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

[pawsplay]

I don't want to sound rude here, but ...


That is not what I said at all, ergo you *are* arguing against a strawman.

Build a 3rd-level Human Fighter, Core Rulebook only, using the available wealth guidelines. Look only at your own character sheet.

I, the DM, tell you that I'm going to place you into a room with an orc (presumably guarding a pie). Without knowing anything else about that orc (because of your claim that you can tell with a high degree of accuracy your combat capability in 3E by only referencing your own character sheet), what are your chances of defeating him in a fight?

You can give me a +/-10% range, if you want.

Your example is a strawman. It would be equivalent to asking you if a 4e character could pick a lock, without telling you what kind of lock it is.

Can Aragorn defeat an orc? How reliably? All we need to know it is that is a fairly run-of-the-mill orc, and we should be confident he can defeat it.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it), as it pre-supposes in an extreme example, no type of base for anything since then the players wouldn't be able to, according to pemerton's posts so far, explore their own definitions of a particular theme or whatever. In a less extreme example it forces the question of what should and shouldn't be defined and who decides it. However after reading up on narrativism I am convinced this is untrue and his own narrowing of what is necessary for narrativist play.

I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting. However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting. In other words I feel pemerton's argument is really about him perferring the 4e cosmology to previous editions and perhaps his own ideas on how he wishes to tweak narrativist play as opposed to what hinders or helps base narrativist play in various editions.

That may be partially my fault, since I pushed the difficult case of the G-N-S all converging. The counter-argument is obviously a case where they do not converge; e.g. a game where you explore the Star Wars universe but dispense with fidelity to what appears to be the setting canon as far as morality.

I don't presume to speak for pemerton, but as I see it, his counter-argument necessarily ignores the case where you leave The Force or some other thematic in place and explore novel reactions to that part of the imaginary experience. Since it never breaks genre or conflicts with any of the creative agendas we're talking about, it proves nothing either for or against my example, or for or against his formulation in this case. We just revert back to the argument as to whether narrativism really means anything apart from simulating a world driven by narrative tropes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

LOL, I'm not defending 4e's design; I agree you you that half the purpose of improvement should be to see change in campaign play.

I'm merely noting that glancing at the character sheet gives you sufficient knowledge to gauge the character's chance of success -- since that chance is invariant compared to level it seems to my uneducated eye to be based around the boolean (trained/untrained skill) and the expectation for task difficulty (low, medium, or hard).

And levelling.

4e in most cases grades on a curve. Easy/Medium/Hard are C/B/A. But to know what that means, you need to know whether the character is in 4th grade or is a Senior in AP classes (I think I have my US terminology right). And that is what level tells you. There are a few skills that are graded on absolutes - notably jumping. But the rest of it is all within the world.

Staying with lockpicking...in 3.X, a rogue will eventually consider most mundane locks as mere speedbumps, not actual obstacles.

That 4Ed would want to have a system in which a powerful rogue might actually be challenged by a mundane lock seems...non-heroic.

It depends what you mean by a mundane lock. I wouldn't make most people bother rolling once they hit paragon. But I see no reason why a non-magical lock (or worse, an anti-magical lock; something that needs houserules to work in 3E IIRC) made by Hephaestus, Smith of the Gods using the finest tools available and forged in the heart of a volcano out of mithral and adamant shouldn't be (a ) non-magical (or worse, anti-magical) and (b ) challenging to the most skilled of burglars.

Your example is a strawman. It would be equivalent to asking you if a 4e character could pick a lock, without telling you what kind of lock it is.

Can Aragorn defeat an orc? How reliably? All we need to know it is that is a fairly run-of-the-mill orc, and we should be confident he can defeat it.

And IIRC you were saying he didn't know that in 4th. A fairly run of the mill orc in 4th edition is about 4th level and yes, Aragorn should be confident of defeating it. You don't know the exact statblock because there are several approaches to training orcs. But you do know the rough level and approach and more from how he's armed.

 

[pemerton]

Pawsplay, I don't think I have a lot more to add to the discussion about narrativism, genre etc. I think the points you make are intelligently put, and I don't have an intellectual rebuttal. My response to the contrast Edwards' draws with his reference to bushido in GURPS/Sorcerer is based on play experience rather than theory (and I do think purist-for-system simulationism can be used for vanilla narrativist play, because I have done this with Rolemaster).

That's not an intellectual argument. It's just a report of one person's (perhaps idiosyncratic) experience of RPGing.

And - thinking of the Star Wars example - I feel that the difference between narrativist play and the sort of genre simulation you are describing is that what you are describing still seems to require settling questions of theme in advance, and building them into your mechanics. In this case, it then seems that play would be more like experiencing the confirmation of those prior determinations, rather than making decisions about theme in the course of play. But it may be that I am not fully following what you have in mind.

The only one of your points that I actually want to contest is this:

But not wrong to suggest they could be. While the presumption is that a higher DC lock is more complex, the DC will be higher whether or not the lock is defined as a mundane lock, if the situation is defined as a level-appropriate skill challenge.

I don't know if 4e benchmarks standard lock difficulties outside of such situations.

There is no benchmarking. But Danny's suggestion nevertheless is wrong. It is part of the 4e system that the GM must narrate so as to reconcile the mechanical difficulty with the fiction. (Of course, instead of it being a hard lock, it could be an easy lock in difficult conditions, or perhaps in some contexts the PC might be injured or distracted - that is, the full normal range of fictional conditions able to affect the difficulty can be brought into play.) But a GM who sets a high level moderate DC and tells the player that his/her PC is confronted by a mundane lock, and has nothing else to say about why it is so difficult, is not playing the game properly.

 

[MrMyth]

Which makes me think why waste space with a "skill challenge" system is the skills already have a system?

Is the dwarf back from an adventure and getting drunk in the bar? Maybe he should roll an Endurance skill check.

Is the Rogue trying to convince the local Guild to let him freely operate in their city? Maybe he should role a Diplomacy skill check.

Is the Wizard studying the notes in the town library, trying to find more hints about the demon that some cultists were trying to summon? Maybe he should role an Arcana or History skill check.

Is the party trying to uncover proof that the local Duke is possessed by a Demon, and find a way to break that possession? Maybe they should undertake a skill challenge involving various checks to gather information (Endurance, Diplomacy, Streetwise) and various checks to find a way to break the curse (Arcana, History, Religion), and various checks in order to actually get to the Duke without being noticed (Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth).

Different tools for different purposes. There is place for both in the game. Having skill challenges doesn't remove the ability to use skills in the same way skills have always been used. All it does is provide an additional tool for when a DM wants to have a complex non-combat encounter and would like some guidance as to how much the PCs need to accomplish in order to be successful.

 

[MrMyth]

I don't think so.

I think you may have misread him - he didn't say 4E has supported FR more than any other edition, he said it supported it more than any other setting.

Which is to say, FR has more 4E support than Eberron or Dark Sun. And this is probably true - it was the first setting, so it has had more time to build content. I don't think the degree of extra content is all that big, unless one includes Living Forgotten Realms, which does add a ton of adventures.

I don't think he was saying anything about 4E support of FR in comparison to other editions.

 

[MrMyth]

What does Bluff do in 4e, outside of skill challenges?

The... same thing it always had?

I mean, I'm honestly not sure what you are asking here. Do you genuinely believe that 4E doesn't allow Bluff to be used outside to skill challenges to deceive people? That is the primary purpose of the skill!

Here's what the Compendium says: "You can make what’s false appear to be true, what’s outrageous seem plausible, and what’s suspicious seem ordinary. You make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies."

You can also use it in combat to feint and gain combat advantage, or try to create a diversion so you can hide.

 

[Hussar]

You have to understand that some of us find this extremely unsatisfying. It's putting the description of the game world secondary to the metagame mechanics. The setting conforms to the rules, not the rules conforming to the setting.

Really? Why is your rogue picking the same lock over and over again?

Do your campaigns actually stay within the same general vicinity throughout all the levels so that the locks never really change? Or, are your campaigns more like, say, a Paizo Adventure Path, where at first level, you're picking locks in an old Gnomish stronghold beneath Cauldron and by the end, you're picking the locks to the Gates of Hell?

((Ok, I don't know if you ACTUALLY pick the locks of the Gates of Hell in Shackled City, I was going for a bit of humour. ))

So, no, it's not really forcing the setting to conform to the mechanics, it's recognizing what's always happened in most campaigns - as the PC's level and gain power, they are going to face tougher and tougher challenges.

See, the funny thing is, the lock DC's in the PHB get chucked out the window as soon as the rubber hits the road and you start reading modules. High level modules peg the lock DC's at what is appropriate to the level of that module and always have.

4e just doesn't beat around the bush about it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The confusion about scaling dc (e.g. mundane locks and picking them at various levels) as not been helped by two things:

1. Persistent poorly worded explanations in the rules text, including the otherwise mostly excellent DMG 2, which tend to focus highly at times on the "scaling by level" and give short thrift to the corresponding DM responsibility to vary the flavor/color to account for the increasing difficulty. The information is there, but it is easy to miss on a casual reading. It is the kind of thing that needed to be reinforced forcefully every time it was mentioned, and they failed to do that. It needed that reinforcement, especially in the DMG 2, because ...

2. Despite the above, the facts have been explained every time this has been brought up. This has not stopped some people from continuing to insist that it is other than it is. I have not been reading present company long enough to say, but I know of at least a few people on another board who are clearly obfuscating this point in an effort to stir up trouble. One of them is on my ignore list here for that very reason.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To the limited extent to which Forge theory is telling with D&D 4E, the Narrativism is striking only to the extent that it largely replaces the Simulationism. The Gamism is there, as much as it has ever been--though strikingly moved into the tactical window as opposed to character build, spell loadout, and other operational or strategical windows of previous editions.

3E and earlier versions always had somewhat of a thin gruel of simulation compared to the gamist play. (At least in the rules as written. What people "drifted" to was often much more sim.) Likewise, 4E as written has rather thin gruel of Nar compared to gamist play. But correspondingly, it is a lot easier to drift into more Nar at a given table. If you try to drift 4E into sim, you can, but it sticks its tongue out and makes rude noises the whole time. This annoys some people.