Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[wrecan]

10. More terrain powers, aka more expansion with the famous page42 in DMG1. After playing around with the few terrain powers released thus far, I'm hungry for more!

You're welcome.

 

[knightofround]

You're welcome.

I was excited for a moment, but then I discovered it was the same article I already read =(

 

[Jhaelen]

I was excited for a moment, but then I discovered it was the same article I already read =(

I'm not sure if someone has already linked to this?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not sure if this fits the scope of your thread, but an edge & flaw system for characters seems to be missing.

Or more specfically - a flaw system. Edges are well represented with feats, powers, backgrounds and themes. Not much more is really needed there, I think.

But a system for hindrances, flaws and complications would be nice. (And if you decouple it from edges, it also avoids the typical min/maxing issues with such systems).

Please, whatever you do, don´t bring a flaw system to D&D...

flaw systems are usually the foundation of unbalanced powergaming with the following reason:
If you take a feat, it is your responsibility to remember it. Flaws are usually for the DM to remember. So usually it is good to know your DM which flaw will never have an impact on the game.

The only flaw system I liked was the flaw/bonus combination feats of 3.5 (unearthed arcana?)
It was along the lines of:
honor: +1 diplomacy, -2 bluff.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Please, whatever you do, don´t bring a flaw system to D&D...

flaw systems are usually the foundation of unbalanced powergaming with the following reason:
If you take a feat, it is your responsibility to remember it. Flaws are usually for the DM to remember. So usually it is good to know your DM which flaw will never have an impact on the game.

The only flaw system I liked was the flaw/bonus combination feats of 3.5 (unearthed arcana?)
It was along the lines of:
honor: +1 diplomacy, -2 bluff.

Some game systems use a different approach to "flaws" that I like and thing works.

Basically, a flaw in and on itself does not earn you any "build points" to improve your character. Only when you are are actively affected by the flaw, you gain something out of it. You suffer a penalty now, but you gain some kind of reward for it (e.g. something like action points or rerolls) that you can use at a later time.

The DM can totally forget the flaw, you didn't get any unfair benefit of it. On the other hand, the DM can hit you with the flaw as often as he likes, and you will gain something to compensate for it.
Also, if you feel the DM is simply just forgetting the flaw because he has to much on his mind to handle it and you want it to come up more often, you can yourself suggest situations where it might apply.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some game systems use a different approach to "flaws" that I like and thing works.

Basically, a flaw in and on itself does not earn you any "build points" to improve your character. Only when you are are actively affected by the flaw, you gain something out of it. You suffer a penalty now, but you gain some kind of reward for it (e.g. something like action points or rerolls) that you can use at a later time.

The DM can totally forget the flaw, you didn't get any unfair benefit of it. On the other hand, the DM can hit you with the flaw as often as he likes, and you will gain something to compensate for it.
Also, if you feel the DM is simply just forgetting the flaw because he has to much on his mind to handle it and you want it to come up more often, you can yourself suggest situations where it might apply.

Agreed, a system like that can work. For instance the example of "honor: +1 diplomacy, -2 bluff" is still flawed (though at least in 4e they use the same stat, so it isn't actually that bad). Players will usually select the feature of that type which gives them a +1 to something they're maxing and a -2 to something they could care less about. If instead it was reformulated as "Honor: you may take a +1 on a Diplomacy check, the DM may impose a -2 on a Bluff check." then it becomes dynamic (there would in some systems be some sort of counting system in place, fortune points or whatever). In a routine situation the bonus might not be worth bothering with, knowing it reminds the DM of the character's flaw... Also when it is restricted to social skills/situations it is a lot more of a character building tool than anything else (DM can set up a situation where bluffing is an option, but the paladin's refusal to go along leads to favorable reactions when he acts honorably). These can be helpful to the player but won't usually break the game and go well with the story.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is something I really don't want design space used on as far as rules and such as part of the main/base game. Straight skill challenges, if not properly used within the flow of the game, are awful. If you just kind of float in to and out of them, they work well. Some times though, it's isn't an actual "skill challenge" but rather a use of basic skills. On a number of things I generally let a player RP through it and only use rolls where necessary, as in outside the box or norm activities. A basic guide of economic structure would be cool though.

I'm fine with non-combat design space being explored or not explored. But if it is explored, I want it explored well. The worst of all possible worlds is a poorly-though hack that trades on old assumptions. If we are to have a 4E version codified, it has to be a 4E version. That starts with the idea that "adventures" has some basic competency so that they can handle all kinds of minor to moderate situations that come up.

Ivory towering, I see it being described thus, in 4E terms, though:

1. Action adventuring side, you must be good at combat/action adventuring. This is what a class gives you. That is 4E design.

2. Non-action adventuring side, you must be moderately compentent at the things an action adventurer would do, but after that, you can specialize in all kinds of unrelated things. You might end up being able to shine at some times and not others, ala previous D&D model. There are whole chuncks of options that might be almost worthless in a given campaign, and it will be up to the group to police this. If your group doesn't care about any of this, you ignore all these options and go with the moderately competent base.

If you have flaws with mechanical effects, they should be concentrated on the non-action adventuring side.

The only point of mechanical contact between the action adventuring and the non side is the skill system. Other than that, they are completely separate. There would, of course, be potential for all kinds of contact outside mechanics--e.g. you get a reputation as an adventurer, it affects what you do when not adventurering--but those are setting concerns and circumstantial.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's nothing wrong with exploring a lot of this stuff. My observation though is that in general game developers have been moderately bad at this kind of thing. Even Gygax, who was a very well read guy with a pretty good eye for 'how things work in the world' wrote up some pretty awful little subsystems, rules, and guidelines from time-to-time. He certainly wrote up a whole bunch of mechanically unworkable ones. I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that other developers are any more skilled at this kind of thing.

I think a lot of stuff should be DISCUSSED in some game resource. I'm not sure a lot of 'this is how to do it' need exist.

A lot of stuff is actually best done in a quite informal way. For instance let us suppose that a PC wants to be a cobbler. Obviously this is irrelevant to adventuring for the most part and might touch on a game aspect once or twice in a campaign. It isn't worth any character resources that can be used for anything else. Given that there are no rules for cobbling and shouldn't be any in an RPG about killing monsters, it should simply be something the player writes on his sheet "Morkus is a good cobbler, he was apprenticed to the town cobbler for 4 years." That's IT. DM's Friend can be invoked to make it mean something on that one day of the character's life when his cobbling knowledge might matter. If the player wants to ACQUIRE a new 'skill' like that, well just let him. Tell him he's got to spend a good chunk of campaign time learning the skill well enough to matter (quite possibly a year or more). At that point, voila, he can cobble! It really doesn't matter. If a player wants to acquire 82 umpty squat of these kinds of 'skills' that's his business. How he's going to wedge in the time in the campaign timeline is also his business.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Some game systems use a different approach to "flaws" that I like and thing works.

Basically, a flaw in and on itself does not earn you any "build points" to improve your character. Only when you are are actively affected by the flaw, you gain something out of it. You suffer a penalty now, but you gain some kind of reward for it (e.g. something like action points or rerolls) that you can use at a later time.

The DM can totally forget the flaw, you didn't get any unfair benefit of it. On the other hand, the DM can hit you with the flaw as often as he likes, and you will gain something to compensate for it.
Also, if you feel the DM is simply just forgetting the flaw because he has to much on his mind to handle it and you want it to come up more often, you can yourself suggest situations where it might apply.

This is actually a flaw system I like. Which game does use it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Agreed, a system like that can work. For instance the example of "honor: +1 diplomacy, -2 bluff" is still flawed (though at least in 4e they use the same stat, so it isn't actually that bad). Players will usually select the feature of that type which gives them a +1 to something they're maxing and a -2 to something they could care less about. If instead it was reformulated as "Honor: you may take a +1 on a Diplomacy check, the DM may impose a -2 on a Bluff check." then it becomes dynamic (there would in some systems be some sort of counting system in place, fortune points or whatever). In a routine situation the bonus might not be worth bothering with, knowing it reminds the DM of the character's flaw... Also when it is restricted to social skills/situations it is a lot more of a character building tool than anything else (DM can set up a situation where bluffing is an option, but the paladin's refusal to go along leads to favorable reactions when he acts honorably). These can be helpful to the player but won't usually break the game and go well with the story.

So with mustrum ridcully´s system, i would believe honor would be something along this line:

Player: "I chose not to withdraw in battle and use mark although I am already bloodied, because my protegé may not be hurt."

DM: "You gain an action point you may use next round."

That is actually something I would play with immediately. (And something I will remember if such a situation occurs in the game I DM. (Why do you need to actively take such a flaw* when you can just reward roleplaying.)

*Maybe it will help as a guideline... maybe someone would propose an unearthed arcan article on such flaws?