From what I've seen on these boards, at least, I think it might fail when it comes to skills (and skill challenges, to a much, much lesser degree). Skills in 4e, on these boards, seem to be portrayed as rather open-ended, and to my knowledge, there isn't much there to really give players solid rules. They have some guidelines, but page 42 seems to be explicitly GM-controlled in setting the DC, some people use it auto-scaling with level, while others use it more "objectively", there aren't many skill uses listed, etc.
This is a big thing, for me, since skills in my game are used more often than combat rolls (though, admittedly, a lot of that has to do with play style). I went to great lengths to flesh out my skills, and give players ways to build on them (feats, rerolls, decreasing action times, negating penalties or DC increases, etc.). Is your experience with 4e skills different from what I seem to think it is? A lot of the anecdotes I've seen on these boards seem like it's a light game of "mother may I" (as the term is used here), in that players say what they're doing, but the GM decides how hard that is (setting a DC that hopefully remains somewhat consistent), or if that's even possible (ruling out skills in a skill challenge, the "objective" DC being too high for the PC to even make, etc.). Just curious on your thoughts on 4e and skills; I'm not trying to attack it, but since I haven't played, and I agree with you on 4e and combat "control over one's character", I'm curious what your thoughts are on it. Thanks. As always, play what you like
That's a very fair point, and it explains why I have said several times that I would have loved to see systems written for 4e that worked much more like the combat system does, but for social and exploration situations. I think a real opportunity to make a complete "rules as manual for the world" game was missed, there.
Having said that, though, I do find 4e to be a significant improvement on earlier editions in this respect, for two main reasons:
1) The broad skills are distinct enough for it to be pretty clear which one might apply to any given (attempted) action. In practice, I haven't found there to be overly much "mother may I?" in the sense of "can I roll this skill instead of this one?" - but there has been some. The fact that every character is at least minimally competent helps mitigate, here, too. In 3.5 the difference between the 8th level fighter with +15 or so Climb and the Wizard with +1 (if lucky) made it really crucial that the Wiz didn't (ever) have to roll Climb...
2) The structure of Skill Challenges - with xp awards and difficulty guidelines attached - I find really does help. It's far from perfect - I would have much preferred if it had been massively expanded upon and it was definitely explained poorly to begin with - but it was better than anything found in any previous edition by a country mile, IMO.
I definitely think 4e D&D is a "Does One Thing Really Well" game - as I think it was Bill Slavicsek said about 1st edition (1984) Paranoia in his design notes. Slavicsek contrasted Paranoia with AD&D as the example of a broader game that could be adapted to do lots of different things, only not so well (in his opinion).
I'm with Slavicsek, so I think I disagree with Neonchameleon when he called pre-3e D&D narrow.
I agree that 4e D&D is a "Does One Thing Really Well" game. But I also agree with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], because I think earlier editions are pretty much the same - it's just that the "one thing" they do is what we thought was "the only way to do it" in the past.
We have discussed, here and in the "pemertonian scene framing" thread, how having the way the game world works defined by the game rules (rather than vice versa) allows for player protagonism through communicating to the player clearly what the outcomes of their character's actions might be, in advance. I really don't think that older editions support this style of play - and I don't think DDN will, either.
That's not a damning indictment of any of those editions - they support other modes of play. But, if you want rationally selected decisions from players, on behalf of their characters, informed by a clear understanding of the world physics based on a shared world model (i.e. the rules), they just don't work. It's too easy to exploit the rules in ways probably not intended; the primacy of some exogenous model of "the game world" over "the rules" is assumed - it's too ingrained to remove without substantially rewriting the rules (as 4e showed, in a way!).
So, 4e blocks off one mode of play, earlier editions block off the other - that's just the way it is. Pick the one that suits what you want to do for the campaign you're planning and enjoy!
To me, Come And Get It is me the player saying "My guy is like Neo in The Matrix, doing the beckoning hand gesture. They have to stop what they're doing and come to me..."
This is a power that the protagonist in the movie has, in-world. So it can be used entirely actor-stance. I don't even find it particularly unrealistic - I was once out hiking and found myself dragged unwillingly towards a bunch of bullocks by some inner compulsion (my wife stopped me just in time!), so I have no problem with the idea that a creature might not have full rational control of its motions even without explicit magic.
It's a bit OT and an aside, but I am soooo with you on this. I have seen people persuaded to do things much against their "better judgement" by a variety of means IRL, none of which (obviously) involved "magic". I really don't see what was happening there as very distinct from what happens when a "charm" spell is cast. Just as "pick lock" and "Knock" differ in that, for the first, a rogue fiddles with some tools in the lock and *pop*, it's open, while for the secomd a mage fiddles with a wand near the lock and *pop*, it's open, I see "bluff" and "Charm Person" as differing in that, for the first, a socialite engages in some witty wordplay, subtle body language and so on and, *pop*, the target does something unwise, while for "Charm Person" a mage fiddles with a wand near the target and makes a request and, *pop*, the target does something unwise. If powers and feats are appropriate to one of the options, there is really no reason they can't apply to the other option, too.
of that - that my Fighter is actually cool, and plays like a movie hero.
Then around 30 sessions with 2 PCs killed but raised, followed by a disaster - the PCs fought a dragon for the first time. One long-term PC perma-killed, along with 2 newly introduced PCs for whom it was their second session, the last PC standing (Arya) managed to drag out the body of her friend (Lirael) and escape through a gap in an iron grate too small for the dragon to follow.
