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

[Crazy Jerome]

Do some groups achieve this sort of dynamism without structured mechanics to support it? Well, for all I know, everyone else has been doing it for years! But for my group - and for others whom I have seen post in relation to other games like HW/Q and BW - it makes a real difference.

Our group was getting there, slowly, without the stuctured mechanics--well more accurately, with a mix of in-game assumptions, experience, and some house rules that hit around the edges of structure. And of course, sometimes we were getting that dynamism through the same old stuff that I started with in '81, when we caught lightning in the bottle at times, and wondered exactly why.

In your actual play topic, there was an implied reference to skill challenges as teaching tools. I think that idea applies here, too. Some people really will happily and easily learn to swim faster if you just throw them off the pier, and pull them out if they get in trouble. And other people will learn much faster (and with a lot less trauma) if you maybe give them some lessons with a structure. Numerous activities follow this pattern. Training wheels on bikes spring to mind, for starters.

Played as overly slavish to the structure, 4E skill challenges are going to be stilted. But a newbie GM, in an all newbie group, that benefits from that structure, if he does what the book says, will have a glimmer of something better. He will also have a language to get online and discuss his issues, and as greater understanding is achieved, will be able to let the structure become a tool instead of a pattern to always follow exactly. This may even allow the group to get over the initial learning curve without the game turning into one of those horror stories that we hear so much about. Perhaps this is why the material comes across as so poorly explained to some of us who have managed to get beyond that stage and nevertheless appreciate the structure. They've eliminated a lot of nuance in the text to keep the beginner from being confused. (I think they went too far, if that was the intent, but then I'm not a professional game writer, either.)

For an experienced GM that has already navigated the initial learning curve, but isn't naturally predisposed to want to use structured tools, 4E could easily look like a set of training wheels on a motorcycle.

 

[pawsplay]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the WotC Segment Marketing Survey report:

This data tells us that the longer a person plays the game, the longer the
game sessions get, the more people play in the game, and the longer the game
progresses before a character restart. In fact, if you look at the >5 year
group, you realize that the big jump in long sessions and in average
sessions before a restart means that the 5+ year gamers are playing the same
characters, on average, vastly longer than anyone else.

One conclusion might be that it takes 5 years for a player to really master
the system and really figure out what kind of character that player likes to
play.

Considering the extent of changes between 3e and 4e, i wonder if such a substantial revision could ever have been received warmly, coming as it did on the heels of a still-played, still-popular version.

 

[pawsplay]

I think you're getting too caught up in the term "level-appropriate." A good level 6 skill challenge will include tasks challenging to 6th-level PCs, not set the DCs of all tasks to those appropriate for 6th-level characters.

Using the locks as an example. A standard heroic-tier lock (DC 20) is a hard level-appropriate challenge for 4th-9th level characters (assuming that any rogue worthy of being called such will have the thieves' tools that give him a +2 bonus to his check). This lock corresponds to a basic lock in 3E. As DM, you would not describe the lock in a similar skill challenge for 19th-level characters as a basic lock, you would need to choose a tougher lock. Just like you did as a 3E DM by choosing a harder lock as the PCs explored better protected areas in 3E.

If you decide that the locks in the area of the 19th-level skill challenge are mundane, then the checks to get through them should not change. Instead the check becomes easy-moderate in difficulty. And at even higher levels the same mundane lock should not even be considered part of the skill challenge.

The difficulty is not set by the DM any more than it was in previous editions. In 3E it was the choice of equipment (like the locks) or the choice of opponent (for opposed rolls) that set the DCs.

Why are you saying this to me as though you are imparting new information?

 

[pemerton]

In your actual play topic, there was an implied reference to skill challenges as teaching tools. I think that idea applies here, too.

What I find a little strange about this (not your post, but the idea of structured resolution as a teaching tool) is that, generally, HeroWars/Quest would not be suggested as a game that a novice GM could run as a training tool.

I think it can be quite hard to balance the resolution of the situation with the injection of complication in the way mandated by the structure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In fact, if you look at the >5 year
group, you realize that the big jump in long sessions and in average
sessions before a restart means that the 5+ year gamers are playing the same
characters, on average, vastly longer than anyone else.

One conclusion might be that it takes 5 years for a player to really master
the system and really figure out what kind of character that player likes to
play.

Considering the extent of changes between 3e and 4e, i wonder if such a substantial revision could ever have been received warmly, coming as it did on the heels of a still-played, still-popular version.

If that's true, then by their own evaluation- considering 3Ed and 3.5 to be essentially "stacking" in terms of system mastery- 4Ed was released when the first 3 years of adopters of the game had achieved mastery.

That MAY be a little quick, and may actually inform WotC's design process to ensure that- barring a pressing need based on market realities or a phenomenal revolution in game design- that 5Ed should either not substantially vary from 4ED or not come out before 2014.

 

[TarionzCousin]

If that's true, then by their own evaluation- considering 3Ed and 3.5 to be essentially "stacking" in terms of system mastery- 4Ed was released when the first 3 years of adopters of the game had achieved mastery.

That MAY be a little quick, and may actually inform WotC's design process to ensure that- barring a pressing need based on market realities or a phenomenal revolution in game design- that 5Ed should either not substantially vary from 4ED or not come out before 2014.

... or 5E should build off of 3.5E--which we've all mastered by now.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What I find a little strange about this (not your post, but the idea of structured resolution as a teaching tool) is that, generally, HeroWars/Quest would not be suggested as a game that a novice GM could run as a training tool.

I think it can be quite hard to balance the resolution of the situation with the injection of complication in the way mandated by the structure.

I think it can be quite hard to do it gracefully, and in a manner that will be appreciated by experience players. Yet, if my almost 12 year old nephew suddenly expressed a heretofore hidden urge to run a game for his friends, I'd hand him Mouse Guard. I wouldn't even think twice. If he was 14, I'd consider heavily D&D Basic (RC version). And then probably still hand him MG. If my wife (played much, barely ran anything) wanted to run a game for some of her friends (all never played RPGs), also Mouse Guard.

And it is not necessarily because MG is easy or even catering to newbies. Rather, it is because lots of people aren't me--who was better off starting with Basic, and could have only been helped by being able to get Runequest and Rolemaster and Hero and so on, earlier than I did.

Those MG games would be clunky when they started (much like my first Basic floundering), but as they improved, those players would already be developing the RPG skills which they are naturally suited for. Those of us with experience, I think, tend to underestimate just how much our D&D, Runequest, etc. experiences have influenced us.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

... or 5E should build off of 3.5E--which we've all mastered by now.

Were I at Wizards, I'd argue for parallel RPG lines, much like car companies have multiple badges and drink companies have LOTS of brands. Each line would follow a different stream- one 3.5, one 4Ed.

 

[pemerton]

Crazy Jerome, I don't know Mouse Guard other than by reputation - I think of it as Burning Wheel lite, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

I readily agree that I'm heavily influenced by Basic/AD&D, RQ, RM, Traveller etc. I'm interested to hear more about what it is in MG that you see as significantly different - the structured resolution? the relationship between resolution mechanics and activity (eg there are rules for stuff other than combat)? something else? all of the above?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Crazy Jerome, I don't know Mouse Guard other than by reputation - I think of it as Burning Wheel lite, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

I readily agree that I'm heavily influenced by Basic/AD&D, RQ, RM, Traveller etc. I'm interested to hear more about what it is in MG that you see as significantly different - the structured resolution? the relationship between resolution mechanics and activity (eg there are rules for stuff other than combat)? something else? all of the above?

The key is the MG is not BW-lite, but BW extremely streamlined and cleaned up (not always the same things), and then focused like a laser on a particular setting. Top that off with superb production values, excellent explanations, and a setting that happens to appeal to a lot of the same people that could like narrative structure. I understand the boxed set improved on the original even more, but I honestly doubt that--mainly because I have a hard time imagining how MG could have been much improved.

MG is more structured than BW, and the structure is simplified to be basically the same structure for all conflict resolution, whether combat or otherwise. Heck, it is even organized different than most RPGs. Character generation is an optional section in the back of the book. You are expected by default to use pregens.

If it helps to understand where I'm coming from with these thoughts, let me also say that I would not hand MG to my 11 year-old daughter, if she was going to run a game. I'd hand her D&D RC or something similar. She thinks a lot like I do, and like me at that age, her mind is fully capable of absorbing the details for D&D, but also prone to zone out the big picture in pursuit of those details. After she plays around with the details for awhile, she will start classifying things and improving her broader understanding of the game.

She was playing Agricola solo night before last--trying to get better so that she can come closer than 7 points to my score the next time we play.