One of the things that seems to be emerging from various 4E teasers is a reduction in the inherent uncertainty of D&D.
"The Math" strongly suggests that predictability, for both players and DMs, is an important tool for play. Therefore, it follows that uncertainty is bad -- it reduces predictability and in so doing undermines the choices made by both players and DMs.
One example is the revised critical rules: first of all, the random element of criticals (a 20; that's it) is predictable, and second, the results of the critical are more predictable (max damage plus some abilities/magic item effects). In 3E, criticals are both less predictable -- weapons have different crit ranges -- and the effects are less predictable -- weapons have different multipliers, and things liek power attack can really throw the numbers off. Another example is the saving throw rules (which also appear to extend to death and dying): the only variable appears to be relatively small modifiers and otherwise the results are based on predictable die ranges.
If the default method for stat generation is point buy, and hit points are no longer random, and skill progression is standardized, etc... players, DMs and even designers can more effectively predict the results of any given situation.
Now, I like uncertainty -- from character generation all the way to "ressurection survival rolls". However, the reduction of uncertainty has both good and bad points. On the upside, reducing uncertainty makes player/DM/designer skill to the test in a more real way. On the downside, the chance of truly amazing or terrible events, characters and results based on die rolls is eliminated.
Obviously, so long as the game uses dice, uncertainty will always be a part of it. But 4E appears to be designed to make it so that the die is less important, less powerful than it has traditionally been.
"The Math" strongly suggests that predictability, for both players and DMs, is an important tool for play. Therefore, it follows that uncertainty is bad -- it reduces predictability and in so doing undermines the choices made by both players and DMs.
One example is the revised critical rules: first of all, the random element of criticals (a 20; that's it) is predictable, and second, the results of the critical are more predictable (max damage plus some abilities/magic item effects). In 3E, criticals are both less predictable -- weapons have different crit ranges -- and the effects are less predictable -- weapons have different multipliers, and things liek power attack can really throw the numbers off. Another example is the saving throw rules (which also appear to extend to death and dying): the only variable appears to be relatively small modifiers and otherwise the results are based on predictable die ranges.
If the default method for stat generation is point buy, and hit points are no longer random, and skill progression is standardized, etc... players, DMs and even designers can more effectively predict the results of any given situation.
Now, I like uncertainty -- from character generation all the way to "ressurection survival rolls". However, the reduction of uncertainty has both good and bad points. On the upside, reducing uncertainty makes player/DM/designer skill to the test in a more real way. On the downside, the chance of truly amazing or terrible events, characters and results based on die rolls is eliminated.
Obviously, so long as the game uses dice, uncertainty will always be a part of it. But 4E appears to be designed to make it so that the die is less important, less powerful than it has traditionally been.
