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

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll cheerfully agree with Crazy Jerome that this isn't the best rules text or guidance ever. But I think the intent is clear - the gameworld is to be presented in such a way as to make sense of the scaling difficulty. It also has a clear presupposition - higher level PCs will be spending their time in the Underdark, and not in higher dungeon levels - and hence the issue of "What is the DC for a mundane lock, or mundane slime, when the party is Epic tier?" simply won't arise.

I think the intent is clear to those who are already somewhat familiar with the techniques--from other games, personal experience, etc.--or are predisposed to want to play that way.

For most everyone else, I believe it is like reading one of those assembly directions loosely translated from Chinese--you've put stuff together before, and you sort of know how to navigate the confusing parts, and you've got all the parts right there in your living room floor--but it still takes a few tries and false starts to get it together the way it was intended. It is really easy to get one key part on backwards such that it will somewhat work as intended, and then think that is as good as it gets.

It also doesn't help that there are at least three differing authorial voices in the first three core books, and they don't always agree on how things are done. (I say at least three, because that is all I have identified. Given how fractured the text is at places, there could easily be more.)

This is, BTW, one place where 3E is vastly superior to 4E core three. Despite a few problems in the 3E PHB, DMG, and MM as far as cross references of meaning and redundant text, each book stands alone with a very clear voice.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Or maybe you don't let some convoluted system ruin your game, when they fail the "challenge".

Since one of the fundamental aspects of skill challenges are "do not let failure become a roadblock" this should not happen in a well-designed skill challenge. A failure should lead to a new snag, another obstacle to overcome. Could the possession scenario work without a SC? Of course. But using one to accomplish it is not badwrongfun no matter how much you try to state it as so.

Upon suspecting the Duke to be a demon, if there were clues being led to it, the party has already passed the challenge. Why then force them to backtrack to failure? Why not let them just go around asking and let them find the info needed to "prove it".

The work the party already did could count towards successes in a skill challenge. And if the DM had anticipated this thread in the story, he could have set up the challenge from the beginning. A skill challenge has no set time limit. It doesn't have to be completed before moving on to other things.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Having Dexterity as a stat, EVERY edition has had "fumble" rules. 3rd even gave them DCs, Icy +5 to difficulty or some such.

Fumble rules mean that any character of any level can fail at any task at a certain level of frequency. In 3E, if your Balance skill is high enough you will NEVER trip over a street gutter by the rules as written.

Again, thanks in part to MrMyth, I am now seeing skill challenges as just a means to power level. They don't exist to pose a challenge/obstacle, or resolve one, they exist only to offer more XP.

I won't fall back into and make the mistake again of thinking them as something worthwhile, but view them flatly as the excuse to give more XP that they are, with no other redeeming qualities.

Then you are misreading people's points on skill challenges. They are a tool for the DM to create interesting non-combat encounters. They should only be used when there is an actual challenge to the PCs skills. And if you are challenging the characters, why should they not gain experience?

You can think them useless all you want, but I think you're missing out on a useful edition-neutral tool.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I am observing that in 3e, I can know my character's capability of defeating a 1st level orc warrior, or picking a secure but basically ordinary lock. In 4e, I know none of these things. An "ordinary orc" is probably scaled to my level. A secure but ordinary lock probably doesn't have a suggested DC; if it does, that's somewhat useful in an ordinary situation, but becomes irrelevant if the GM frames the scene as a skill challenge involving lock picking.

In 3E the orc is probably scaled to your level too by giving it class levels. The flipside: The 4E DM can just as easily throw a lower-level threat at the party, just like a 3E DM could throw 1st-level Orc Warriors at a 10th-level party. Ordinary locks do have a set DC in 4E. Any lock worthy of a skill challenge would not be an ordinary lock.

In 3e, my character's capabilities, at some level, relate to the imaginary world. In 4e, they primarily relate to the GM's chosen difficulty level.

No, in 3E they relate to the EL the DM chooses. In 4E they relate to the Level the DM chooses. Less has changed than you think.

Just as an example, upthread, I mentioned a balance check as part of getting into a castle, and gave an example of someone using an older version of D&D improvising an ability check. In 3e, most characters will face a somewhat quantifiable level of difficulty. Some characters would make such a Balance check each and every time. In 4e, the DC could vary wildly from a (shall we say) pedestrian difficulty to a fairly formidable difficulty if the GM decides it's part of a skill challenge.

Nope. The DC should be set by the actual walkway. If that gives a highly-skilled PC an auto-success, so be it.

Skill challenges are supposed to add drama, but since the GM sets every aspect of the difficulty, and the base DCs generally scale to level, it's actually a routlette game in disguise, with the GM setting house odds.

The roulette game was when you chose your DM. Some DMs use the skill challenge tool poorly and ignore all advice on designing them. Others would avoid the false dilemmas you pose.

 

[billd91]

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.

Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?

But dictated by the mechanics? Not really. You're viewing it just through the filter of the mechanics, which themselves are meant to model a character getting better at a fairly static task. Simple locks are only going to be so hard. Eventually someone who gets better at picking those locks is going to find them very easy to do in very little time. And that's true in reality as well as in 3e D&D. The mechanical representation of that lets you know when that occurs in a way that our real world really can't but it's not simply a case of waving your hands around and saying that the mechanics have rendered simple locks irrelevant at 10th level. Simple locks are rendered irrelevant because they're simple devices vulnerable to superior ability.

 

[Bluenose]

Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?

But dictated by the mechanics? Not really. You're viewing it just through the filter of the mechanics, which themselves are meant to model a character getting better at a fairly static task. Simple locks are only going to be so hard. Eventually someone who gets better at picking those locks is going to find them very easy to do in very little time. And that's true in reality as well as in 3e D&D. The mechanical representation of that lets you know when that occurs in a way that our real world really can't but it's not simply a case of waving your hands around and saying that the mechanics have rendered simple locks irrelevant at 10th level. Simple locks are rendered irrelevant because they're simple devices vulnerable to superior ability.

It might of course be fictional, though there's more than one historical reference, but the Gordian Knot doesn't seem to have worked that way. Make that into a lock, and you've got a suitable test.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Frankly, shouldn't locks no longer be more than mild speed bumps once you hit 10th level or higher? For that matter, why does the idea of a mechanical lock need to be relevant if PCs really are adventuring in more and more dangerous locations? Shouldn't the high level rogue be able to rest on his laurels and let his well-invested skill breeze him through locks?

If a group wants to do that, nothing stops them. If they are playing more or less by the rules, the group won't get any XP from the rogue breezing through those locks, but presumably they are getting something else more satisfying to them--the fun of resting on laurels and so breezing.

OTOH, from a game design perspective, you either want to extend the sweet spot of fun level play* as far as possible, or you think some other competing concern is more important. If you think extending the sweet spot is more important, then embedding into the system, resting on your laurels and breezing through challenges, is going to be a mare's nest. It's not entirely impossible to navigate in theory, but in practice the effort fails. Sure, if locks are the only such compromise, then you can get away with it. But if the rogue gets to do that, what does everyone else get to breeze through? What does the rogue get for groups that do a lot of wilderness adventure, without locks for him to breeze through?

Happily, in this particular instance, the game designers don't have to make that choice. They can work to extend the sweet spot as much as possible. They are providing a good way to measure. Now that you have that measurement, you can do anything you want with it, including deliberately go counter to it.

* As defined by many people as existing, though naturally there are disagreements about the exact range of levels that qualify.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another reason not yet mentioed why 4E is not as popular as it could have been: The designers gave up on some efforts as a lost cause. This managed to annoy all the people who didn't agree that the cause was lost, had another dog in the fight which this giving up undermined, or didn't understand the problem in the first place. And of course, when you give up a lost cause, you don't always have a clever solution that satisfies all the competing concerns, either. Major annoyance thus results.

See, for example, "People think of wizards as Gandalf or Merlin. They are supposed to be better than everyone else. But Arthur and Aragon and Frodo and the young Galahad have to matter. So we'll make wizardry have a steep learning curve! Oops, tried that, some issues arose. We'll make Frodo critical to the story! Oops, tried that, some other issues arose. I know, we'll give Frodo and Aragon some equipment! Dang it, you guessed it! Aw hell, let's just chuck the whole problem. If someone wants Gandalf, they can give the wizard an extra 5 or 10 levels and be done with it."

What was it Einstein said? That for every problem, there is a solution that is obvious, simple, and wrong. All of those prior efforts met that criteria. Finally, someone comes up with a solution that is rather simple, but not so obvious and certainly effective. But it takes guts to make it.

Because you've just united in their cheezed off state everyone who liked wizards being overpowered at high levels, everyone who liked them being weak at low levels, who liked it being built into the rules that Frodo had to carve out a story niche to matter and that Aragon needed to be the king, and so forth and so on. These people don't even necessarily like or agree with each other, but they are all in agreement that your decision sucks. Note that there is nothing in the rules that says their group can't run the game to suit their preferences. But now they will have to ask for it, because there is nothing in the rules that validates their preferences, either. If they think that perhaps their group will not want to give them their desires, they are doubly cheesed.

Making hard choices always makes you unpopular with some people.

 

[Nagol]

That only makes something less popular if you don't recruit enough new blood to replace the cheesed off groups.

If you don't manage the recruitment then the question to be asked is why were those hard choices made? If it was to improve popularity, which choicesdidn't provide the expected benefit?

 

[MrMyth]

I've heard this defense before and I find it unconvincing, and I'd point back at the comment I quoted by Pemerton. The difference is in how the game has changed its approach to the issue of building in situations for PCs to encounter. The problem that I see is that, in Pemerton's quote, the implication is that the DM didn't describe up the lock to match the selected difficulty. That's putting the cart in front of the horse as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather the game encourage DMs to decide what sort of lock was appropriate for the situation and have the DC determined from there.

I can't really argue with that. I think we're arguing for the same thing here, and I guess what I'm trying to say is that the scaling DCs of 4E are built to be able to be used in exactly that fashion - even if there are those who don't use them that way. And, instead, just scale them to the characters directly.

You're right, it's not. But notice we're getting there from the situation and not from picking the right difficulty for the PC rogue. If we happen to assign them a level from the DC the lock may be, then we're moving in the right direction. But that's not what I think 4e is conditioning people to do and it's not the impression I got from Pemerton's post.

Yeah, that was part of what I was saying - there is definite a misperception that the DCs are connected to the characters. I think the intent - and they way I use them - is to scale them to the challenge. You don't pick a DC in relation to the PC rogue, you pick a DC in relation to the lock.

Now, most times, those two are relatively connected - your Paragon rogue probably is trying to break into the king's vault, not into some commoner's house or into Ioun's Library. But you still have those DCs if, for whatever reason, the PC goes after such places.

If there is a conditioning in effect, I think it is an unintentional one. And that may well be a problem nonetheless - but I don't think this method of use is the intent of the rules in any way.

It's not relatively cheap for a hireling who makes 2-3 silver pieces a day, nor even for the professional who may make about 10 gp a week. Is he really going to save 15 weeks of wages for a lock?
For successful adventurers and other powerful people, sure, they'll have the better locks. They can easily afford it. But again, this is about looking at the context in which that lock will appear and not looking at the context of the person who will be trying to pick it.

The problem is in locks already start at 20gp. That's out of range for many commoners anyway. Once you get into those who can afford that lock - how big a jump is it to the more expensive ones? I mean, we're talking something in the same price range as chainmail, an everburning torch, etc. Beyond the first level or two, how many times will the PCs be trying to break into a place where it wouldn't be appropriate for the person to use a superior lock, strictly based on the price?

I admit, this is somewhat of a tangent, and more tied into 3rd Edition's pricing of a random item on the equipment list than any instrinstic element of the system. And yet, I think this is somewhat the goal of 4E's abstraction of DCs, to avoid having different warring details lead to such inconsistencies. That doesn't necessarily make it the better approach, but I do like having it as an option.

Ideally, we have both - scaling DCs to easily use when desired, plus hard numbers for when appropriate.

4e has taken whatever balance D&D had between tailored and status quo situations (to borrow terms in the 3e DMG) that helped to keep a game reasonable for player characters while also adding to the immersiveness of the world and tossed it firmly in the direction of tailored.

I just don't quite see that as true. Nothing stops me in 4E from having encounters and challenges of different levels. Abstracting the reasons for the DCs doesn't prevent me from still have status quo situations - the fact I look on a chart instead of an equipment table to determine the DC of the king's chamber doesn't mean it automatically becomes a 'reasonable' challenge for level 2 PCs unless I decide it should be.