Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Wik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*