Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[KidSnide]

Non-adventuring skills matter (and deserve mechanics) when they apply to a type of action that is a major focus of the campaign. If 30% of the campaign is non-adventuring, than the PCs should each have a non-adventuring niche (appropriate to the campaign) so they can each shine in a distinct way.

Yeah, OTOH there are a few things that can be said about that. Campaigns where the PCs are spending a lot of the focus on things besides adventuring are a pretty small minority IME.

...

As for say 'intrigue' well, isn't that actually really well covered already? It is fundamentally an adventuring activity. It is going to rely on stealth, observation, persuasion, etc. All of these are core 4e skills and there are good solid rules for them and plenty of ways that players can tweak their characters to reflect any particular archetype they want.

I think a difference of terminology is confusing the discussion. When I referred to "non-adventuring activity," I meant to include intrigue, kingdom management, hex-crawl exploration, mass combat, economic activity, magical research, etc. I'm happy to choose another term, but there's a term for all the stuff that happens in a game that doesn't involve puzzles, traps or defeating enemies in small-unit combats. D&D is focused on dungeoneering, but lots of campaigns have a substantial non-dungeoneering components.

As far as intrigue is concerned, yes, there are rules for some of this material, but - IME - intrigue involves many issues of contacts, status, authority, and other parts of character history that the rules touch on very lightly. And, while the rules do provide social skills (bluff, diplomacy, insight, etc...), most of the intrigue-heavy games I'm aware of either ignore those rules, rewrite them or spend much of the campaign arguing about how they don't really work.

-KS

 

[Quickleaf]

The ranger knacks (from HotFK) actually seem like a great way to introduce "non-adventuring" talents with niche protection.

I was hoping themes would deliver something along those lines but I haven't seen utility powers that scream use outside of the skill system.

For example, in an intrigue heavy campaign at the very least I'd want to see "skill challenges" (in the Iron Heroes sense), optional increase in DC to gain an enhanced effect. Going deeper, a system of contacts a la Shadowrun could go a long way, as could a reputation/allegiance system.

I disagree with the premise that just because "non-adventuring" aspects aren't the centerpiece of most campaigns, they don't merit rules attention. Such things as kingdom management, intrigue, mass combat, et cetera can still be fun additions to any campaign for few sessions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The optional increase of DC was the initial design previewed at a con. And it incended a big flamewar how players may be allowed to decide themself, how difficult they want to have their challenge...
(Not that a usual skill check also works that way: a player tells the DM what he wants to do and the DM sets the DC... why not figure out that DC together?)

 

[TwoSix]

Based on the new article, I'd say Dark Sun style themes are now a definite gap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a difference of terminology is confusing the discussion. When I referred to "non-adventuring activity," I meant to include intrigue, kingdom management, hex-crawl exploration, mass combat, economic activity, magical research, etc. I'm happy to choose another term, but there's a term for all the stuff that happens in a game that doesn't involve puzzles, traps or defeating enemies in small-unit combats. D&D is focused on dungeoneering, but lots of campaigns have a substantial non-dungeoneering components.

No, it is an OK term. You may be considering a broader range of elements is all. I would consider many of those things 'adventuring'. Exploration, mass combat, most intrigue I would consider adventuring, though they probably aren't the most common ones they are pretty typical. It is a fuzzy line anyway.

As far as intrigue is concerned, yes, there are rules for some of this material, but - IME - intrigue involves many issues of contacts, status, authority, and other parts of character history that the rules touch on very lightly. And, while the rules do provide social skills (bluff, diplomacy, insight, etc...), most of the intrigue-heavy games I'm aware of either ignore those rules, rewrite them or spend much of the campaign arguing about how they don't really work.

-KS

I just don't understand how "contacts, status, authority,..." can be covered by rules in any reasonable way. Any such set of rules presented by the game would lock you into a very specific type of social structure for instance. I don't even know how a rule for 'authority' could exist. How would rules have much of anything to do with contacts either? These all to me seem like setting or specific adventure issues.

 

[Argyle King]

A way for Mounts to level up would be nice... or, at the very least, a wider selection of mounts.

 

[Quickleaf]

I just don't understand how "contacts, status, authority,..." can be covered by rules in any reasonable way. Any such set of rules presented by the game would lock you into a very specific type of social structure for instance. I don't even know how a rule for 'authority' could exist. How would rules have much of anything to do with contacts either? These all to me seem like setting or specific adventure issues.

Shoot, off the top of my head I can think of several sources which provided good rules support for those thing...

Governing a Territory / Authority
Book of Strongholds & Dynasties (Mongoose)
Dynasties & Demagogues (Atlas Games)
Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe (expeditious retreat press)
Even Basic D&D had "confidence" levels in chapter 12: strongholds and dominions.

Reputation / Status / Allegiance
World of Darkness (incorporated into advantage system)
Reputation :: d20srd.org
Paranoia (secret society allegiances)
...and didn't d20 Modern have some kind of allegiance rules?

Contacts
Shadowrun

I'm sure other people have more examples, but the point of those examples is to show 'proof of concept' - RPGs have dealt with these things in the rules before, to varying degrees of success sure, but it's there.

?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Shoot, off the top of my head I can think of several sources which provided good rules support for those thing...

Governing a Territory / Authority
Book of Strongholds & Dynasties (Mongoose)
Dynasties & Demagogues (Atlas Games)
Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe (expeditious retreat press)
Even Basic D&D had "confidence" levels in chapter 12: strongholds and dominions.

Reputation / Status / Allegiance
World of Darkness (incorporated into advantage system)
Reputation :: d20srd.org
Paranoia (secret society allegiances)
...and didn't d20 Modern have some kind of allegiance rules?

Contacts
Shadowrun

I'm sure other people have more examples, but the point of those examples is to show 'proof of concept' - RPGs have dealt with these things in the rules before, to varying degrees of success sure, but it's there.

?

I think the issue is always the same issue with this kind of stuff. You can find very specific implementations which (at best) capture some aspect of this kind of thing that is useful within ONE setting or environment, or one narrow style of play. It is MUCH more difficult (I would say impossible in most cases) to make some kind of generic systems for these things that work in most games. Beyond that they have a somewhat negative effect. Once you have some 'Prestige' system that works adequately for a given setting/genre/playstyle it becomes the defacto approach everyone expects for every similar situation. Yet I do not believe you can make a Prestige system that would adequately cover Feudal Japan, Renaissance Italy, Dark Ages Europe, and Arabian Nights. Nor would every playstyle or genre really benefit from the same approach even for a specific setting.

Likewise with things like realm rules. There are a lot of different styles of play where things like building castles, commanding armies, fighting mass battles, etc could occur. For instance my group would be utterly uninterested in playing through mechanically based mass combats, nor do they fit terribly well with my own DMing style and setting (though I've been a TT minis gamer for years and enjoy mass battles MYSELF, the players I have do not in general).

IMHO the thing that is most useful for these kinds of play are general articles giving the DM and players ideas and outlining possible approaches. I'm OK with some UA article or tutorial article where someone goes into enough detail to allow someone to mechanically support these things in a specific way where they find that useful. I am just not convinced that the Big Book of How to Run a Kingdom or The Big Book of Intrigue and Politics is a great idea.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]
You're dismissing the idea of social rules (contacts, reputation, kingdom building) because they are "too genre specific"? You think that any rules system which tries to do them all justice would suck, is that right?

This is 4th edition D&D were talking about right? I mean if you're playing in a feudal japan setting, you dang well expect to make serious rules changes/adaptations! No offense but those settings you listed are kind of niche. You could argue that monster of the "Aberrant" type are setting specific, after all I may not want Cthulut in my Camelot! But that doesn't mean it's a losing business proposition to include them in a monster book.

Hmmm. I just argued that 4th edition isn't friendly to historical facsimile campaigns and here I am suggesting rules for reputation and kingdom-building. What am I thinking? :/ Back to the dungeon - it's safer there!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred
You're dismissing the idea of social rules (contacts, reputation, kingdom building) because they are "too genre specific"? You think that any rules system which tries to do them all justice would suck, is that right?

This is 4th edition D&D were talking about right? I mean if you're playing in a feudal japan setting, you dang well expect to make serious rules changes/adaptations! No offense but those settings you listed are kind of niche. You could argue that monster of the "Aberrant" type are setting specific, after all I may not want Cthulut in my Camelot! But that doesn't mean it's a losing business proposition to include them in a monster book.

Hmmm. I just argued that 4th edition isn't friendly to historical facsimile campaigns and here I am suggesting rules for reputation and kingdom-building. What am I thinking? :/ Back to the dungeon - it's safer there!

LOL. Honestly I do understand why people want this kind of stuff. It is hard to properly articulate my lack of enthusiasm for it. I don't think there IS or at least SHOULD BE a really truly 'generic' setting. I don't see D&D as so much of a 'kitchen sink' kind of thing where there needs to be a default assumed approach to everything that is detailed in the rules. EVERY setting is as unique as Feudal Japan, they all deserve unique treatment. There are many sorts of creatures for instance that I don't use in the game I'm running now. I agree, that isn't an argument for them to not exist, but creatures aren't general rules either, so the comparison isn't that good.

I dunno, maybe there's someone that can pull off a book about topic X in a way that is clever enough that it can cover a variety of styles etc as variations within a larger framework. I'd not insist that every possible variation would be covered as some of them really are niche enough that they don't justify that. I haven't seen that pulled off yet is all. Of course there's plenty of material out there I've not seen either.

My basic feeling is the core skills system coupled with other related character options IS the basement level of most of these kinds of things. Once you get more specific than that things get more problematic. Then again there are certainly some areas where I'd be happy to see more specific stuff. For instance nautical stuff. The thing there is it is far more about covering a technical area (sailing and related stuff) vs a cultural/social aspect of play. So I'd make a distinction there. A good discussion of how castles are built and how much they cost etc could fall into that category as well. Of course we do have some (admittedly pretty general) construction rules now. I thought that was a very nice UA article and really hit a good balance point. You could get more detailed in one game or just use it as-is in another. You could ignore it and do something else entirely and since it isn't core rules nobody is likely to complain.