A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[airwalkrr]

First comment in this thread:

One of the proverbial "nails" in the coffin for me when 4e was released was their decision to completely drop Greyhawk, including most references to Greyhawk place locations. Clearly they wanted to make a setting-neutral game, and that didn't appeal to me. I'm a smart guy; I know how to adapt a setting to my liking.

One of the things that was so appealing about Greyhawk, which was the original default setting of D&D, was that it was very generic, but still rich in lore. If you wanted to, you could set virtually any Greyhawk adventure in a different setting without changing a thing. Maybe change the name of a god from St. Cuthbert to Helm, but it was a cosmetic detail. And if you wanted to, you could have the adventure take place in the dynamic Greyhawk setting and be part of an exciting ongoing narrative.

So yes, I think the OP has a good point. Setting-neutral systems don't seem to hold as much appeal, for me at least. One thing I liked about some of the later titles for 3.5 was notes for including something in different settings, usually just Eberron and Forgotten Realms, but that was a brilliant move in my opinion. I am running an Eberron 3.5 campaign right now, and those little tidbits to help me tie stuff to the setting are awesome.

 

[Umbran]

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.

I'm not sure that is true, if only because I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that suggests that skills are only used in skill challenges.

It seems to me that skill challenges are for when one has a complicated situation (complicated enough to be a scene in and of itself), that could be solved with non-combat skills in combination, rather than a single focused task that calls for one skill.

You may know whether you normally can walk a tightrope, in isolation without much else going on. But in the skill challenge people are doing other things to support your tightrope walking, and/or your walking is supporting some other activity. The challenges are supposed to be, in their own way, as dynamic as combat, so I don't think it should not be so clear cut that you will succeed.

 

[shadzar]

I'm not sure that is true, if only because I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that suggests that skills are only used in skill challenges.

If memory serves me 4th edition has/had only 11 "skills", 2 of which could be automatic. That leaves 9 skills, created for use of the skill challenge system.

How much use can you get out of them beyond the skill challenge system?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They HAVE expanded the 4Ed skill system to include skill powers, but to my mind, those should just be available to trained individuals, as opposed to tradeoffs for class powers.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.

How is this any different from, say, 3E combat?

Can you look solely at your character sheet and answer the question, "Can you beat an orc?"

Until you know a lot more about the orc (is he an Orc War 1 straight out of the MM, or an Orc Ftr 12, or an Orc Clr 35), you can't actually, meaningfully, answer the question.

Why is 4E dinged for this, while 3E is praised for, essentially, the same thing?

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.

Um... no. Bluff is a perfect example of why your understanding is inaccurate. You know how persuasive your character is. But you don't know how difficult your target is to persuade. Or how difficult persuading them of what you want is. Bluff is opposed by sense motive. 4e just wraps the sense motive up into the DC so you make one roll rather than opposed rolls. You still know your bluff score - but not even the DM knows the results of the target's sense motive check before he rolls. You actually have more information about how persuasive you are than in 3e.

As for walking a tightrope. if you need to roll you don't know that you can walk the tightrope anyway. You just know you probably can.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.

I'm not seeing the contrast you're trying to draw either. How persausive you are in 3E depends upon how skilled the other person is at Sense Motive (which may be set by the guideline chart that players often tried to abuse to create 3rd-level half-elf bards that could turn every NPC into their loyal slave: "DC30? Well I've got a +30 Diplomacy...."). How persausive you are in 4E depends upon how skilled the other person is at Insight (which may be set by the DM as a DC target in a skill challenge).

It's also odd to me that you use physical examples for 3E and then try to contrast with a social skill for 4E.

Maybe you could explain further.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If memory serves me 4th edition has/had only 11 "skills", 2 of which could be automatic. That leaves 9 skills, created for use of the skill challenge system.

How much use can you get out of them beyond the skill challenge system?

First, yes you were correct one 1E/2E overlap.

But you're completely wrong on the count of 4E skills. Each has the same use it has outside of skill challenges that it does in 3E.

I could list uses of each skill that we use on a regular basis outside of skill challenges if you wish. But I suspect you don't care.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Two questions come to mind. What are these 'side dishes' that 4e no longer provides? Were they well cooked in 3e?

Well, I'm sorta gonna answer your question with a question.

What did 3e do better than 4e? If your answer is "nothing" then that can be your opinion.


However, I'll happily admit 4e's combat is smoother and has a lot of neat mechanics. I'm also one of many who think that 3e did some things better, in particular, a number of out of combat things.


But, in addition to the "system", I was also referring to the supplemental materials. Back to the OP of the thread, a good world in which to play as well as good adventures are things that may not make good money (brussel sprouts and mashed potatoes), but they are important context for the main focus (fillet mignon).


So, I'll say, few settings for 4e, few really good adventures, and few third party supporters would be the side dishes I'm missing for 4e (as well as the dishes missing within the system itself).

 

[Neonchameleon]

For the record, 4e has 17 skills. And the "automatic" skills are passive ones. Insight and perception (3e: Spot, listen, sense motive). One reason for the passives is so people (PC or NPC) have something to aim at when trying to hide something from you. But you can use them actively as well in the same way you'd use the three 3e equivalent skills give or take some grouping (Hide + Move Silently -> Stealth, Climb + Jump + Swim + some of Escape Artist -> Athletics) and some elimination (no profession, craft, use rope, etc.)

Skill Challenges are something else. Complex tasks with multiple potential points of failure and in which a minor failure can be recovered. A wider timescale than the individual skill checks that make them up (and that have remained unchanged from that perspective).