D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Nemesis Destiny]

We will have to disagree. I, and, every gamer I know or talked with off the net consider it one of the worst design choices ever (or one of the top three) for 4e on the players side (as a DM tool it is useful) and is one of the main reasons for not switching or giving the game a try.

I didn't like it at first either, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it, because, as others have pointed out, it meant I didn't have to spend as much time thinking about rules, leaving more time to think about my character instead.

I came to see it as freeing, rather than limiting, because it suddenly meant that I didn't have to split points between improving "game" stats and "character" fluff. If I want my character to be an amazing seamstress, or a professional baker, or whathaveyou, (s)he just is. The end. No need to redirect some of those points I otherwise would have put into endurance, or stealth. No need to weaken my character mechanically to have a better roleplaying experience.

I think it was that mode of thinking that set a lot of folks up on the roll-playing vs. roleplaying argument. Specifically the one about how if you were an optimizer, then you were roll-playing. While I recognize that this is not necessarily the case all the time, the argument does hold some weight. In earlier editions, 3.x in particular, that mentality is present and not inaccurate because you are forced to make choices that pit RP against mechanics. It is inherent to the system. It takes work (and probably some houserules) to break out of it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We will have to disagree. I, and, every gamer I know or talked with off the net consider it one of the worst design choices ever (or one of the top three) for 4e on the players side (as a DM tool it is useful) and is one of the main reasons for not switching or giving the game a try.

Well, suffice it to say that we talk to different gamers then. I've had questions about why the 4e skill system is different, but as soon as you actually point out WHY it is different and what the pros and cons of different designs are then I've heard pretty much nothing but acceptance. It is simply a better design for a skill system. Just because some people who were used to 3.5 found it strange isn't an argument for it being bad.

I'd suggest doing a few searches on earlier discussions on the topic of skill systems and 4e. There are some very nice explications of the reasoning behind the way 4e skills work and why they were designed the way they were. It would be rather redundant to restate all of that again.

 

[Ryujin]

We will have to disagree. I, and, every gamer I know or talked with off the net consider it one of the worst design choices ever (or one of the top three) for 4e on the players side (as a DM tool it is useful) and is one of the main reasons for not switching or giving the game a try.

For every gamer who thinks that it was a poor design choice, there's at least one who believes the opposite.

One of the things that frequently annoys me about RPGs is when the initial release has a skill list, that can adequately represent all of the actions a character might like to take, then the skill list is later expanded making things that a character once excelled at, things he is no longer even modestly skilled to perform.

Do I really need 27 skill ranks in Craft, to know that I'm an excellent bowyer, or can I just state it as part of my character concept? Do I really need to take Perform: Sing, Perform: Dance, and Perform: Stringed Instrument, or can I just be an entertainer? Is Hiding really different enough from Sneaking, that you need two separate skills to define them in a fantasy world?

In most of the groups, in which I've played, very few (if any) players would take any of those skills, unless there was a concrete mechanical benefit to their characters. No one, who wasn't playing a Bard, would ever take a performance related skill because it didn't (and I quote) "kill things."

So try embracing the simplicity, make a character with the fluff that you like, and worry only about the macro skills that really matter to that.

 

[Greg K]

I didn't like it at first either, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it, because, as others have pointed out, it meant I didn't have to spend as much time thinking about rules, leaving more time to think about my character instead.

I came to see it as freeing, rather than limiting, because it suddenly meant that I didn't have to split points between improving "game" stats and "character" fluff. If I want my character to be an amazing seamstress, or a professional baker, or whathaveyou, (s)he just is. The end. No need to redirect some of those points I otherwise would have put into endurance, or stealth. No need to weaken my character mechanically to have a better roleplaying experience..

I think it was that mode of thinking that set a lot of folks up on the roll-playing vs. roleplaying argument. Specifically the one about how if you were an optimizer, then you were roll-playing. While I recognize that this is not necessarily the case all the time, the argument does hold some weight. In earlier editions, 3.x in particular, that mentality is present and not inaccurate because you are forced to make choices that pit RP against mechanics. It is inherent to the system. It takes work (and probably some houserules) to break out of it.[/QUOTE]


See, for us, it is not that. It is, ok, my character had time to pick up a little bit of training and experience for a few other skills (e.g., Disable Device and Bluff) on an adventure (urban or dungeon) which is represented by a few ranks in those skills.
The character, then, does not use them a couple of adventures/ levels, because they have been in the wilderness away from civilization during which time he learned more about Survival and Move silent (puts a couple of ranks into those).

When they finally go back to an urban environment, the character than gets to put the little bit of training and experience to use. Afterwards, the ranks can be increased to reflect the use and experience.

It is the player getting to control the pace of the bonus to reflect thier interpretation of the character's training rather than the system telling us, you are level x so you have this bonus in these areas that your character never encountered and knows nothing about.

Now, someone is going to say, just to apply the bonus. However, there DMs and players that are going to consider that a dick move! I have seen it happen. Yet, they wouldn't say anything in a skill point system when no ranks are applied.

Then, for myself and those I know, a key part is exploring the setting and developing the character along the way to reflect the growth and changes.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is the player getting to control the pace of the bonus to reflect thier interpretation of the character's training rather than the system telling us, you are level x so you have this bonus in these areas that your character never encountered and knows nothing about.

How about the opposite though?

I am a 20th level Wizard (in 3E).

I have traveled continents, been on other planes of existence, battled creatures the likes of which would drive most sane men mad.

But if I walk into a Tavern, my Spot skill is so bad that a 2nd level Assassin can attack me with surprise with ease without me ever seeing him.


I used to have house rules in my 3.5 game that Spot, Sense Motive, and Search (and possibly Listen) automatically got bonuses as the PCs leveled.

Why?

Because after 10 years of adventuring, there are just common everyday skills that every PC in the party would either start learning, or they would die by ambush.

It was ludicrous that someone had to actually "train" a skill and waste skill points to know when someone was bluffing him after talking with 10,000 NPCs over his lifetime. Sure, at first level, the Wizard would be gullible.

By 20th level, this super high intelligence Wizard would have been around the block. He would know many many many things about where creatures hide, how creatures react when lying, etc.


One of the better things about 4E is that as PCs advance in level, they actually get better in all skills because even though we as players do not roleplay and experience every single thing the PC does and observes, the PC should.

And, it's not just about training. It's about experiencing. Noticing how creatures hide behind trees and rocks and not at 20th level be "Yuck, yuck, I've been adventuring for decades, but I still cannot see some tracks on the ground or see the Ogre hiding behind a narrow pole, yuck. I was too stupid to see the tracks of a deer, even with the Ranger pointing them out to me every time we came across them."


Over time, even the dumbest PC would start acquiring "adventuring skills". He would know something about History because the Cleric is constantly telling stories of the old Gods around the campfire, and the Thief is talking about the treasures of the greatest Kings around the campfire.


Using the old 3.5 methods, the PCs are just numbers on a piece of paper. They don't develop and learn in a wide variety of areas as they advance, instead they develop a few set skills and are totally stagnant in everything else.

There are no around the campfire talks in your sterile 3.5. PCs only gain trained abilities, they gain no abilities via exciting lifetimes around the world and planes of existence.

The 20th level 3.5 Fighter knows as much about History as he did at 1st level. Sorry, but that's boring.


PS. A good 4E DM even allows PCs with untrained skills to sometimes use those skills. The 10th level Wizard sees the 2nd level Assassin coming at him in the tavern with his Passive Perception of 17 precisely because he has been around the block and the 30th level Wizard with his Passive Insight of 27 even knows the instant that he walks through the door that it is an Assassin, just by the way that the Assassin is carrying himself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, for us, it is not that. It is, ok, my character had time to pick up a little bit of training and experience for a few other skills (e.g., Disable Device and Bluff) on an adventure (urban or dungeon) which is represented by a few ranks in those skills.
The character, then, does not use them a couple of adventures/ levels, because they have been in the wilderness away from civilization during which time he learned more about Survival and Move silent (puts a couple of ranks into those).

When they finally go back to an urban environment, the character than gets to put the little bit of training and experience to use. Afterwards, the ranks can be increased to reflect the use and experience.

It is the player getting to control the pace of the bonus to reflect thier interpretation of the character's training rather than the system telling us, you are level x so you have this bonus in these areas that your character never encountered and knows nothing about.

Now, someone is going to say, just to apply the bonus. However, there DMs and players that are going to consider that a dick move! I have seen it happen. Yet, they wouldn't say anything in a skill point system when no ranks are applied.

Then, for myself and those I know, a key part is exploring the setting and developing the character along the way to reflect the growth and changes.[/QUOTE]

Meh, no skill system is going to entirely realistic. The 4e skill system, if you were to actually analyze it, allows PCs to improve in everything, true, but only to a limited extent. A character at high levels interacting with a level-appropriate challenge governed by an untrained skill on an off stat will be quite a bit behind the 8 ball. He won't at all seem like an expert in these random skills. Sure, at 30th level he's going to be on a par with a highly trained expert 1st level PC, but that's really irrelevant because there's no challenge he's going to face that is relevant to a level 1 PC (and NPCs etc can have any arbitrary skill bonus the DM cares to give them, but again there's no reason a level 30 PC would be interacting with low level NPCs and not expecting to trivially dominate the encounter). So this "4e PCs are good at everything at high level" argument falls completely apart with even the most superficial analysis. This is on top of KD's point that highly experienced epic level heroes will logically have a good deal of expertise purely based on general experience.

You're also ignoring a vast amount of 4e mechanics here. Even an expert level 1 PC will have to dedicate some amount of resources to maintaining (or attaining) mastery of a skill as he levels up. Having a +15 (very high) skill bonus at level 1 in say Arcana makes my wizard quite expert in that field for a greenhorn. Heck, he may even now and then be able to come up with epic lore. OTOH the same PC wizard at level 30 will have a +30 skill bonus. This is still fairly good, but where at level 1 he can pass a hard check on a 3 at level 30 he will fail that check on 12. To maintain his skills he's going to have to do some work, like picking up Skill Focus, selecting a Skill or Utility power to give him a bonus to some checks, acquire items that have Arcana item bonuses, etc. So again, mastery is not automatically maintained. You have choices as to which skills to excel at, which to be competent with, and which to be poor at.

Finally there are a wide variety of other mechanics in 4e you haven't looked at. If a character wants to be familiar with a particular mundane topic all he need do is put it in his background at character creation. Specific techniques are covered by practices or sometimes other game elements. Beyond that most 3.5 skills actually had no meaningful mechanics attached to them anyway. I can build a character in 4e which is just as well detailed and fills a theme, evolves organically, etc as you can in 3.5.

The difference is the skill system is vastly easier to use, doesn't require degrading of necessary adventuring skills for trivia, and is much easier to incorporate into adventures. Really, if the 3.5 system was so great then why in fact did Pathfinder do something very similar to 4e? The answer is that the 3.5 skill system was unwieldy at best and inhibited creativity at the worst, AND it was hard to write adventures where any but the most basic adventuring skills mattered anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

A character at high levels interacting with a level-appropriate challenge governed by an untrained skill on an off stat will be quite a bit behind the 8 ball. He won't at all seem like an expert in these random skills. Sure, at 30th level he's going to be on a par with a highly trained expert 1st level PC, but that's really irrelevant because there's no challenge he's going to face that is relevant to a level 1 PC (and NPCs etc can have any arbitrary skill bonus the DM cares to give them, but again there's no reason a level 30 PC would be interacting with low level NPCs and not expecting to trivially dominate the encounter). So this "4e PCs are good at everything at high level" argument falls completely apart with even the most superficial analysis.

I think DMs should have much lower level checks once in a while for higher level PCs.

The vast majority of the world should still be low level NPCs.

The 30th level Wizard should still meet 2nd, 5th, 8th, etc. level NPCs in the world. And, some of those NPCs should still try to occasionally do a Bluff check or some such. It's really fun when the high level Wizard with no real training in Insight can realize that an innkeeper is trying to Bluff him.

Or, for him to notice that there are tracks out in the wilderness. That's sometimes awesome for players who didn't focus in a given skill, especially if the party is split up (which should sometimes happen too).

It's not that a high number of checks should be against lower level DCs for high level PCs, nor should challenging checks be that low, it's that an occasional check should be.

Otherwise, the world (even an alternate dimension) seems non-plausible.


In fact, there is nothing wrong with PCs walking in and having lower level checks across the board in certain scenarios. For example, DC 25 instead of DC 30 at a given level, having the players totally surprised that a given challenge seems so easy. It's not something that should be done a lot, but there is nothing wrong with doing it on occasion.

 

[Barastrondo]

You're also ignoring a vast amount of 4e mechanics here. Even an expert level 1 PC will have to dedicate some amount of resources to maintaining (or attaining) mastery of a skill as he levels up. Having a +15 (very high) skill bonus at level 1 in say Arcana makes my wizard quite expert in that field for a greenhorn. Heck, he may even now and then be able to come up with epic lore. OTOH the same PC wizard at level 30 will have a +30 skill bonus. This is still fairly good, but where at level 1 he can pass a hard check on a 3 at level 30 he will fail that check on 12. To maintain his skills he's going to have to do some work, like picking up Skill Focus, selecting a Skill or Utility power to give him a bonus to some checks, acquire items that have Arcana item bonuses, etc. So again, mastery is not automatically maintained. You have choices as to which skills to excel at, which to be competent with, and which to be poor at.

This is one area of the game that I personally dislike, specifically the way that hard checks accelerate so astronomically. I have a strong antipathy to being told that if a PC wants to maintain his skills he's expected to pick up magic items that make him better at what he does, especially since the game has done so much to make it possible to run games where magic item pluses in combat can be stripped out and internalized. I don't quite get the thinking that makes it okay to be an awesome fighter because you're awesome rather than your gear, but to set skill DCs with the expectation that the awesome guys derive a chunk of awesome from gear.

I realize that there are players out there who do enjoy devoting feats and paragon paths to making a specific skill as high as it can go, and who load up skill-boosting items with pride rather than disappointment. But if you're in a group where you're not at least 50% players of that inclination, it feels kind of bizarre to have the DCs balanced around these guys. I personally retain a prior build of the DC table for just that reason.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think DMs should have much lower level checks once in a while for higher level PCs.

The vast majority of the world should still be low level NPCs.

The 30th level Wizard should still meet 2nd, 5th, 8th, etc. level NPCs in the world. And, some of those NPCs should still try to occasionally do a Bluff check or some such. It's really fun when the high level Wizard with no real training in Insight can realize that an innkeeper is trying to Bluff him.

Or, for him to notice that there are tracks out in the wilderness. That's sometimes awesome for players who didn't focus in a given skill, especially if the party is split up (which should sometimes happen too).

It's not that a high number of checks should be against lower level DCs for high level PCs, nor should challenging checks be that low, it's that an occasional check should be.

Otherwise, the world (even an alternate dimension) seems non-plausible.


In fact, there is nothing wrong with PCs walking in and having lower level checks across the board in certain scenarios. For example, DC 25 instead of DC 30 at a given level, having the players totally surprised that a given challenge seems so easy. It's not something that should be done a lot, but there is nothing wrong with doing it on occasion.

Well, perhaps, but I don't really see how the 4e design prevents that. The DM simply has to set DCs to give the desired effect. It is rather a corner case and means you're going to have to set some fairly arbitrary DCs, but remember, the world is not made of numbers. DCs are just a tool. The design of 4e gives you appropriate DCs out of the box probably 99% of the time. The other 1% you may have to set them by hand.

Correspondingly the 3.5 way of doing things gets it right 1% of the time and for the vast majority of common cases leaves the DM with the responsibility to figure out how the party that doesn't happen to have a guy with 20 ranks in a useful skill will execute an 'epic' difficulty task.

This is one area of the game that I personally dislike, specifically the way that hard checks accelerate so astronomically. I have a strong antipathy to being told that if a PC wants to maintain his skills he's expected to pick up magic items that make him better at what he does, especially since the game has done so much to make it possible to run games where magic item pluses in combat can be stripped out and internalized. I don't quite get the thinking that makes it okay to be an awesome fighter because you're awesome rather than your gear, but to set skill DCs with the expectation that the awesome guys derive a chunk of awesome from gear.

I realize that there are players out there who do enjoy devoting feats and paragon paths to making a specific skill as high as it can go, and who load up skill-boosting items with pride rather than disappointment. But if you're in a group where you're not at least 50% players of that inclination, it feels kind of bizarre to have the DCs balanced around these guys. I personally retain a prior build of the DC table for just that reason.

Actually combat and out-of-combat situations in 4e are quite consistent. If you spend none of your feats on increasing damage output and accuracy, adding additional effects onto your attacks, stacking stuff ala frostcheese etc then the character will be at best mediocre in combat at high levels. This is very similar to the guy that starts with a +15 Arcana and never dedicates anything more to it. He'll be pretty good even at level 30, but not the ultimate crackerjack arcanist.

The reason it works this way is that it gives the players some control over the development of the character over its lifetime and gives a feeling of evolving and learning new tricks and actually working at being the ultimate guy for that skill. Again this is like combat where as you level you pick feats, powers, and items which work together to make you really effective.

I don't think this is vastly difficult in either case. Skills have simple ways like taking Skill Focus and maybe getting a bonus from a power. With combat there are fairly straightforward obvious feats that you take, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Expertise, Weapon Focus, and some of the more situational feats.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Actually combat and out-of-combat situations in 4e are quite consistent. If you spend none of your feats on increasing damage output and accuracy, adding additional effects onto your attacks, stacking stuff ala frostcheese etc then the character will be at best mediocre in combat at high levels. This is very similar to the guy that starts with a +15 Arcana and never dedicates anything more to it. He'll be pretty good even at level 30, but not the ultimate crackerjack arcanist.

The reason it works this way is that it gives the players some control over the development of the character over its lifetime and gives a feeling of evolving and learning new tricks and actually working at being the ultimate guy for that skill. Again this is like combat where as you level you pick feats, powers, and items which work together to make you really effective.

I don't think this is vastly difficult in either case. Skills have simple ways like taking Skill Focus and maybe getting a bonus from a power. With combat there are fairly straightforward obvious feats that you take, Superior Weapon Proficiency, Expertise, Weapon Focus, and some of the more situational feats.

I don't have a problem with having to dedicate resources toward skills to keep the ones my character is awesome at in the 'high' range, the part that bothers me is the Xmas Tree Effect of assuming skill bonuses from your items as part of that advancement.

Extending the Inherent bonus system to skill checks seems like the next logical step in eliminating that feeling that your character is little more than a walking collection of items.

I'm not even suggesting that this is a flaw in the system per se, only that it is a way in which the design goals of the game conflict with my preferences (and this has been pretty much always true of D&D - it has always been 'the clothes make the PC').