Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Blue]

This. Anytime somebody lists 4e's limited range of effective game styles as a flaw, they're missing the point. It's better for your system to do a few things really well than for your system to be mediocre at a lot of different things.

I agree with your comment - 4e does a limited range of things very well. However, expand out to the OP's question if that limits different types of play styles. It does.

Just because Chess is a great game doesn't mean that I can't enjoy Settlers of Catan. Just because 4e is great at what it does doesn't mean that it does everything for everyone. That doesn't reduce 4e as a game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Though I don't know how we got here from there, ultimately, I agree with Moridin's last post:

4e's DC's aren't supposed to change by level, but the challenges you face ARE supposed to change by level. Just like you'll be fighting harder monsters, you'll be climbing harder cliffs and Religioning harder deities and such.

That doesn't break realism for me, and it can help in world-building. The Cliffs of Death are always level-appropriate for level 26, no matter what level you decide to visit them at -- 1, 15, 26, or 30, or several times.

My own games rarely assume the PC's are going to climb anything -- that's up to them to decide; they get to pick their challenges, basically. But they will say that this is a level X challenge, and it doesn't care if the party is level X or not.

There is some confusion, but there's quite a bit of confusion over many of the noncombat aspects of 4e (and probably over the combat aspects, too!), just as there was in every other edition of D&D: this game is hard to explain clearly.

 

[Imaro]

This is exactly what the DMG section on Realism is talking about. If it's just a ledge, you can use the sample DCs which assume it's Just a Ledge. If it's a ledge of ice covered in jagged shards of icicles, it might just be a paragon tier ledge...so you use the scaling DCs. Just because you become paragon tier doesn't mean that every ledge is a paragon ledge; it only is a paragon ledge if you, the DM, need it to be. And then you need to describe it accordingly..

Section on realism??... a paragraph or two on one page of the DMG is hardly a section on realism and I stand by my assertion it could have been more clearly conveyed and stated... especially in the actual section dealing with DC's (both in the PHB and in the DMG). In fact all this paragraph says is that if two doors look similar they should have similar DC's...or the DM should come up with a reason for why they don't.

Because sometimes you want specificity, and sometimes you don't? Because unless you know a lot about how locks work, specific descriptions don't help you visualize it any easier? You can argue that the Open Lock DC descriptions are not to your taste, and I'll buy it. To say it's some larger flaw of game design seems more like a stretch, since playing and DMing a roleplaying game demands some level of common sense and the ability to put together different mechanical concepts. We can safely assume you understand both what specific examples mean, and what "paragon tier" means..

Please name me another roelplaying game with a skill system where determining the difficulty for said skills is done in two different (arbitrary) ways. I can't think of any off hand. It's confusing and unnecessary.

On an aside... so how do I describe a "paragon-tier" lock then. I mean if it's to complicated for the game's writers and designers to describe it, how am I suppose to do it in game...that's why I don't really buy that reasoning.

I think this is where the section on Realism from page 23 has to come into play. Besides, if you've already defined the ledge at DC 40, then that's the DC. You use the improvisation rules to define, mechanically, the current situation. If you tie a description to a DC, it's a two-way street; once you've tied a DC to a description, you should stick with it.

And again all of this could have been more clearly and better stated. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, that they did a great job conveying this... because with so much initial confusion I would say no they didn't ... or that ranking DC's by descriptors in some skills and then by "tiers" in others is intuitive, consistent, and coherent? Again I would say it's not.

explain to me why the rule of thumb for an improvised action is 10(easy) 15(moderate) or 20(hard) +1/2 the PC's level? This would seem to indicate PC level and not the level of the challenge is used to determine the DC...right? Well then again we hit a wall where everything PC's are attempting on the fly is perfectly scaled to their level. That's not realistic...and it also informs (at least in my mind) how the chart on page 42 is supposed to be used. If this is not the casse...again it could have been conveyed in a much clearer fashion.

Now, by frequenting forums, messageboards, etc. I understand how it all relates... but how many gamers don't frequent messageboards?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For it's own sake. Because I could. Because I wanted to. Because I find the creative exercise enjoyable.



Yes, because clearly there is no other reason to exercise one's imagination and construct a fictional world other than for the playing of a rather specific game in a rather specific manner.



My world has more purpose than to be your freaking playground.

Anyone else like to tell me I'm doing it wrong?

*raises hand*

So, are you running any campaigns at the moment? With players?

My opinion on this matter is that you could build a game that is pleasing and entertaining if not played and just used to create a world or something. But that's not really the goal of most games, and certainly not 4E. The game is meant to be played, at a table with multiple players, entertaining players and DM alike.

 

[BryonD]

That doesn't break realism for me, and it can help in world-building. The Cliffs of Death are always level-appropriate for level 26, no matter what level you decide to visit them at -- 1, 15, 26, or 30, or several times.

Wouldn't just saying "The cliffs of death are a level 26 challenge" be a whole lot easier than saying "The challenge of the cliffs of death are level appropriate for the characters*" With a note somewhere else stating "* - Level appropriate assumes the characters are level 26".

There is some confusion, but there's quite a bit of confusion over many of the noncombat aspects of 4e (and probably over the combat aspects, too!), just as there was in every other edition of D&D: this game is hard to explain clearly.

I'm sorry, but this particular thing is REALLY easy to explain. The challenge of a thing is X. If you are below X it will be difficult. If you are above X, it will be easy.
In this particular case an absurdly simple concept was turned into a pointlessly complicated one.

Seriously, wotc really thinks that they need to explain to their players that challenges should tend to be level appropriate??!!?? That is a real shame.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And again all of this could have been more clearly and better stated. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing, that they did a great job conveying this... because with so much initial confusion I would say no they didn't ... or that ranking DC's by descriptors in some skills and then by "tiers" in others is intuitive, consistent, and coherent? Again I would say it's not.

explain to me why the rule of thumb for an improvised action is 10(easy) 15(moderate) or 20(hard) +1/2 the PC's level? This would seem to indicate PC level and not the level of the challenge is used to determine the DC...right? Well then again we hit a wall where everything PC's are attempting on the fly is perfectly scaled to their level. That's not realistic...and it also informs (at least in my mind) how the chart on page 42 is supposed to be used. If this is not the casse...again it could have been conveyed in a much clearer fashion.

Now, by frequenting forums, messageboards, etc. I understand how it all relates... but how many gamers don't frequent messageboards?

So, would you count it as an house rule that's so much more work than just playing whatever you played before or plan to play instead if you exchanged "PC Level" with "Challenge Level" in these tables?

Pretend for a moment that this is what actually was what stood in the DMG there? How would this change your view on 4E? If it doesn't, why?
I generally would not assume that one or two pages in the DMG or PHB will turn a game from "Holy Grail of Gaming" to "Disappointment" or vice versa...

 

[BryonD]

*raises hand*

So, are you running any campaigns at the moment? With players?

My opinion on this matter is that you could build a game that is pleasing and entertaining if not played and just used to create a world or something. But that's not really the goal of most games, and certainly not 4E. The game is meant to be played, at a table with multiple players, entertaining players and DM alike.

I agree with you, but only to an extent.

For the past 30 years my enjoyment of RPGs at the table has been very real. But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real. And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.

And I am certain that games I have enjoyed were meant to be enjoyed BOTH ways. 4E has conciously rejected one of those ways and as you rightly state, is simply meant to offer the at-table enjoyment.

IMO the presumption of an audience that only cares about at-table activty and the presumption of an audience that needs the concept of level appropriate challenges hard wired onto the mechanics dove tail cleanly.

 

[Imaro]

So, would you count it as an house rule that's so much more work than just playing whatever you played before or plan to play instead if you exchanged "PC Level" with "Challenge Level" in these tables?

Pretend for a moment that this is what actually was what stood in the DMG there? How would this change your view on 4E? If it doesn't, why?
I generally would not assume that one or two pages in the DMG or PHB will turn a game from "Holy Grail of Gaming" to "Disappointment" or vice versa...

First, as I cited with the difficulty plus 1/2 character level rule... I'm still not convinced that the levels were intended to represent the level of the challenge as opposed to the PC's level... but let's say they do...

Why do you care whether it then becomes the holy grail for me? I can say, and I'm not sure if you remember... this was a major contention for me in the artificial/boardgamey/whatever feel of the game... but answering whether I would like a game more or less if something had been different originally is futile, first impressions are exactly that and hard to rectify if done badly. I honestly can't answer whether it would have become "Holy Grail of Gaming" to me or not... I can say I would have been more favorably inclined towards 4e in the beginning. In fact in a more general statement, if the designers had spent more time tightening up the skill system in general I think I would have enjoyed 4e alot more than I did when I first played it.

I do think it's strange to defend something as "good" or "easily grasped" when so many, pro and anti alike had all kinds of different interpretations of how this particular system in the game works. To me that clearly shows it wasn't intuitive or well explained.

EDIT: I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e. I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called "revolutionary" mechanics for skills. The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game. Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I can see a case where some things should have been expressed a little more consistently and could have been clearer in terms of how to scale, and how to adhere to some realistic logic, etc, etc.

I don't think its as bad as some are making it out to be though. You have to be able to improvise and scale things realistically if you're going to DM a game, regardless of what the rules/guidelines may or may not say.

It's kind of funny how this edition is supposed to be easier for new DM's and inexperienced DM's, but so much of the DM's guide is written from the point of view that the person reading it is going to be an experienced DM.

If I were new to the game and hadn't DM'd before, I'd have some trouble with some of those tables and charts myself.

 

[Halivar]

For the past 30 years my enjoyment of RPGs at the table has been very real. But my enjoyment of RPGs as a creative exercise has been equally real. And I'd readily wager that the total time I have spent greatly enjoying myself using the building kit aspect of RPGs is double or more the amount of time spent at tables with groups.

I'm having the opposite effect. While 3.x was by no stretch of the imagination the most internally consistent game on the market, it still had a set of game-physics that I could not create game-worlds without acknowledging. The effect is that, when planning campaigns, I spent more time bookkeeping and itemizing than brainstorming.

So, in 4E, I don't have as much scaffolding, but by the same token, I'm no longer constrained by that scaffolding, either. The physics of the game world are now completely up to what I can imagine, and not up to what tables upon tables upon tables forced on me by the assumptions of the PHB. I spend literally hours musing over my game world, while the actual bookkeeping takes minutes to the hour.

One criticism I've heard of this design philosophy I've heard in other threads, and is a valid criticism, is "why even buy a DM's guide if you're going to make everything up yourself?" To be honest, it's been six months since I cracked open the DM's guide. I haven't had to. It had some good advice, that I read once. I keep a little copy of page 42 on my DM screen to keep the math in sync with player abilities. This is in stark contrast to 3.x, where I had to constantly reference the DMG during world-building, or risk breaking the assumed physics of the PHB to the detriment of the campaign.