D&D 4E Anyone playing 4e at the moment?

[Garthanos]

The question remains, though, why do you need a formalised structure ?

why do we have a formalized structure for any of this? Because it is a game?

 

[Aldarc]

The premise behind Skill Challenges I believe are to create a formalized structure around these elements you mention and to encourage progression and reward and to create strategic and tactical choices that are not generally combat, though there is definitely ways to intermingle them where a single physical perhaps minor conflict has overarching impact or where a skill challenge is compressed into an element of an ongoing combat. I

Yes part of the reason is for encouraging new DMs to think in terms of teamwork when creating routes for player characters to solve problems and also to show how skills not just a spell can be the big deal. Oh and the tool is not an obligatory one for all contexts either even an experienced DM might like I do find it a very useful one for making a chase scene or escape the exploding lair scene, and turn them into a dynamic activity (one of my favorite uses).

I have seen a number of 5e DMS (experienced dms with 4e background) discussing how to bring skill challenges in I can see how it could work.

IMHO, Skill Challenges also exist to downplay pass/fail resting on a single roll. Even with modifiers around, the d20 system is swingy. It's one reason why Advantage/Disadvantage gets love. It makes d20 rolls a little less swingy. But multiple rolls also for a series of events in Skill Challenges will perform a similar role.

 

[Lyxen]

why do we have a formalized structure for any of this? Because it is a game?

5e is a game as well, and of the same kind, and does not have (or need) a formalised structure for this. There are roleplaying games with even less formalised structures.

My take is that in particular the social domains where most of the "visible" part of the roleplaying occurs, linked more or less to intrigue, etc. does not need a formalised structure of resolution.

It's more debatable for technical tasks, building / repairing things, etc. when it's multi-parts, why not, but even then we have very rarely needed it.

Yes part of the reason is for encouraging new DMs to think in terms of teamwork when creating routes for player characters to solve problems and also to show how skills not just a spell can be the big deal.

I would think that is should be for the players to create their teamwork, and I've always had beginning players think more in terms of skills (which are more mundane) than spells, especially at low level when spells are rare.

Especially in 4e, if I might add, where spells don't really exist and are expressed almost only in technical combat terms on a grid, which, by the way, was one of my major frustrations with 4e, there was almost no clever use of spells. And a bit of a problem for me, as I like intricate magics and rituals, and understanding how it works and can be disrupted, etc.

So, in and of itself, use of skills is not a major objective to me, classes with extraordinary skills tend to use them anyway.

Oh and the tool is not an obligatory one for all contexts either even an experienced DM might like I do find it a very useful one for making a chase scene or escape the exploding lair scene, and turn them into a dynamic activity (one of my favorite uses).

I like dynamic activities as well, but still found that the skill challenges made it not so dynamic and just a bit too formal for me.

I have seen a number of 5e DMS (experienced dms with 4e background) discussing how to bring skill challenges in I can see how it could work.

There was a discussion about this recently that I contributed too, and I tried porting skill challenges in 5e, it's just that it remained too formal for me.

I find really short old d&d combats boring dice exercises (short but absolutely uninteresting to me that is quite the opposite of exciting) and they are generally without player challenge or interesting choices except wizards in D&D spell casters always manage to have interesting choices and 3 round conflicts for instance meh with huge helping of blah, to me those definitely do not actually tell story, to me if a combat isnt also story then gloss over it as scenery. When I played AD&D we started elaborating how we "hit it with our swords" and the fact that basically none of that had any meaning besides as flavor text that was very disappointing.

We played AD&D a lot at medium to high level, and while I agree that at low level it was more simple exchanges of sword blows, I have had fantastic running fights atop the back of dragons, or teleporting on flying carpets that then plummeted when attacked by 4 teleporting mariliths, etc. And I really missed that when we switched to 3e and its mandatory grids, and even more with 4e and its extremely rigid system that confines magic to it.

This is why we

To me tactical means dynamic choices with meaning with regards to the resolution and can be done with theatre of the mind visualization. (where precisely one is standing is not the whole meaning of tactical) .

Then we completely agree, thanks for this vision.

Strategic is more long term resource and gambit application. Like the result of a skill challenge might acquire a McGuffin that turns a nearly impossible specific fight into a very manageable one.

And we agree even more here. My point is that I agree that 4e did strategic use of resources better than 5e, in particular because of the at will/encounter/daily uses of powers whereas in 5e it's always complicated (and generates tons of discussions) about short/long rest availability etc.

And I agree that it makes it much easier in 4e for beginning DMs. On our side, we are very experienced, we have story based games in which we go for days and sessions without fights, and suddenly we have 3-4 small fights in a row, so we adapt things and the strategical value of reserves suddenly comes to the fore. Or we have one big fight, and it does not. It's not an objective in itself.

So to each their own, I am not against 4e in itself, we had some real proponents of the system at our tables, but overall the much less formal setting of 5e corresponds better to our way of gaming. And I understand that it can be the complete opposite for other tables.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The question remains, though, why do you need a formalised structure ?

Poor question for game design: we don't "need" anything. The real question is, "How is a formal structure useful?" And the answer is, "

It is extremely tactical, which is a good point if you like this. I am not sure about the strategic elements, though.

Why not? Skill challenges as a framework do not have a single built-in time scale. You could quite easily have a skill challenge that factors in things like travelling between locations, spending resources now to avoid rolling (or compensate for bad rolls) vs. saving them for later in that challenge or other challenges down the road, or leveraging past successes (or failures!) to shape the future points of difficulty or conflict.

In fact, I could absolutely see something like a month of warfare being structured as a Skill Challenge--including elements like battle strategy (a History roll), foraging off the land to keep up your non-perishable supplies (Nature), keeping troop morale up with religious ceremonies (Religion) or entertainment (Diplomacy), disguising the movements of your forces or distracting the enemy with false efforts (Bluff or Stealth, depending), executing feints or ballsy gambits like Hannibal executing a pincer maneuver on a larger force during the Battle of Cannae (again, Bluff or Stealth), or various other valid paths--and each decision would rationally build on the previous, changing the theater of war and shifting local opinions, the opinions of civilian leadership backing the PCs and their army/armies, and overall troop numbers and morale/fitness.

Yes, you could do something like that with no formal system whatsoever. But with a formal system, it becomes possible to seek leverage, which almost always adds interest to the process. Further, a formal system can create both dread and excitement as the final result nears, while keeping things clearly "fair" because the fundamental rules-objective was clear and defined in advance. (Plus, let's be honest, it's not like the Skill Challenge system is THAT formal! It's literally just, "get X successes before Y failures," any further embellishments being something players did to improve it, not the underlying system.)

I agree that the formalised structure might make it easier for new DMs. It's not the case at our tables, where we prefer a much more free form game and don't need structure.

Okay. Do you think D&D should be designed primarily to get out of the way of experienced players as much as possible, or primarily to help and support new players as much as possible?

Because I think it's pretty trivial for very experienced players to look at the system and say, "Nah, that's not how I want to do things." On the flipside, it's often very hard for a band-new, inexperienced player (especially if they're DMing) to get a foothold. Supporting new players, and especially new DMs, to the utmost is critical for keeping the hobby alive and sustainable. We cannot rely solely on veteran players bringing new players into the fold; we must specifically support groups made up of exclusively new folks, even those who have never played at all before but now must step into the DM's role.

More practically, most of us are really old school and love Theater of the Mind, which allows us to resolve combat in a few exciting minutes without needing to prepare a gridded map in advance, etc.

What do Skill Challenges have to do with using a grid? The two are unrelated. You can have a grid situation (whether or not it's combat) without having a Skill Challenge, and the sizable majority (I'd say 2/3 or more) of SCs I've done as a 4e player had nothing to do with running on a grid. Many were about managing crowds, persuading an important NPC, securing a resource, stopping/mitigating a disaster, or infiltrating(/exfiltrating) a location. Some were precipitated by finishing a combat, others set the stage for a subsequent combat, most had nothing to do with combat at all. Only those that specifically occurred during combat itself actually used a grid, and those were uncommon (usually having to deal with traps or environmental hazards during the fight).

 

[dave2008]

The question remains, though, why do you need a formalised structure ?

It helps some people. Many new DMs have a hard time with parts that don't have a structure. For old timers like you and me, maybe not so useful, but I still find some good ideas in there.

It is extremely tactical, which is a good point if you like this. I am not sure about the strategic elements, though.

It can be (strategic).

I agree that the formalised structure might make it easier for new DMs. It's not the case at our tables, where we prefer a much more free form game and don't need structure.

Truth be told, you can run a completely free form game in 4e. It had good resources for improv in the DMG. I ran a whole adventure in 4e that was completely improv. No powers, no spells, just the players telling me (the DM) what they wanted to do and I adjudicated based on the rules in the game. I just think the tightness of the game structure frightens some people away from this approach.

More practically, most of us are really old school and love Theater of the Mind, which allows us to resolve combat in a few exciting minutes without needing to prepare a gridded map in advance, etc.

Similar to above, you don't need a map to play 4e. It can be run TotM, just like any other edition. Another example for you: I ran an Epic (lvl 30) adventure for my players during a 12 hr car ride (minivan actually). 6 hours one way and 6 hours back. We had no grid or minis and we rolled our dice in a box so we wouldn't loose them. It was actually the most epic adventure I ran in 4e and it was completely TotM.

FYI, I just wanted to be clear, all of my games have moved to 5e and I no longer play 4e, but I think it is a great game.

 

[Garthanos]

IMHO, Skill Challenges also exist to downplay pass/fail resting on a single roll. Even with modifiers around, the d20 system is swingy. It's one reason why Advantage/Disadvantage gets love. It makes d20 rolls a little less swingy. But multiple rolls also for a series of events in Skill Challenges will perform a similar role.

Yup this too the base of D&D is mechanically speaking in the skill system very like oh you failed, full stop... err what now?

 

[Aldarc]

why do we have a formalized structure for any of this? Because it is a game?

There does seem to be purview in our hobby that views any structure in gaming as needless for freeform. But there is little to no guidance about how to run "freeform," which is why, IME, I don't find "freeform" all that new player friendly.

 

[Garthanos]

5e is a game as well, and of the same kind, and does not have (or need) a formalised structure for this.

I already said in my opinion it is missing out, much like removing a tool both a teaching tool as you acknowledge and one useful particularly when part of it is presented player side in the narrative to create a build up of suspense. And as a formalized tool this is pretty incredibly open ended with more incommon with many of games which heck do not even have a distinct combat system from their skill system.

There are roleplaying games with even less formalised structures.

To be honest D&D is in most things incredibly heavy mechanically and SC are probably the least so of any of the rules elements this game presents.

My take is that in particular the social domains where most of the "visible" part of the roleplaying occurs, linked more or less to intrigue, etc. does not need a formalised structure of resolution.

Any arena where skills are used are already using a lower level formal structure. We are talking about an extension of that which fairly simply shows how individual skill use impacts a larger picture and tracks that which I feel is no less appropriate to social arenas. I feel this enables skills to have a higher potency by showing how they impact a whole process when I have seen unsophisticated oops you go nowhere as the the default for very many of D&D DMs over the years in particular newbies but some never get out of that the system does not encourage them to.

I would think that is should be for the players to create their teamwork, and I've always had beginning players think more in terms of skills (which are more mundane) than spells, especially at low level when spells are rare.

Especially in 4e, if I might add, where spells don't really exist

Are you ignoring the rituals and the option and example where a rituals specific effects already fairly open ended were altered by use of arcana skill (I think the example might have also been in one of the DMGs)

and are expressed almost only in technical combat terms on a grid, which, by the way, was one of my major frustrations with 4e, there was almost no clever use of spells.

I feel this is only because you chose to restrict that. For instance as DM inspired by the DMG2 allowing one to exert and spend a healing surge to gain an auto success, there are at will ice based attacks that a DM such as I might allow one to use to freeze a surface and walk across a lake (it required expending a healing surge since it is unusual amounts of longer term effort than the power normally involved) .

You can argue that the game did not encourage that enough if you like but I feel saying there can be no clever use of powers or rituals is just wrong.

And a bit of a problem for me, as I like intricate magics and rituals,

you seem to be ignoring rituals but you bring it up right here where you actually considering 4e rituals locked down?? And in a few short years there are hundreds more of them in 4e than in the recent game. I sorely miss real rituals with an actual strategic cost.

So, in and of itself, use of skills is not a major objective to me, classes with extraordinary skills tend to use them anyway.

yes extraordinary skills where are those in 5e exactly? they certainly never happened in the earliest games and with that shabby few percentiles more than your low level character got the paltry advancement in skill chances inhibits seeing them as extraordinary ... never mind the wizard can now teleport the lot of us mid battle to safety instantly Hurray for brilliant use of magic to trivialize a problem an effect that will never happen with skill use.

We played AD&D a lot at medium to high level, and while I agree that at low level it was more simple exchanges of sword blows,

Remember that was all the non casters ever got.

I have had fantastic running fights atop the back of dragons, or teleporting on flying carpets that then plummeted when attacked by 4 teleporting mariliths, etc.

Not sure how exactly character abilities in those earlier games scaled to enable that? oops your still incredibly meh dexterity and no skill advancement either "you fall off" seems as likely a result maybe you wont die with super sized hps.

And I really missed that when we switched to 3e and its mandatory grids, and even more with 4e and its extremely rigid system that confines magic to it.

right only magic is being complained about I get your bias and you are ignoring rituals that rarely ever mentions grids.

Then we completely agree, thanks for this vision.

yup most people misuse tactical to mean grid based

And we agree even more here. My point is that I agree that 4e did strategic use of resources better than 5e, in particular because of the at will/encounter/daily uses of powers whereas in 5e it's always complicated (and generates tons of discussions) about short/long rest availability etc.

Players having each available longer term resources in 4e from action points to dailies and wealth which scales to level to fuel things from rituals to healing surges which can be directly applied or fuel martial practices (which needed adjusted to be worth their cost) or hint enhance skills/powers in a skill challenge.

And I agree that it makes it much easier in 4e for beginning DMs. On our side, we are very experienced, we have story based games in which we go for days and sessions without fights, and suddenly we have 3-4 small fights in a row, so we adapt things

And this fits exactly with the 4e adventuring paradigm.

 

[dave2008]

There does seem to be purview in our hobby that views any structure in gaming as needless for freeform. But there is little to no guidance about how to run "freeform," which is why, IME, I don't find "freeform" all that new player friendly.

And of course you can run "freeform," buy simply ignoring the structures given and it still works.

 

[Garthanos]

Truth be told, you can run a completely free form game in 4e. It had good resources for improve in the DMG. I ran a whole adventure in 4e that was completely improv. No powers, no spells, just the players telling me (the DM) what they wanted to do and I adjudicated based on the rules in the game. I just think the tightness of the game structure frightens some people away from this approach.

Similar to above, you don't need a map to play 4e. It can be run TotM, just like any other edition. Another example for you: I ran an Epic (lvl 30) adventure for my players during a 12 hr car ride (minivan actually). 6 hours one way and 6 hours back. We had no grid or minis and we rolled our dice in a box so we wouldn't loose them. It was actually the most epic adventure I ran in 4e and it was completely TotM.

The long van ride game session yup been there.