Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[JeffB]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

The Cleric could uncover imposters.

I missed that class ability, too, I suppose.

The Wizard could charm the guards.

Well, that one at least is no longer possible.

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.

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]

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]

You will need to define opportunity cost, as that is a term I have never heard before.

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.

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.