4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Sunseeker]

As someone who very rarely looks at the CharOp boards, could I get a more specific example? I know that when I made my Eladrin Warlord, I perused one of the Charop character guides and it seemed pretty spot on for the most part. It laid out the options available and weighed the pros and cons of each.

Didn't seem too interested in creating characters that didn't fit.

I generally find the CharOP boards to be pretty neutral. They analyze the synergies between powers, point out things that a person might miss or have never have known about, and tell you why a power is good, bad, or variable. It's not an issue of making fitting powers, just a scale of good and useful to bad and worthless.

I browse the CharOP boards to help pick up on things I might otherwise have missed. I still sometimes choose powers that are considered "weak", but I do so because I like them and they fit my character.

 

[LostSoul]

To some extent I will ignore it. I'm also experimenting, in a very modest way, with some ways of trying to handle differences of PC interest within the 4e framework. (Not mechanical techniques so much as approaches to encounter framing and resolution.)

Maybe the easiest way would be to build or use NPC allies that complement the specific PC's role. With that backup NPC support you could probably run a PC - PC battle. e.g. A Defender with three Skirmishers, a Controller, and an Artillery or Lurker vs. A Controller with a pair of Soldiers, a pair of Skirmishers, and Artillery or Lurker.

Anyway, sounds like a cool situation!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Uh? I'll say "not in my mind."

Did you see what I was replying to? This iss essentially the point I was trying to make to Balesir. He said "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..."

I was just pointing out what you said, essentially. This is a problem even in 4e, it's just that 4e closed the gap somewhat.

This is the case if the DM is using "objective" DCs, but certainly not the case if everything scales (which seems the intent of the rules, in my mind, though more explicitly in Essentials than the first PHB, from what I know). If everything scales, you can have the exact same problem that Balesir was saying wasn't there. As always, play what you like


Isn't this essentially the same as, say, a DC 15 check in 3.5? The Wizard with +1 can hit the check, and the specialist basically never fails. Yes, I did agree that the gap closed somewhat, and I still agree with that. I just don't think it closed very meaningfully, unless you use "objective" DCs.

Which is basically the same thing on "Easy" DCs (DC 15 skill check), while "Hard" DCs (DC 30) are only achievable by the specialists. Again, yes, 4e tightened the math here, but not enough to really make a big difference, as long as you scale DCs, in my opinion. You still have "Easy" DCs that untrained people can make, and "Hard" DCs that only specialists can make. It's about the same, from where I'm sitting. As always, play what you like

Not taking sides particularly in this whole debate, but...

The DCs in 4e as of RC are at level 1 8/12/19 and at level 30 22/32/42, so a level 1 PC with a 10 and an off stat needs 8/12/19 to succeed on checks. At level 30 that PC has +16 and now needs 6/16/26, so things get a modest amount worse for them WRT medium and hard DCs. Of course it would be pretty unusual for a PC to get to level 30 and have NOTHING in the way of even a situationally applicable bonus to an off skill check they could apply if it is really urgent, so its reasonable to believe that with a small resource expenditure the PC is in about the same situation at all levels if they gain no bonuses.

OTOH if said character is starting with an off (secondary) stat, of say 14 they start with 6/10/17 and if they put say 4 points into it to get an 18 by level 30 then they're at 3/13/23, and if they got training they've actually improved their chances all around at 1/8/18.

There are MANY MANY ways for characters to increase a skill besides stat bonus increases. It is quite feasible to start with a 10 stat skill at +12 if you really want, +10 is trivial. In some cases you can go higher. Characters routinely achieve bonuses of +60 by 30th level and +40 is quite feasible without stat bonuses (an almost automatic success on any check). This means that characters actually are quite capable of being 'perfect' at any skill, regardless of stat allocation (though it requires non-trivial resources). A good half-elf bard skill monkey can come scarily close to "fail on a 1 for any skill check at all" by level 30, and still be a viable character to boot!

Of course in most games the reality is that characters do have pretty serious and sometimes insurmountable differences in bonuses. DMs often use DCs far above the party level and character with a +5 Perception bonus at 4th level is probably not going to pick up the really hard to spot stuff even if they may have training or a sharp eye. Of course if said character keeps using their skill it probably will pay off now and then, and in the right place at the right time said character may do wonders, even at high levels. They're just not likely to spot the fiendishly nasty trap set by the Master of Deception. Obviously someone else should be available for that task though.

IMHO there is no perfect skill system. 4e's system, though maybe not the only possible good solution, and with a few minor imperfections (fighter skill list) is probably about as strong as any skill system in a feasible RPG of the sort that have skill systems as will ever be. I recall participating in the long and involved debates on the WotC forums that raged for years on the subject. We explored MANY options, and I failed to be convinced of the clear superiority of any of them.

 

[outsider]

And I honestly think you are underestimating the number of players who get enjoyment out of having the most powerful build or being the last one standing and will select powers, feats, themes, and backgrounds based on this. I've seen plenty of threads on rpg forums where people are told to pick a background to get a skill they want that their class doesn't have or a bonus to a skill they really want to be good at (it's amazing how high you can get a skill if you're willing to pump stat, focus, training, racial, background, etc. into it... especially the utility you get out of something like arcana with cantrips) regardless of what the backgound actually is. I also find it strange that a whole sub-forum (CharOps) exists for this type of thing on the game's site, yet people don't believe it could seriously inform the creation of characters at the table...

I'm a powergamer. Was long before the CharOp forum existed. I'm also a roleplayer.

When I design a character, I only have a very vague idea of what it is before I start in on the mechanics. The roleplay aspects of the character form more solidly as the mechanics do. I don't decide to create an aristocrat and just randomly throw on the street urchin background for +2 intimidate or whatever. I decide whether I'm an aristocrat or an urchin by looking at the mechanics, and deciding what I would find fun to play(both via rules and roleplaying).

Then again, I wrote my first computer program when I was 8 years old. I've been turning variables and equations into things that are far more interesting than the sum of their parts for 27 years now. I rarely have any problem converting my pile of numbers into an interesting fictional character.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've seen a few (seemingly) parallel ruminations (upon what I'm not sure to be honest) regarding 4e play that I wish I could understand precisely what the sought end is or at least what mystery is attempting to be penetrated:

1) If a player willfully attempts to narrate the fictional accompaniment to mechanical resolution as utter nonsense; not just divorced from reality, but some kind of Benny Hill caricature...then...what?

2) If a player willfully builds to an incoherent theme (a brave, timid, cowardly, reserved, backstabbing, honorable, lead from the front, reproachful, extroverted paladin vampire) and or plays out some anarchy of a characterization...then...what does that say about 4e thematic play? What if the established creative agenda for the table is coherent thematic play and the rest of the players/GM requests/demands something more fitting? What does that say about protagonist empowerment?

I don't know what either of these two positions attempt to carve out with respect to some sort of insight into the machinery of 4e. The only thing I can surmise of these is:

1) That guy is probably at the wrong table or is trying to have a go. He's certainly not going the route of standard TTRPGing (narrate the fiction in a representative and sensible manner).

2) That guy is probably at the wrong table if the rest of it is invested in a thematically coherent game. He's certainly not interested in the type of play and the type of protagonism they're interested in as he is not only not using the tools available...he's actively working against it.

 

[Sunseeker]

I've seen a few (seemingly) parallel ruminations (upon what I'm not sure to be honest) regarding 4e play that I wish I could understand precisely what the sought end is or at least what mystery is attempting to be penetrated:

1) If a player willfully attempts to narrate the fictional accompaniment to mechanical resolution as utter nonsense; not just divorced from reality, but some kind of Benny Hill caricature...then...what?

He's a bit of a dick, but so what? 4e's not the first edition where people thought it was more fun to be funny than take playtime seriously.

2) If a player willfully builds to an incoherent theme (a brave, timid, cowardly, reserved, backstabbing, honorable, lead from the front, reproachful, extroverted paladin vampire) and or plays out some anarchy of a characterization...then...what does that say about 4e thematic play? What if the established creative agenda for the table is coherent thematic play and the rest of the players/GM requests/demands something more fitting? What does that say about protagonist empowerment?

Absolutely nothing.
First, no edition has ever really stopped a player from playing contradictory elements in a character, since ya know, real people can have contradictory elements to themselves. The previous edition threw so much creative material at everyone it's difficult not to stimulate a desire to be seven different things before breakfast.
Second, table issues are as always, table issues. If the DM is unwilling to take a stand on what they want to see and the players are unwilling to denounce gamesmanship they find inappropriate then what is anyone to do? Do you want D&D to have specific rules that say if Timmy and Jimmy don't think Sally's play is appropriate but don't say anything that everyone should get two negative levels? Should the rules explicitly state when and what kind of behavior should get Johnny kicked from the table and HENCEFORTH BANNED FROM ALL THINGS D&D, SO SAYITH WOTC!!!
-I don't really think that benefits anyone.
If the GM and the players don't like Frankie's playstyle, then they need to stand up and do something about it. I don't think every table needs a special, deputized WOTC "Table Cop" to ensure everyone plays in the agreed-upon manner.

I don't know what either of these two positions attempt to carve out with respect to some sort of insight into the machinery of 4e. The only thing I can surmise of these is:

1) That guy is probably at the wrong table or is trying to have a go. He's certainly not going the route of standard TTRPGing (narrate the fiction in a representative and sensible manner).

2) That guy is probably at the wrong table if the rest of it is invested in a thematically coherent game. He's certainly not interested in the type of play and the type of protagonism they're interested in as he is not only not using the tools available...he's actively working against it.

Alright, so apparently the questions were rhetorical and some players just suck. News at 11!

 

[pemerton]

Maybe the easiest way would be to build or use NPC allies that complement the specific PC's role. With that backup NPC support you could probably run a PC - PC battle. e.g. A Defender with three Skirmishers, a Controller, and an Artillery or Lurker vs. A Controller with a pair of Soldiers, a pair of Skirmishers, and Artillery or Lurker.

That's one option that I haven't really thought about.

At the moment I'm looking at ways of trying to run parallel situations (eg the drow is here doing this thing with Pazuzu; the invoker and tiefling are there doing that other thing with the duergar overlord) in ways that impact one another, so trying to get interactions and synergies of the sort 4e thrives on without the PCs having to be geographically in the same place.

Success has been mixed at best!

Anyway, sounds like a cool situation!

Thanks. It's been interesting for me to see it evolve over time, especially the invoker (the other PCs have stayed more fixed in their outlook, except for the unexpected pact with Kas). At the start of the campaign the PCs were fighting Bane-ite goblins, and that PC (who was at that point a wizard - he changed from human wizard to deva invoker after a traumatic resurrection) was as anti-Bane as the rest of them, and a cultist of the Raven Queen. But then Erathis got dealt in, together with the Rod of 7 Parts, and so did Vecna, and by the end of the goblin-fighting arc (which coincided with the resurrection) he accepted that the temple he was rebuilding was to have an altar not only to Erathis and Ioun and Moradin (because the dwarves helped rebuild it) but also Bane (as the price of Bane agreeing to let him be resurrected).

Fairly early in the campaign the wizard/invoker was also very anti-devils. But then, after his resurrection, he gained a Book Imp familiar - a servant of Levistus placed there at Bane's insistence, to make sure that the PCs' activities didn't offer any succor to Asmodeus (whom Bane and Levistus fear is going to unleash chaos as a result of his obsession with invading the Abyss). He and the tiefling have both since established very good relations with the duergar (who recognised kindred spirits). And at 20th level the players have all added a theme to their PCs (it seemed like a good time to introduce them) and the invoker has taken Devil's Pawn, centred on his Book Imp. It's going to be interestig to see where this PC ends up as the campaign moves into epic tier.

 

[S'mon]

And that 4e is both balanced and has classes and powers set up to reward specific playstyles is the reason I think I've only once seen a PC mismatched with his class. (You were DMing at the time).

Which player/PC was that? Might give me an insight into the objections to what I'm saying. I didn't like Stuart's determinedly pawn stance/mechanistic approach to his PCs, but it wasn't a case of mismatching character with class/powers AFAICR.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Which player/PC was that? Might give me an insight into the objections to what I'm saying. I didn't like Stuart's determinedly pawn stance/mechanistic approach to his PCs, but it wasn't a case of mismatching character with class/powers AFAICR.

Robert/Sir Varis/"Brave Sir Robin" as a Paladin. But then the only way I can think of of running with Robert as an asset would be something like Smallville where the sample PCs include both Clark Kent and Zod.

 

[JamesonCourage]

[SNIP]

IMHO there is no perfect skill system. 4e's system, though maybe not the only possible good solution, and with a few minor imperfections (fighter skill list) is probably about as strong as any skill system in a feasible RPG of the sort that have skill systems as will ever be.

The system that you just described to me sounds usable, but very flawed. So I'll agree to disagree with your assessment. Thanks for the reply, though. As always, play what you like