The Reduction of Uncertainty
Counterspin
First Post
A reduction in the importance of chance increases the importance of skill, something I, as someone heavily invested in the tactical side of the game, applaud.
pukunui
Legend
I'm not a big fan of uncertainty/randomness/chance, so its reduction in the 4e rules makes me very happy. For one thing, it'll mean that the story the my players and I are creating is less likely to get seriously derailed by a random bad luck die roll. For another, it means that my players have more "control" over their characters. It's all good from my perspective.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
Kzach said:
If the DM does it, it isn't random. If it isn't random, it means its is intentional. As someone who DMs most of the time, I don't want or need to make every little decision -- let the players make most of the decisions and let the dice have the possibility of making a few. Wierd, random, seemingly nonsensical die results produce, IMO, better gaming opportunities more often than they cause problems. It is the DM's job to set up the situations and respond to both player choice/action and the rolls of the dice. But then, I am a "die falls where it may" DM.
JDJblatherings
First Post
Reynard said:
Absolutely, confining "play" to what should happen in the story is stifling, railroading and boring unless one has an amazing storytelling DM. It's a game first and good sessions and campaigns make good stories a good story does not mean one will have a fun and enjoyable game.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Fights in 3e are too swingy for my taste. So much depends on a few key rolls - initiative, criticals, saving throws - especially at low and high level. Replace a few rolls with many, as I believe 4e is doing, and you reduce the 'swinginess' while still retaining the possibility of the unexpected. For example in 4e it would still be possible for PCs to lose a fight vs goblins if they make many bad rolls and the goblins make lots of good rolls. In 3e the same thing could happen as a result of a few good/bad rolls.
Earlier editions otoh were less swingy in many ways because damage was lower, fights were longer and there were no criticals. On page 61 of the 1e DMG Gary argues against criticals because they reduce the importance of player skill. A fight can go from straight forward to instant doom in one hit, giving no possibility of informed decision making.
So I see 4e as, in some respects, a return to the reduced randomness of earlier editions.
Earlier editions otoh were less swingy in many ways because damage was lower, fights were longer and there were no criticals. On page 61 of the 1e DMG Gary argues against criticals because they reduce the importance of player skill. A fight can go from straight forward to instant doom in one hit, giving no possibility of informed decision making.
So I see 4e as, in some respects, a return to the reduced randomness of earlier editions.
Kid Charlemagne
I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
I think the main thing is actually maintaining the same level of randomness/uncertainty throughout the full range of play. In 3E, as you get higher in levels, the effects of randomness become less and less relevant - when your bonus is +30 as opposed to +5 the d20 roll is of lesser importance. There is a balance to be struck between uncertainty and predictability, and the trick is to get that balance right.
Drammattex
First Post
After playing a wide array of board games, I will never allow random character generation in D&D again. It's not fair for an initial set of random rolls to have such a strong influence over what a character can achieve. While rolling for ability scores is traditional, the numbers have the potential to swing things way out of proportion for one or two players. If everyone has the same number of points, nobody can complain that they rolled their character poorly or take their character on suicide runs in the interest of a re-roll.
Plus, as the DM I can trust players to build characters on their own with point buy. I don't have to hover over the dice.
Plus, as the DM I can trust players to build characters on their own with point buy. I don't have to hover over the dice.
Hussar
Legend
Excellent points all the way around.
Look at it like this. Increased randomness, as was pointed out, only hurts the PC's. It doesn't affect the monsters at all because, by and large, any given monster is only going to be on stage for a total of 20 rounds at the absolute outside. The PC's, OTOH, are going to be onstage each and every time.
As Dave points out nicely, 3e combat is very, very swingy. When a CR 1/2 monster one shots your 3rd level fighter, that's bad game design. The game predicts this fight as a complete pushover. It SHOULD be a complete pushover. 3rd level fighter vs single orc should have the same outcome pretty much every time.
However, about 1 time in 20, the orc crits with a greataxe and blats the fighter. So, now the game grinds to a screeching halt while John rolls up a new character (or gets to sit out of the game for the next three hours while doing the same) just because the DM happened to roll well.
Note, John didn't do anything wrong or stupid. He's a fighter, he's supposed to engage the enemy. He's playing exactly how he's supposed to play and being punished for it.
It gets back to that 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.
Note, the implication that reduced randomness somehow means that PC's never die or are now completely invincible is ridiculous. It wasn't true in 3e and it won't be in 4e. That I have no doubt of.
What won't happen as often is the weird events where a combat that isn't supposed to be more than a bit of fun suddenly results in a dead PC. Action points were brought in to combat the swinginess of 3e. It looks like they're actually going to go a bit further in 4e.
Look at it like this. Increased randomness, as was pointed out, only hurts the PC's. It doesn't affect the monsters at all because, by and large, any given monster is only going to be on stage for a total of 20 rounds at the absolute outside. The PC's, OTOH, are going to be onstage each and every time.
As Dave points out nicely, 3e combat is very, very swingy. When a CR 1/2 monster one shots your 3rd level fighter, that's bad game design. The game predicts this fight as a complete pushover. It SHOULD be a complete pushover. 3rd level fighter vs single orc should have the same outcome pretty much every time.
However, about 1 time in 20, the orc crits with a greataxe and blats the fighter. So, now the game grinds to a screeching halt while John rolls up a new character (or gets to sit out of the game for the next three hours while doing the same) just because the DM happened to roll well.
Note, John didn't do anything wrong or stupid. He's a fighter, he's supposed to engage the enemy. He's playing exactly how he's supposed to play and being punished for it.
It gets back to that 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.
Note, the implication that reduced randomness somehow means that PC's never die or are now completely invincible is ridiculous. It wasn't true in 3e and it won't be in 4e. That I have no doubt of.
What won't happen as often is the weird events where a combat that isn't supposed to be more than a bit of fun suddenly results in a dead PC. Action points were brought in to combat the swinginess of 3e. It looks like they're actually going to go a bit further in 4e.
