[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[Ariosto]

So it's not about "making excuses" to use skills.

Yes, it is. That's how it comes into existence in the first place.

It's an "encounter", remember, in the WotC-speak sense of the term!

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks).

That says it all, which is the problem.

 

[BryonD]

And 4e to me is the first edition to provide that without heading hard down the simulationist rabbit hole and in the direction of GURPS Vehicles (why not just use a CAD package?) The DC setting in 3e makes me want to tear my hair out as a DM. And let's not get into 2e's mess of NWPs.

This is one key difference.

By ALL means, play what is fun TO YOU.

But if you are going to compare 3E to CAD work and say things about your ability to figure DCs that would get someone else warned by a mod had they said them about you, then please keep in mind that those of us who do these things on the fly are going to immediately understand that anyone saying these things does not offer any real insight into what is valuable to *our* games.

Yes, 4E is much easier. But, to me, the value added there is null and the cost is decisive.

They are different games with different expectations of different target audiences. This is not REMOTELY to say that there is no overlap. But, the main target is different.

If I was some voice in the wilderness, then that would be that. But looking back over the past 12 years it seems very easy to say that D20/3E revitalized the market and 4E has chopped it into pieces. Yes, 3E was old and done. It was time to move into something new. But, I'm convinced that something new that accepted that some players would feel they were pulling their hair to much would have retained a notably larger fan base.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fair enough. I'm just comparing some of my old school experiences with my experience playing at Encounters. And the contrast is so close to your caricature it's remarkable.

Stop right there. You've been playing Encounters. Something designed specifically to be drop-in lowest common denominator game runnable by a random DM with no experience. Criticising a lack of complex thinking and deep roleplaying in Encounters is like playing the Castle Grayhawk module and then saying that D&D is not a serious game.

You do not often get deep and meaningful games in random dropins with inexperienced players and sessions that are designed for a very basic taster both in front of and behind the screen. Essentials is what it is designed to be and works wonderfully for that. It gets people into the game. It is not the be-all and end-all of 4e and is at one extreme of the spectrum.

And, for my desires (and clearly many people agree), the mechanics of 4E do a perfectly adequate job of supporting roleplay. But when choosing between adequate and awesome, the choice is easy.

For my desires, as a PC the mechanics of 4e do as good a job as any edition of D&D, although it doesn't have things like aspects to invoke. As a DM, I find improvising easier in 4e than other editions due to the Skill Challenge DC table allowing me to add in the random factor very easily and account for PC rather than player skill. But to be honest that's a minor factor. Ultimately, out of combat, no edition of D&D has ever had strong mechanics (although 3.x made you work hard and had detailed ones).

In old D&D, I get a better chance to hit as I go up in levels (until that stops accruing). That has no effect whatsoever on anyone else's chance to hit. A monster with a 30% chance to hit has a 30% chance to hit whether it's taking a swipe at high-level me or lowly Frank the Factotum.

That's assuming Frank the Factotum has the same armour, dexterity, and magic as you do. A ... dubious assumption, especially in 3.X. (More valid in older editions).

Really? I'm not seeing that, but I'm no expert on fine points of WotC-D&D.

You don't see high level spells as qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones? Fascinating.

Maybe the designers have some insight, though.

And maybe assumptions have changed. After the outcry when WoTC put in a Roper (IIRC) into a low level campaign.

The designers of 3e suggest a range of encounter levels mainly (65%) from equal to, to 4 higher than, party level; 5% 5+ higher ("overpowering"); and 30% lower ("easy").

The designers of 4e suggest 1/8 each at the extremes of just 1 level lower and 3 levels higher, and 3/4 at level +0 or +1.

Different goals. The 4e encounters are all meant to be beatable. The 3e ones aren't. As I said, they changed that (IMO massively for the worse) after an early fan outcry. And the editions use a different attrition and daily resource model - a pre-4e wizard can fire off all his spells in one fight for instance. And wizards casting spells always takes resources pre-4e. So even a cakewalk has a cost, whereas in 4e you just stick to the encounter powers and maybe lose a healing surge or two between the party. Not a measure of encounter difficulty so much as encounter annoyance.

Having rules for this sort of thing never in three decades was a problem I ever encountered until WotC-D&D. (I didn't play much 2e AD&D, and I have since heard of, and even from, people who made a problem of "non-weapon proficiencies" and the like.)

The problem isn't with WoTC D&D per se. The problem is with 3.X. In specific, the problem is the Diplomacy skill and more specifically the Influencing NPC Attitudes table. That's not a skill. That's Charm Person usable on everyone with a simple skill roll and no downside. And it's no harder to use on a high level dragon than a kobold. As far as I know, no other game has that broken an implementation of a diplomacy skill - with the rules as written allowing for serious Diplomancy and giving the DM about as much leeway as a computer game would have. And at fairly minimal resource investment. (And to an extent this has continued into 4e because a lot of 4e players first learned on 3.X)

It is immediately recognizable from experience with close-tactical wargames. "Here's the arena, now FIGHT!"

Oh, hi, Essentials. Arena fight is now, admittedly the new Monty Haul.

The problem I have about the "kill them and take their stuff" meme is that it's actually false. The notion of the meme is that old school D&D was about killing monsters and taking their stuff. And that's simply not true... at most it was about taking their stuff, but you only had to kill them first if you messed up and got yourself into a scrum.

Ah yes. The XP for treasure rule. One of the more ignored rules in D&D - and removed in 2e. Which is one reason I really do not like 2e. That risk/reward incentive model did a hell of a lot for older editions of D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is one key difference.

By ALL means, play what is fun TO YOU.

But if you are going to compare 3E to CAD work and say things about your ability to figure DCs that would get someone else warned by a mod had they said them about you, then please keep in mind that those of us who do these things on the fly are going to immediately understand that anyone saying these things does not offer any real insight into what is valuable to *our* games.

I was less than clear there. I was comparing GURPS Vehicles to CAD work. Not 3e which was just a step down that road. For the record, GURPS Vehicles contains rules for vehicle design - and I don't think it has more than one sample vehicle.

In order to start to design a vehicle you work out its volume in cubic feet. And then use that to obtain the surface area in square feet (the square of the cube root of the volume if you're interested). The surface area then provides the base weight and cost for the internal structure and the armour (depending on the materials you use). Sloping the armour modifies this for each side you slope - as do more complex structures. If you have a multi-part vehicle (specific examples given include wings, turrets, and limbs) then you do this for each part of the vehicle. Step two (I think) is to say how many kilowatts you want your vehicle's power plant to produce (there's a conversion factor for horsepower). You aren't going to find how fast your vehicle can go until you've added the drivetrain (distinct from the engine and added much later in the process), worked out the total weight of this contraption, and run that through various formulae for the accelaration, the cruising speed, the top speed (you also get the fuel efficiency there if you want it) and a few other factors. Assuming the damn thing will handle something resembling safely at that speed.

I wasn't kidding about the CAD package for GURPS Vehicles.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd like to hear more about this.

Sure.

"When you use a skill, you make a skill check."

I think that sums up the problem: you don't resolve the action the character takes in the game world; you use a skill and make a skill check. This leads directly into the sort of "exercise in dice rolling" that many people notice when running Skill Challenges. Players use a skill and make a skill check against a set DC based on their level. Interaction with the game world isn't required, and that has an effect on the game: unexpected outcomes aren't going to happen, players will have a hard time paying attention to the game world, and smart or cunning plans aren't any more effective than saying "I roll Diplomacy".

I believe that the point of using mechanics at all is to get unexpected results that everyone is happy with but no one would have come up with. If you get expected results or results that players are not happy with, you might as well go to free-form RP. (I'm not talking about results that end up with PCs failing, I'm talking about results that make the players sit back and say, "Well that is stupid." 1E d20 Star Wars snowspeeders being far tougher than AT-ATs, for example.)​

It seems that this was the idea behind Skill Challenges from WotC; otherwise I don't think they would have spent the time in their modules to detail what characters are doing when they make a specific skill check. They would have detailed the opposition, its disposition and methods and left it up to the group to work out.

 

[Ariosto]

That's assuming Frank the Factotum has the same armour, dexterity, and magic as you do.

So does getting only +x, based on difference in levels. So what? (Those of a logical bent can see that "what" is you arguing with great clarity against yourself!)

A ... dubious assumption, especially in 3.X. (More valid in older editions).

No kidding?

You don't see high level spells as qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones? Fascinating.

I don't see high level Powers, etc., as less qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones. Why do you make a false claim about what I wrote when it's there for anyone to see?

Different goals. The 4e encounters are all meant to be beatable. The 3e ones aren't.

All of them up through level+4 ("very difficult") are meant to be beatable. I take your point, though. This is indeed not a sound basis for assessment of the question.

In specific, the problem is the Diplomacy skill and more specifically the Influencing NPC Attitudes table. That's not a skill. That's Charm Person usable on everyone with a simple skill roll and no downside. ...giving the DM about as much leeway as a computer game would have.

Says who? I'm not seeing a stipulation that DMs must be Lawful Stupid in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. (I don't have the 3.0 books handy.)

Where is the rule that circumstantial modifiers do not apply? That's the really big deal to me, because if an idiotic move is as good as a brilliant one, then you can get yourself a Dragonbone because I'm a game player not just a random number generator.

Where are the supposed "no leeway" definitions of what actions result and for how long? Where is the admonition that there is no downside?

Mind you, I'm not inclined to quibble if someone with a bonus of +49 (equivalent to a charisma score of 108 or 109) goes about routinely and repeatedly changing attitudes from "hostile" to "helpful" with just a smile.

 

[Ariosto]

I was comparing GURPS Vehicles to CAD work. Not 3e which was just a step down that road.

...about 20 years behind Striker (1981 rules set for 15mm Traveller miniatures).

 

[Argyle King]

I was less than clear there. I was comparing GURPS Vehicles to CAD work. Not 3e which was just a step down that road. For the record, GURPS Vehicles contains rules for vehicle design - and I don't think it has more than one sample vehicle.

In order to start to design a vehicle you work out its volume in cubic feet. And then use that to obtain the surface area in square feet (the square of the cube root of the volume if you're interested). The surface area then provides the base weight and cost for the internal structure and the armour (depending on the materials you use). Sloping the armour modifies this for each side you slope - as do more complex structures. If you have a multi-part vehicle (specific examples given include wings, turrets, and limbs) then you do this for each part of the vehicle. Step two (I think) is to say how many kilowatts you want your vehicle's power plant to produce (there's a conversion factor for horsepower). You aren't going to find how fast your vehicle can go until you've added the drivetrain (distinct from the engine and added much later in the process), worked out the total weight of this contraption, and run that through various formulae for the accelaration, the cruising speed, the top speed (you also get the fuel efficiency there if you want it) and a few other factors. Assuming the damn thing will handle something resembling safely at that speed.

I wasn't kidding about the CAD package for GURPS Vehicles.

It's worth point out that GURPS Vehicles was a completely optional book, and not at all required to create vehicles. It was a more complex system offered for those who wanted a more complex system.

Even considering that, I would hardly say it is CAD work. Complex? Yeah. Impossible? Not at all. I will give you that it was somewhat clunky, but it hardly required an engineering degree.

 

[pawsplay]

Perhaps some will disagree, but the combat system is at the heart of all versions of D&D. It's the reason we all say "I kill them and take their stuff," not, "I persuade them to give up their stuff."

That phrase is used satirically. It lampoons a stereotype of hack-and-slash D&D that is used as an implied comparison to a more sophisticated game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure.

"When you use a skill, you make a skill check."

I think that sums up the problem: you don't resolve the action the character takes in the game world; you use a skill and make a skill check.

That's possibly poor wording. But is no different from "When you attack, you roll an attack roll." Explaining the meta and mechanical rules. And being taken by some as the be all and end all when they have as much in character meaning as THAC0

It's worth point out that GURPS Vehicles was a completely optional book, and not at all required to create vehicles. It was a more complex system offered for those who wanted a more complex system.

Even considering that, I would hardly say it is CAD work. Complex? Yeah. Impossible? Not at all. I will give you that it was somewhat clunky, but it hardly required an engineering degree.

Just a long time and computer assistance would have been extremely useful. Seriously, the square of the cube root of an Imperial measurement - and estimating volumes in cubic feet (I have no idea how many cubic feet a car is).

There have been, literally, hundreds of threads on this topic.

And every single thread on how 4e is bad for roleplaying has come up with the same arguments - that having social skills is detrimental to roleplaying, that not having detailed skills of the level of 4e is detrimental to roleplaying, and generally arbitrary issues. The only criticisms that make sense that I've ever seen and that don't slam prior editions (normally either 3e or OD&D) harder than 4e come from the Indy Gamers asking for aspects.

So does getting only +x, based on difference in levels. So what? (Those of a logical bent can see that "what" is you arguing with great clarity against yourself!)

So if level has any useful feature, it is a measure of the power level of the character. Iron Man can beat up Tony Stark. Equipment is a part of that power level - and there has always been an expectation of equipment. (Made explicit in the WoTC editions, but implicit in prior ones).

Also by focussing exclusively on AC, you miss other measures of defence. Hit points being the obvious one. A level 1 wizard with a charisma of 10 has (IIRC) 20 hit points and gains 4 per level. His hit points double first in 5 levels, then in a further 10. A level 1 AD&D wizard has an average of 2.5 and gains an average of 2.5 per level. His hit points double first in 1 level then in a further 2, then in a further 4; far, far faster than in 4e. (3e hit point doubling is more complex due to constitution boosters).

I don't see high level Powers, etc., as less qualitatively rather than simply quantitatively stronger than low level ones. Why do you make a false claim about what I wrote when it's there for anyone to see?

To confirm, because we appear to be getting tangled, I see a quantitative increase in power in 4e. In older editions for casters, there's a qualitative difference. Fly is not simply a beefed up version of levitate.

Says who? I'm not seeing a stipulation that DMs must be Lawful Stupid in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. (I don't have the 3.0 books handy.)

Where is the rule that circumstantial modifiers do not apply?

Some circumstance modifiers apply. If they have problems hearing you. But the ones for demeanor are already included in that stupid table. Hostile means 'willing to risk their own life and limb to hurt you'. At that point the only further they could go is magical mind control. So sure you can add additional circumstance modifiers for making the diplomancer breathe helium or a language barrier. But it is every bit as hard coded by the rules as jumping distances.

Where are the supposed "no leeway" definitions of what actions result and for how long?

The specific actions are as open as they are from Charm Person. Making someone friendly... Making them not attack. How they do this is another matter.

Where is the admonition that there is no downside?

No expenditure of resources. No making the situation worse.