The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Ariosto]

Mallus and billd91, and anyone else who seriously thinks my problem is not with the formalism itself but merely with "people who use the rules badly"...

Show me!

Give us an example of what you think a proper application of the rules looks like.

 

[Ariosto]

Was it done just to ramp up the number of "powers"?

I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that WotC management came to regret the contribution of so much Open Game Content to the Open Game License initiative.

I think 4e is set up to make it more difficult for anyone to produce a "work-alike" rival. I think of the enthusiasts who say that they would not be enthusiasts without WotC's computerized tools.

That replacing a huge amount of the old material with the all-new Powers material contributes to that may be just felicitous. The Powers system in detail also satisfies explicit design goals that the designers have discussed at some length. However, I doubt that carrying over much of the 3e System Resource Document was seriously an option.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.

This is different than rolling the dice, and then narrating what was attempted and the result.

I agree that the two things you characterise here are different. But I don't think there is much, if any, of the latter in 4e.

The level of detail/abstraction can make a difference here. For example, in many games with social mechanics (not just 4e but 3E, Rolemaster, RQ etc) it can be common at some tables for the player to announce "I talk to her, explaining XYZ" - this is the player having his PC attempt a Persuade, let's say. Then the dice are rolled. If the check is failed, the player (or perhaps the GM) continues "Well, it's all going OK until I/you call her "Your Highness" rather than "Your Majesty" - at which points she calls for the guards and yells 'Off with his head!'" In this sort of play, the general nature of what is attempted is known before the dice are rolled, but the detail only after.

I think your jumping example elides this issue somewhat, because we can imagine the jump starting - then the dice being rolled - then the jump finishing at a certain distance. But of course, if we hold everything else equal, than that distance is predetermined at the start of the jump, by the tension in Bob's muscles, the positions of his feet etc. So even here the precise details of what Bob attempted aren't known until the dice are rolled.

An alternative that a game like 4e or HeroQuest permits, would be for Bob's player to predetermine that Bob tenses his muscles with the power of an Olympic athlete, and then to explain away a failure result on the dice as the result of an unexpected wind gust, or perhaps a last minute distraction that makes Bob shift his weight poorly. In 3E or Rolemaster this might be trickier, because at least the wind gusts should already be factored in (via a penalty on the roll) - though maybe the last minute distraction would still be an acceptable way for Bob's player to save Bob's face (ie to not be obliged to admit that Bob's jumping power is not all it's cracked up to be).

In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following. It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.

Like I said in response to RC, when it comes to action resolution I think the difference between 3E and 4e can be overdrawn sometimes. But also, as the discussion of social mechanics and Bob's jump is meant to show, while both ways of going can appear in both 3E and 4e, 4e perhaps leans a bit more in one direction than the other.

I think the difference is much more prominent on the GM's side of the screen. When it comes to building encounters, designing monsters, resolving skill challenges etc then the mechanics play a much more leading role in 4e than they do in 3E. This feature of 4e monster design, encounter building and DC setting is well known, so I don't think I have to elaborate on it.

I think it's less well noticed as a feature of GMing skill challenges. Even the rulebooks don't mention it (whereas they do mention the other things). As far as I know, the only way a new GM can work out from the rulebooks that his/her handling of a skill challenge has to be guided by metagame mechanical constraints as well as ingame causal logic is by generalising from the example of this provided in the Rules Compendium. In that example, failure on a Streetwise check to recognise a building leads to an attack by some thugs who had earlier been brushed off with a successful Intimidate check - this consequence for failing the skill challenge is not caused in the gameworld by failing to recognise the building - it's not as if the thugs are guarding the building or come out of the building - the consdequence is imposed by GM stipulation as a consequence for the mechanical result of skill challenge failure.

In my opinion, failing to expressly call out and discuss such an important aspect of the way the mechanics are meant to work, and leaving purely implicit in an example of play, is a textbook example of bad rules writing. Especially for a game like D&D, which at least presents itself as being playable by those without prior RPG experience.

The primary difference that I see between 3e and 4e in this case is that in 4e, the mechanics don't dictate a specific interpretation of how the event was resolved.

I agree with this, but think it's different from what RC and BryonD are talking about.

In a game like 3E, RM or RQ (as typically played) an entry on the character sheet - like Pick Locks skill or a particular spell - has only one ingame meaning, determined at the time the entry is written down, and often determined even prior to that, at the time the character build rules are written.

4e, on the other hand, is happy to let this relationship between mechanics and ingame doings be re-established every time an ability is used in play. (Like your nice vulture-eating example of 2nd wind.)

This doesn't mean that, in a 4e game, on any given occasion that an ability is used the player isn't required to say what it is that his/her PC is attempting to do. As I explained earlier in the post, I don't think 4e differs much in this particular respect from more traditional RPGs.

Until such time as a mechanically determined event is resolved in some manner, it cannot be narrated.

Note, for events that are not mechanically determined, you can narrate them any way you want, so long as the table is happy. If I narrate that my character tap dances up to the orc, instead of walking or whatever, if the table is groovy with that, then no worries. The mechanics couldn't care less since movement in combat is not (usually anyway) a mechanically determined event.

Makes sense to me. (Although in Rolemaster, at least, Dancing is a skill, so you'd still have to roll d100 and add your modifier, which would probably be fairly low for the typical PC.)

 

[pemerton]

The narrative needs to agree with the action. In 4E the mechanics "says what happens". Yes, the player is free to come up with any of a billion explanations for how that particular thing happened, but they are still following the lead of the mechanics. Pop-quiz role playing.

I don't think this is generally right. It certainly doesn't fit Hussar's spoon example - there the narration doesn't follow the mechanics, but vice versa - Hussar announces "My mad Kord-worshipping rogue is going to open the lock - he taps it with his wooden spoon." Then dice are rolled. Then the outcome is narrated (probably by the GM, at least in the typical D&D group).

There is no pop quiz.

I think you may be running together two things that are quite different - "pop quiz roleplaying", on the one hand, and a system of character build rules where the ingame meaning/nature of a particular PC ability is determined not once and for all when the rulebooks are written (as per RM, 3E etc) or when the character sheet is written (as per HERO, M&M, etc) but when the ability is used in play by a player.

 

[LostSoul]

It's the ne plus ultra of the way 3e turned wandering monsters from strategic problem into "XP on the hoof". The drunkard's walk may be less than optimal, but now it's not too bad either. If you actually play smart enough to avoid trouble, you get stiffed XP for "not addressing the challenge". The challenge is no longer to secure an objective but rather to get maximally fouled up along the way.

Funny story. One of the last 3.5 campaigns I played in was The Red Hand of Doom. It was a fun game, too bad the DM had real life get in the way of continuing it!

In that module, there's a timetable, and we players knew about it. Whenever we rested for the night, we stated to the DM that we did whatever we could to draw wandering monsters to us! Our goal was to defeat the monsters without expending any valuable resources (HP were fine, since we had a trusty Wand of Cure Light Wounds, but we wanted to hang onto spells). In that way, we'd be higher level when we faced the challenges determined by the time table.

Good times.

 

[Hussar]

You can say the player and DM can agree to not let the power push the opponent, but I would bet you would have other players whining and crying that the player isn't pulling his weight, because the system would become unbalanced leaning towards the DM. I also bet that most 4th edition players wouldn't let another, or even the DM "push" someone away from them with an attack, unless the power included it.

4th isn't I want to swing with my sword and push someone. 4th is I swing with my sword, and the power MADE me push them.

That's not entirely true though. Let's not forget that you chose to take the power that pushes a target first off. Secondly, you chose to use that power at this specific time, when you had at least half a dozen other choices you could have made, many of which will not include forced movement.

Add to that, forced movement powers are generally controller and defender powers (although not always). If you don't want to push people, don't take those type of classes.

It's not like you are force by the mechanics to use a specific power at a specific time. The player had the choice to have that power in the first place and to use that power at this specific time.

On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement. You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to. From the Glossary:

If a power notes a distance that you or an ally moves willingly (for example, “you shift 2 squares”), the character allowed to move can decide to move all, some, or none of that distance. Similarly, if a power forcibly moves an enemy (for example, “you push the target 3 squares”), you can decide to move the enemy all, some, or none of that distance.

Please don't take rules advice from people who have never played a game. Funny how I get jumped up and down and screamed at if I make the slightest deviation from AD&D rules, but, the same people who get all huffy when I might not have the exact wording correct on an AD&D rule have no problem with people completely misrepresenting editions they don't like.

But it isn't divorced. The narrative needs to agree with the action. In 4E the mechanics "says what happens". Yes, the player is free to come up with any of a billion explanations for how that particular thing happened, but they are still following the lead of the mechanics. Pop-quiz role playing

Well, of course the narrative has to agree with what happened. That's always true. But, it's not different really than any other edition.

A bard chooses Perform Lute at 1st level. Every single time he uses a bard class ability that requires perform he MUST narrate that as using a lute. He has no choice, barring training in a second instrument I suppose, in which case he is now mandated by the rules to choose between his two chosen instruments.

But, his narration is still dictated by the mechanics.

In 4e, the player chooses a given power. When that power is used, he can narrate it in any fashion that is acceptable to the table. He is not forced to narrate it in one specific way.

But, again, narration of mechanically determined events is always determined by the mechanics. You have no choice there, beyond initiating the action.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing to be honest. If the mechanics are divorced from the narrative, then you are free to narrate the event in any way you see fit. If the mechanics are tied to the narrative, then the narrative is directed by the mechanics. Are you trying to say that 4e mechanics are tied to specific narratives?

There's good an bad in both approaches really. In 3e, you get internally consistent narratives. The bard plays his lute to make magic happen. Magic happens when he plays his lute. That's consistent. Magic doesn't happen when he plays the drum or sings. Again, totally consistent.

But, it is trading increased consistency with decreased freedom. The bard cannot play the drums to have his bard powers work. The bard can't sing or recite poetry or tell a joke. He can only play the lute. ((Or whatever his Perform skill is in))

4e trades consistency for more freedom. The bard can make magic happen when he plays music, tells a joke, or recites poetry. The wizard can make magic happen with a wand, or an orb or nothing at all. The thief can open locks with picks or chutzpah.

It's certainly less consistent. Totally agree there. And it runs the danger of being so inconsistent to be unbelievable which detracts from the game.

Again, and I actually agree with you on this, it's about catering to specific tastes. 3e creates a specific sort of world. That world is mechanically defined to a very large degree. Granted, given the MASSIVE amount of 3e material, that definition can vary a whole pile from one campaign to another. A 4e world is far less mechanically defined. It derives its consistency from the players, rather than the DM. Depending on the players and the group, that can be very good or very bad.

 

[shadzar]

I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that WotC management came to regret the contribution of so much Open Game Content to the Open Game License initiative.

I think 4e is set up to make it more difficult for anyone to produce a "work-alike" rival. I think of the enthusiasts who say that they would not be enthusiasts without WotC's computerized tools.

That replacing a huge amount of the old material with the all-new Powers material contributes to that may be just felicitous. The Powers system in detail also satisfies explicit design goals that the designers have discussed at some length. However, I doubt that carrying over much of the 3e System Resource Document was seriously an option.

OK, lets follow this thought for a second and say it is those reasons that so many power exist, rather than just trying to add the funky bits to them, that can be done without them, in order to have enough powers to satisfy every class, so those of a chosen class don't feel like they got left out in the design process.

So the power system is VERY important to the game in all manners of its functions, and powers exist because those specific powers are needed.

Why then does Essentials rewrite the powers system?

As I just found out, it removes the nature of Vancian powers from non-casters, so somehow the powers system isnt as integral to the game?

So where does that leave your concept?

Not to mention anyone could make powers for 4th edition...assuming I am also reading right and the GSL got finished sometime in the last few years after Linae(?) was canned.

 

[pemerton]

you[/i] think a proper application of the rules looks like.

There are examples in the DMG (p 77) and the Rules Compendium (pp 162-63). Neither fits your example. Both involve the players explaining what their PCs do (with or without reference to the skill their PC is intending to use - much as has been the case in most RPG play since forever). Both involve the GM assigning a DC, and adjudicating the upshot - for the PC, and for the gameworld as a whole - of the player's skill roll. And then the players responding to the changed situation.

Whereas in a 4e "skill challenge" it's:
1) DM decides goal and context
2) DM decides level and complexity
3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
4) DM decides on other conditions
5) DM decides on consequences
6) Players roll dice and make up excuses for why

Here are the quotes from the DMG, itemised by your points (the passages are found on pp 72-75):

(1), (2) and (4): More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure… Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge.​

This does not say that the GM sets the goal. It says the GM defines the challenge. The meaning of this is perhaps ambiguous, but I think the examples make it pretty clear that what is intended is that the GM has authority over the starting situation. Much like the GM "defines the environment" of a dungeon, by populating rooms, specifying wall and door strength, etc. This is pretty traditional stuff, I think.

This will also involve defining level and complexity. Defining level is perhaps less traditional - although it is traditional that a GM gets to set DCs, it is not traditional that the level of the encounter stipulates parameters for the GM to work within. As per my response above to BryonD, I think this is one of the key areas where 4e follows a "mechanics first, story second" approach.

But this does not thwart any player agency, anymore than specifying a DC based on whether the door is made of wood or mithral thwarts player agency.

(3) You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend” rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check.​

This is not radically different from many RPGs - 3E has a similar rule, I believe, and so do some anime/cinematic martial arts games, I think.

What step (3) presupposes, of course, is that a skill check has been attempted. In your list of steps, you leave this out. Here is the relevant rules text:

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it… In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth… However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing …​

Your presentation of (5) and (6) seems to be confused about the temporal sequence of events in the course of play. Here is the relevant rules text, first from the PHB (pp 259 and 179) and then from the DMG:

Rules for players
Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

Rules for GMs
Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action.​

So the notion that players roll dice and "make up excuses" has no basis in the rulebooks. The GM describes a situation. The player chooses a skill whereby s/he wants her/his PC to respond to the situation. The GM specifies a DC (or may have done so in advance, if s/he anticipated that skill use in writing up notes for the encounter). A die is rolled and the skill check result determined. The GM then narrates the consequences of what it is the PC attempted, and in doing so is obliged by the rules of the game to have regard to whether the skill check succeed or failed.

The description just given doesn't distinguish a skill challenge from resolving encounters in Travelller or Runequest, but there is a difference. The difference in setting DCs - guided by encounter level as a priority, with the ingame fiction to accommodate that, rather than vice versa - has already been noted earlier in this post. The other difference is that, by the rules, the PCs succeed at their goal if they get a certain number of succeses before 3 failures. This puts a burden on the GM to narrate the consequences of success and failure in such a way that this sort of resolution can emerge from the ingame situation. In my own experience with skill challenges, this is the most challenging aspect of GMing them (it resembles the way in which an unfolding HeroQuest/Wars extended contest must be narrated).

One of the techniques the GM must be prepared to use as part of this narration is to have events occur in the gameworld, in response to skill checks (particularly failures thereof), whose logic is determined not by ingame cause but metagame cause. I talked about this in an earlier post, and criticised the skill challenge rules for failing to make this point explicit and instead relying on an example to demonstrate it.

Strip that away, and I'm happy -- and it's no longer a 4e "skill challenge". It's just playing an RPG, using the long proven method that simply has no need for the complicated construction.

Despite the errors in your presentation of (1) to (6), you are correct that there is a complicated construction that differs from what is traditional in playing an RPG like Traveller, Runequest etc.

In this post I've tried to explain what that complicated construction is, and how it differs from tradition - basically in DC setting, and in the "successes before failures" constraint on resolution.

As to whether it's a good thing or not, that's a matter of taste. Having spent many years GMing "freeform" social interactions using Rolemaster - freeform in the sense that, while there are social skill checks that are made, the game leaves it up to me as GM to determine when enough checks have been made to persuade an NPC - I quite like having a structure. I've also used it to make overland travel an engaging part of my games again - I find it works much better than just clocking off the days and rolling for encounters.

Others who are looking for different experiences from an RPG might of course prefer other approaches.

 

[shadzar]

On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement. You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to. From the Glossary:

Again, why have it built into the power in the first place. Why not just let the powers do whatever they do, and let this "push" be referred to ONLY when the player wants to enable it?

That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers.

So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times. Magic Missile type things that don't have a real "force" behind it to "push" that is. (Cause I am SO tired of getting into that argument which is simple that some people say it should and play it that way, others disagree; so each should play their own way with Magic Missile.)

 

[billd91]

Mallus and billd91, and anyone else who seriously thinks my problem is not with the formalism itself but merely with "people who use the rules badly"...

Show me!

Give us an example of what you think a proper application of the rules looks like.

It's all just a question of using multiple skill checks to get to one overall result. Suppose you had a group of people playing Traveller. They are in a scout ship and have to try to intercept a fuel tanker rigged to explode when it reaches the a mining station in the asteroid belt. Their long range communications array has been damaged by the terrorists who planted the bomb. The end result is keeping the tanker from exploding where it can damage the station. The players start trying to do what they think will help the situation. The navigator tries to plot a course that will shorten their intercept distance. The pilot tries to cut corners skirting asteroids to cut the time. The engineer tries to eke a little more speed out of the thrusters. Commo/sensors scans for hazards in the way. The GM rules that gaining a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures will result in a successful interception. But it's possible for one or more of the checks to fail as long as enough succeed to enable the interception to occur.