Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[I'm A Banana]

I'm mostly not responding to every detail because (a) I want to avoid getting bogged down in fairly meaningless specifics and (b) I'm not interested in engaging in edition wars. I want to make sure I stay on-message here: 4e isn't very good when compared with other D&D editions if you're playing a game that doesn't want to focus on combat.

With that said:

But the rules are there for answering the question "Did it work?" (where 'it' is whatever the PC was trying to do). In a combat context you want clear, unambiguous rules because the DM doesn't have a better method for answering the question. In a roleplaying situation allowing some flex makes a lot more sense because roleplaying is inherently more open-ended and subjective than combat. It's just sensible to have different levels of specificity for combat and roleplaying scenarios if you want equally good results in both situations.

It's wrong to assume that more vagueness is a good thing in "roleplaying." It's a matter of focus.

Here is perhaps a heretical thought: Combat is no different from a skill check. They both do the same thing. Combat could be reduced to a skill check.

Understand that, and you begin to understand where I'm coming from.

Rituals are easy and generally well liked. My players love them. Skill challenges are the best innovation of 4e, I love them, have ran dozens, they work great in doing what they are intended to do.

But neither of them can support an mostly noncombat campaign in a satisfying way. It's not what they were designed to do. This leaves a gaping hole in 4e that wasn't so gaping before. They add a few noncombat options to a combat game just fine, but they don't support different genres and playstyles.

Which is really my point: 4e doesn't really support a playstyle that isn't mostly about combat.

No, the game really hasn't.

There's never been a homogenous D&D. I've never met two DMs who have run the same game, even if they've run the same module. I've never met one DM who runs everything exactly by the books. The game is insanely diverse, whether or not it is supposed to be.

Yeah, because skills like diplomacy, streetwise, and arcana cry combat only, as do rituals, skill challenges, extensive sections on campaign design and world building in the DMG, a Roleplaying section in the PHB before any real crunch appears...

Combat is one form of conflict resolution.

What other forms are present in 4e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 4e combat? Heck, half as diverse?

You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as "not working" when legions of players feel otherwise.

It doesn't work if you don't also have combat in it, and it works a lot worse than it did in earlier editions for a host of reasons (especially because every character can do every thing).

Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication. This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math.

How many mistakes were there with the combat math, on publication?

What does that tell you about how important these things are to the designers?

What does that tell you about how much fun a game that focuses on something that the designers didn't even think was important enough to get exactly right on publication might be?

It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, "sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book."

So I assume you use it instead of combat, too, right?

I mean, why use the combat system at all?

The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded.

This is only true if you're only using them to support a combat-focused game, or if you're truly comfortable with open-ended rules.

If it's the latter, would you have a problem with skill challenges replacing combat in your game?

If it's the former, well, that's my point.

 

[Thasmodious]

But neither of them can support an mostly noncombat campaign in a satisfying way. It's not what they were designed to do. This leaves a gaping hole in 4e that wasn't so gaping before.

D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming. Every edition has had a primary focus on combat. It has always been the most detailed system within the game system. If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D? There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs).

This is really propping up a straw man.

"4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions"

"Those editions didn't do games without combat well either"

"Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er."

You're not really arguing anything of value here. That's not the gameplay D&D is built for, in any edition. Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly. Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it?

Which is really my point: 4e doesn't really support a playstyle that isn't mostly about combat.

Neither does any other edition. D&D is mostly about combat. I know, I know, "it does it worse-er"

There's never been a homogenous D&D.

The game has always been the same. Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this. We did it in the early 80s because D&D was about all there was, you didn't have 10 systems for every conceivable style of play. 1e and OD&D weren't built to do noncombat games, they weren't built for games of courtly intrigue. they weren't built for historical, non magic gaming. We did those things more out of necessity than because early D&D built it into the system.

Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do. There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play.

The game is insanely diverse, whether or not it is supposed to be.

This is where the disconnect is. The players are insanely diverse and insanely creative.

Combat is one form of conflict resolution.

What other forms are present in 4e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 4e combat? Heck, half as diverse?

What other forms are present in 3e, 2e, 1e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 3e, 2e, 1e combat. Heck, half as diverse?

None.

How many mistakes were there with the combat math, on publication?

Most of the several pages of errata.

What does that tell you about how important these things are to the designers?

What does that tell you about how much fun a game that focuses on something that the designers didn't even think was important enough to get exactly right on publication might be?

No game has ever been exactly right on publication. There is always errata.

So I assume you use it instead of combat, too, right?

I mean, why use the combat system at all?

Because I am playing D&D.

This is only true if you're only using them to support a combat-focused game

That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute. It is D&D afterall. What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&D were not combat focused. And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&D are combat focused, what are we arguing about? The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions?

I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, if he only spent 2 ranks in skills he should be useless at it, no matter what his level.

Your example about the rogue and cleric doesn't matter if the cleric really needs to make a skill check, and can't rely on the Rogue's success to get him by.

Then what is the state of "2 ranks" for? I am useless at any level? Why do I need to spend 2 points of my in-game resources for it? What's the purpose?

It is as if I could spend points on fractional hit points that always get rounded down. What's the point? Why not just give me a point value to get full hit points?

 

[bouncyhead]

I'm loving this argument. A most entertaining read.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e. I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed. The same thing is true about 4e. The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often. Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on.

The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes. You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt. You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens. Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing.

When you are outside of combat, a LOT more actions become obvious and don't need rolls. If there is a box underneath a bed and someone looks there, they should find it(unless it is particularly dark or well hidden somehow). If someone says "I look under the bed" and the DM says "You find a box", I doubt anyone in the group is going to say "Shouldn't that need a skill check? We need detailed rules for this sort of thing."

That's why the rules are written the way they are in 4e. You need a rule when you want to convince an NPC of something that they don't want to believe, when you want to find something that the DM isn't sure if you'll find or not, when you want to see if you unlock the door or fail, and so on. The skill checks cover nearly every situation that should require a rule for it.

Certainly, they aren't complicated. I will admit that there aren't a lot of exceptions, small bonuses, things to keep track of and so on(like a bunch of rerolls, circumstantial modifiers, powers that work in noncombat situations in quirky ways) like there were in 3.5e.

I wonder if that is what everyone is concerned about. That if you aren't getting "+2 to diplomacy checks with elves who have black shirts" that there isn't enough mechanical diversity in the system. I've found that having those things didn't really add anything to the game. People forget about them 90% of the time and when they do apply and the end effect on the game is:

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get plus +2 against elves because I'm a member of this PrC. I get 24."

vs

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get 22."

In fact, non-combat situations are more fun for me when the rules get out of my way entirely. I'm much more interested in the game where a PC is in the presence of the king being asked to explain what he was doing sneaking around the dungeon and watching the player squirm to come up with an explanation than I am in the game where the same thing happens and the player simply says "I use Bluff to come up with a good reason. I fail? I use my Bluffer PrC power to reroll it. It still doesn't work? Well, my party can aid me, right? Quick everyone, make some aiding rolls. We still failed? Alright, Wizard, cast a Charm Person on him, he won't send us to the dungeon if he's our best friend."

Mechanical options often make for worse games rather than better ones.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Then what is the state of "2 ranks" for? I am useless at any level? Why do I need to spend 2 points of my in-game resources for it? What's the purpose?

It is as if I could spend points on fractional hit points that always get rounded down. What's the point? Why not just give me a point value to get full hit points?

Again it is so there can be degrees. I may have over made the point. 2 points isn't useless. But in relation to the guy with 10 ranks, it kind of is. Still two points gives you a +2 modifier, on top of your relevant attribute. But I being able to make different guys with varying skill levels. The current system is too binary. Even when it was in star wars I wasn't a fan of the you are either trained or not trained in something. I like be able to spread my skill points out the way I want, so in some instance I am a little good at one thing, competent in another, and a god in others.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e. I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed. The same thing is true about 4e. The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often. Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on.

The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes. You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt. You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens. Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing.

When you are outside of combat, a LOT more actions become obvious and don't need rolls. If there is a box underneath a bed and someone looks there, they should find it(unless it is particularly dark or well hidden somehow). If someone says "I look under the bed" and the DM says "You find a box", I doubt anyone in the group is going to say "Shouldn't that need a skill check? We need detailed rules for this sort of thing."

That's why the rules are written the way they are in 4e. You need a rule when you want to convince an NPC of something that they don't want to believe, when you want to find something that the DM isn't sure if you'll find or not, when you want to see if you unlock the door or fail, and so on. The skill checks cover nearly every situation that should require a rule for it.

Certainly, they aren't complicated. I will admit that you aren't a lot of exceptions, small bonuses, things to keep track of and so on(like a bunch of rerolls, circumstantial modifiers, powers that work in noncombat situations in quirky ways) like there were in 3.5e.

I wonder if that is what everyone is concerned about. That if you aren't getting +2 to diplomacy checks with elves who have black shirts on that there isn't enough mechanical diversity in the system. I've just found that having all of those things didn't really add things to the game. People just forget about them 90% of the time when they do apply and the end effect on the game is:

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get plus +2 against elves because I'm a member of this PrC. I get 24."

vs

"I make a Diplomacy check, I get 22."

In fact, non-combat situations are more fun for me when the rules get out of my way entirely. I'm much more interested in the game where a PC is in the presence of the king being asked to explain what he was doing sneaking around the dungeon and watching the player squirm to come up with an explanation than I am in the game where the same thing happens and the player simply says "I use Bluff to come up with a good reason. I fail? I use my Bluffer PrC power to reroll it. It still doesn't work? Well, my party can aid me, right? Quick everyone, make some aiding rolls. We still failed? Alright, Wizard, cast a Charm Person on him, he won't send us to the dungeon if he's our best friend."

Mechanical options often make for worse games rather than better ones.

What you are saying is mechanical diversity doesn't matter for in with non combat skills. But for some of us, it does. It enhances the game just as much as mechanical diversity for combat skills does. In 3.5 I found non-combat skills were used a lot more, and to much greatere effect.
My experience with 3.5 is much different than yours. And so is our experience of 4E.

 

[Rel]

I want to make sure I stay on-message here: 4e isn't very good when compared with other D&D editions if you're playing a game that doesn't want to focus on combat.

This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same). But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus? I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.

 

[ProfessorPain]

This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same). But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus? I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.

AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies (at least second edition did--don't remember what they had in 1st).

 

[La Bete]

This hasn't been my experience at all if I'm comparing 3.x to 4e (I find them about the same). But are you contending that AD&D was superior to 4e for non-combat focus? I mean, I had a TON of fun playing AD&D back in the day but almost the entire reason that I stopped playing D&D and played Rolemaster for a dozen years (missing 2e entirely in the process) was that RM had a non-combat skill system and AD&D didn't.

I am admittedly startled that D&D (whatever edition) is being pitched as the "go-to" game for non-combat mechanics.