Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[GnomeWorks]

I guess I'm also the type that doesn't believe "internal consistancy" to be a big selling point.

Which is fine.

The other day I was lighting my grill... Took me like five clicks to get the stupid bendy lighter I use to work. The day before it only took one click. Was there some "internally consistant" reason it worked? Maybe, but I have no clue what it was, so to me it was just a random "it takes five clicks this time" moment.

Internal consistency does not mean that A causes B, no questions asked, always. It would would mean that, in general, A will usually cause B. There are all kinds of random things that happen IRL that seem strange, such as a lighter taking five clicks to light rather than one.

I'm sure that, if you were able to take into account all possible variables, you could see exactly why the lighter took five clicks the other day, and only one today.

However, we are not able to get such a view of the world, much less model it in reasonable page-space in a game. For all intents and purposes, these events are random, as we are unable to ascertain their cause.

Such "random" things are represented by dice. Sometimes the guy with a +5 move silently is amazing (rolls a 20)... others, not so much (rolls a 10), and sometimes he can't even get his act together (rolls a 1).

For a general distinction, 4e prioritizes balance above consistency, as page 42 shows.

I am willing to sacrifice or change or even add a good many things for game balance.

I am not willing, however, to put anything above consistency of the setting. Not even game balance.

 

[Scribble]

Internal consistency does not mean that A causes B, no questions asked, always. It would would mean that, in general, A will usually cause B. There are all kinds of random things that happen IRL that seem strange, such as a lighter taking five clicks to light rather than one.

I'm sure that, if you were able to take into account all possible variables, you could see exactly why the lighter took five clicks the other day, and only one today.

I agree, there probably was some reason that if I were able to take a step back and have a more omnicient view (or study it in a lab which amounts to a similar idea) then I could see the "coding" that makes it so.

Since I can't though... It just seems random, and different. All I know is I had to try again for some reason. It makes life interesting.

However, we are not able to get such a view of the world, much less model it in reasonable page-space in a game. For all intents and purposes, these events are random, as we are unable to ascertain their cause.

Which is where things break down for me. Because a game can't have rules for every event (and we can't memorize them) when it has rules for small effects, it feels like a push towards this is how the game world works. This does X, and never Y. So there's not enough variation for me. It begins to loose some of that randomness. Rather then being a realistic feeling world for me, it begins to be too clockwork.

Such "random" things are represented by dice. Sometimes the guy with a +5 move silently is amazing (rolls a 20)... others, not so much (rolls a 10), and sometimes he can't even get his act together (rolls a 1).

Dice help a bit, but not quite enough. Even though the roll is random, the effect isn't. If I roll too low I know I failed because I rolled too low. "I didn't successfully light the lighter because I rolled a 5" instead of "Why the heck isn't this stupid piece of junk working?!?!"

I guess for me it looses some of that "sense of wonder" people talk about when too much is detailed.

Just like in real life when my character tries something I don't want to think ok it will work provided X doesn't happen. I want to think hrmm is it worth it to try? I think I have a reasonable chance, but you never know...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

*shrug*

You're welcome to your opinion.

I am, by the way, always a little surprised by how different priorities can be.

Spending time on finding the right rule seems to me as having the game come to an halt, bringing me out of my immersion in the scenario and stopping the action. It's almost as if I'd ALT-TAB during a resource intensive computer game to look for a tip from the Internet or something. I hate it when I have to do that.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I am, by the way, always a little surprised by how different priorities can be.

To be fair, I'm unemployed and a philosophy major. I have a lot of time on my hands, and have no problem spending hours committing rules to memory.

For me, gaming is not just about killing things and "racking up the XPs," a phrase that irks me to no end. The purpose of gaming is to experience and immerse oneself in the setting at hand, and that includes having consistent in-game physics. For 3.5, people will point to OotS and say how ridiculous such a stance is, and my argument is that OotS is what the world should look like, as a result of the way the rules function (though OotS is a bit more metagame-y than necessary).

That isn't to say that I dislike combat. In the sorts of worlds in which we game, violence tends to be a viable solution, and my players are free to resolve the issues at hand with whatever means they see fit. Since we have largely played D&D in the past, which has heavy leanings towards combat, most conflicts have been resolved via combat.

Dealing with things like whether or not a fireball sets things on fire, or what the precise effects of that strange fungus on the cave floor are, is an important part of gaming. It's important because it shows the players that they are not the center of the universe, that the world continues to function around them even when they are not around to see it happen. It speaks to the idea that actions have consequences, and that things will continue to happen whether the PCs interact directly with it or not.

To use a GNS term, I am firmly in the simulationist camp.

To try to bring this post back in line with the idea of the thread, my heavy simulationist leanings are why I feel 4e is incredibly limited in terms of what it can offer me. Mechanics are trimmed in such a way as to make a multitude of processes all follow the same mechanics, which is nonsensical to me. The same action has differing DCs based upon the level of the PCs, which irks me - why should this lock be more difficult to pick because you are higher level?

While the equalization of martial and spellcasting classes is not something that bothers me, the streamlining of spells to make them have only obvious combat utility irks me. Removal of various subsystems makes it difficult for me to play the sort of game that I want to play, because the processes matter; I don't enjoy the "black box" approach to how things happen.

I guess for me it looses some of that "sense of wonder" people talk about when too much is detailed.

The kind of game I want to play, I want the PCs to worry about how much food they can reasonably carry on their trek to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

I want their wounds from weeks before to - if left untreated - impact their performance today.

I want them to pay attention to the surrounding terrain of a city, so that they can understand the sort of raw materials that city is abundant with, and in turn understand the local economy to some degree.

I want the idea of doing something typically termed "heroic" to be a generally bad idea, because then it means that much more if a PC does it.

I want them to spend their evenings repairing their gear, and after a fight with orcs, take what is valuable - and not just magic, but normal run-of-the-mill weapons and armor, because such things can be turned into raw materials for other equipment.

The game I want to play is as much about exploration as it is combat, as much about economics as it is uncovering ancient mysteries, as much about crafting your own equipment as it is about building an artifact from pieces scattered across the globe. There is wonder to be found there, because the extraordinary must be couched in the ordinary in order for it to be extraordinary - or else it becomes ordinary.

 

[Halivar]

I read up to page 6. I can't read anymore! But I wanted to chime in on why 4E non-combat r0x0rz 3.x non-combat.

See, I always play paladins. It's... my thing. Here's a transcript of how I handled "inter-character conflict resolution" in 3E:

ME: Ok! I cast detect evil. Is he evil?
DM: Umm... yes.
ME: Excellent! Mystery solved! I take off his head.

Now, in 4E:

ME: Ok! I cast detect evil. Is he evil?
DM: Umm... you don't have that anymore.
ME: Dangit! Err... I... uh... okay. I talk to him.

The same thing happens across the board. What once was handled via the pure mechanics of non-combat skills/spells ("zone of truth", "charm person", etc.) are now handled by pure roleplay. We replace dice-rolling with talking.

 

[RodneyThompson]

The same action has differing DCs based upon the level of the PCs, which irks me - why should this lock be more difficult to pick because you are higher level?

Because it's a different lock.

See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:

The people and creatures of the world should behave with consistency in ways that players can understand. Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent. It's fine for one door to be harder to break down, but your description should give cues about why one door is so much sturdier than the other...

So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in.

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.

The PCs should face challenges with level-appropriate DCs, but it's up to the DM to describe those challenges in a way that makes sense why it's harder. Climbing a cliff at 26th level has a higher DC than climbing a cliff at 3rd level because at 26th level you should be climbing the Cliffs of Death where to rocks bleed a slick ichor and steam vents blast scalding water on you every few seconds...and at 3rd level you should be climbing the rocky cliffs by the beach outside of town.

But if you ARE 26th level, the cliffs outside of town shouldn't have their Athletics DC to climb changed...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Because it's a different lock.

See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:


So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in.

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.

The PCs should face challenges with level-appropriate DCs, but it's up to the DM to describe those challenges in a way that makes sense why it's harder. Climbing a cliff at 26th level has a higher DC than climbing a cliff at 3rd level because at 26th level you should be climbing the Cliffs of Death where to rocks bleed a slick ichor and steam vents blast scalding water on you every few seconds...and at 3rd level you should be climbing the rocky cliffs by the beach outside of town.

But if you ARE 26th level, the cliffs outside of town shouldn't have their Athletics DC to climb changed...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.

D&D tends to scale upward in power levels a lot (in every edition), and this makes it hard not to make DCs for things like skills scale up as well to keep things interesting. If you want DCs that are more static, the best bet is a game where power level ranges are more narrow, and advancement is more about taking more skills, but not increasing them by +15 or something. There are plenty of games that do this.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Because it's a different lock.

I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."

Based on the rest of your post, that is not what was intended, and fair enough; but that is how I honestly read it.

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

I don't like the assumption that the PCs are always going to be up against something vaguely their level.

I like the idea of high-level PCs having to deal with things that are significantly lower-level than they are, because that sort of thing happens sometimes - and so does the converse.

The problem is that, by assuming the PCs are always going up against something appropriate, you have made the game feel as though it is all about the PCs, and just about the PCs. And from the game perspective, that's all well and good - but for someone like me, who isn't interested in just that perspective, I find it irksome. The PCs aren't the center of the universe, and assumptions like this make it feel like they are.

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.

This is not level-based, this is world-based. Give me world-based DCs, and I will determine what I should throw at my PCs based upon their level.

The end result is most likely the same, sure, whether we use your method or mine. But I value processes as much as I do results.

...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.

...with volcanoes erupting in the background, no doubt.

It really does come down to a matter of why the DCs are different. You are trying to tell me that it's due to the PCs being higher-level, and that that means that the DCs should reflect that and be more difficult. And I would agree, because otherwise the game would be a cakewalk, and that wouldn't be fun.

The problem is the reason. I want tables with varying DCs based upon the world; I like the 3.5 open locks table, which describes the difficulty based on the kind of lock (admittedly not very well, but it's the principle behind the lackluster execution). The 4e open locks table is based on level, which just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Blue]

4e is a very focused game. What it's focused on is combat. It doesn't give a real kobold's tail about anything else -- to 4e, combat is the fun part of D&D. Everything else -- espionage, horror, exploration, survival, etc., etc., is boring to 4e.

It nods at the other stuff, but the fact of the matter is that skill challenges and rituals (which are going to be the first two answers that leap to mind for those who think it DOESN'T restrict) cannot support a campaign that revolves around them -- there's not enough variety and depth (and balance) in them to hold up a campaign that heavily uses them.

Any style of play that doesn't heavily focus on combat is not supported very well in 4e right now.

I have to agree. As a Game, 4e is a tight piece of design - well done. But that Game isn't aimed at providing an easily adaptable foundation to various fantasy sub-genres.

Heck, on game I run is low wealth game where we have combat maybe once every three sessions. Given a choice of systems, 4e wouldn't be my first choice if I was starting that campaign today. But for other styles games it could be.

Earlier editions had more rules to mimic "this is how this should work if it was real" so were fairly easy to use for various adaptations. This was at times both a strength and a weakness. 4e has more rules on "this is how the game fits together". It's is also a strength and a weakness. One point is that working outside the boundaries of what were considered is either unsupported (no rules) or negatively supported (need to adjust existign rules because they are contrary to it.)

4e is like chess. Chess is a fantastic game, but not particularly adaptable. There are variations on it, but those are "not chess".

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[Imaro]

Because it's a different lock.

See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc..

See this is a definite problem, as those charts on page 42 are the "improvisation" charts and there is no mention of anything close to what you've stated here on that page.

In fact I would even go so far as to argue that, if what you stated is the actual intent and not just one interpretation... then why is there an example on page 41 of the DMG where it explains that searching a room to find "anything valuable in a chest full of junk" is always an "easy" test... not a set DC dependent upon the world...let me guess this is a different more tricky chest and different more tricky junk as you go up in level?? Well if this is the case why on earth isn't it clearly laid out or stated anywhere?

The funny thing is that the PHB gives DC's for skills that appear to be determined not as level appropriate challenges (except some of them like Open Lock, Knowledge, etc.?? ) but based upon relative difficulty of examples...

So maybe it is a case of something not being conveyed effectively, the skill DC's being kind of schizophrenic in how they are determined or something else. Wouldn't it have been better if they had chosen to base the skill DC's on one or the other so as to direct people towards a consistent way to view the game?

At the same time, we also want to maintain internal consistency. To wit:


So, when your third level heroes decide to break into the mayor's house, and you decide that's an appropriate challenge for your level, then you set the DCs based on that. However, when the heroes are 26th level and come back to their hometown and decide to break into the mayor's house, then the DCs shouldn't scale--the doors aren't different, unless for some reason you decide that they are. So, you would use those same level 3 DCs...which pretty much means the rogue walks up, rolls his eyes, pops the lock and strides in.

However, if the heroes are breaking into the Efreeti Bank in the City of Brass, which is more of a level-appropriate challenge, that's when you set the Thievery DC using the PCs level as a basis. That's because the locks in the City of Brass are tougher to open.

The PCs should face challenges with level-appropriate DCs, but it's up to the DM to describe those challenges in a way that makes sense why it's harder. Climbing a cliff at 26th level has a higher DC than climbing a cliff at 3rd level because at 26th level you should be climbing the Cliffs of Death where to rocks bleed a slick ichor and steam vents blast scalding water on you every few seconds...and at 3rd level you should be climbing the rocky cliffs by the beach outside of town.

But if you ARE 26th level, the cliffs outside of town shouldn't have their Athletics DC to climb changed...unless suddenly the cliffs outside of town are now the site of a demonic invasion where deadly portals open every few seconds to release bursts of hellfire.

This sounds really good but it isn't explained like this anywhere in the DMG or PHB...