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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As I just said, I can see the "here is some guidance, now design your 'thing' and let players figure it out without you as a DM even trying to figure a solution for it".

That is a good tool, Point to 4th 15/luv..whatever.

But as someone else mention the "design a non-combat encounter' I would ignore it. I would just design things and let the players figure it out however, and IF I need to use the skill challenges, then and only then employ them, not have the encounter built around using them.

Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".

You can use it more free-form once your used to the tool. But what fault do you have with designing an encounter, choosing skills that will most likely be used, and being prepared ahead of time to adjudicate the results? This has been a tool used in adventures written for all editions of the game. 1E modules aften listed the ability check that should be used if a player chose to do a certain actin, 2E NWP, 3E skills. Being prepared ahead of time for anticipated actions is NOT the same as the DM figuring out the solution for the players.

I heard these same arguments used against the writers of 1E modules, including EGG, that they were dictating what the characters could do. Any of them would point out that they were anticipating common solutions, not limiting options. The same with 4E skill challenges. The SC gives you common solutions, but good DMs will adjudicate other solutions fairly and incorporate the players' ideas into the skill challenge.

 

[LostSoul]

You can use it more free-form once your used to the tool. But what fault do you have with designing an encounter, choosing skills that will most likely be used, and being prepared ahead of time to adjudicate the results?

I use Skill Challenges in the manner that shadzar proposes. I do it that way because I have no idea what's going to happen in the next game, so I don't know what to prepare for; I require a reaction roll or morale check to set the number of successes needed, and I don't roll dice away from the table (save for NPC-NPC stuff); and I'm lazy, so I don't really care to prep much.

I actually do some prep for Skill Challenges - I figure out what the NPC wants, what kind of a person he or she is, basically figuring out the mindset of the NPC so I can play them appropriately. Usually this is just a few lines if I take the time to write it out:

The current leader of this town is a two-fisted warrior woman named Shirley Peltier, a refugee from another time. She is a human javelin dancer (who uses Colt .45s). She deposed the old ruler because he was abusing his power; she isn't too keen on the laws, though the three "lawmen" (human guards) who follow Erathis are always very strict.

*

Basically, Sir Keegan thought that they could close the Shadow Rift once and for all, tried, and failed. Worse than death. In his undead state he killed everyone.​

Sometimes I get what I need from the MM (Skull Lords are searching for ways to restore their necromancer masters from the Black Tower of Vumerion, which I plopped down in the Nentir Vale).

 

[MichaelSomething]

3.5 got more votes than 4e on that single thread because you were pitching it as a 3.5 scenario. "Experts" do not exist in 4e. And 4e isn't great for PVP. Also the type of game you'd get would be different in the two editions; 3e really has the "get a bigger hammer" magic wars in a way 4e simply doesn't - which IMO makes 4e a better game most of the time. But you also explicitely set all the PCs as spellcasters which levelled the playing field. If instead of sorceress vs artificer you'd set sorceress vs rogue the answer might well have been very different.

Also I notice that you chose a biassed sample; that was your fourth thread on which edition to use and the only one in which you posed it in edition specific terms. In all the ones where your scenario was edition neutral, 4e beat 3e. It simply lost to 3e at a 3e-specific scenario.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...top-being-wizards-coasts-target-audience.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...65-what-edition-use-ii-electirc-booagloo.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273011-what-edition-use-3-a.html

Yeah, I was only talking about the latest thread in that series when I posted that. Thanks for doing a more comprehensive review.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As I just said, I can see the "here is some guidance, now design your 'thing' and let players figure it out without you as a DM even trying to figure a solution for it".

Sounds like a good system for resolution, but poor one for creation of, non-combat "encounters".

Being prepared for common solutions is not the same as the DM trying to figure A (one?) solution. This type of preparation has been present in published modules since the beginning. The down side is when the DM discounts any other solution. Being prepared to adjudicate uncommon solutions is the hallmark of a good DM.

So, you can create a good skill challenge ahead of time and still allow room for the players to resolve things in their own way. Now, if you run an exploration campaign, that pre-prep is harder anticipate and may not be as useful. But in an adventure path campaign a DM can better anticipate what goals the characters are likely to pursue and what challenges, both combat and non-combat, stand in their way. Besides, most skill challenges can be avoided as easily as a combat encounter.

Edit: Sorry for basically double-posting. I thought my first post was lost in the void.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Wait, you're actually claiming that I can't understand how a fair to decent miniature skirmish game with a tacked on skill system that feels like the developers whipped it up as an afterthought works without playing it for a while?

Understand? Sure. Anyone can learn to play chess by reading the rules too. And the game of chess looks very simplistic on its surface. But once you play longer you come to understand the strategy of the game and the nuances of play.

Same with 4E. IF the game interests you there are ways to dig deeper into these new and strange conventions brought about. These can be molded into something more than the basic rules present. We all did the same thing with previous editions. Until we understood the nuances of the new system, it didn't always seem to fit. 3E had its detractors for the same reason. The changes did not appeal to them in a way that made them want to explore the nuances of the game. The same is apparently true now for you.

My 4E campaigns do not feel like miniature skirmish games with tacked on skills. They feel as alive as all of my Basic D&D, 1E, 2E and 3E campaigns did. And it did take time for me to get the feel from the game I desired.

 

[Lanefan]

The so-called "edition treadmill" is a good thing.

Allow me to heartily and vehemently disagree.

The edition treadmill is a horrible thing for everyone involved except those whose income depends on the health of RPGs as an industry. For everyone else it's a complete pain in the ass; you either have to change to a new ruleset you may or may not like, or you lose all official support for the game you've been happily playing for years.

The edition treadmill serves the industry well. It serves the hobby poorly, when it serves it at all.

Lan-"a rat who jumped off the edition treadmill"-efan

 

[Steel_Wind]

And here is where we differ on a few things... First, I find it odd that at one point you admonish Planescape for being... "the poster-child for this difference: metaplot-heavy, and a vehicle for exploring someone else's conception of the moral and metaphysical order of things - not for expressing your own through play."

Odd?

At a certain point, these discussions turn into the ability to score a point.

Like it or not, that was a line which was extremely quotable.

 

[pemerton]

Steel Wind, if I've read you right you thought my line was the quotable one. (If not, I'm an idiot - ignore me.)

I'm curious - do you agree, or disagree, on Planescape? It seems to have been pretty popular, at least on ENworld, but I've never been clear as to why.

 

[Imaro]

For me this is not a peripheral point but the key point.

And yet I haven't seen you express how Planescape is any more limiting in the moral themes that can be explored than any other setting including a homebrew... especially if the exploration takes place through the actions of the PC's. I mean Planescape is a meta-setting that theoretically includes everything in creation... including a multitude of worlds all of which can be used as tools by the DM and players to explore nearly unlimited moral themes.

In Planescape, it is the moral/thematic landscape that is someone else's conception. Compare that to the Game of Making in The Plane Above - it is clearly left up to the players to decide what they think of Erathis's view that even evil things have to be made, and up to the players to decide whether Pelor's circumspection about the game is a misjudgement or not.

Huh? The moral/thematic landscape in Planescape is their to be shaped, explored and changed by your characters just like that found in The Plane Above or any other setting. But then I have to ask... what good setting doesn't have it's own moral/thematic concepts? It seems to me your problem would be with any setting as opposed to the rules system since you can use the 3.5 Manual of the Planes to create your own moral/thematic planar landscape. however I think that a starting point (and again the very assumptions in any version of the core rules sets at least some of these) in no way stops a PC from exploring his own beliefs and ideas within the context of the game.

A related but important point here is 4e's approach to alignment and divine PCs (namely, a non-punitive one).

How does this in any way better enable the exploration, shaping and creation of a moral/thematic landscape?

If anything, I feel 4e's "Look Ma, no consequences!" approach moreso facilitates the glossing over and ignoring of morality and it's associated themes in the game, as it doesn't in any way have cons and pros for one's choice. A total rat bastard can command the powers of Bahamut and a saint can pray to Vecna for enlightenment...and there are no consequences or benefits for such... beyond what particular powers one gains access to.

Personally I find a certain disonance with this and the high fantasy/mythic feel I think D&D 4e has tried to remake itself with. In fact I would argue 4e might as well have just kept Unaligned (The do what I want alignment) and been done with it as the Most evil-> slightly less evil->Do what I want->slightly less good->Most good axis seems pointless if none of it ultimately means anything. I feel that ultimately, just like in every previous edition, we the Players and DM will have to decide what exactly these alignments mean... it's just that in 4e (at least IMO) it's not even worth the effort as the decision doesn't affect anything in game.

But they only come into play if the player chooses. And the player chooses what to make of them. This is the difference from Immortals.

And immortality only comes into play if the PC seeks it out... and just like selecting an epic destiny... the PC in BECMI must discover and choose one of the paths to immortality... also, instead of just picking a mandatory epic destiny because he is a certain level, the PC must perform quests and tasks in order to gain immortality (Which are actually given guidelines in the books and to me is much more in line with a mythic feel). I guess I'm still not seeing how 4e's ED's are in any way better at this than BECMI's immortals.

Yes and know. Unlike Issaries, WotC has big commercial aspirations. So instead of the free description of HeroQuest, they just publish huge lists of thematically compelling elements, and let the players buy them and choose one. There are a lot of Epic Destinies out there.

Sooo, like I said in an earlier post... ED's are just souped up paragon paths... packaged destinies that really don't inherently allow anymore freedom for definition in and of themselves for PC's but instead are only as diverse as your spending budget will allow.

I agree with you that HeroQuest is, ultimately, probably a better narrativist gaming system. But 4e is much closer to that than to Planescape, in my view.

I touched on this above but again it seems this is because 4e is a system and Planescape is a setting. You're comparing apples and oranges. Again a better comparison is BECMI's immortal rules or 3.X's Epic Levels & Manual of the Planes.

Well, I've tried in this post, and upthread, and also last year in this thread.

I will go back and read these so that I can perhaps get a better understanding of what makes 4e a better game at hero-questing than any other edition of D&D.

Now I don't agree with this either, but I'll readily concede that this is just in the realm of taste. I personally find that, for my group and our preferences (and we're not averse to a bit of crunch with our combats), 4e delivers a pretty epic combat experience.

I would say a game like Heroquest, Legends of Anglerre... or for more crunch... Exalted, Earthdawn and a few others offer a much better Mythic/hero combat experience without getting bogged down in the tactical skirmish nature of D&D 4e's combat. But I digress, this is mostly about feel and I agree with different strokes for different folks.

SIDE NOTE ON COMBAT: To further expound I feel that the grid can become a limitation and hinderance to the types of combat and landscapes of battles once PC's reach a point unto godhood, but that's just my oppinion.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Clearly, WE are the reason D&D isn't more popular, since the upper 33% of us didn't have a problem with the contemporary system. I wished I'd been a good enough DM to get players interested, but alas it wasn't so. In the old days, many of us were aspiring DMs with an inferior system, and yet everyone flocked to our tables. Nowadays, we inhabit a barren wasteland of a long forgotten hobby. Damnit! WotC was right and I was wrong. If only I'd listened when I had the chance. The points of light were there all along. They told me when to have fun, afterall. They told me! And, as much as I'd like to blame the economy, the president, and God HIMself, I can't in good conscience do so. Face it, 66% of us suck. It's too bad that so many people had to get laid off because of it. Damn the edition wars! Damn them to hell!



Also, a lack of quality campaigns, brand recognition, customer service, and balanced gameplay might have had a tiny bit to do with it....