Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[D'karr]

And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1). Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.? I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?

If that was the case you would only need a handful of "spells" in 3e. Since spells are the classic discrete exception based rules, and you could adjudicate everything else. But that is not the case. BTW Savage Worlds works a lot like that.

The big difference there is that I've been running 4e games for almost 12 months now and the times that I've had to go to the book to look up a "rule" are few and far in between. As a matter of fact for the last few months I've been running the game using only the DM Screen. The "powers" are exceptions but they work in such a way that I don't need to look each and everyone of them up. They usually have pretty consistent general rules. If I need to adjudicate something it usually has to do with something that is not stipulated in the power itself. For example, does the curtain catch on fire if I use X. Then it's adjudication time.

Internet boards are full of arguments, saying that 4e has more or less of them because it uses exception based rules is ridiculous at best.

 

[Imaro]

If that was the case you would only need a handful of "spells" in 3e. Since spells are the classic discrete exception based rules, and you could adjudicate everything else. But that is not the case. BTW Savage Worlds works a lot like that.

But 3e had rules for everything...right?

The big difference there is that I've been running 4e games for almost 12 months now and the times that I've had to go to the book to look up a "rule" are few and far in between. As a matter of fact for the last few months I've been running the game using only the DM Screen. The "powers" are exceptions but they work in such a way that I don't need to look each and everyone of them up. They usually have pretty consistent general rules. If I need to adjudicate something it usually has to do with something that is not stipulated in the power itself. For example, does the curtain catch on fire if I use X. Then it's adjudication time.

What exactly, except in the most broadest sense of the word, are the general rules of powers? The only one I can think of is roll a d20 add mods and target defense (and even this isn't universal)... beyond that I'm not seeing it, even moreso for monsters.

Internet boards are full of arguments, saying that 4e has more or less of them because it uses exception based rules is ridiculous at best.

Huh? Where did I say anything about "more" my point was exactly what you said... those who want to argue rules will do so in 4e just like in 3.5, I wasn't making a comparison... just citing evidence to support my position.

 

[Pbartender]

To be fair, GW, the 4E DMG does include a chart with the sort of stats you're looking for.

The difference is that the text includes the disclaimer I mentioned above, so that a DM can legally rule that fireballs set dry leaves on fire or that you can't tunnel through solid stone with an adamantine spoon.

 

[avin]

Wait, all this discussion is about 4E being good for lovecraft and mysteries?

Being a full time 4E DM these days I can say: if you want a mystery go Wod or GURPS. 4E is crap for terror, i mean C R A P

 

[Imaro]

Because of rules knowledge specialization. The DM might not know how power x works, but the player does. In addition, the use of things like power cards means there isn't a need to look things up.

Yeah, I guess if you write out the rules you need on cards you don't have to look them up... in the book... technically.

How doesn't the DM need to know how the powers work, he is an arbitrator in those situations where things may not be clear, how can he do this if he doesn't know what the powers do? It's akin to saying a referee in a basketball or football game doesn't need to know what is illegal for specific positions... since the players already know. And please let's not pretend like players don't make mistakes, yet if the DM isn't knowledgeable... I guess it doesn't mater whether the powers are being usd correctly or not...

 

[Scribble]

I, as a DM, am interested in having an internally-consistent setting, which is achieved - at least partially - by having a consistent ruleset. Requiring adjudications from me opens room for that internal consistency to be put into jeopardy, because I may not always be consistent in my rulings or decisions.

I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe "internal consistancy" to be a big selling point.

The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some "internally consistant" reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random "it takes five clicks this time" moment.

Internal consistancy to me feels too clockwork, and unatural. Again I feel this is a big difefrence between computer games and people. Computers have a HARD time not being consistant. They do what they're told, and can't do what they're not told.

If I have a fire spell in a computer it can't light fires unless the programing says so. If I have a fire spell in a Tabletop game, even if the "programing" says nothing about lighting fires, we, as humans, can say otherwise.

The more "consistant" rules a game has, the more it makes me feel as if that's how it wants me to rule things. When a designer thinks putting soemthign like "it melts soft metals" in there makes the world more consistant, I find it usually just ends up being a reason someone has for another use not to function. "They said it can do this, if it could do that why wouldn't they also have put that in the description???"

I prefer it gives me guidelines, and lets me go from there. I'm not a computer, I can make judgement calls.

Yep- sometimes this means it'll take a PC five clicks to light his fireball... But I'm ok with that. I prefer it even.

 

[malraux]

Yeah, I guess if you write out the rules you need on cards you don't have to look them up... in the book... technically.

How doesn't the DM need to know how the powers work, he is an arbitrator in those situations where things may not be clear, how can he do this if he doesn't know what the powers do? It's akin to saying a referee in a basketball or football game doesn't need to know what is illegal for specific positions... since the players already know. And please let's not pretend like players don't make mistakes, yet if the DM isn't knowledgeable... I guess it doesn't mater whether the powers are being usd correctly or not...

Well, my general objection to looking stuff up is the time it takes to find the rule, not the time it takes to adjudicate stuff once the rule is found. Power cards mean that no one has to take time to look stuff up, thus cutting out the largest time sink in rules adjudication.

As for players following the rules: first, in general we all make mistakes, I'm ok with that as long as its not a constant thing. second, the literal reading of powers is for the most part pretty straight forward, especially if you have the power exact text. Finally, because you have more or less the same powers from level to level, you get used to how the power works.

 

[D'karr]

Internet boards are full of arguments, saying that 4e has more or less of them because it uses exception based rules is ridiculous at best.

Huh? Where did I say anything about "more" my point was exactly what you said... those who want to argue rules will do so in 4e just like in 3.5, I wasn't making a comparison... just citing evidence to support my position.

I've highlighted the part you omitted. In essence I agree with you; people that want to argue will do so, regardless of edition.

Your point seemed to be that 4e had all these things, without taking into account that 3e did too. Therefore my point of having "more or less".

To answer the OP's original question, I don't think that any specific set of rules limits the scope of campaigns within the genre that they "emulate".

I think that most DMs do that all on their own. For example I've successfully run the types of adventures that you mentioned using 1e, 3e and 4e. Those adventures all had a measure of investigation, horror, or "cthuluesqueness."

In 1e, everything was mostly freeform. In 3e and 4e, I used the skill system.

Are there rulesets that emulate somethings better? Absolutely. It doesn't mean that other rulesets limit you on that, you just have to work harder at it. Does that limit you? That is for each DM to decide for himself. As it stands, I can't find any adventure type that I could run in previous editions that I could not run in the current edition.

 

[Spatula]

Yeah, honestly doesn't it create the same problems being cited in 3.5, without DM intervention you can have skill ratings so far apart they can't meaningfully interact with the same skill DC's.

The skill DCs in 4e fall in a predictable range - the players can interact with them by design. I'm personally of the opinion that the errata'd DC values are too low, but leaving that aside, at the extreme end of things (level 30), easy DCs are 19, moderate 28, hard 33. Your minimum bonus at that level is +15, putting any check within reach, although hard checks will require a lot of luck and/or help. Max bonus would be around +39 at the very extreme end (race bonus, skill focus, +6 skill item).

* the downside of the errata'd DCs is that specialization isn't really rewarded - just being trained and involving your primary stat will put those DCs into near automatic success territory, which is why I think the DCs should be somewhat higher. But it's a question of what you're designing for - should an untrained character with no stat bonus have a chance of making a hard DC at level 30? I'm ok with saying no, but the WotC guys apparently felt differently. The bonus gap would be lessened greatly without the skill items, which provide a huge benefit at the upper end (+6) and don't exist for all skills.

So the issue of there being a "skill gap" still exists, sure, but it's smaller and the DCs are designed around it (even though I disagree with their design priorities). Compare with 3e, where both the gap and the DCs are essentially unbound.

 

[malraux]

To be fair, GW, the 4E DMG does include a chart with the sort of stats you're looking for.

The difference is that the text includes the disclaimer I mentioned above, so that a DM can legally rule that fireballs set dry leaves on fire or that you can't tunnel through solid stone with an adamantine spoon.

For a general distinction, 4e prioritizes balance above consistency, as page 42 shows.