Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

So what you want is skill challenges and the pretension that skill ranks mean something? The moment you start tailoring the DCs to take into account these ranks, you have the same end effect as if you just have a 1/2 level bonus + ability (+5 for trained) and put the DCs in a chart. Except with less work for the DM.

 

[ProfessorPain]

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.



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.

then i think he should have paid more attention to my earlier argument about make or break skill checks and party success v. individual success. Everything is different when the group succeeds as a whole because of one persons success or failure; but that doesn't mean the whole party has to suceed or fail on it. The consequences for success and failure should vary from challenge to challenge. As I said before, just becuase the guy with +20 in diplomacy wants to be the one to address the king, it doesn't mean the king wants to interact with him. It also doesn't mean the other players diplomacy rolls wont have an impact on the story. Maybe the guy with a +20 gets the king's ear, and secures whatever it is the PCs are looking for. But the guy with no ranks, may end up in the dungeon for accidentally insulting the king. The guy with the +2 might make it by the skin of his teeth. I understand the concept of everyone specializing in a few areas so that the whole party is covered. But there are times when this doesn't work. And it isn't always appropriate to give the whole party a pass because one member of thier group suceeds.

 

[maddman75]

Am I the only one whose group figured out that if you just pick a number of skills equal to your points per level and keep them maxed out, you'll be best off? Most everyone I gamed with did it that way, and it makes it feel just like 4e, except with more math to do.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Am I the only one whose group figured out that if you just pick a number of skills equal to your points per level and keep them maxed out, you'll be best off? Most everyone I gamed with did it that way, and it makes it feel just like 4e, except with more math to do.

No. I have been in groups that do this. But sometimes you want more skills than that. You may want to make a character who has more of his bases covered.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I
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.

It doesn't seem to work for me. All I see is something that I can cover with a skill challenge. "Oh they are using bad cop/good cop. You roll Initmidate, I roll Diplomacy!)

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.

The question is how do you express these in game terms.

Show me.

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.

And you delivered, at least a beginning.

So, I suppose what one would want to change is to add special ability - spells or story abilities that can replace a skill check.

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.

Only if both skills apply to the challenge.
Only if you don't bother about the story created.
You seem to be combining the eventual success of the scenario with the way it was resolved. That looks a little like saying that your class doesn't have an effect in combat, since in the end, all enemies are at less then 0 hit points. But still a combat where everyone is fighting with swords is very different from one mixing swords and fireballs.
When you use Perception, you narrate something different as when you use Diplomacy. If you use a sword, you narrate it diferently as when you're using a fireball. Even if at the end, the enemies just loses some hit points.

There is little strategic dimension in earlier editions, and there is even less in 4e.

I think the D&D "strategic" dimension was usually related to stuff like getting and traveling the equipment and treasure, and managing your daily spell slots and healing. I suppose that's not much, but well, we're only running an adventure party, not an army.

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.

A contradiction can be part of an argument! [/Python]

 

[ProfessorPain]

So what you want is skill challenges and the pretension that skill ranks mean something? The moment you start tailoring the DCs to take into account these ranks, you have the same end effect as if you just have a 1/2 level bonus + ability (+5 for trained) and put the DCs in a chart. Except with less work for the DM.

Except he is still allowing for failure to happen, just suggesting making it not a make or break thing. At some point, you have to tailor adventures to the party and their skills. What is being argued is it is less fun for some if everyone 18th level guy who took diplomacy is basically the same at it. Ranks allows for more variety, and for more interesting scenarios where some members make it and some don't. The key to any skill test, no matter what the edition; is to make sure a single failure doesn't ruin the game. That doesn't mean give them a pass. Treat it like a movie. They can't kill of characters who stumble, but they need to increase tension somehow; so the guy who probably should have fallen off the cliff, ends up dangling by his pants; or at the bottom of the ravine on his own--forced to find a way to rejoin the group.

 

[maddman75]

No. I have been in groups that do this. But sometimes you want more skills than that. You may want to make a character who has more of his bases covered.

But the way expected DCs climb, your choices boil down to max it out or have it be useless.

Splitting between two, or more, instead of putting a point in it every level will only wind up with a useless bonus. The DCs in the game scale with level, meaning if you want to have a chance to do something useful with a skill for your level it needs to be maxed out. You might feel like you're 'covering your bases' at lower level, but eventually you'll find all you've done is gotten two mostly useless skills instead of one totally useless skill and a useful skill.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Except he is still allowing for failure to happen, just suggesting making it not a make or break thing. At some point, you have to tailor adventures to the party and their skills. What is being argued is it is less fun for some if everyone 18th level guy who took diplomacy is basically the same at it. Ranks allows for more variety, and for more interesting scenarios where some members make it and some don't. The key to any skill test, no matter what the edition; is to make sure a single failure doesn't ruin the game. That doesn't mean give them a pass. Treat it like a movie. They can't kill of characters who stumble, but they need to increase tension somehow; so the guy who probably should have fallen off the cliff, ends up dangling by his pants; or at the bottom of the ravine on his own--forced to find a way to rejoin the group.

Which is what skill challenges are also doing. My point is that I don't see this flexibility or variety if you tailor the skills to give the PCs a similar "success chance". All you do is adding math that doesn't change how you actually play the game or change the story of the adventure. It really just adds the need for me to look at the character sheet of a PC and figure out his skill bonus.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Which is what skill challenges are also doing. My point is that I don't see this flexibility or variety if you tailor the skills to give the PCs a similar "success chance". All you do is adding math that doesn't change how you actually play the game or change the story of the adventure. It really just adds the need for me to look at the character sheet of a PC and figure out his skill bonus.

i agree with you there. I don't think you should rig skill tests so everyone has the same chance of success. I want the guy who spent skill points on the skill to benefit. What too many GMs do is see skill checks as a make or break moment in the adventure. If you have designed a scenario with a 20 foot jump that must be made, or the adventure comes to a crashing hault, then that is bad adventure design. All kinds of interesting things can develop from a failed jump check. And those are also opportunities to create tension. This is where the concept of a skill test from 4E is a cool one(though I would do them a little differently myself) that you can probably apply. Every once in a while, a jump or die situation is okay (if you don't mind high body counts), but you don't want it to kill the adventure. Same with any other skill check. By making skill failures acceptable outcomes, with in game consequences, you make skills and differing ranks in skills more important. My basic issue with skills in 4E is I would like to have more subskills and the ability to take ranks in them. I also do not like the level being factored into your score. I understand why they did it. But I prefer to have more control over my skill level.

 

[Pbartender]

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.

Okay... I too, have been playing role playing for over fifteen (over twenty, actually) years, and in general, I too prefer game systems that allow me to take ranks in skills. However, in practice, the D20 method of doing it doesn't work as well as I'd like it to. From observed experience over the past few years with dozens of gamers, from both the player side and the DM side of the screen, here's what I've seen happen...

• Most players either maxed out a skill or left a skill completely empty with no ranks at all.
• Skills that have ranks but aren't maxed out were almost always not maxed out for one of three reasons... 1) Meeting the minimum prerequisites for a PrC or a feat, 2) Taking just 1 or 2 ranks for roleplaying purposes, or 3) The player wanted to max the skill out, but couldn't because skill points were used for 1 or 2.
• Unless no one else in the party has that skill maxed out, an unmaxed skill almost never got used. At best it would get occassional use when Aiding Another.

Granted, it didn't always work out that way, but 9 times out of ten, it did.