A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Imaro]

And how do you know it is a "Simple Lock?" For that matter, why is the simple lock DC20?

Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such... "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a simple make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."

 

[Imaro]

Imaro - the problem is, do you want your game world to be dictated by the game rules? Seems like 3e would actually be limiting here, since in game world elements are dictated by the rules, not by the game world, or by the DM.

I've said this multiple times before. 3e does a 3e game world fantastically.

What? How is it anymore dictated by the game rules than 4e's Heroic Lock, Paragon Lock or Epic Lock...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Because, a high-dex 1st level character can easily have a +8 modifier on the roll, so hitting a DC 20 is a decent shot, but not an outright given, for a generic 1st level character of the sort you'd expect to be picking locks.

It is a genre thing, really: Starting characters have a shot at dealing with simple, basic stuff, but it isn't handed to them on a silver platter.

Yes, precisely. That's why the DCs in 4e are set the same, is what I'm getting at

The difference is that in 4e the DCs remain a constant for level-appropriate, whereas in 3e "level appropriate" vanishes by, like, level 3.

Uhm, because the DM would describe it as such... "Before you is an old and rusted lock... as you examine it you realize it is of a simple make and crude design, something only the poor or cheap would use to guard their wares."

And if your DM said that and didn't use a Simple Lock?

You're basing your entire argument around pure metagame - around knowing exactly the DCs to any and all locks you encounter.

 

[Hussar]

Because, a high-dex 1st level character can easily have a +8 modifier on the roll, so hitting a DC 20 is a decent shot, but not an outright given, for a generic 1st level character of the sort you'd expect to be picking locks.

It is a genre thing, really: Starting characters have a shot at dealing with simple, basic stuff, but it isn't handed to them on a silver platter.

Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.

What? How is it anymore dictated by the game rules than 4e's Heroic Lock, Paragon Lock or Epic Lock...

You can't have it both ways though. In 3e, locks are dictated by the mechanics. In 4e locks are dictated by the in game situation. A lock is as complicated as the DM deems it needs to be to make the game interesting, instead of the mechanics telling the DM that the lock must be a particular DC.

If I want the lock to be very difficult, I can, regardless of how skilled the PC's are. In 3e, the lock is dictated by the mechanics and I have to over rule the mechanics (something I certainly can do) in order to make the lock fit the setting.

Thus, locked doors remain in play regardless of the PC's level, whereas in 3e, locks as written stop being challenges by a certain level. And that level isn't all that high with the Take 20 rule in play. A by the book, most difficult lock, pre-epic, only needs a character with a +21 skill check to be automatically bypassable. +21 skill check is reachable by about 10th level without too much difficulty. So, in 3e, locks become redundant about 10th level.

All dictated by the mechanics.

See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways. If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative. They have to. You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative.

Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility. OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I was meaning repercussions of the in-game variety. If the PCs are far enough along an "interesting" situation and decide to abandon it, shouldn't those actions often have an effect on the world that should have consequence?


*edit* In other words shouldn't an abandoned skill challenge almost be the equivalent of a failed one?

Ah, I see. Abandoning the interesting situation would have in-game repercussions. But we aren't abandoning the situation. The situation just isn't a skill challenge anymore.

I have in my notes that the Wererat Lords' nefarious scheme to intercept the mail may involve a skill challenge, perhaps with some skills that i think the players are likely to want to use. Sure enough, they start out using Streetwise to get information about a rumor they heard about a plot to mess with the mail, and this leads them to the sewers.

But from there, nothing happens the way I expect. It turns out that a lured ambush of the wererats just isn't that compelling as a skill challenge (in this particular case; it might be at other times), but does rapidly escalate into a running battle in the sewers. This could be because of the exact framing of the Streetwise check caused them to focus on some clue. It could be because of some information they picked up in a pure roleplaying scene with some sewer sweepers (i.e. no skill check). Or it could be that the players have had a bad week and just want to kick fur and take names.

The party fights their way down to the wererat lord and takes him out. Whereas maybe with the skill challenge, they simply avoid all the other fights in the sewers and go straight to him. No skill challenge took place, but the situation is resolved more or less the same.

This is totally separate from the party decides that nefarious underground criminals can mess with the mail all they want. The party will just be careful to not send anything valuable in the mail. They may go off and do some unrelated skill challenge. Meanwhile, the repercussions of not dealing with the mail issue are allowed to develop.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You're basing your entire argument around pure metagame - around knowing exactly the DCs to any and all locks you encounter.

That argument is not pure metagame. It is a lot of metagame, but also metagame grounded in the fiction through a particular preference on how things are named or described. I can see people preferring that, for immersion if nothing else.

I bet Imaro and pawsplay like fairly detailed PC backgrounds, too. I don't recall them saying. I'm basing that guess on nothing more than the way I understand their preferences here.

I was thinking on my drive home that one of the ways in which people don't understand my preferences is that our group is very "impressionistic" in our approach. We do prefer a certain amount of abstraction, too, but I've been sloppily talking about "abstraction" versus "detail," when the opposite of "abstraction" is "concrete." "Detail," in the way many people use it for roleplaying games, is often the opposite of "impressionistic."

I go looking through the 2E monster manual--or even more telling, one of the Forgotten Realms 2E specialty priests books, I'm looking for little gems that spark my imagination. The details are rather numbing otherwise. Then I remembered that people complained about the 4E monster manual because it had so little text--it is a boring read. It is to me, too, but I don't want to read it anymore than I want to that specialty priest book. The little gems are still there. They are just names of powers, or a knowledge check, or whatnot, and I'll find them looking up a monster for an idea, or browsing half asleep--not reading them straight.

It is very much the way I used to lay on the couch when I was 5, on a rainy day, and study the Monet street scene that hung in our living room. All the really interesting stuff that happens in our games comes out of impressions gained like that, or gained during play based off of the impression created by everyone at the table. We've never done much of anything with lots of details written about X.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, given the Take 20 rule, there is no way a 1st level character cannot unlock a DC 20 lock.

Sure there is- if he starts taking 20 when he doesn't realize it isn't safe to do so.

 

[pemerton]

In other words shouldn't an abandoned skill challenge almost be the equivalent of a failed one?

I think the answer to this is sometimes.

An example: Suppose the skill challenge is an overland travel one. And suppose the GM has decided that on an exceptionally successful Perception or Nature check, the PCs also discover a crossing trail that leads to location XYZ. The GM's assumption is that if the PCs discover this, they will make a note of it, and when they get to their destination will sell the information to NPC A, who is known to be searching for XYZ. But in fact, when the PCs discover the trail, they head off to XYZ themselves.

What has happened here? It's not a failed skill challenge, just an abandoned one. How should the GM handle it. My default is to record the state of the challenge at that point, and then once the PCs have finished with XYZ, and continue on their way, to take up where the challenge left off. But in some circumstances - eg if the trip to XYZ ends up taking a year of game time and sees the PCs gain 5 levels - then maybe this really wouldn't make sense. The challenge has been completely superceded.

Another example: The skill challenge is a negotiation one. The PCs are negotiating with a devil general. Negotiations are getting more and more tense, with the PCs on two failures and not having accumulated many successes. The PC rogue suddenly draws her sword and attacks the devil!, and the rest of the party follows her lead so as to capitalise on the surprise round. This is a decision to abandon negotiations. In some respects the consequences are the same as a failed challenge - the devil hasn't been persuaded to do whatever the PCs were wanting it to do! But it's not identical to a failed challenge - for example, the PCs haven't made whatever offers or compromises they might have made if they had decided to continue negotiating.

General conclusion: the consequences for abandoning a skill challenge will depend on the details of the fictional situation, just as do the consequences for succeeding or failing at one.

EDIT: I missed Crazy Jerome's reply. I think his reply, and what I've said here, are broadly on the same page.

 

[pemerton]

I go looking through the 2E monster manual--or even more telling, one of the Forgotten Realms 2E specialty priests books, I'm looking for little gems that spark my imagination. The details are rather numbing otherwise. Then I remembered that people complained about the 4E monster manual because it had so little text--it is a boring read. It is to me, too, but I don't want to read it anymore than I want to that specialty priest book. The little gems are still there. They are just names of powers, or a knowledge check, or whatnot, and I'll find them looking up a monster for an idea, or browsing half asleep--not reading them straight.

This fits my experience also. (Except I actually didn't find the MM boring - but I didn't find it boring because I found it to be packed full of the "little gems" you describe, whether in the powers or the intro text or the lore entries.)

 

[pemerton]

See, the problem I have with this is people seem to want it both ways. If 4e divorces the mechanics from the narrative, and 3e doesn't, that means that 3e mechanics dictate the narrative. They have to. You cannot link the mechanics to the narrative without having the mechanics dictate the narrative.

Now, divorcing the mechanics from the narrative has problems - CaGI is a good example, but, OTOH, it has some advantages too - greater flexibility. OTOH, wedding mechanics to narrative has some advantages - greater consistency, and some disadvantages, less flexibility.

Hussar, come over to my "Actual Play - balance between mechanics and fiction" thread. Besides demonstrating sympathy towards, and use of, the metagame aspect of Come and Get It, it also has people talking about the relationship between mechanics and narrative.