Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Imaro]

Sure, but then you have all the flaws of 3.5. There will always be something missing, and knowing that you _could_ expand your system relatively easily and it might even happen eventually anyway is more attractive to me then the having a system with fundamental flaws.

Why is this true? My philosophy is if you don't have enough of a game, or it's not fleshed out to the point of your previously released edition (talking core only here)... you should really reconsider releasing the new edition until you do have enough material to make it equal to your previous offerings. Case in point Exalted 2nd edition actually had more in it than Exalted 1e and while I have since stopped playing Exalted 2nd, I don't feel like I wasted my money on it. 4e not so much.

The question is which flaws you percieve, which of them can be considered fundamental and will most likely not be overcome without rebuilding the system? This isn't always a clear-cut system, otherwise we'd all play one edition.

I'm a little lost on this logic but I believe my answer above encompasses this questiion as well.

But aren't you just causing the system to break down if you want this? "I have Thievery +9, but I really want to emphasize on lock-picking, so I take this feat that adds me +3 to it for picking locks. But then another one comes and says "but there are different types of locks, and I find it important my character is best at picking Dwarven Treasure Locks,so I pick this feat to get another +3" - at some point you break the "ceiling" of expected bonuses, and this will be a problem. And if it doesn't cause a problem, the fact that you were able to mechanically diversify your character here will probably also not matter for the actual game effects, so you could just cut out the entire game mechanics and just say "I am best at picking Dwarven Treasure Locks!" and still use the same Thievery +9 bonus for it.

Uhm, no...You see by breaking the skills down in a more granular way (Heck even just having the ability to specialize) yet creating a blanket rule that a skills total cannot go above a certain number...you can avoid this problem. If the average range for skills at 1st level is a +5 to +8 total, you make it so that no one can have a total skill bonus above +10...no matter what they stack. Thus someone who wants to be really good at a specialization has that option without it being an infinite and uncontrollable number.

If you're only interested in one specific subsystem, pick the game that does this one best. But if you notice that you also need others, and the system with the best subsystem offers bad others, you have to make trade-offs.

Huh? The designers at WotC stressed how good the skill system they created was going to be, and how it was going to be leaps and bounds beyond 3.5. Yet, IMO, it's the same skill system with extended rolls now (something other game systems have been doing for years, and much better than D&D) with less options of what skills to use, because it's been cut back so much.

For someone who wanted to be better at a specific aspect of Thievery for instance and not another, it is pretty easy to do. If your trained in Thievery (as I assume one would be if this was part of their character concept). Then the +5 for Trained I would simply only count for when that aspect of Thievery is used, for everything else use the Untrained number. Fairly simple.

This isn't being "better" in a specialization of thievery...it's being sub-par in everything but your specialization in which your the same as an average individual who was trained...there's a big difference.

And exactly which ones are the "adventure" tasks? The problem is that "adventure" has been redefined as "dungeon crawling", and there are many more things that make up for a good story (and a good game, too). Haggling with merchants, running keeps or domains, equipping and managing militia men for an upcoming orc invasion, womanizing between fights, hunting and foraging while traveling... I like to have these things reflected in my games, and I don't see the reason why these should be "just winged up" and combat should be played to the lesser minutiae, blow by blow.

If I want a detailed system, I want the same level of detail for everything. If I'm playing make-believe, I don't want to slow things down with a battlemat and miniatures when combat comes up.

QFT, this is why people make the claim that D&D 4e has less roleplay. While not correctly stated, I get the gist of it. I think it's more 4e has less trappings, mechanics, and tools, to mechanically represent the effects of those things I wish to portray through my roleplaying, As opposed to those things centered around the pure game aspect of the rpg (mostly combat).

 

[ExploderWizard]

And exactly which ones are the "adventure" tasks? The problem is that "adventure" has been redefined as "dungeon crawling", and there are many more things that make up for a good story (and a good game, too). Haggling with merchants, running keeps or domains, equipping and managing militia men for an upcoming orc invasion, womanizing between fights, hunting and foraging while traveling... I like to have these things reflected in my games, and I don't see the reason why these should be "just winged up" and combat should be played to the lesser minutiae, blow by blow.

If I want a detailed system, I want the same level of detail for everything. If I'm playing make-believe, I don't want to slow things down with a battlemat and miniatures when combat comes up.

This sums it up pretty well. The designers made a huge assumption when deciding that activities involving killing things have to be controlled to such a high degree and that everything else can just be whatever. Some see this as freedom but its really just a case of narrow focus.

Consider the Monster Manual. This used to be a book filled with races and creatures designed to populate a fictional world. The current incarnation is filled with fodder to use in skirmish games. All creatures are designed strictly around combat. Thats only a feature if you are playing a tabletop combat game instead of populating a fictional world.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And exactly which ones are the "adventure" tasks? The problem is that "adventure" has been redefined as "dungeon crawling", and there are many more things that make up for a good story (and a good game, too). Haggling with merchants, running keeps or domains, equipping and managing militia men for an upcoming orc invasion, womanizing between fights, hunting and foraging while traveling... I like to have these things reflected in my games, and I don't see the reason why these should be "just winged up" and combat should be played to the lesser minutiae, blow by blow.

If I want a detailed system, I want the same level of detail for everything. If I'm playing make-believe, I don't want to slow things down with a battlemat and miniatures when combat comes up.

Skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate or Streetwise are not Dungeon-Crawling Skill. Nature and Perception are used for hunting or foraging.

Focusing on your militia example: Question is - how much do you want a purely mechanical skill factor into "equipping and managing militia men", and how much do you want this to be defined by player skill (understanding of planning, tactics). You could have a "Leadership" skill, but doesn't it sound better to use a mix of Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight or History here?

In a way Leadership is a very narrowed down skill. But if you limit solving "leadership" problems to just one skill, this is now the solution to all Leadership problems. On the other hand, you wonder "why can't I use my Leadership skill to get the act of these Nobles together, and use it instead of Diplomacy or Insight? I should know about handling people, after all!
It's like "Profession (Sailor)": "Hey, I have Profession (Sailor), what's with this Use Rope stuff? Do I get it automatically, or do I have to take it extra?"

The alternative is to just use the existing skills - combine Diplomacy, History, Intimidate and Insight, and if you want to "solve" a leadership situation, consider making it a skill challenge - or just pick one skill that fits the situation best.

And this can be applied to many other aspects, too. For example, you can have a Tracking skill. But if you only have this, why don't you have a clue about hunting, stealthy movement or other perceptiony thingies?
But you could also mix skills like Endurance, Perception and Nature to handle this (unfortunately, the system doesn't do this, Perception is used for tracking.)

if you really wanted, you could also recreate "Craft" with a skill challenge like approach - using skills like History (traditional forging techniques perhaps?), Endurance (if you#re working metal, it sounds useful, for other stuff maybe not), Athletics (again, applying strength sounds useful for some crafts), Acrobatics (maybe more for pottery, weaving and arts?).

The skill challenge system is the way to improve the entire skill system. You can mix skills and this can give the entire approach to the task or conflict you want to resolve a certain flavor. If you're preparing the militia, you can use a lot of Insight and Diplomacy and come off as the wise leader that makes his men trust and understand his plans, or you can use a lot of Intimidate and History, barking orders at your men and making them fear you more then their enemies, and relying on tactical and strategic traditions to formulate your battle plans.

In a way, it is a mix of conflict and task resolution - the fact that you solved the challenge resolves the conflict about "are the men ready for the attack", while the individual check represent the smaller tasks you completed (and they tell us how, and this might inform later parts of the adventure - maybe your insightful commands have helped a spy, or your barking orders caused someone to defect to the enemies because he just couldn't stand it any longer. Or it's a plot hook for a later adventure...

 

[Imaro]

Skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate or Streetwise are not Dungeon-Crawling Skill. Nature and Perception are used for hunting or foraging.

Ok, I'll give you Diplomacy, maybe Bluff, though the rest are stretching since they have in-combat or in-dungeon applications.

Focusing on your militia example: Question is - how much do you want a purely mechanical skill factor into "equipping and managing militia men", and how much do you want this to be defined by player skill (understanding of planning, tactics). You could have a "Leadership" skill, but doesn't it sound better to use a mix of Diplomacy, Intimidate, Insight or History here?

Yet we have "Thievery", "Stealth", "Perception" etc. which all encompass numerous actual skills and abilities.

In a way Leadership is a very narrowed down skill. But if you limit solving "leadership" problems to just one skill, this is now the solution to all Leadership problems. On the other hand, you wonder "why can't I use my Leadership skill to get the act of these Nobles together, and use it instead of Diplomacy or Insight? I should know about handling people, after all!
It's like "Profession (Sailor)": "Hey, I have Profession (Sailor), what's with this Use Rope stuff? Do I get it automatically, or do I have to take it extra?"

Uhm, I'm confused...how is "Leadership" narrowly focused...when it encompasses so much. I think one of the problems is that 4e has both broadly defined skills (Thievery) and narrow skills(Bluff). It's kind of confusing on what approach it's actually striving for.

The alternative is to just use the existing skills - combine Diplomacy, History, Intimidate and Insight, and if you want to "solve" a leadership situation, consider making it a skill challenge - or just pick one skill that fits the situation best.

And this can be applied to many other aspects, too. For example, you can have a Tracking skill. But if you only have this, why don't you have a clue about hunting, stealthy movement or other perceptiony thingies?
But you could also mix skills like Endurance, Perception and Nature to handle this (unfortunately, the system doesn't do this, Perception is used for tracking.)

So in order to be a good Thief...I just need Thievery (Okay, maybe Stealth), but in order to be a good leader...I need Diplomacy, History, Intimidate and Insight

As far as Tracking vs. Hunting goes. Being able to Track something is exactly that, it doesn't teach you how to use a particular weapon to kill it, what environment your prey is found in, I believe Hunting would encompass tracking...the same way Thievery encompasses opening locks...but neither work in reverse. Again we run into 4e's disparity between broadly defined skills vs. narrower skills.

if you really wanted, you could also recreate "Craft" with a skill challenge like approach - using skills like History (traditional forging techniques perhaps?), Endurance (if you#re working metal, it sounds useful, for other stuff maybe not), Athletics (again, applying strength sounds useful for some crafts), Acrobatics (maybe more for pottery, weaving and arts?).

Again, why do you need these skills in order to make something. Every craftsperson is not a star athlete, an acrobat, a historian or a long distance runner...yet your proposed solution requires them to be all these things to have skills in blacksmithing.

The skill challenge system is the way to improve the entire skill system. You can mix skills and this can give the entire approach to the task or conflict you want to resolve a certain flavor. If you're preparing the militia, you can use a lot of Insight and Diplomacy and come off as the wise leader that makes his men trust and understand his plans, or you can use a lot of Intimidate and History, barking orders at your men and making them fear you more then their enemies, and relying on tactical and strategic traditions to formulate your battle plans.

I think the skill system needs to first decide if it is based around broadly defined and open to interpretation skills vs. narrowly defined, specific skills...then it can start to be used in the way you describe...not the mish-mash it is now.

In a way, it is a mix of conflict and task resolution - the fact that you solved the challenge resolves the conflict about "are the men ready for the attack", while the individual check represent the smaller tasks you completed (and they tell us how, and this might inform later parts of the adventure - maybe your insightful commands have helped a spy, or your barking orders caused someone to defect to the enemies because he just couldn't stand it any longer. Or it's a plot hook for a later adventure...

Yet wouldn't a leadership skill give an overall impression of how well you combine these skills in leadership situations...thus you might be good at negotiating with men you lead, but totally unfit to negotiate in a situation where you have no power over those you are negotiating with...or even where they have power over you. While someone with the Diplomacy skill is just a good all around negotiator in a variety of situations, but wouldn't know how to handle a situation in which they are commanding an unruly mob of mercenaries who only respect brute strength and fierceness(intimidate skill).

 

[Phaezen]

Snip a lot of stuff which I wanted to say bit was to lazy to . . . .

If raising keep/army crops up in a campaign, I would prefer to run it as an adnventure in and of itself, kind of like how it is set up in NWN2. Depending on the actions of the players, and which skills they choose to use, it could affect the size, training and morale of thier army/militia. Simply choosing a feet to gain a army of followers is a bit meh.

Phaezen

 

[Mallus]

No, you need rules in order for this fictional persona to interact in a relevant manner with the other elements of the game, as well as the world(situations, challenges, encounters) created through the game's rules.

If this were universally true, no one would play OD&D.

 

[Imaro]

If this were universally true, no one would play OD&D.

Selectively quoting is cute...notice the rest of my post where I brought up the word "measurable".

 

[ExploderWizard]

If this were universally true, no one would play OD&D.

You are right that we don't really need those rules. We don't need textbook thick rules to run combat either but thats what we got. I guess its ok to have that though, and anyone who might want at least a little more mechanical detail for non-combat is just crazy.

 

[Mallus]

And exactly which ones are the "adventure" tasks?

Do you really think it's hard to identify the common adventuring tasks? Read a few Conan stories, Fafrd and the Grey Mouser, some Dumas. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. I'll bet you'll see a pattern develop (with skills like sneaking past guards, swinging from chandeliers, leaping onto the deck of a pirate ship, deciphering the script on an ancient idol occurring more frequently than farming or glass-blowing).

Haggling with merchants, running keeps or domains, equipping and managing militia men for an upcoming orc invasion, womanizing between fights, hunting and foraging while traveling... I like to have these things reflected in my games, and I don't see the reason why these should be "just winged up" and combat should be played to the lesser minutiae, blow by blow.

I agree completely that those elements enrich the game, but I don't see where D&D traditionally offered much in the way of mechanical support for them. Let's take a look a closer look at your list...

Haggling with merchants? D&D never had a haggling skill or detailed rules governing the act. In 4e (and 3e) you could use Diplomacy checks. Prior to that you could use straight CHA checks. And, of course, in any edition the player and DM could just play out the haggling sans rules.

Running keeps and domains? Previous editions did have (a bit) more support for this (plus one whole setting was based around running domains). I'd love to see some supplements that add this back into the game.

Equipping a militia? What more do you need besides a price list for arms and armor? The rules can't tell you what specific the local economic situation in your campaign setting is like.

Managing a militia? Mass combat rules would be nice, but really, aren't you talking about details that the DM is responsible for creating?

Womanizing? Again, there have never been specific rules in D&D for seduction --that I recall, at least. Use Diplomacy or Bluff, CHA vs. WILL Defense. If you employ wingmen (ie, you enlist your friends to help you pursue a woman), it could be represented by a 4e Skill Challenge.

Hunting and foraging? There were more rules for this in previous editions, but D&D was never much of a wilderness survival simulator. Also, this element of play was made obsolete by magic rather quickly (clerics and druids conjuring food and water, wizards creating magic shelters). At any rate, these abilities are still represented in 4e.

If I want a detailed system, I want the same level of detail for everything.

That's a nice sentiment, and I respect your desire for a system that provides that, but was any edition of D&D that system?

 

[Imaro]

That's a nice sentiment, and I respect your desire for a system that provides that, but was any edition of D&D that system?

I just wantede to comment on this statement, as I've seen it trotted out a few times as far as when discussing editions of D&D. What does what "any edition of D&D" have to do with whether something should be in 4e or not? If this was a valid argument...well then THAC0 should still be in the game as before 3e...any edition of D&D hadn't done this before.

I'm not trying to single you out Mallus, but I really feel like this is a pretty flimsy defense for certain things, especially when they are either examples of things other games have been doing for years...or things that should have logically flowed from the evolution (instead of rebuilding) that many thought 4e would be to 3e (especially since SW Saga ed. was touted as a "preview"......which it, IMO, really wasn't).