenges or encounters (e.g. a combat encounter in between a skill challenge), it could be used in both. But that's certainly not RAW.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'd say those are tremendous evidence to support my case, yes. In their ups, downs, treatment of game-related topics, repercussions on game play, etc.
> 
> For example, it's often interesting to consider what facets of a game setting are actively ignored by writers of fiction for that game setting, and how characters, items, rituals, etc from books are portrayed in game terms.




In my experience, novels generally ruin a setting.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 20, 2009)

True. Authors who can do a setting justice (or even, heaven forbid, improve it) are few and far between. Michael A. Stackpole and Dan Abnett are the only ones who jump to mind.


----------



## IanArgent (Feb 22, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> True. Authors who can do a setting justice (or even, heaven forbid, improve it) are few and far between. Michael A. Stackpole and Dan Abnett are the only ones who jump to mind.




Shadowrun got more than it's fair share of the good ones, though. Nigel Findley and Steve Kenson jusmp to mind, and even Tom Dowd wasn't bad


----------



## Mallus (Feb 23, 2009)

Speaking of scope... in our 4e campaign the party is currently preparing to put on a stage play. We've gotten ourselves into a feud with a famous playwright and challenged him to the duel of drama. 

The DM is running it as a high-complexity Skill Challenge using Staker0's Obsidian system. It will involve every PC and most of the group's skill set, including the spells and swords (when you use adventurers instead of actors, why use stage combat?). 

4e is first version of D&Dd to offer any kind of direct rules support (albeit a loose framework) for this sort of thing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I enjoy working on my setting. I also enjoy gaming. The setting is not anathema to gaming, and since most of it is written with 3.5 in mind, gaming functions rather well in the setting.



It may not be anathema to gaming.  But it might not support it as well as a setting that is extremely mutable.

Let's say you've previously established that in the last 200 years, no one has ever gotten in to see the king without a 6 month waiting period and during that time dragons attacked neighboring kingdoms and the king has always refused emergency meetings.

Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands.  If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone.  In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow.  But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.

In a mutable game where you have no idea who the King is or what the rules of the kingdom are before you start playing, you can make him a benevolent King who will help them out when they ask.  It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.

I'm sure in a campaign with a set world, you might be able to avoid the situation.  You might have someone else with an army who will help and a system of teleportation gates that let them get here on time, you might never write that situation into the plot because you don't want to blow up the world.  However, if the situation DOES come up, you need to change your world and sacrifice consistency and realism in exchange for playability(likely ending up with the King changing his mind, strangely, since he never has before).  Either that or you have to sacrifice playability in exchange for consistency(which generally means the bad guys win and the PCs have to deal with the aftermath...or they all die and start a new campaign).



GnomeWorks said:


> I enjoy the idea of gaming groups having an impact on the setting. I also enjoy using it as a setting for writing. These two can co-exist in the same setting without instancing.



They just have different goals, that's all.  The goal of a game is to allow the players to have fun, often while letting them be the heroes.  The goal of writing is just to tell interesting stories.

Often the things players find fun aren't interesting stories for anyone not participating.  Often the interesting stories are not fun for the players because they focus on people other than them.  If you have extremely cooperative players, you can have adventures that don't focus on them.

I just know that if I had another adventuring group solve the problem for them, or even told tales of another adventuring group who did better things than they did, they'd either be annoyed or not care at all.  So it would either make the game worse or simply not add anything to the game as it doesn't make it more fun for them.

Thus, the different focus of the two approaches.

I believe there was a quote that said something to the effect of "my game is not your playground".  But from a player's point of view, I don't play in order to be forced to play in YOUR playground either.  I play in order to get a chance to use my cool powers, role play my character, defeat my enemies, accomplish my goals, and become a hero.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands.  If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone.  In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow.  But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.
> 
> In a mutable game where you have no idea who the King is or what the rules of the kingdom are before you start playing, you can make him a benevolent King who will help them out when they ask.  It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.




It fits the story better?  Whysoever should one draw that conclusion?

Why is "King grants help easily" a better fit than "PCs accomplish that which hasn't been accomplished in centuries, and see King immediately"?  Why is it a better fit than "Because they could not get in to see the King, the PCs went to his Ministers and ended up ruling the Kingdom themselves"?  Why is it a better fit than "Because they did not have the aid from the King, they went into the Ruined Dwarven City to recover the fabled Automaton Army"?

Methinks you presume too much.

A campaign setting where _*the future is fixed and immutable*_ is not conducive to good play (because it, by definition, means that the PCs can affect little, if anything).  A campaign setting where the past is fixed, though, causes merely a tradeoff between types of benefits.

Where the past is known, the PCs can remember the fabled Automaton Army and make that plan themselves.

Where the past is known, the PCs can know that trying normal channels to see the King immediately will not work.

Where the past is known, the players -- rather than merely the DM -- can decide where the action is going to go, because the players have a context to do so in.


RC


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 23, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It may not be anathema to gaming.  But it might not support it as well as a setting that is extremely mutable.




I find little purpose in playing in or running a setting that changes on a whim. Such a setting would lack consistency.



> Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands.  If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone.  In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow.  But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.




For one thing, I wouldn't do something to "build up a sense of urgency." The ritual would be completed when it is completed.

I also do not write into my adventures how issues are meant to be resolved. The players may be especially clever and find a way to speak to the king (sneaking in, teleportation, etc). They may say "screw it" and get help elsewhere. Rather than try to get an army they may attempt to sneak in and disrupt the ritual on their own. And so on and so forth; their chosen path may work, or it may not.



> It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.




The games I run are not stories. They are a series of events. I don't care "what makes for a better story."



> Either that or you have to sacrifice playability in exchange for consistency(which generally means the bad guys win and the PCs have to deal with the aftermath...or they all die and start a new campaign).




Consistency over what you would like to call playability.

If the players fail to find a way to stop the bad guys, then yes, they have to deal with the aftermath. There are consequences and repercussions. Without these, there is - for me - no point in gaming. I have no interest in running or playing in a setting where failure has no consequences.



> Often the things players find fun aren't interesting stories for anyone not participating.  Often the interesting stories are not fun for the players because they focus on people other than them.  If you have extremely cooperative players, you can have adventures that don't focus on them.




I think you missed the part where I said that the games I run focus on the PCs, because that's what that particular game is interested in. That doesn't mean there aren't things going on in the background, but regardless of events in the world, they are dealt with via the perspective of the PCs in a given game.



> I just know that if I had another adventuring group solve the problem for them, or even told tales of another adventuring group who did better things than they did, they'd either be annoyed or not care at all.  So it would either make the game worse or simply not add anything to the game as it doesn't make it more fun for them.




I find it ridiculous that a group would get upset if they heard about another group of adventurers doing things in the world. 

The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence.



> I play in order to get a chance to use my cool powers, role play my character, defeat my enemies, accomplish my goals, and become a hero.




I don't think I have said, anywhere, that these kinds of things are cut from the games I run.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Feb 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think it's never spelled out, theoretically a short rest would suffice. But I tend would use this interpretation, though if you had for some reason multiple simultaneously occuring challenges or encounters (e.g. a combat encounter in between a skill challenge), it could be used in both. But that's certainly not RAW.




It is spelled out.

It's in the rules under when encounter powers can be used again.

It's after a short rest.  Not an "encounter".

That's RAW.  People are just being thrown off by the name Encounter Power.  I swear they should've just named them Short Rest Powers and Long Rest Powers to reduce confusion.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 23, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> It is spelled out.
> 
> It's in the rules under when encounter powers can be used again.
> 
> ...




Yep. 

It's just assumed that the group will take a short rest between each encounter, and will therefore regain use of their encounter powers.

In game they would be spending 5 minutes or so cleaning and sharpening their weapons, binding their wounds, and just recouperating from the battle.

If you don't give them a 5 minute rest between encounters they don't refresh their powers.


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 23, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Let's say you've previously established that in the last 200 years, no one has ever gotten in to see the king without a 6 month waiting period and during that time dragons attacked neighboring kingdoms and the king has always refused emergency meetings.
> 
> Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands.  If they fail, Tharizdun (or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone.  In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow.  But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.




I am sorry but I do not see a problem here - I see a challenge to overcome. How do I succeed despite the King's restrictions. Maybe there is a general who is sympathetic... Maybe we can find out who is to see the King today and go in their stead... Maybe we sneak into the King's chambers and talk to him there... Maybe we speak with the Queen and have her relay the news to the King... Maybe there is a powerful Wizard/Dragon/etc. who can assist us... Maybe there is a Dwarven/Even/Drow army nearby to assist us. I just see a lot of cool roleplaying scenarios being created here by GnomeWorks and his method. I see a cool challenge and an awesome story to tell here. And I applaude him for it.

As a PC I want to overcome challenges and tell a cool story - That is why I game!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I find little purpose in playing in or running a setting that changes on a whim. Such a setting would lack consistency.



And I know consistency is what is important to you, I understand that.  I like consistency too.  I just like consistency as a player and not as a DM.  As a DM, my job is to create an ILLUSION of consistency without there actually needing to be.

My settings don't change at a whim, they simply aren't defined at all until I need them.  I have no idea who the King is until the players meet him, talk to someone who mentions him, and so on.  Then he becomes defined and stays the way I define him.  I leave the details open on purpose, though, so that he can be whatever I need him to be within the context of the adventure I'm running.



GnomeWorks said:


> For one thing, I wouldn't do something to "build up a sense of urgency." The ritual would be completed when it is completed.





GnomeWorks said:


> The games I run are not stories. They are a series of events. I don't care "what makes for a better story."



But that's the thing.  When the ritual doesn't have a set finish time except whatever you make up, then it is completed when you want it to be completed.  It might take 30 seconds or 10 years to complete if there are no written rules for its duration(let's say it's a ritual you made up yourself).

Then you have to ask yourself:  Why am I putting this ritual into the game at all?  The god could stay dead forever.  There's no reason to believe there is ANY way to release him.  But, a game where the cultists never attack the city in order to kidnap people for sacrifices for the ritual and therefore the PCs never learn of the evil plot and instead sit around the inn drinking and discussing the weather isn't all that exciting for anyone.

So, the reason you put these things into your game is an attempt to make things interesting and exciting.  So, if you are already willing to arbitrarily make stuff up in order to make the game interesting and exciting, why stop there?  Now the ritual HAS to be completed 3 days later even if it kills all the PCs and forces you to start a new campaign?  If we are making up stuff to make the game more exciting, isn't it better to "make things up" such that the ritual gets delayed until the moment the PCs arrive so they have an interesting battle against the leader of the cultists for the fate of the world?

I know, as a player, that is much more fun for me than: "You never wake up after going to sleep.  It turns out that since you didn't investigate the footprints last night and decided to go to sleep, Tharizdun was summoned by a ritual last night and he wiped out all life on the planet on a whim.  I know you were excited to play your character, but he died.  Let's start a new game."



GnomeWorks said:


> I also do not write into my adventures how issues are meant to be resolved. The players may be especially clever and find a way to speak to the king (sneaking in, teleportation, etc). They may say "screw it" and get help elsewhere. Rather than try to get an army they may attempt to sneak in and disrupt the ritual on their own. And so on and so forth; their chosen path may work, or it may not.




Just by writing anything at all, you are favoring some solutions over other ones.  If the fortress has a poorly guarded back entrance when you write up the map for it, you are encouraging them to sneak in.  If the King has guards that have +30 to their Perception checks, you are discouraging sneaking in.  If the King is written as being unreasonable, even if you sneak in, he won't listen to you and will lock you away for sneaking in.

You might not think about it when writing it, but you are almost always giving the PCs one or two options that are much much more likely to succeed or are easier than the others.  As a DM, you have amazing power.  You can get the PCs to do almost anything, simply by describing something in more sentences than you do everything else in a room.

The only real difference is that I recognize I have this power and I'm willing to use it in order to encourage things to go the way that is the most "interesting".  At the same time, they have free choice and can pick other options all they want.



GnomeWorks said:


> Consistency over what you would like to call playability.
> 
> If the players fail to find a way to stop the bad guys, then yes, they have to deal with the aftermath. There are consequences and repercussions. Without these, there is - for me - no point in gaming. I have no interest in running or playing in a setting where failure has no consequences.



To me, "playability" means giving the players more possibilities to do the things they like doing and to continue to have the game run in a manner that they enjoy.  If losing means the world ends and the campaign is over, then the world isn't going to end no matter what the players do.  Of course, they won't know that.  From their point of view, there is a ritual of unknown duration that is taking place in that fortress and they need to hurry to stop it.  They made a 3 week trip to find a magic item that would help them break into the fortress and they arrived in the nick of time to stop it.

Even if my original plan was for the ritual to be completed in 24 hours.

Playability, to me, is things like making a kingdom who outlaws spears within its border and then spend an entire campaign set within its walls.  It's an interesting quirk and would probably make a fun novel.  However, I wouldn't want to explain to a player that they can't be that spear fighter they made up because he'll be searched and the weapon taken away as soon as he enters the kingdom and arrested on sight if he sneaks one in.

I like to have my players enjoy doing what their characters do.  If someone enjoys playing their spear fighter, I'm not going to sabotage them by taking away their weapon.  If someone playing a wizard has more fun when there is minions in a battle than when there isn't, you'll see an increase in minions in my world.  If it is more fun for the game, the players, and me, then it gets added.  That's playability.

I could certainly run a game where magic didn't function in an area and send the PCs on a mission to go there.  But I won't.  A magic dead zone is a fun story/writing concept.  It isn't very much fun for the player who is the wizard and has to sit at the table without any powers.

That's what I mean when I say that writing for novels and for gaming have a much different focus.  Writing a book where one of the characters is forced to stand at the back of the group and fear for his life because all his magical powers have been taken away could actually be awfully fun to read.  It would not be fun to play.

Trying to solve a puzzle can be an interesting challenge in a game.  The discussion about how to solve it could go on for an hour or 2 and may still be interesting.  If a book is filled with that much text describing the thought processes of everyone involved while solving the puzzle, it gets really boring. 



GnomeWorks said:


> I think you missed the part where I said that the games I run focus on the PCs, because that's what that particular game is interested in. That doesn't mean there aren't things going on in the background, but regardless of events in the world, they are dealt with via the perspective of the PCs in a given game.





GnomeWorks said:


> I find it ridiculous that a group would get upset if they heard about another group of adventurers doing things in the world.



Of course other things happen.  The entire world doesn't revolve around them.  But one good way to make the players feel unimportant is to have NPCs be better than them or things more important than them happening around them.

I imagine some players would be close to quitting if I tried to introduce other events in a campaign that weren't about them.  Just imagine being on a quest to help a farmer get his horse back while the world was being attacked by armies of giants.  You can't fight the giants because you are too low level.  But don't worry, there are all sorts of adventurers out there that are better than you fighting the giants for you.  I'd feel like a second class adventurer.

When I sit down for a game, I expect it to be about OUR exploits, the group of people who sit down at the table.  I expect our exploits to be the most important thing going on at the time.  We assume things bigger than us happen all the time, but they don't happen around us and we don't hear about them because all that does is take away from our achievements.  What's the point in fighting the 10 Orcs attacking when the guy standing over there could take them all out without breaking a sweat?



GnomeWorks said:


> The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence.



No, but the players ARE special.  They are the only ones forced to play the game.  As they play, they will gain levels.  As they gain levels they should gain in prestige.  If they keep playing, it should be a forgone conclusion that they they become important and powerful.  Or they die trying and come up with new characters who become important and powerful.

Sure, no one in the game world knows that.  But everyone outside of the game does.  I may just be some Elf with a sword at 1st level, but I know my character is either going to die or he is going to become one of the greatest swordsman alive and defeat powerful beings the likes of which would defeat hundreds of 1st level people.  So, in that aspect, I AM special.

I understand you don't like to consider the PCs special and that it irritates you somehow that they might be special.  But the rules make them special.



GnomeWorks said:


> I don't think I have said, anywhere, that these kinds of things are cut from the games I run.



It's a matter of the game focus.  You have stated that the game isn't about the players.  It's focus is on them, but it isn't about them.  Which means you reserve the right to focus on the consistency of the world over their individual powers, character concepts, and ideas of what makes a fun game.

There's always a tradeoff.  If Elves don't live in forests in your campaign world, you've told a lot of players who might join your game that they can't play the character they will have the most fun with and they need to pick something else.  Obviously, you can't let the players have EVERYTHING they want.  But everytime you choose the needs of your world over the needs of the players, something is lost.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> I am sorry but I do not see a problem here - I see a challenge to overcome. How do I succeed despite the King's restrictions.




I agree, there is a possibility for a cool twist and a challenge thrown in.  But for any of these options to succeed, you have to allow it to.  If you've already established that there is no one powerful enough to break into the fortress anywhere around, there is no Queen, the King absolutely can't be convinced, the guards are some of the best in the world and can see invisible, the castle is warded against teleportation, there are so many monsters that sneaking into the fortress without an army is impossible, then you begin to run out of options.

He is saying that his world and the consistency of the world takes absolute priority over all other concerns.  The more detailed your world is, the more that ties your hands.  When the information builds up over multiple campaigns it ties your hands more.  If your world is detailed enough that sometimes you are corrected by your own wiki because you can't remember it all, then it ties your hands a lot.

I like most of your ideas, I'd use any or all of them.  Most of my worlds aren't written enough in advance that I'd need to reject any of them.  Which is perfect.


----------



## jbear (Feb 23, 2009)

malraux said:


> How incompatible are the add on d20 rules from 3e?  For example, adding sanity in by copying the UA sanity rules.  To me, they would fit just as well as they did in 3e.  Or just a minor revamp of the taint rules in Heroes of Horror?  Obviously, they'll take a bit of tweaking to get right, but my impression is that it should work pretty smoothly.
> 
> edit: oh, and my take on Cthulhu-esque adventures is that 4e would probably do a delta green style pretty well.



Hmm, lots of pages, intersesting topic (although dangerous but things are still civil on page2 WoW!)... Probably irrelavant now but just to add my two cents;

I will soon add a tweaked version of Heroes of Horror taint system to my 4e game.
The premice is Bane, having murdered Mystra, gathers the scattered pieces of her shattered body to attach to himself (not unlike Vecnas Eye) and the world will be ripped apart again by a new dark spell plague as this evil fusion begins.

The players will be tempted with access to dark powers that cause taint and I hope at Epic levels they will have bitten the apple and have tracked down and joined parts of Mystra to themselves to the final battle within the body of Bane himself.

I imagine a world going mad, full of horror, twisted and deformed, seduced and corrupted by the easy access to dark powers and the heroes having to walk a fine line between resisting temptation and dipping into the Dark side without abusing the temptation.

I find the beauty of the 4e system is I find it very easy to adjust anything to the way I want it to be. I just built an encounter of Genasí Slavers out of Orcs, Bugbears and Gnomes with a minimum of mechanical change (swapping out a racial ability for a Genasi Racial ability) and then just reskinning. Easy as pie.

As far as 4e being solely combat focused. I personally try and keep a balance of roleplay and combat, because I have quite different tastes in my group, from bloodthirsty killers, to thespians that love nothing better than jumping to their feet and acting out the roleplaying. I don't feel any restriction to the role playing due to the 4e system. Actually I find the rules simple enough that I can wing it well enough that this part of the game seems to flow very naturally.

We had a session last week where the group was able to avoid combat completely, succeed in 4/5 skill challenges and recover from the failed skill challenge by some very enthusiastic role playing which had me being strangled up against a wall with some pretty nasty threats breathed through clenched teeth to gain a +2 on the Intimidate roll (which incidently when rolled came up as a natural 20).

I think even my most stalwart killers enjoyed themselves and not a drop of blood spilled. Which when looking at it mechanically gained only a few points of XP less than the sword-weilding session the week before.

To answer the question directly that the OP puts forward, no I don't feel that 4e limits the scope of my campaign. Actually the more we play the more ideas grow and the adventure gets larger, deeper and richer.


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 23, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I agree, there is a possibility for a cool twist and a challenge thrown in.  But for any of these options to succeed, you have to allow it to.  If you've already established that there is no one powerful enough to break into the fortress anywhere around, there is no Queen, the King absolutely can't be convinced, the guards are some of the best in the world and can see invisible, the castle is warded against teleportation, there are so many monsters that sneaking into the fortress without an army is impossible, then you begin to run out of options.




And I agree with you entirely on that point. If everything is written so that the PCs cannot do anything then the PCs cannot do anything. (I feel like Yogi Berra!) However, you can write things so that it encourages roleplaying opportunities. Just because I closed one door does not mean that there is not a window or two open.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> He is saying that his world and the consistency of the world takes absolute priority over all other concerns.  The more detailed your world is, the more that ties your hands.  When the information builds up over multiple campaigns it ties your hands more.  If your world is detailed enough that sometimes you are corrected by your own wiki because you can't remember it all, then it ties your hands a lot.




I do not see consistency discouraging the ability to game and have fun. I am not sure that consistency and good-gaming are related concepts. I think that some people find that a consistent world to be very conducive to roleplaying while others find it hindering. What you call tying of hands I see as freeing my ability to use my feet.  His way may not be best for you or your fellow gamers but for him and his fellow gamers - it might be! And I encourage anyone to do what works best for them.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I like most of your ideas, I'd use any or all of them.  Most of my worlds aren't written enough in advance that I'd need to reject any of them.  Which is perfect.




Thanks, I find these boards are best when they facilitate the telling of stories. I have stolen many a campaign idea from reading other peoples posts. If you choose to use anything I say - I wish you the best of luck!


----------



## jbear (Feb 23, 2009)

Just a quick word on the scaling of DC's to perform the same task.

Take for example Juggling. I can Juggle with my eyes closed. I can do all sorts of silly things with 3 balls, but damn as soon as someone is watching suddenly the hand trembles, the breathing becomes irregular and the tension in the muscles is not at all conducive to doing those same flashy tricks I was nailing only moments ago by myself.

Now imagine shoving me out into the street and having 200 strangers staring at you while you do it, or shove a television camera in my face and tell me a million people are watching. Or how about in front of a board of expert Russioan circus jugglers, who if impressed could give me a dream job juggling around the world for indecent sums of money in Cirque du Soleil, or in the middle of a massive stadium full to the brim with 40000 screaming fans wanting to be amazed out of their brains...

At each step that same simple task I can do so precisely alone that doing it with my eyes closed is not a problem, is quite a different challenge in each of the situations I've described above.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 23, 2009)

jbear said:


> At each step that same simple task I can do so precisely alone that doing it with my eyes closed is not a problem, is quite a different challenge in each of the situations I've described above.




To my mind, this is best modeled by the "You can Take 10 when you're not stressed" mechanic.


----------



## Burrito Al Pastor (Feb 23, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence.




Oh, but they are special snowflakes, their existance does mean they are meant to solve certain things, and sometimes they are supposed to be the best just by nature of their existance.

The PCs are not special because they're blessed, or destined, or heroic, or just plain awesome; any of those things may come from the fact that they're special, but the real reason they're special is because they're the PCs. The're different and better and more important than NPCs because the PCs are being run by the players, and the NPCs are not.

The PCs are meant to solve the problems that are placed in front of them in the world the DM places them in.

The PCs are special for exactly the same reason that DMPCs are a Bad Idea: the PCs are the stars of the story, the story should be about them, and the world revolves around them as a result of that. The mysterious stranger in the bar doesn't randomly select the PCs to approach with an unusual buisness proposition; he selects the PCs because they're the PCs. If he selected a party of NPCs who then went on to rescue the princess and save the world and the PCs stayed first-level dirt farmers in their poor village, the game gets old fast.

This doesn't even have anything to do with power level. If the game is in a world where extraordinary adventures are quite common, then those adventures aren't extraordinary anymore; they become ordinary, and ordinary becomes boring. Broadly speaking, players don't play RPGs to role-play the life of an unremarkable person who does unremarkable things in an imaginary world; they want to be an extraordinary person who has extraordiary adventures in an imaginary world.

You have more leeway for this sort of thing in high-magic or high-technology settings like Eberron; Eberron is a sufficiently extraordinary world that, while ordinary things can still get boring, you can get by quite well with merely uncommon things. Extraordniary things are still a good idea, though.

In a low-magic setting, you have almost no leeway for this sort of thing. If you're not extraordinary in a quasi-historical setting like, say, A Game of Thrones, then you're a farmer, and you will be a farmer all your life, and you will not have adventures beyond rounding up the chickens.

The PCs are special snowflakes, because if they weren't special, they wouldn't be doing anything interesting.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 23, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As a DM, my job is to create an ILLUSION of consistency without there actually needing to be.




I have a need for consistency. You do not. Fine.



> I have no idea who the King is until the players meet him, talk to someone who mentions him, and so on. Then he becomes defined and stays the way I define him. I leave the details open on purpose, though, so that he can be whatever I need him to be within the context of the adventure I'm running.




I define the world beforehand, so that I am able to work with a cohesive and consistent background for events that occur in the course of a game.



> So, the reason you put these things into your game is an attempt to make things interesting and exciting. So, if you are already willing to arbitrarily make stuff up in order to make the game interesting and exciting, why stop there? Now the ritual HAS to be completed 3 days later even if it kills all the PCs and forces you to start a new campaign? If we are making up stuff to make the game more exciting, isn't it better to "make things up" such that the ritual gets delayed until the moment the PCs arrive so they have an interesting battle against the leader of the cultists for the fate of the world?




Because that's ridiculous? How likely is it that the PCs happen to get there and stop the ritual just as the countdown hits 00:00:01?

In defining this ritual, I would determine how long it takes, certainly. I would attempt to find a reasonable duration based upon the parameters of the spell; what sort of reagents and foci does it require, how many people involved, is it based upon some kind of astrological alignment, etc etc. I would ask myself questions such as, why now? What has prevented this event from happening before? What events have taken place that have put into place the causal chain that leads to this event? What sorts of defenses would such an organization have in place, and what would their reactions to be to interruptions of varying types?

I don't care to make things dramatic. You might find that interesting; I do not. I find it trite, overdone, and unrealistic.



> Just by writing anything at all, you are favoring some solutions over other ones.




Imagine that. You have more than a hammer in your toolbox, as PCs, and not everything is a nail.



> The only real difference is that I recognize I have this power and I'm willing to use it in order to encourage things to go the way that is the most "interesting". At the same time, they have free choice and can pick other options all they want.




I do not appreciate the arrogant tone here.

You seem focused on what is "interesting" and "dramatic." I do not care for things that would be termed as such. I am interested in making a vaguely realistic, reasonable, and consistent setting. I am interested in events taking place that make sense, and I am interested in varying groups of "adventurers" interacting with these events, because - in this fictional setting - there are people who fall under the category of "adventurer" and interact with events of varying interest. How they interact with them, and whether it is "dramatic" or not, is irrelevant.



> If losing means the world ends and the campaign is over, then the world isn't going to end no matter what the players do.




Then there is no point in playing. Failure has no meaning. My actions - or lack thereof - have no repercussions.

I hold this view from either side of the screen. If a villain in my setting is out to destroy the world, and capable of such, *that goal will be accomplished if nothing is done about it*. End of story.



> I could certainly run a game where magic didn't function in an area and send the PCs on a mission to go there. But I won't. A magic dead zone is a fun story/writing concept. It isn't very much fun for the player who is the wizard and has to sit at the table without any powers.




I really am not a fan of this 4e mentality of "everyone must be able to contribute equally at all times."

Nor am I a fan of this approach. In this instance, I would look at the player and say, "Guess what, you knew - or had opportunity to learn - that this area was a dead magic zone. You went there. It's a dead magic zone. Get over it."

For the example commonly cited in my setting, my setting has about twelve dragons, all epic and gestalt. They are incredibly dangerous, though not all evil (nor are they color-coded for your convenience). If you go to one of the few whose lair locations are vaguely known, guess what - you'll find a probably-irritated epic gestalt dragon. Doesn't matter if you're 1st-level or 100th-level. That is what you find. Deal with it.



> I imagine some players would be close to quitting if I tried to introduce other events in a campaign that weren't about them. Just imagine being on a quest to help a farmer get his horse back while the world was being attacked by armies of giants. You can't fight the giants because you are too low level. But don't worry, there are all sorts of adventurers out there that are better than you fighting the giants for you. I'd feel like a second class adventurer.




As you should. Just because you are unable to deal with other things going on in the world doesn't mean they aren't going on, and if they happen to impact the area you are adventuring in... well, sucks to be you. I guess you'll have to figure out how to deal with that in-character, as anyone else in that position would.



> No, but the players ARE special. They are the only ones forced to play the game. As they play, they will gain levels. As they gain levels they should gain in prestige. If they keep playing, it should be a forgone conclusion that they they become important and powerful. Or they die trying and come up with new characters who become important and powerful.




What is this "forced" crap? I'm not holding a gun to a player's head and making them roll the dice.

And yes, as a character gains in levels, then yes, they grow in power and importance in the world. At no point, however, does a group or even a single character become the center around which the universe revolves.



> I understand you don't like to consider the PCs special and that it irritates you somehow that they might be special. But the rules make them special.




Your tone makes it clear that you do not understand my position.



> It's a matter of the game focus. You have stated that the game isn't about the players. It's focus is on them, but it isn't about them. Which means you reserve the right to focus on the consistency of the world over their individual powers, character concepts, and ideas of what makes a fun game.




A player would have to come up with something rather extreme in order for me to decide that it is incompatible with the consistency of the setting.



> There's always a tradeoff. If Elves don't live in forests in your campaign world, you've told a lot of players who might join your game that they can't play the character they will have the most fun with and they need to pick something else. Obviously, you can't let the players have EVERYTHING they want. But everytime you choose the needs of your world over the needs of the players, something is lost.




And everytime a player demands something that breaks my setting, something is lost.

If elves do not live in forests in my setting, and someone wants to play an elf from a forest, my response is - give me a background that makes it make sense. There are always exceptions, and I am generally willing to allow for PCs to be exceptions to general rules if the player is willing to put in the effort.

I'm sorry, but I am unwilling to trash thirteen years' worth of setting for some punk who's not willing to write a page of explanatory background.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 23, 2009)

Burrito Al Pastor said:


> Oh, but they are special snowflakes, their existance does mean they are meant to solve certain things, and sometimes they are supposed to be the best just by nature of their existance.




No, they're not.



> The're different and better and more important than NPCs because the PCs are being run by the players, and the NPCs are not.




No, they are not more important. Different, yes; better, possibly.

So far as the world is concerned, a PC is not more important than an NPC just because of the fact that they are a PC. 

So far as the game is concerned, yes, the PC is more important than the NPC, because we are currently interested in the PC's story, not the NPC's.



> The PCs are meant to solve the problems that are placed in front of them in the world the DM places them in.




Not necessarily. The PCs are free to walk away at any time; they are free to explore other opportunities and/or challenges.



> The PCs are the stars of the story, the story should be about them, and the world revolves around them as a result of that. The mysterious stranger in the bar doesn't randomly select the PCs to approach with an unusual buisness proposition; he selects the PCs because they're the PCs.




I find it ridiculous that you people are unable to fathom the idea of two games set simultaneously in the same setting.

Yes, the PCs are the focus of a given game; nowhere have I really contradicted that idea. The idea that the world revolves around them because of this, however, is just ridiculous.


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

@Gnomeworks

You talk about tone and arrogance, yet you're own posts are brimming with both:
'ridiculous', 'you people', 'what is this 'forced' crap?','Imagine that...'etc.

I think there's a phrase in the bible about that, something about a log and a splinter.

Considering the title of the thread I can understand how, for your style game, you would find the 4e system restrictive. I also imagine you'd feel the same about any change to a different system after investing so much time and detail over 13 years of gaming.

Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'. Especially considering the exasperation at others preference for this style. I would go so far as to say, it is not that 4e would restrict your style of play, rather your style of play is totally opposed to the 4e play style philosophy. 

I imagine the 'Say Yes' to your players rule is equally as ridiculous for you. Others, like myself have found this rule refreshing and liberating.

Also I think it's important to take into consideration, not everyone has the time available to develop their world to the kind of depth where a wiki might be necessary.
I don't think this makes their game, or their fantasy world ridiculous or any less believable than yours. Even our world (earth I mean), devoid of mystery and magic is a dynamic place, teeming with change, teeming with things quite ridiculous, happening at every moment. 

I guess I like to be able to step away from that world for a while and go to a place where you can bend the rules, be amazing and save the world just in time, or die gloriously trying with a smile spread from ear to ear.

This does not mean I have no interest in creating a rich, 'believable', and consistent place for my players to explore, to get lost and find epic adventures in. But all my players know its just a game, a game that depends heavily on my imagination/improvisation and I don't think anyone would hold a small error or lack of consistency on my part against me. I try and do my best but I'm only human, I have a Job and a family and other interest and projects other than dnd. The time I do invest in the game, I do it with passion and love, but you can be sure, that preparation is a means to an end; the end for me, is we all have fun. fullstop. no argument will ever convince me that there is something more important or fundamental than that.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

jbear said:


> You talk about tone and arrogance, yet you're own posts are brimming with both:
> 'ridiculous', 'you people', 'what is this 'forced' crap?','Imagine that...'etc.




I am defensive because I'm tired of my particular approach to gaming being treated as though it were inferior or somehow dysfunctional.



> I think there's a phrase in the bible about that, something about a log and a splinter.




No religion, kthx.



> Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'. Especially considering the exasperation at others preference for this style. I would go so far as to say, it is not that 4e would restrict your style of play, rather your style of play is totally opposed to the 4e play style philosophy.




As pointed out several pages ago (which you may not have read), "fun" is not the purpose of the game. We play the game for a variety of reasons, because we find those reasons fun.

I find fun in gaming the way I do. You do not find my way fun. This is fine.

I am uninterested in drama. "Drama" and "fun" are not, for me, synonymous.



> I imagine the 'Say Yes' to your players rule is equally as ridiculous for you. Others, like myself have found this rule refreshing and liberating.




It really is. That you and others find it "refreshing and liberating" is fine. For me, it is absurd.



> Also I think it's important to take into consideration, not everyone has the time available to develop their world to the kind of depth where a wiki might be necessary.




I'm not trying to convince people that my way is superior. I am trying to get across that my approach is as equally valid as that of anyone else, and that I am not "doing it wrong" or what-have-you.

I am aware that not everyone has the kind of time to spend on their settings that I do. I do not have a problem with people playing the game differently than I; we are all different folk, and have different interests. I take issue with people trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong.



> I don't think anyone would hold a small error or lack of consistency on my part against me.




I do not try for a high level of consistency for my players. I do it because I, as a DM, would have great difficulty running a setting that is not internally-consistent.

Whether or not my players - or anyone else, for that matter - would hold it against me is not my concern. I would hold it against myself.


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

Lizard said:


> To my mind, this is best modeled by the "You can Take 10 when you're not stressed" mechanic.



So... lets say juggling is DC15, if you're chilled out you can take 10. Juggling with your eyes closed DC20?...

Juggling in front of 40000 people is still DC15? Sounds like something Epic to me.
Not to mention Juggling with your eyes closed.

And yet it's still exactly the same action you've done and succeeded at a million times...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

jbear said:


> Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'.





IME, more fun and drama arise spontaneously from dealing with a consistent setting than one gains from "planned" fun and drama.  IME, this is not a minor difference in both quality and quantity; it is an enormous difference.  Cats and dogs.  Day and night.

Your experience may vary, for a variety of reasons, but I have never seen anyone who could pull off a consistent setting do a better job by choosing to do something else, and I have never seen anyone do even remotely as well with off-the-cuff as I have seen with a consistent setting.

A consistent setting, a sandbox, where the PCs are not special snowflakes, is the hands-down winner IME and IMHO.  That's been true for 30 years, through several states, and in two countries.  I don't expect it will change any time soon.

YMMV, of course.

I have no interest in "special snowflake" settings, myself, from either side of the screen.


RC


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> I am defensive because I'm tired of my particular approach to gaming being treated as though it were inferior or somehow dysfunctional.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, the log from one's own eye is probably Aesop's Fables as well, better?. I'm not religious, but the Bible still has many pearls of wisdom. Find the pearls in the pig trough shall we say.

Yes, I read what you wrote about fun, and I got the impression that drama and fun are neither synonymous or essential in your game. As I said before, this is where you lost me. I can imagine the investment and energy you have invested in your world is  monumental. 

Where I personally disagree is that 4e's have fun/say yes philosophy should be recriminated for being 'restrictive to one's game', although funnily enough, obviously in your case that is so.

You say you're not trying to convince anyone that they are doing it wrong, yet you do use phrases like :"No, they are not" (referring to PC's being special), which don't leave room for much doubt you think they are doing it wrong.

If you have players that are into your game then great. 4e isn't for you, but I don't think you'd be willing to change to any other system no matter what it was, considering all the work you've put into your game. That doesn't mean that 'Everyone Should Have Fun' as a design philosophy for a game is a bad design.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 24, 2009)

To each his/her own.

Some people like to play how Gnomeworks plays. Other people don't. If the people playing the game are having fun doing it, then it's a good way to do it.

Personally I don't have any problems with how GW wants to run his campaign, but I've done that style before, and felt no added benefit. Just a lot of extra behind the scenes bookwork that never saw the table. If it's fun for him, and his players though, keep on truckin.

I think if I were playing in GW's campaign I'd be evil... and do my best to destroy the world. Just to be a dick.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

jbear said:


> Yes, I read what you wrote about fun, and I got the impression that drama and fun are neither synonymous or essential in your game. As I said before, this is where you lost me.




The idea of "we game to have fun" strikes me as absurd. As a player or DM, each of us enjoys something about the game, which is what we find fun. In the end, sure, the idea is to "have fun," but you can't just come out and say it that way. There is a process involved, and the steps in-between need to be acknowledged.

As for drama, I have no use for it.



> You say you're not trying to convince anyone that they are doing it wrong, yet you do use phrases like :"No, they are not" (referring to PC's being special), which don't leave room for much doubt you think they are doing it wrong.




And I'm also liberally using such phrases as "you think X, I think !X, and this is fine."

Sorry, but continually pointing out that what I am writing is IMO and IME gets annoying, and I assume - perhaps wrongly - that it is understood that the things I say are IMO/IME.



> If you have players that are into your game then great. 4e isn't for you, but I don't think you'd be willing to change to any other system no matter what it was.




No, 4e isn't. At this point I'll admit I don't even remember why I got into this thread. I know the topic has shifted quite a bit from its original purpose.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

Scribble said:


> To each his/her own.




Yes.



> I think if I were playing in GW's campaign I'd be evil... and do my best to destroy the world. Just to be a dick.




I currently have a player who is working on something along those lines. Not quite world destruction, but definitely world-changing for the worse.


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> IME, more fun and drama arise spontaneously from dealing with a consistent setting than one gains from "planned" fun and drama.  IME, this is not a minor difference in both quality and quantity; it is an enormous difference.  Cats and dogs.  Day and night.
> 
> Your experience may vary, for a variety of reasons, but I have never seen anyone who could pull off a consistent setting do a better job by choosing to do something else, and I have never seen anyone do even remotely as well with off-the-cuff as I have seen with a consistent setting.
> 
> ...



Yes, you could also play in a real world setting as a dustman, or an office worker, and it would be very consisent and even more believable than your consistent pseudo-believable fantasy world. 

Nevertheless I begin to digress. If I were to read between the lines, I get the impression you imagine me just throwing out silly things, lets say swarms of flying vampire monkeys that wear pink underpants on their head or hoards of zombie bananas, to amuse my players.

Well that's not the case. But if I have to choose between end of the world and having my PC's arrive in time to at least have a chance at saving the world, it's a no brainer. No amount of consistency or 'realism' would outweigh my prefence for a dramatic finalee, where both failure and success are options, but simply not arriving on time is lights out, pack up, go home. 

And if you don't want your heroes to be heroes...? Ok.

My players do want to be kick arse heroes. You're 30 years gaming on however many continents, and in how ever many places is valid. For you.

If that is more fun for you, each to there own.


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> The idea of "we game to have fun" strikes me as absurd. As a player or DM, each of us enjoys something about the game, which is what we find fun. In the end, sure, the idea is to "have fun," but you can't just come out and say it that way. There is a process involved, and the steps in-between need to be acknowledged.
> 
> As for drama, I have no use for it.
> 
> ...



Btw: We game to have fun


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

I have a DM that runs games much like GW does (or, at least, as far as I can infer from GW). He once spent 3 years developing a game world before it was ready to play. The current setting he is planning has been building on that game world for an additional 2-1/2 years, and in excruciating detail. It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.

My character will invariably say, " it. My character goes and gets a beer." Attendance peters out until the campaign fizzles and we move on to another DM who will put maybe a month of planning in, and plot the thing around the party.

He goes through all that work, and all we really wanted was to be important. Different strokes, and all that.

EDIT: I should mention that he has gotten a couple really great campaigns under his belt. Those were the games where the party killed all the important NPC's.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.




Just to be clear, I hope you're not conflating a detailed setting with consistency in mind and a setting where the NPCs are invariably vastly superior to the PCs.

IMC, there are villains and threats of many scopes. Some are local, some are global, some are stellar. NPCs also vary wildly in power.

Just because I value internal consistency over other considerations and don't buy into the whole "the PCs are special snowflakes" shtick doesn't mean that I intentionally try to make the PCs feel powerless.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Just to be clear, I hope you're not conflating a detailed setting with consistency in mind and a setting where the NPCs are invariably vastly superior to the PCs.



Not invariably. But enough are powerful that, if we want to do anything important, they're involved somehow. The way my DM puts it: if you are average for the setting, then logic dictates that the real movers and shakers in the universe (i.e. the NPC's the world [and therefore the game] revolves around) will kick your tail when you meet them.

The real problem here (for my play style) is not the bad guys being stronger than me. If they aren't, then there's no challenge. It's the _good guys_ that are stronger than me that I can't stand.

Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently"). Sure... there aren't many LG level 20 wizards out there, but when something big happens happens, say, level 12, what keeps the level 20 wizard from taking five minutes out of their day to 'port in and take care of it for the PC's? You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level. There is no one to bail them out. Once they hit level 2, they became the go-to guys. It's the party saving the day, or it's no one. I have no problem with this (pretty blatant) tip of the hat to pure gamism and narrativism, since the very idea of "levelling" is already chucking verisimilitude out the window in favor of cinema.

BTW, GW, that's exactly what I was referring to when I earlier suggested that you might be happier with a universal system than D&D. A system with as much meta-physics as D&D (pick your edition) involved can't, in my opinion, reliably model an internally consistent world without significant narrative magic wand-waving.

EDIT: I should mention that the above scenario is not hypothetical. This is kind of _deus ex machina_ stuff happens all the time in [insert guilty DM's name here]'s games. The DM's logic is unassailable: "What was he gonna do? Sit it out?" A better choice, we try to tell him, is not to write the powerful NPC into the game world to begin with.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> The way my DM puts it: if you are average for the setting, then logic dictates that the real movers and shakers in the universe (i.e. the NPC's the world revolves around) will kick your tail when you meet them.




Depends where you decide the "average" is, then.



> Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently").




I would start here, and question the logic of there being a wide variety of levels across a setting.

IMC, there are maybe a handful of NPCs higher than 10th level. Because otherwise we run into the problem you're describing here - why doesn't Elminster come in and save the day all the time?



> You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level.




I just can't grok the latter option. Why is it that no one else has managed to get to 2nd level? It strikes me as bizarre and unlikely.

The first solution is not necessarily contrived. A 20th-level character is not omniscient; there is no reason to think that a 20th-level NPC is, either. And surely that NPC has things occupying their time (what, exactly, would depend on setting and the NPC in question); a 12th-level threat pales in comparison to the 22nd-level threat the NPC is researching, for example.



> BTW, GW, that's exactly what I was referring to when I earlier suggested that you might be happier with a universal system than D&D.




I'm well aware that D&D is not the system for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

jbear said:


> Yes, you could also play in a real world setting as a dustman, or an office worker, and it would be very consisent and even more believable than your consistent pseudo-believable fantasy world.




You could play an average joe in any game.  It doesn't require a well-built world to play such a character, but, arguably, only in a well-built world is anyone even remotely likely to find it fun.

There is a difference between "You're a special snowflake because you're a PC!" and "Here's the world.  Wanna be a special snowflake?  Go and make your mark."



> Nevertheless I begin to digress. If I were to read between the lines, I get the impression you imagine me just throwing out silly things, lets say swarms of flying vampire monkeys that wear pink underpants on their head or hoards of zombie bananas, to amuse my players.
> 
> Well that's not the case.




I didn't imagine that it was.  But I bet if you wrote an essay on why you don't thow zombie bananas at your PCs, you would perforce gain a better understanding of why some folks want a more consistent game than you are creating.

I will also admit that attempts to run a game this way, while gaining a big thumbs up when they work, are also more likely to crash and burn than other setups.  I'm not sure why.  Once the gears start moving, a sandbox is actually often easier to run than an "adventure path", but the gears have to be well designed.



> But if I have to choose between end of the world and having my PC's arrive in time to at least have a chance at saving the world, it's a no brainer.




What if the players decide not to save the world?  What do you do then?

One obvious maxim of the sandbox world is "Never allow a consequence for failure that you are unwilling to see occur."

Would you allow the world to die in order to make the players' choices meaningful?  I would.  It's a no brainer.  Because, IMHO, unless the players' choices have meaningful consequences -- and always arriving for the climactic finale, no matter what choices you made up to that point -- they aren't heroes.  They didn't do anything; the plot did.  And they didn't choose the plot.

IMHO, and IME, of course.



RC


P.S.:  Two countries (U.S. and Canada), one continent.  In the US, in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, and California, as well as pick-up games in other states.  My observations are pretty consistent in all those areas.  Maybe the people on other continents are very, very different, but I tend to believe that human beings are basically the same everywhere.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> Depends where you decide the "average" is, then.



Average in the sense that players in these games have no more special access to levels and classes than any NPC does.



GnomeWorks said:


> IMC, there are maybe a handful of NPCs higher than 10th level. Because otherwise we run into the problem you're describing here - why doesn't Elminster come in and save the day all the time?



I think we have similar solutions to the problem. The only difference is in degrees of implementation.



GnomeWorks said:


> I just can't grok the latter option. Why is it that no one else has managed to get to 2nd level? It strikes me as bizarre and unlikely.



A fair question. The only answer I got is this: levels are the primary means by which characters break verisimilitude to acquire game/narrative powers, and I don't want all my NPC's to do this. In accepting that I am going for that kind of game, I'm also tactily deciding that the game is focused on the players and not the milieu.

For milieu games*, I would demand a levelless, universal system more suited to simulationism. And I would have a backup character ready for when mine bites the dust.

*EDIT: My apologies for throwing out lingo without explaining it. When I say "milieu game", I mean it in the sense that one would mean it for speculative fiction: a game focused on setting. Orson Scott Card writes that there are three types of fantasy and sci-fi fiction, and I think these three types translate almost directly into RPG's: milieu stories (it's about the setting), event stories (it's about what's happening from moment to moment), and character stories (it's about character development). I tend to prefer "character games" over "event games" and "milieu games".


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

...God.  I wanna run a sandbox game.  I'm half-hoping my current 4e PCs bite the dust, and I can talk them into a Dark Sun sandbox.  4e, 3e, or even 2e (but with BAB instead of THAC0!), I'd be game.

I have to say, I'm on GW's side, here.  While I can undestand the drive towards "dramatic" gaming, I keep finding myself wanting to run a West Marches, sandboxy game where the PCs can do whatever the hell they want, and I'm just along for the ride, improvising as I see fit.


----------



## Jack Colby (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D.




You're kidding, right?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Average in the sense that players in these games have no more special access to levels and classes than any NPC does.




Fair enough.



> I think we have similar solutions to the problem. The only difference is in degrees of implementation.




Again, fair enough.



> A fair question. The only answer I got is this: levels are the primary means by which characters break verisimilitude to acquire game/narrative powers, and I don't want all my NPC's to do this. In accepting that I am going for that kind of game, I'm also tactily deciding that the game is focused on the players and not the milieu.




I guess that's reasonable. If you approach the game from a non-simulationist standpoint, there's not much reason to worry about the kinds of things I'm worrying about.



> For milieu games, I would demand a levelless, universal system more suited to simulationism. And I would have a backup character ready for when mine bites the dust.




I've found that 3.5 functions, though it is a bit of a square-peg-round-hole deal.



			
				Wik said:
			
		

> I have to say, I'm on GW's side, here. While I can undestand the drive towards "dramatic" gaming, I keep finding myself wanting to run a West Marches, sandboxy game where the PCs can do whatever the hell they want, and I'm just along for the ride, improvising as I see fit.




West Marches is amazing, and I really hope to be able to do something like that one day.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.

However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.

It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> West Marches is amazing, and I really hope to be able to do something like that one day.




I'd love to do one using something like 4e, but with much of the assumed modifiers (bonuses from magic items, for example) stripped out.  At reduced XP, so that PCs don't rocket up in XP.

Idea #1 would be set in a place similar to the Isle of Dread, with European-style colonial powers competing to control the area.  It'd be a bit different from West Marches, in that there would be much RP (which power do the individual PCs side with?  Do they help out with colonial mapping/trade missions?  and so on) in the town area.  But beyond that, it'd be RAW West Marches.

Idea #2 would be D&D in space, sort of.  PCs have a fort (a moon base, or something), and they could explore planets.  It'd pretty much be spelljammer, but done in a way that was less silly.

Idea #3 would be DARK SUN.  How to really make a West Marches DS game would be difficult, though, because to me DARK SUN was about the interplay between the wilds and the cities.  And West Marches is not about the cities (once you enter a city, the GM pretty much has to start dropping plot hooks).

I had the intention of running a game like this when the DDI table came out (every second friday, on my flex day!), but now... I have no clue.  Which makes me sad.

***

Onto the topic at hand (it seems to change every five pages or so!)... I prefer simulationism in a game.  I find Gamist approaches to make sense (it is a game, after all, and it should have fun mechanics), but when they override Simulationism, I get lost.  I've said elsewhere in this thread that if a game becomes too Gamist, it's more or less competing with my Xbox.  And my Xbox will always win in such a competition - it can run a purely "gamist" approach over an RPG, any day.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.
> 
> However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.
> 
> It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).




Sounds good!  

It should be noted that sandbox =/= static.

Part of setting up & administering a sandbox is deciding who the NPCs are and what crazy plans they might have to get what they want (whatever that might be).  The PCs do not need to be the instigators of all events in the world.  Indeed, they should not be.  As their interests conflict with NPC interests (or with the interests of other PCs!), stories arise spontaneously.

As a DM, I find these stories are often better than anything I would have come up with myself (and I have sold several short stories over the years).  


RC


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I should mention here that I also prefer sand-box, if I have time to craft it to that complexity. My current sci-fi campaign has been in planning for two months.
> 
> However, as for the story? I will develop it as the players make choices in the world. I have a number of enemies in the galaxy I'm creating, so that wherever the players go, I have a tool to create an overwhelming obstacle to surmount.
> 
> It's a sand-box, but one that I am willing to manipulate to place characters into challenging situations and create stories (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).




Not to be a dink, here, but that's not sandbox.  If it were a true sandbox, you'd let them run trade runs, and nothing more.  The point isn't to make stories to react to your players... it's to run a consistent world, and let the players make their own stories. 

Those stories might not be as seemingly grand as in a planned campaign, but they are just as fascinating if the PCs make the goals themselves.  For example, in a planned campaign, the PCs might have to kill the great Necromancer Lord Xxyphylzzaz, lord of many consonants and slayer of vowels... while in a sandbox, they might decide that they need to "get rid of that guard tower on the old abandoned road so we can make better smuggling runs".  I can GUARANTEE you that the second story will be remembered more than the first, simply because the PCs chose it for themselves.

Now, that doesn't mean you need to prep everything beforehand.  If the PCs look like they have a goal shaping up, you are advised to make the dungeon/adventure site/layout or whatever else.  But the difference is, you're making that area to conform to previous notes, and not catering it to the players.  And the players realize this.  If they find they lack the abilities, they grumble, get creative, and try to solve the thing even though they lack a skilled tracker (or whatever else).  If they have that tracker, the ranger feels like he made a smart move in play, and knows that you didn't just throw that encounter in there to make him feel useful.


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

Oh, I forgot to say - please don't feel like I'm slamming your campaign.  It'd be one I'd love to play in, and it sounds great.  It's a great style, with semi-sandbox elements.  But it's more of what used to be called an "Open" or "matrix" style game (to use the 1e DMG survival guide).  In essence, you create a plot (or multiple plots), and let the PCs react to them... while a "true" sandbox has the PCs creating their own plot, and you refereeing the results impartially. 

But, yeah, I'd love to fly around in your sci-fi game.  Shotgun on the Alien-hating, chain-smoking, sports-loving jock with a flamethrower who gets beaten to a pulp every session, but is always able to dust himself off and then blame it on the aliens stealing all our jobs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

Wik said:


> Oh, I forgot to say - please don't feel like I'm slamming your campaign.  It'd be one I'd love to play in, and it sounds great.  It's a great style, with semi-sandbox elements.  But it's more of what used to be called an "Open" or "matrix" style game (to use the 1e DMG survival guide).  In essence, you create a plot (or multiple plots), and let the PCs react to them... while a "true" sandbox has the PCs creating their own plot, and you refereeing the results impartially.





Hrm.

I would tend to disagree, because Wilderlands of High Fantasy, for example, has lots of little plot threads, but has to be the largest published sandbox there is.

A "matrix" style game, as I understand it, has an ongoing plot that the PCs will become enmeshed in, with adventures that they will undertake, mixed in with parts where they choose what to do.

Saying, "OK, they are going to Tatooine.  There are Hutts here that want someone to smuggle in spices along the Kessel Run, a group of stormtroopers looking for rebel droids, a starship pilot with a bounty on his head that the PCs might choose to chase, and a speeder bike gang hunting for lost ruins where a great treasure is said to lie hidden." doesn't make it less of a sandbox.  It just gives some hooks and some context for choices.

EDIT:  Assuming, of course, that the PCs are the ones deciding to go to Tatooine!

It's perfectly acceptable within a sandbox for the Duke to try to hire -- or coerce -- the PCs into doing something for him.  After all, the Duke, the Duke's goals, and the Duke's money are all part of the sandbox, too.  

IMHO, of course.  


RC


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  Assuming, of course, that the PCs are the ones deciding to go to Tatooine!




That, of course, is the difference between a matrix/open campaign and a true sandbox.  You are entirely right.  What I was reacting to, though, was this:



			
				halivar said:
			
		

> (because, bless their hearts, they will do nothing but trade runs if I let them).




When the GM has that mindset, it cannot really be a sandbox.  It can be a fun game, no doubt at all in my mind there, but it cannot be a sandbox.  

The rest of my post was just pointing out my opinions on sandbox play.  

I should define my vocab here, because the 1e DSG is now very, very old for a book (it's only a few years younger than I am!).  

A Matrix Game is one in which the PCs are given a plot, and there are multiple paths they can follow (usually predetermined by the GM).  Each path adds something towards the plot, and may give a bonus on other paths to be pursued later.  Essentially, it's a plot-based game that is very fluid in design.  An example would be the PCs having to stop the slavers - they could ally with the orcs, they could explore the slavers' lair, or they could set up a defense of their hometown.  If they set up the defence, different things will happen to them than if they had allied with the orcs... but, at some point, they'll tackle other goals in a semi-open setting.

An open game is almost a sandbox.  The GM seeds an area with many conflicts, and the PCs follow up on the ones that interest them.  Many of these plots can be major (wars, feuds, and pre-published adventures).  In the original definition, the GM of an open game is encouraged to prohibit the PCs' actions in some way to keep them to a smaller area that is manageable by the GM, and to create new challenges with the party in mind.  An example would be to destroy the PCs ship so they couldn't leave Tatooine.  In essence, the open campaign model implies that the GM still retain control over plot.  

A sandbox, meanwhile, has none of that.  The GM pre-arranges most of the setting before he knows who the PCs are.  After they are made, he creates new adventures, but keeping to his original "script" of the setting, rather than creating adventures catered for the PCs.  he has no control over plot, and instead reacts to PC actions.  A sandbox, essentially, has no major plots (unlike the open campaign), but is instead a collection of much smaller, user-created plots.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

Nicely defined.

Caveat:  In the sandbox, the DM has control over NPC plots; he has no control over whether or not the PCs are interested in them.  Some NPC plots may intersect PC plots.  This is not pre-planned, but occurs organically.

A sandbox does not have to be static except for what the PCs do.  Indeed, it should not remain static, because otherwise _*what the PCs choose not to do*_ has no meaning.  Thus, the Ghost Tower of Inverness might appear once each century, but the PCs might not care (or even learn this fact).  An old ally, or an old enemy, might disappear inside the Ghost Tower, however.  Likewise, orcs may pillage a town and burn down one of the PCs' favourite inns while the PCs are away.

The "events" charts in the back of the 1e OA are good inspiration toward keeping a sandbox breathing even where the PCs are not directly involved.


RC


----------



## Wik (Feb 24, 2009)

Thanks.  I could be quoting the DSG out of context, but those are how I remembered the definitions, and how they stand out in my mind.  

Also, for the record, I think all three are great models to adopt in a game.  I'm currently running basically a matrix game, and it's my default in many campaigns.  Personally, I love it when GMs use any of these models, and while I'd prefer either Sandbox or Open, I'd really prefer the GM run whichever he is most comfortable with - because it'll be a killer game in any case.

That being said... god... I want to run a sandbox.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I have a DM that runs games much like GW does (or, at least, as far as I can infer from GW). He once spent 3 years developing a game world before it was ready to play. The current setting he is planning has been building on that game world for an additional 2-1/2 years, and in excruciating detail. It will probably be rich in NPC's who are very powerful, on every side of the potential factions. Some will be on our side. Others will be against our side. All of them will look at us as piss-ants.
> 
> My character will invariably say, " it. My character goes and gets a beer." Attendance peters out until the campaign fizzles and we move on to another DM who will put maybe a month of planning in, and plot the thing around the party.
> 
> ...



World building is its own thing.    A DM can world build in a manner that enhances at table play and a DM can world build in a way that grinds against at table play.  The scenario you describe is clearly the later.  And "a couple really great campaigns" aside, if your description is fair and honest then this DM is quite capable of losing sight of the point and being a terrible DM.  Kinda like a pitcher with a 103 mph fast ball.  He's awesome, unless he can't hit the strike zone, in which case he sucks.  Being a great world builder does not a great DM make.  And judging a system based on piss poor DMing is a flawed analysis.

World building is great, and is pretty much about the DM's ideas.  Gaming at the table is great and is about the sum of the people at the table being involved.  Nothing matches what you get when those things have synergy.  But that synergy demands an awareness of the needs of both parts.

I've spent over three years on settings before.  But never once have I been unable to hit the ground running on day one.  There may be some degrees of differing opinion, but I also never make the players at the table feel like they are second tier to "my vision of the world".  

A game that offers both increases the potential to really screw things up.  It has to be done right.  You can make a more safe game by bolting a bunch of limitations on the mechanics.  But that kicks the legs out from under any chance of that synergy.  If the old way was getting screwed up by piss poor DMing, then safe is going to do less harm and you will and be more happy with that.  But if you are hitting it right on the synergy, then those training wheels are just going to hold you back.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 24, 2009)

*World design*:


BryonD said:


> I've spent over three years on settings before.  But never once have I been unable to hit the ground running on day one.



Ayup. 

Once the house rules are in place, it's possible to drop the puck with only 1) a village or home base, 2) an adventure that needs doing, and 3) a very vague idea of greater things such as what the name of the realm is and who's the King this week.  Oh, and the village has to have a tavern. 

The sticking point is that the greater world design dictates some of the house rules.  Determining what languages exist (and by extension, what languages the PCs might speak) means determining what cultures exist, and where, inrelation to the PCs' starting point.  Also, unless all the PCs are going to be natives of the starting village (unlikely, as most parties aren't all the same race) you need enough design in place to allow character backgrounds to make sense.

For my current campgian, the design process went rules==>world==>rules.

*Snowflakes*:

My take on this is "You're a snowflake among countless others.  Go out and make yourself special...or melt."  And yes, there's other adventurers out there.  And powerful non-adventurers, be they retired, types who gained levels slowly in ways other than adventuring (there badly needs to be a mechanism for this; all editions), or whatever.

I've an adventure in mind for the not-too-distant future where the party will arrive at the adventure just after a more powerful group went in and got trashed; the PCs go in and (in theory) finish up against weakened opponents...unless they dawdle and give the opponents time to recover, in which case they're in big trouble.

*Sandbox vs. adventure path*:

I usually try to have a rough storyboard of the next several adventures each party will hit - it's interesting to, years later, go back and see if my storyboard ended up bearing any resemblance to what they went on and did.  But the storyboard isn't cast in stone, and I've no way of predicting what they'll actually do with a given story or adventure.  Last night, for example, my players quite innocently threw a *severe* monkey wrench into a storyline they don't even know about yet; to the point where I either make major background changes, or reveal far too much far too soon, or kill off a PC without ever telling the player why - all simply through playing their characters in character and doing things I didn't expect.

Keep in mind the game has to be fun for the DM too.  The example given earlier where the party would do nothing but trade runs if given the chance might be fun for the players but would bore the crap out of me as DM.

Lanefan


----------



## Fenes (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Let's look at a game world with a wide variety of levels realistically (well... we can't really look at it "realistically"... but at least "internally consistently"). Sure... there aren't many LG level 20 wizards out there, but when something big happens happens, say, level 12, what keeps the level 20 wizard from taking five minutes out of their day to 'port in and take care of it for the PC's? You have two ways about it: come up with a reason the level 20 wizard can't take care of it for the players (which means contriving events to fit the narrative [which I approve of as a DM tool]), or simply do what I do in my campaigns now: there are no allies above the party's level. There is no one to bail them out. Once they hit level 2, they became the go-to guys. It's the party saving the day, or it's no one. I have no problem with this (pretty blatant) tip of the hat to pure gamism and narrativism, since the very idea of "levelling" is already chucking verisimilitude out the window in favor of cinema.




Well, I'll take option 1.5: Remove teleport.

Much of the problems many have with high-level NPCs disappear once you remove teleport (and other means of near-instant travel) from the game. "What does Elminster do about this? He must be aware of this threat!" "I guess he is currently scrying us, and praying for our success - there's not much else he can do, being hundreds of miles away..."

Stationary portals can serve to make travelling the world faster without allowing people to pop in to any battle or dangerous situation.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 24, 2009)

Ripping off Lanefan above for those my personal approaches would be:

*World Design:*

I generally don't design complete worlds. I probably don't even know what NPCs or specific appearance of say the city the PCs appear in till a week prior when preparing for the game.

What I do instead is design a variety of different elements that guide my design of the world/adventure. So stuff like; colour theme, atmosphere/mood, themes, tone, etc.

I then develop more concrete ways of expressing these things. This forms the basis for the actual content so I develop stuff from either my own imagination, literature, movie, etc. that I put in build these elements.

When it comes to Houserules and such. I write down as I generate ideas any houserules that may be necessary. Then when I bring the concept for the game to my friends we hash out both the concept and houserules. I go back revise, we relook it and then play.

*Snowflakes:*

I would say that in my campaigns they are and they are not. They may not accomplish the greatest of tasks, or become famous, etc. But they are the sole focus of the game and the world is built around them, even if they don't directly alter the whole world around them.

Most of my games are fairly personal where it is more personal stakes and issues that are brought to conflict not larger "epic" issues. As such the campaign focuses entirely on the PCs and how they resolve these personal stakes throughout the campaign.

I think should probably be said that generally the PCs aren't, "adventurers" nor are there other "adventurers" running around. It is more simply they are people thrown into whatever circumstances have come about and must confront it.

*Sandbox vs. adventure path:*

I have a general overarching plotline that usually ties all the PCs together. As well as developing parallel running plots that involve the personal stakes of the PCs. Which plots get resolved depends on the players.

As for how these plots are approached. I usually call it "mystery gaming" but that Matrix term works as well. I essentially run my games as one where the plot and events must be uncovered by the PCs. So as such various clues, hints, plot-points, events are scattered about my mind-map of the campaign and it is up the players to uncover these and piece together the plot. Generally of course certain events and plot-points tie together and lead down certain dramatic pathways but it is up the players to take these.

So while there is a centrally developed plot to the game how it unfolds is really entirely up in the air. Whole segments of the plot may never be unravelled depending on the actions of the players or they may find themselves reaching one of many different endings.


----------



## jbear (Feb 24, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> You could play an average joe in any game.  It doesn't require a well-built world to play such a character, but, arguably, only in a well-built world is anyone even remotely likely to find it fun.
> 
> There is a difference between "You're a special snowflake because you're a PC!" and "Here's the world.  Wanna be a special snowflake?  Go and make your mark."
> 
> ...



I think it's safe to say people aren't the same the world over or we wouldn't be having this discussion, for example.

I also doubt people in Rwanda would have much in common with either of us either, and it's in the world, so it counts.

As far as the inconsistency of my world and the level of fun anyone could have plaing in my game, well I don't think you'd have anymore clue than I'd have about playing in yours. What I do know is people do have fun playing in my games and that for me is the essence of playing a game.

I used to represent my region at cricket. I stopped playing because it wasn't fun for me anymore. I would apply the same idea to any other game including dnd.
So we have different styles. Ok, but can you really criticise 4e for including 'everyone should have fun' in the design philosophy of their new system?

That is what this thread is about. I haven't criticised world building at any moment. My suprise came when GM suggested that fun, drama and a rich consistent world were incompatible.

I attempt to make a world with depth. I don't box my players in to my story. If things twist away from what I have prepared, I run with it, taking notes on what I improvise, carrying the story as far as I can. When things stop we don't play again til I have developed the new area where the story has gone. My players know that if they want to develop some part of their back story, or do something completely different, then they just let me know and I'll put hands to the task.

No one really wants to wait 3 years for me to flesh the world out.

And if my PC's didn't want to save the world... well for a start I'd never put them in a stuation where it was either do this or the world dies. Make a choice, the world ll be irrevocably changed dependinging on your decision, would be more likely.

But these types of situations are result of a natural progression of actions and decisions they have made following the story that they have been interested in. It wouldn't be Hamish Destroyer of worlds is undertaking a Ritual in the far off land of Atomarporculo. In 10 days the ritual will be complete. You'd better get cracking or everyone is going to die.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

Just for the record: I have no intention of forcing the players to perform any specific action or take any specific quest. The intervention I'm talking about is simply forcing them to do _something_. Stand and fight. Run away. Start a business. Go explore. Steal something. Kill some pirates. The choice is up to them, and I have decided to intentionally remove from myself the ability to dictate where they go by giving the party a ship with FTL. Here's the galaxy, go play. If the players don't want to move and shake, that's okay... I'll have someone else move and shake for them. 

BTW, Fenes, you're right about teleport. In my sci-fi game, I'm making space-folding a ritual that takes 24 hours, and requires a ship with arcane turbines (or faith batteries for divine casters) to make it work. I hope the time-delay will remove the critical "BAMF" quality that makes instant travel so broken. We'll see.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2009)

I, for one, would hesitate before saying "Those folks over there ain't like us folks over here".  

I, for one, believe that the similarities far outweigh the differences.

(But, we are not all clones, either, and we have different experiences.  Hence, we also have different points of view.)


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 24, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> The sticking point is that the greater world design dictates some of the house rules.  Determining what languages exist (and by extension, what languages the PCs might speak) means determining what cultures exist, and where, inrelation to the PCs' starting point.  Also, unless all the PCs are going to be natives of the starting village (unlikely, as most parties aren't all the same race) you need enough design in place to allow character backgrounds to make sense.



Which is why my world design goes like this:
-No house rules
-The languages listed in the PHB are the only ones you can know.  Others might exists, but you don't know them(and thus, I don't have to make them up until I need them)
-Your background can include almost anything, let me know what it is so I can work it into the world, should it ever become necessary.  It likely won't, because my games revolve around the plot, you'll only see your home country if the plot has a reason to go there or you specifically decide to go there for personal, character reasons.

Then start the game with whatever plot hook I have designed to start the game.



Lanefan said:


> My take on this is "You're a snowflake among countless others.  Go out and make yourself special...or melt."  And yes, there's other adventurers out there.  And powerful non-adventurers, be they retired, types who gained levels slowly in ways other than adventuring (there badly needs to be a mechanism for this; all editions), or whatever.



Yeah, in my game there ARE other adventuring parties.  But they almost always appear offscreen.  They meet people who USED to be adventurers or will find a place looted because other adventurers got there first.  They'll meet powerful people, but those people have no desire to adventure.  And they'll hear about them rarely, not every barkeep is a former adventurer.

Pretty much everything points to "You are snowflakes, while that is extremely rare, you aren't the only ones.  But right now, there are no other snowflakes to help."



Lanefan said:


> But the storyboard isn't cast in stone, and I've no way of predicting what they'll actually do with a given story or adventure.



Yeah, there's no way of predicting EXACTLY what they'll do, but you can heavily influence it.



Lanefan said:


> Keep in mind the game has to be fun for the DM too.  The example given earlier where the party would do nothing but trade runs if given the chance might be fun for the players but would bore the crap out of me as DM.




This is the primary reason why I don't run sandbox games.  Every time that I give the players too much freedom turns into a game that is absolutely no fun for me.  It almost always becomes a form of narcissism for the players.  They walk around town attempting to prove how much better they are than everyone else, beating up or killing anyone who challenges them until they are defeated.  If I defeat them without killing them, they just take it as a challenge to do better next time.  Until I kill them.  Then they get bored of the game and quit.

Or it becomes simply about their personal endeavors that I care nothing about at all.  They want to run a bar and discuss the weather with the patrons all day.  They want to become mayor of the city and want to play out every single detail of their campaign.  They want to walk around the city peeing on random passersby just to see what will happen to them.  And when they get arrested or killed, they make up new characters with equally annoying traits and see what happens then.

And none of it is any fun for me at all.  I'd rather not be playing at all than DMing a game of "run a tavern", "become the mayor", "bully the town", or "hit on women".  If the game isn't about something important, something bigger than life, it loses all interest for me.  My qualification for an adventure is pretty much "Could I see a Summer Blockbuster movie about this session?  If not, then it doesn't belong in my game."


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I think should probably be said that generally the PCs aren't, "adventurers" nor are there other "adventurers" running around. It is more simply they are people thrown into whatever circumstances have come about and must confront it.



Fair enough, but their main profession soon enough *becomes* adventurer. 



> I have a general overarching plotline that usually ties all the PCs together. As well as developing parallel running plots that involve the personal stakes of the PCs. Which plots get resolved depends on the players.



I don't get quite that involved, and certainly don't tie things that closely to the characters themselves; through death, retirement, etc. there's way too much turnover for me to be able to rely on character X being around 3 or 4 adventures down the road when his plot resolves.  I more try for an overarching plotline that ties all (or most of) the adventures together, and leave it at that.



> As for how these plots are approached. I usually call it "mystery gaming" but that Matrix term works as well. I essentially run my games as one where the plot and events must be uncovered by the PCs. So as such various clues, hints, plot-points, events are scattered about my mind-map of the campaign and it is up the players to uncover these and piece together the plot. Generally of course certain events and plot-points tie together and lead down certain dramatic pathways but it is up the players to take these.
> 
> So while there is a centrally developed plot to the game how it unfolds is really entirely up in the air. Whole segments of the plot may never be unravelled depending on the actions of the players or they may find themselves reaching one of many different endings.



Ayup.

And not all the endings are happy. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Which is why my world design goes like this:
> -No house rules



One of the key things for me when designing a new world that makes it different is that things just work differently in some ways than they did in the last game.  Others might accomplish this by changing what edition of the game they play.  Me, I just look at what worked/didn't work in the last game, tweak to suit that and the setting I have in mind (example: in my current game Gnomes are very rare, so I had to tweak the racial abundance table - yes, I have players who roll randomly for race - to reflect that) and go.  But I'm using the same base rule set, built on the 1e platform, that I've been using since 1984.


> -The languages listed in the PHB are the only ones you can know.  Others might exists, but you don't know them(and thus, I don't have to make them up until I need them)



Fair enough, though I as a player would find that a bit dull. 


> Yeah, there's no way of predicting EXACTLY what they'll do, but you can heavily influence it.



Oh, absolutely.  But "heavily influence" does not equal "dictate", and things can still take sharp left turns sometimes.



> This is the primary reason why I don't run sandbox games.  Every time that I give the players too much freedom turns into a game that is absolutely no fun for me.  It almost always becomes a form of narcissism for the players.  They walk around town attempting to prove how much better they are than everyone else, beating up or killing anyone who challenges them until they are defeated.  If I defeat them without killing them, they just take it as a challenge to do better next time.  Until I kill them.  Then they get bored of the game and quit.
> 
> And none of it is any fun for me at all.  I'd rather not be playing at all than DMing a game of "run a tavern", "become the mayor", "bully the town", or "hit on women".  If the game isn't about something important, something bigger than life, it loses all interest for me.  My qualification for an adventure is pretty much "Could I see a Summer Blockbuster movie about this session?  If not, then it doesn't belong in my game."



Fortunately, perhaps, I've got players who also favour the dramatic, and field adventuring is usually far more dramatic than talking about the weather in a tavern. ("So, why *is* it snowing in this tavern?")

I'm firmly on record with my players as refusing outright to DM a game where the PCs do nothing but get involved in buy-low-sell-high trade economics - and they would, if I let 'em.

That said, most of the time my games don't so much resemble summer blockbusters as they do the comedy skits being put on by the local amateur theater company down the road.  And that's just how I like it. 

Lanefan


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 25, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Fair enough, but their main profession soon enough *becomes* adventurer.



Yeah I just never been much of a fan of the "goes to career office and gets a job as an adventurer" style. So they become adventurers but don't consider themselves as such. It is more common in many of my games that they would wish to get away from the "adventurer's life", like a common trope I use is they are escaped convicts (either actually or wrongly convicted) and wishing to escape pursuit/clear their name or what not.


----------



## Wik (Feb 25, 2009)

For what it's worth, there are real-world adventurers.  Those who are fairly well-off who seek to view the world, and live a life on the edge.  There are also explorers, who do the same.  

In the medieval world, there were plenty of adventurers.  One guy, whose name I forget, was an English mercenary who did a bunch of adventuring (read:  killed some people and took their stuff) before setting himself up as a semi king in Italy.  I think his name was... uh... Hawkwing?  Hawkwood?  Something "hawk".  Anyways, a real-world adventurer.

So, yeah, it can be a profession.  Doesn't have a good pension plan or dental though... medical's alright.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 26, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> One of the key things for me when designing a new world that makes it different is that things just work differently in some ways than they did in the last game.  Others might accomplish this by changing what edition of the game they play.  Me, I just look at what worked/didn't work in the last game, tweak to suit that and the setting I have in mind (example: in my current game Gnomes are very rare, so I had to tweak the racial abundance table - yes, I have players who roll randomly for race - to reflect that) and go.  But I'm using the same base rule set, built on the 1e platform, that I've been using since 1984.



I think it's that I don't really want to customize my worlds.  Seems like it would take too much time.  It's hard enough coming up with a plot, some encounters, and so on.  I don't have the patience to write up house rules.  I think about 2006, I finally decided to write up a 1 page document with some house rules.  And the only thing they did was rebalance the game.  Things like "No Frenzied Berserkers" and "Mordenkainen's Disjunction is not allowed".  It took me 6 years of playing 3e before I decided to change anything at all.

I let D&D run...whatever D&D runs.  But I've always been kind of a gamist.  I know it's a game, I let it be a game with all the quirks that come with that.  I understand that other people come from the point of view of attempting to simulate a world they have in their head and hate when the rules don't fit that world and have to fix the rules accordingly.  I've never had to do that.



Lanefan said:


> Fair enough, though I as a player would find that a bit dull.



I think this comes from the same place as your above comments.  In my worlds, nearly everyone speaks common.  In my 4e worlds, I use the PHB justification for that.  There was a big human empire that used to occupy the entire continent and, although it died, everyone learned the trade language of that empire during the couple of hundred years it lasted.  Regional languages may exist, but if you're not from those regions, you don't know them.



Lanefan said:


> Oh, absolutely.  But "heavily influence" does not equal "dictate", and things can still take sharp left turns sometimes.



Well, it's pretty close to dictate.  I often leave my players with only 2 or 3 valid options.  And they all get to the same place in the end.

Of course, they normally come up with an option that in my estimation will get them all killed or arrested, no question about it.  And they are firmly convinced that, not only will they succeed but, it is a great idea.  I often, have to step out of my DM role and say "Look, you aren't that stupid.  You know this won't work."



Lanefan said:


> I'm firmly on record with my players as refusing outright to DM a game where the PCs do nothing but get involved in buy-low-sell-high trade economics - and they would, if I let 'em.



Yeah, I'm with you.  I also didn't want to run the game where my players decided to open up a tavern and run an underground fight ring as an entire campaign while the world was being attacked by powerful alien creatures.

I didn't want to run the game where the players holed themselves up in a warehouse armed with as many weapons as they could buy and decide to never leave.

Or the one where they spent the first 2 sessions whoring and drinking.

But it always seems to happen when I don't....push them.  I've taken to just running purchased adventures and telling them, "We are playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  If your character doesn't want to do this quest, make another one.  If at any point you feel your character would not continue on the adventure, make up another one."  Even on the rare occasion when I decide to write my own games, it's pretty much understood that whatever I set out as an adventure is the point of the game.  The characters are being challenged to solving the puzzle I put in front of them, not to drive the game forward.



Lanefan said:


> That said, most of the time my games don't so much resemble summer blockbusters as they do the comedy skits being put on by the local amateur theater company down the road.  And that's just how I like it.



Yeah, they end up as comedy skits most of the time, anyway.  But, normally action-adventure-comedies.  Between the stupid comments and silliness, there is still a plot of saving the world, beating up the bad guys and taking their stuff.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 26, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I've taken to just running purchased adventures and telling them, "We are playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  If your character doesn't want to do this quest, make another one.  If at any point you feel your character would not continue on the adventure, make up another one."  Even on the rare occasion when I decide to write my own games, it's pretty much understood that whatever I set out as an adventure is the point of the game.  The characters are being challenged to solving the puzzle I put in front of them, not to drive the game forward.




I tell my players: I prepare an adventure. If you don't want to do it I expect you to be active enough with your character to create another adventure on the fly.
What I dislike are players who do nothing, players who do something, start plots and projects are allright in my book, no matter if they bite on my own hooks or not.


----------

