D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[JamesonCourage]

No, it IS in a club by itself when it comes to clarity of the skill system, certainly for D&D.

Not to be NEEDLESSLY snarky, but ARE we just going to CAP things now, since it's MORE convincing that way?

In other words: /disagree

Its quite precise when it comes to doing things 'in action'. There's a specific skill which is almost always clearly indicated which will apply, a designated way to calculate a DC, and modifiers which indicate the most likely adjustments to that DC, plus precise rules for things like conditions and effects which would likely supply other modifiers, assistance from others, etc. You could generate longer lists of modifiers, but don't be fooled into thinking that's 'more precise', its just longer. You might end up with a slightly different modifier with a longer list, but either way you'll definitely have a modifier that is supported and could be agreed by most people reading the same situation.

Wow. I really, really disagree with your take on the 4e skill system. I don't think there's one designated way to calculate DC. I think there is some minor overlap in skills around the edges. I don't think there are very many modifiers spelled out. I don't think there are very many skill uses spelled out.

I think 4e skills are broad and vague. And I think I've used them to good effect while GMing. They don't fit my personal preference, but I'm not arguing they're bad design.

I see the most cost-effective path as a system that has a relatively small number of rules that apply broadly and gets on with the action rather than focusing on lots of steps and process. If it is clever, and 4e is, then it pretty much just works and adding more specificity would gain you very little. Where it is of high value, combat, 4e goes whole hog and gives you as much as you can handle.

Which is kinda incoherent to my style. Combat is far from the thing that is most important to me. In my non-4e campaign, combat takes up about 10% of our table time. Last session (about 7 hours of play), there was no combat. The session before that, we had a mass combat (multiple forces attacking a city wall over a couple of days) that lasted nearly the entire session. Over the previous two sessions (about 14 hours of play), we had one combat.

Those rules should be general enough and non-specific enough that they can be applied flexibly to extrapolate them to a wide variety of situations that have never been anticipated at all. This is where I lose you because I don't see how detailed lists of modifiers for every kind of situation can exist unless you already anticipated that situation. It thus seems inevitable to me that the action will be constrained one way or another to that set of things.

Like I pointed out, the action in 4e is already constrained. You can't jump to the moon. There are rules for jumping. You use those rules.

The rules in any game is trying to model a certain type of feel, and 4e (and my hypothetical epic RPG) are no exception to this. Rules set limitations.

But again, IMHO 'codification', in the sense of giving long lists of procedures, modifiers, etc isn't the only way to be 'complete'. That's how I see it. 4e's Nature skill isn't 'incomplete' because it doesn't have a huge long list of every application anyone could think of. Its COMPLETE because its VERY CLEAR that you are going to use Nature, the rules always tell you when that's the skill to use, and it always works pretty much the same way.

It might always work the same way in your game, sure. But if I go into another GM's game, and he thinks I need to be Paragon to do this at a Moderate DC, instead of Hard in your Heroic game, that makes a difference. The rules don't provide a very strong structure here for the player to rely on. They are subject to the GM's interpretation of when skill checks are possible, and how hard those possible tasks might be.

I think I lost the thread a bit here, but backstory has been quite strong for us in 4e. In fact much more so than in previous days. 1e was especially dry in my experience. 2e not quite so much as often you kinda had to knit its crazy borked mechanics together with SOMETHING, but 4e backstory has been gold. I've had 2 players write 1000's of words on their characters backstory, and it was GOOD!

I meant "backstory" as in setting established prior to play, not PC history before play starts. Like, setting stuff; if the PCs make a "right vs left" decision, and it's been set in notes what is right and what is left, then I value sticking to those notes and honoring their decision, no matter how (un)informed that decision might be.

I do want to note that it was really easy to get moderately strong PC backstories (in the sense that you meant it) for my 4e campaign. I do think the rules and base game setting lend themselves to this. That is to 4e's credit.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not seeing what the illusion is.

Okay.

I made my Wisdom check, and giving up with further posts with you on this matter. Not going to try to wade through it with you. Still open to talking about other stuff, though, if it comes up. (And feel free to mention or tag me as an example of my views, if you want to; no offense will be taken.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

GIRLS! VIDEO GAMES! PUBERTY OH NO!

Let me try again down below going back to examples.

Thanks for the smile

This is the same query @Sadras posed above. @Balesir addresses this nicely.

I think he does, too, but I feel like I got something out of it that you and pemerton didn't.

Again, illusionism is a diverse practice in GMing that is really contingent upon system (which is why I like that better than rules) and that system's play agenda. In an exploration/sim based system (with all that agenda entails), covertly/opaquely rendering impotent player strategic decision-making because it doesn't fit the GM's own mental model (even if that mental model is flat wrong and the player is correct) is illusion. The same goes for when the GM covertly subordinates the resolution mechanics (that result from declared player action and/or resource expenditure) because they think they have a better idea of how things should go.

I think that the former would apply to scene-framing and the right vs left scenario, too, even in Story Now. It's still illusionism in that the players are presented with a choice, and they think that their choice matters. It doesn't. The GM discards it and uses his own judgment, and they wound up in the place the GM wanted them to despite their apparent "choice" (which sounds a lot like railroading to me, honestly).

So I don't really think I agree with illusionism when it comes to your Story Now description of illusionism. It's misleading, for sure. But I don't know about in-game illusionism, as I'd define it. Just more of a "this is what the game is going to be about" and then not delivering. It's the same as saying "this is a combat-focused game" or "be ready to fight lots of undead" or whatever. If you're not delivering, you've mislead your players. But I don't think it's illusionism as I'd define it (which might be something along the lines of "ignoring or invalidating valid player choices to substitute your own agenda" at first glance).

But yeah. It might all just be a disagreement of terms. Which makes sense, considering that a lot of these discussions are fairly new to the hobby.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually the weapon does matter, in every edition a general rule is that ranged attacks are made with a different attack ability modifier than melee weapon attacks. From at least 3e and possibly earlier different weapons can also have different properties that mechanically affect the game... damage is determined in almost every edition by weapon type and so on... The weapon you are using is usually much more than a detail...

I was specifically talking about melee weapons, but a similar situation exists for ranged weapons. Yes, there can be some slight differences, but the end results are always the same, you roll to hit, you do some damage, maybe you have some additional effect if you use the right power or have the right whatever, but there's very little difference. The focus is on the ends, not so much on the details of the means to those ends. This is why there isn't any detailed damage system in D&D either, its not important, the ends are defeating the monsters, not lopping off its arm or skewering it in the eye, that's just narrative detail.

So when I hear a song on a CD it's the charisma anc ability of the artist to relate to me personally as opposed to his actual musical talent that either does or doesn't invoke feelings from what he's performed? I find that pretty hard to believe... I think the problem with your way of it just being a Cha check is that instead of allowing the player to creatively do it his way (through the power of his music) and through that influence the mechanical representation you are dictating (or claiming it doesn't matter which is essentially in this case the same thing) the how (mechanically) something must be done... one can only influence people in this particular way (through the Cha ability)... that seems too rigid and too stifling. IMO if a character wants to use his adeptness in music to soothe the savage beast it should be based on his character's music skill and not on his Animal Handling skill... this is why for me the how does matter. I also think it's this "how doesn't matter thinking" that leads to ... I Diplomacize him because as you said the how doesn't matter... right so why do I even need to state it if it has no bearing on the actual game?

And in his medium he is, thus he gets to use the general intimidate skill... however you hand a threatening goon a lute who has no skill at playing and he can't even play in order to compose a scary song. Why would being intimidating auto-imply a propensity for composing good and scary songs? It actually doesn't make any sense at all... I'm not trying to be scary I am trying to create the scariest song I can, and I'm sorry but in order to do that you need musical talent.

I agree with your last sentence it is about whether you're effective or not... are you able to play effectively enough to accomplish what you want or are you just not good enough... and no being proficient in an instrument does not auto-imply that you are that good at playing it... IMO that is what we are trying to see when a character tries to use the playing of an instrument to try and accomplish something, that is his challenge... does he play well enough this time for the music to have the desired effect he wants.

I have no idea why you hold these beliefs. The player is free under my system to do pretty much anything they want. There is only a question of narrative coherence. A 'goon' can't just pick up a lute because the goon doesn't know how to play a loot, and that's a fictional detail of the character, but not one that needs to be managed as a resource because it doesn't inherently add to the character. If he's a bard and his song is actually magical and does stuff, then its different, but if its just a vehicle for using a skill then why care?

And yes, playing music to get people to do what you want IS Diplomacy. Exactly what is it that you think governs musical talent? Why would it not be Charisma? Every artist is communicating his or her feelings and ideas through the medium of their art. That's what art IS. Nothing could be more appropriate than social CHA based skills for that purpose. The instrument is merely the medium of the exchange, albeit communicating in that way can be a considerably important part of the character's personality and backstory.

If I can play a guitar well why do I need to roll dice? I just play, I know I play well. If I fight with a longsword I know I fight well, I'm a fighter, of course I do. Maybe its not well enough to win, or maybe it is, but the dice don't determine the quality of my swordplay, only its effect. I can narrate my failure to sway the orcs with my music as the greatest music of all time, but if I misjudged orcs and played a tune that didn't do the trick its no matter. Mechanically I failed a check, narratively I can do anything consistent.

When did invoking feelings through music become a "social endeavor"? In our current age a digital download can do this with no social interaction from the artist whatsoever...

Except there's a rich social interaction, you listened to the message that artist sent you. You can also look at it as its you who's selecting which thing to be influenced by, you've just created a catalog of sounds (songs) that evoke the responses you desire. Someone still had to create them, and that requires insight into human nature and understanding and a feeling for other people.

Okay a Background is a specific thing in both 4e and 5e and in neither one is there a "fidler" background which was what you asserted... but let's say there was... in 5e it would give you prof when playing the fiddle... what skill would it give you a +2 for in 4e?

In 4e PHB2 explains that you can create any background you wish to.

The background elements presented here are not the
only ones possible. Use these ideas for inspiration in
creating a background as unique as your character.

You are then instructed that it is a good idea to pick 3 background elements from the 5 categories, geography, society, birth, race, and occupation. There are several of each presented here, and a VAST number of other ones in later material, such that CB lists at least 100, probably closer to 300. In any case Occupation: Entertainer is listed in PHB2, which would suffice to justify playing an instrument if you should demand justification.

 

[SirAntoine]

Funny, many of the the non-4e crowd viewed the 4e system as WoW for table-top. They never observed innovation just amalgamtion, pandering to the whims and likes of the MMO craze which was pulling away the potential RPG fanbase.



I'm curious, besides skill checks, which I personally miss but I do incorporate into 5e, what innovations are you talking about - power cards and their ash heaps or graveyards?
Real innovation will only come once WotC stops pandering to Hindu's and Vegans and slays a few sacred cows.One such example, being the continuous and ridiculous growth of hit points which then requires the remaining mechanics to deal with ever increasing numbers. The last 3 versions of the game suffer from that the most, despite their innovations.



Do you think forging wildly ahead (by WotC) with radically new ideas would have done the hobby/player-base any good?



And you think WotC, the playerbase, the hobby would better survive having fractured the community once more? Interesting, I think that is very optimistic of you...but



...this sounds awfully pessimistic. My view on this edition is completely different to yours.

• Just to mention that there are already 4e enthusiasts drafting power cards for the 5e classes in the Homebrew section of Enworld. I cannot count how many times I have heard 4e players mention that AEDU existed in earlier versions of D&D, so 5e class abilities are just the AEDU in a different format.
• Plenty are incorporating their own versions of the 4e Skill Challenge Mechanics in 5e.
• Replace Inspiration with Action Points, if you're missing it
• Ability Improvements exist in 5e.
• Monsters are simple in 5e and well most DMs I know tinker with monsters anyway. We all had to given the terribly unbalanced, untested 4e MM1. Didn’t they revise Orcus like 3 times? All I can say is thank god for SlyFlourish’s monster-damage table.
• Save Ends was brought across from 4e to 5e.
• A decent balance exists between the classes.
• Mechanical alignment is optional as are non-good paladins.
• 5e has rituals, conditions and you can use grid-play.
• Replace Hit Dice with Surges.
• Death saves, yup, they are there too.
• The 4 Combat Roles. Well we had @GMforPowergamers and @pemerton and a great deal many inform everyone on another thread that those roles have always existed within D&D so I guess, 4e players would identify those roles within 5e. Funny how the OP lists the 4 Combat Roles as if they are exclusive to 4e. @Imaro, @SirAntoine and @BryonD would would certainly find this amusing.

If it is a tombstone edition because so much of 4e is in 5e, then I guess you're right, but then that would make 4e a tombstone edition given how much of it exists in 3.5e

The 4e combat roles did not, in fact, exist prior to 4th Edition. As I said in the other thread, perhaps starting the monumental debate to follow there, the 4e combat roles were unique to 4th Edition and represented a departure from tradition. They are not part of 5th Edition, either.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like I pointed out, the action in 4e is already constrained. You can't jump to the moon. There are rules for jumping. You use those rules.

The rules in any game is trying to model a certain type of feel, and 4e (and my hypothetical epic RPG) are no exception to this. Rules set limitations.

Hmmmm, I think rules explain under what conditions you succeed at things. Obviously PCs have limits, but most of them aren't really spelled out in the rules. Now, if an EPIC TIER character wanted to jump to the Moon, that might be quite possible, depending on the character. There's an ED that lets you walk 'ANYWHERE' (Planeswalker) for instance. If a player wanted to cast that as 'jumping' I don't see an issue with that. So, yes, there are constraints, but I never suggested there weren't. I just suggested that 4e was very solid in the department of providing a general structure and procedure for doing fairly arbitrary things.

It might always work the same way in your game, sure. But if I go into another GM's game, and he thinks I need to be Paragon to do this at a Moderate DC, instead of Hard in your Heroic game, that makes a difference. The rules don't provide a very strong structure here for the player to rely on. They are subject to the GM's interpretation of when skill checks are possible, and how hard those possible tasks might be.

I agree, this is a feature of 4e that we haven't discussed. It is quite scale independent. There are rules that set specific DCs for some specific quantifiable things (like jumping), but in general a DM can pretty easily ramp up or down the crazy factor of the game by just selecting DCs in different ranges. You could have paragon characters leaping 500' if you wanted. IMHO this is a table thing, not something where the player must be able to be sure that at EVERY TABLE 4e will always play identically. When a player joins a table they will find out how things work at that table, or negotiate, etc. There is a pretty good default set of assumptions though.

I meant "backstory" as in setting established prior to play, not PC history before play starts. Like, setting stuff; if the PCs make a "right vs left" decision, and it's been set in notes what is right and what is left, then I value sticking to those notes and honoring their decision, no matter how (un)informed that decision might be.

Yeah, I generally stick to what I've decided also, but I'm not hesitant about making up new things that fit well in the story. I respect player agency but I wouldn't feel BOUND by a random choice where the players had no real preference. I wouldn't change things in a way that made incoherent fiction, but beyond that I might make more interesting fiction.

I do want to note that it was really easy to get moderately strong PC backstories (in the sense that you meant it) for my 4e campaign. I do think the rules and base game setting lend themselves to this. That is to 4e's credit.

I think they could have gone a bit further, but it was pretty good. Certainly these days there's little excuse for a name-brand RPG not to include such niceties.

 

[Starfox]

4E had a very nice cosmology that I pretty much adopted (after some refinement).

Healing surges and making PCs start every fight at full hp (or run away) was nice.

Replacing saves with defense values was a very natural progression.

That's about the extent of the things 4E implemented well. They put forward a lot of nice ideas, but the craftsmanship of actually making these ideas into rules failed badly.

 

[Imaro]

I was specifically talking about melee weapons, but a similar situation exists for ranged weapons. Yes, there can be some slight differences, but the end results are always the same, you roll to hit, you do some damage, maybe you have some additional effect if you use the right power or have the right whatever, but there's very little difference. The focus is on the ends, not so much on the details of the means to those ends. This is why there isn't any detailed damage system in D&D either, its not important, the ends are defeating the monsters, not lopping off its arm or skewering it in the eye, that's just narrative detail.

Anything you ignore the details of and is taken to a high enough level view will appear the same... I mean everything in the game works the same you just roll a die for uncertain elements...

You are dismissing the differences in weapons that are a part of nearly every edition from AD&D/BECMI onward... because it doesn't suit your own viewpoint. I mean are you honestly arguing that in 3e the damage a dagger does (1d4) vs. a greatsword (2d6) is insignificant? Or that the difference between reach weapons and those that aren't doesn't matter? Weapon vs. armor tables, all the feats and/or powers based around specific weapons... or better yet the special effects for weapon mastery in BECMI didn't matter.... I find this line of thinking hard to buy. The fact of the matter is that except for in it's very earliest days D&D has been a game where the weapon you use really does matter...

I have no idea why you hold these beliefs. The player is free under my system to do pretty much anything they want. There is only a question of narrative coherence. A 'goon' can't just pick up a lute because the goon doesn't know how to play a loot, and that's a fictional detail of the character, but not one that needs to be managed as a resource because it doesn't inherently add to the character. If he's a bard and his song is actually magical and does stuff, then its different, but if its just a vehicle for using a skill then why care?

It doesn't add to the character because the system you are choosing to use doesn't make using a musical instrument a character resource, instead one is forced to sub in broad vague skills with tenuous connections or just hand wave it... 5e however does make it add to the character because it is an actual resource that is paid for and can be used...

Also I find it more than a little ironic that a fan of a game where it is okay for healing to take place from a totally mundane source... thinks that music has to be magical to affect someone...

And yes, playing music to get people to do what you want IS Diplomacy. Exactly what is it that you think governs musical talent? Why would it not be Charisma? Every artist is communicating his or her feelings and ideas through the medium of their art. That's what art IS. Nothing could be more appropriate than social CHA based skills for that purpose. The instrument is merely the medium of the exchange, albeit communicating in that way can be a considerably important part of the character's personality and backstory.

But you said if it was scary music it would be Intimidate so apparently it's not diplomacy... it's DM fiat when it comes to your system. Now when talking about 5e musical talent is exactly what it says on the tin... how well you can actually play an instrument...

If I can play a guitar well why do I need to roll dice? I just play, I know I play well. If I fight with a longsword I know I fight well, I'm a fighter, of course I do. Maybe its not well enough to win, or maybe it is, but the dice don't determine the quality of my swordplay, only its effect. I can narrate my failure to sway the orcs with my music as the greatest music of all time, but if I misjudged orcs and played a tune that didn't do the trick its no matter. Mechanically I failed a check, narratively I can do anything consistent.

I don't even understand this analogy... No one does everything at 100% of their capacity, perfectly at all times... You roll dice because there is an element of uncertainty in the action you are taking... in the instant that you are rolling... either your swordplay or your musical talent is or isn't of a quality to defeat/move the opponent you face... your rolls decide that... and your narrative (unless you are purposefully choosing to be incoherent should fit said results). I mean you can blame it on outside forces if you want, but of course a better swordsman or musician could o exactly what you failed to do if he rolls high enough so it still speaks to the quality you showed in that instant. You can call it effect, though I'm not sure what "effect" is being decided besides success or failure and thus the quality of your swordplay in that moment... I don't think failing at something and narrating it as the greatest of all time is consistent... do you?

Except there's a rich social interaction, you listened to the message that artist sent you. You can also look at it as its you who's selecting which thing to be influenced by, you've just created a catalog of sounds (songs) that evoke the responses you desire. Someone still had to create them, and that requires insight into human nature and understanding and a feeling for other people.

You're assuming why music moves people... it's not always a particular message the artist sends you (and this is again why I don't like sticking it under diplomacy), as a simple example one could be moved because a particular song invokes a memory that the artist has no clue about... Or you could be impressed on a technical level because you recognize how difficult the song was... even though you don't personally feel anything when it is played... my point is music sways people for totally different reasons that can't all be placed under diplomacy... but there is no incoherence if their is a skill that represents one's musical talent at a suitably abstract level.

In 4e PHB2 explains that you can create any background you wish to.

You are then instructed that it is a good idea to pick 3 background elements from the 5 categories, geography, society, birth, race, and occupation. There are several of each presented here, and a VAST number of other ones in later material, such that CB lists at least 100, probably closer to 300. In any case Occupation: Entertainer is listed in PHB2, which would suffice to justify playing an instrument if you should demand justification.

Okay let me try to get an answer to this again... what would the background of fiddler give you a +2 in according to the 4e rules, seeing as how they are very specific this should be easy... Of course according to your own examples earlier I would need a +2 in at least 2 skills (Diplomacy & Intimidation) and possibly more depending on what feelings I would want my music to actually invoke...right?

 

[pemerton]

I think what they're calling an 'illusion' is the entire plotline of your story arc. Its an 'illusion' that there is going to be a sacrifice and the arrival of the PCs at the critical juncture is the DM fiat, do you see? If the PCs were to say flog their horses to death (or whatever) in order arrive at the temple sooner would you change the situation when they got there? It sounds like the answer is no, at least not unless the players explicitly expressed that they were intent on arriving with extra time to spare.

Thanks for the post.

In 4e, "flogging your horses to death" would be an element in a skill challenge (eg sacrifice money = to 10% of the value of a magic item of your level to gain +2 to a check). So the only way horses could be flogged to death would be in that sort of context. But as I posted upthread, the timing in this case wasn't being resolved as a skill challenge (as best I can recall): the players declare that their PCs are chasing down the gnolls, and their arrival is narrated. I can't remember all the details, to be honest, but I can be confident that the timing wasn't in issue, because if it was I wouldn't have handled it the way I did!

I'm not even sure that the players (or PCs) knew that the prisoners were slated for sacrifice until they entered the ruined temple and interrogated a (different, less sympathetic) prisoner.

To YOU its all meaningful in terms of the players directing the plot and you managing the pacing and tension, but to the simulationist mindset its all illusionary hokum, there's no 'real world', no objective time lines and whatnot written down.

<snip>

in a simulationist agenda there are quite a few more ways to 'cheat' than you would account. Much of what you do is anathema to them.

I can understand that it's anathema, but the illusionist bit still puzzles me. It's illusory because the game world's not real? But no one's game world is real!

I can see why someone might be attracted to the idea of a pre-written timeline from which the GM doesn't vary, though as I posted upthread I think D&D doesn't have very good rules for managing timelines once you get beyond a few basics. But it puzzles me to describe the alternative as illusory! The pre-written timeline isn't any more real or objective!

What about ... enchanting an item, or something? I seem to recall that making a magic item takes about an hour.

If the party needed to get there tonight, because the sacrifice was going to take place tonight, would an hour-long break for enchantment constitute abandonment of the quest? Or would they still show up right in time for it to be dramatically appropriate?

In the abstract, I don't really see how to answer this. What is going on, and why make the item?

Even in the GM's pre-written timeline version, what time is the sacrifice going to take place? Midnight? Measured how (the cultists don't have wrist-watches, presumably)? And what time, exactly, did the PCs start making their item - and did stopping for lunch, to avoid fatigue/hunger penalties, cost them 10 minutes or 30? How long was the queue at the tavern? These are the sorts of things I have in mind when I say that D&D doesn't really have the resources to handle time outside of a fairly narrow range of contexts.

Outside of some way of putting the whole thing on a meaningful clock, I don't see the point of turning time into part of the stakes - it's just an invitation to GM fiat. As I've said, in 4e the way you put it onto a clock is via a skill challenge. Until the place of the magic item creation within such a skill challenge is known, I can't really answer the question. Maybe if the skill challenge fails, and the PCs stopped to make an item, you narrate a head rolling down the mountainside as they arrive at the temple - "If only you'd got here quicker, you might have saved the prisoner!" - in other words, the expenditure of a notable block of time adds material to use in narrating the failure.

 

[pemerton]

It might always work the same way in your game, sure. But if I go into another GM's game, and he thinks I need to be Paragon to do this at a Moderate DC, instead of Hard in your Heroic game, that makes a difference. The rules don't provide a very strong structure here for the player to rely on. They are subject to the GM's interpretation of when skill checks are possible, and how hard those possible tasks might be.

this is a feature of 4e that we haven't discussed.

<snip>

IMHO this is a table thing, not something where the player must be able to be sure that at EVERY TABLE 4e will always play identically. When a player joins a table they will find out how things work at that table, or negotiate, etc.

As is often the case, LostSoul had a very good post about this nearly three years ago:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

This style of play is completely orthogonal to illusionism or player empowerment, however. While JamesonCourage refers to "another GM's game", AbdulAlhazred refers to "negotiation", and LostSoul refers to "the group" defining matters organically through play. The latter two descriptions are a better fit for my experience - it is by players pushing the fiction (via the action declarations for their characters) that the bounds of possibility have been set.