Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5459971" data-attributes="member: 42582">If by "holdings" you mean this economic element, then I'm happy to say 4e has no support.I think there are other ways holdings can be important in a game - I'm thinking of the way relationships work in HeroWars/Quest, for example, where they can be used as Augments. 4e would handle this sort of stuff as part of the setting up of a skill challenge - that is, whether or not a PC is a Knight Commander of a castle should make a difference to (i) the framing of a "ducal negotiation" skill challeneg, (ii) the skills that PC uses (eg Stealth probably becomes more difficult, but Diplomacy easier), and (iii) the results of particular skill resolutions.Again, my feeling is that it depends on what you're trying to achieve in your game. If I wanted to introduce a "stronghold management" dimension into my fantasy RPG I woudn't use 4e. 1st ed AD&D has some rules, although they're pretty sparse. I don't know Magic Medieval World cover to cover, but my feeling is that that might be a place to start.On the other hand, when it comes to ducal negotiations - which is the part of a holdings-focused game that I'm personally more interested in - AD&D doesn't give me much beyond the reaction table and morale rules. 4e, on the other hand, gives me skill challenges, which establish parameters for DCs and for the ratio of success-to-failure points to suit purposes of pacing and difficulty. In DMG2 I also get advice at the metagame level of how much benefit to a given skill check a player should get for expending various sorts of resoruces (money, power-usages, etc).Some people don't feel that the skill challenge framework adds anything. Fair enough. My own view is that, having GMed a lot of unstructured social skill resolution using Rolemaster, the introduction of structure makes a lot of difference. I find it makes it easier for players to inject their own conception of how the scene should unfold, and makes it more likely that outcomes will result which no one anticipated going into the challenge. This latter happens because the structure requires the participants in the game to make certain decisions about the state of the gameworld at certain times, that are responsive to the unfolding prior state of the gameworld. And then the mechanics also determine that at certain points (ie when successes are scored) those decisions become locked in, as true of the gameworld.(This also connects to the idea in my previous post that different games can place more or less emphasis on predetermination of theme and content.)There are differences of detail in the skill challenge mechanics from the Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel, or Extended Contests in HeroWars/Quest. But the basic idea of the mechanic is in my view pretty similar. And I see it as having roughly the same virtues (or flaws, for those who don't like this sort of mechanic).I don't see how this doesn't fall foul of your own objection. 3E DDG, in its section on divine ascension, leaves it up to the GM. I'm pretty sure there is no ECL-style mechanic for divine ranks. At 18th+, or even epic levels (as per the Handbook), there is no mechanical way of saying "I'm a demigod".In 4e becoming a demigod is an option built seamlessly into the core rules on character build and development. Not only is this a point on which I think that 4e is clearly different from 3E, I think it tells us a lot about what 4e is (thematically) concerned with. And I think, in turn, that this is part of what causes some of the objections to the way 4e treats the Martial power source. For those who see even an 18th level fighter in 3E as still just a really tough mortal (like Conan, say), then the 4e treatment of the martial epic tier - and the way that then ramifies back through even the lower-level martial powers - is always going to be objectionable, I think.I think this is sort of right, but incomplete. It's about how the resolution system is "filled in". 4e's structure gives the players and GM certain guarantees: that the risks will be of a certain degree, that the pacing will work in a certain way, etc. Metagame guarantees, if you like, about some basic features of the play experience. But it demands that the players and GM feed in the actual content. (Again, in my view a lot like HeroWars/Quest).3E doesn't make those demands. But it doesn't give those sorts of guarantees either. (And again, this is not a criticism. It's a diagnosis of different mechanical systems.)These skills all exist in 4e as well (Sense Motive renamed as Insight). It's the way they're used that's different. Skill challenge resolution is very different from "free form" social skill resolution, and from making a single roll against a single DC to see whether you influence the person or not.Again, like HeroWars/Quest. (Which nevertheless, these days, bill itself - not implausibly - as a universal game. I don't think 4e can be a universal game because of (i) it's combat engine, and (ii) it's very genre-heavy character build rules. But skill challenges themselves are a potentially universal mechanics.)I don't agree the parameters are limited. And the notion that it's not easy to improvise a skill challenge is (in my view) not true at all. I'd add: a 4e GM who can't improvise skill challenges is like an AD&D GM who can't work out what the goblins do when the PCs try to smoke them out of their lair unless the response is written down in the module notes. An AD&D GM, to run the game, has to be able to improvise the dungeon-dwellers' operational responses to unexpected PC activities. A 4e GM, to run the game, has to be able to improvise skill challenges as they unfold in unexpected directions.Now this is a very interesting point. I don't think it's quite true, but it does get at something interesting.First, as to the DCs - the skill challenge rules give guidelines on what sorts of DCs the GM should use. This is the overall guarantee that the players have that the GM is not just trying to crush them. It's a bit like CR/EL in 3E, or the 4e combat encounter building guidelines. Different GMs use different techniques to signal to the players when an encounter is of a strikingly high level - from simply pointing out to players of first level PCs that they see a giant approaching, to more subtle cues or the use of knowledge skills or whatever. All these sorts of techniques are also available in 4e.As to the number of components - on different occasions I do or don't let the players know how many successes they need, just as sometimes in a combat encounter I reveal all the opponents, but on other occasions keep some opponents concealed from the players until the opportune time to strike. (This obviously raises issues along the lines of - if you tricked them once, how can they ever trust you again? But in practice, with people who know one another well, I find this tends not to be such a big issue.)But even when the players are thwarted in a skill challenge because of the number of components, it doesn't follow that the PC was not a good persuader (or climber, or whatever). It's just that despite being a good persuader the challenge was just too great. Too many complications arose. Not unlike looking at your combat stats, knowing that you're a combat god for your level, and nevertheless losing a fight against a giant just because the giant was too tough.I think you are lowballing its capabilities. I think that effects some of your points, but not all of them. And obviously you're under no obligation to actually play the game to see what the truth is. I'm hoping, though, that you'll at least consider the reports of those who have played the game.</blockquote>

Verification