Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Thasmodious]

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.

C'mon, seriously? Your position is that 4e has "conciously rejected" world building? Have you even actually seen pictures of the DMG, let alone read it?

 

[Thasmodious]

1. Arbitrary way of describing the difficulty of skills...a wall is DC 30 because it's slippery and slick, a lock is DC 30 because it's listed as paragon-tier...

It's not arbitrary. Rodney explains the intent well, and I think its quite clear. In the DMG you are given the tools to handle any mechanical aspect of world building and adventure design. You are shown how to assign appropriate DCs to tasks. The PHB, under skills, has a few DC examples based on common adventuring tasks that were created from the guidelines to assigning DCs (or maybe a bit of chicken and egg, either way). A DC 30 wall is paragon tier. Between the two, you have the understanding that DCs should be based on level and examples of what that looks like in a couple of cases. You know from the DMG that a paragon tier wall should be around a DC 30 and from the PHB that a DC 30 wall is going to be very tough to climb, it will be smooth and slick. The two aren't contrary to each other, the DCs in the skill section are illustrative. A paragon tier lock would match the difficulty of that paragon tier wall. What does that mean?

Well, unless you or your group are experts on locks, it doesn't require a lot of specific description.

Paragon lock:
Paragon Rogue: I examine the lock
DM: It's quite complex. You think you could get through it, but it may take awhile.

Low epic lock:
DM: You've never seen a lock this extraordinary. You seriously doubt you have the skill to get past it, but you won't know unless you try. And with the right tools and a bit of luck, who knows...


And of course, story matters. If the PCs are encountering the lock, it is often because they are meant to go through it (I said often, not always). You may through an epic lock at a paragon party because you don't want the PCs to just stroll through it like a standard obstacle. In which case, you have probably seeded other areas of the adventure or situation with some aid, - perhaps a skill challenge to get some information on how to get past a layer or two of the lock (like the vault security layers in the first Die Hard movie), or a set of tools that can be acquired to give a bonus, or maybe just a collective effort on the party with the bard increasing competence, the aid of a magic item or a potion that boosts dex based checks for a moment, things to take it out of the ordinary.

Also, Imaro, it is not a fact that these things are not clearly explained in the books. Comprehension is as much a part of communication as writing. A lot of people had no trouble understanding it, so it was not "clearly" badly presented. Some things maybe could have been presented better (skill challenges I'm looking at you), but many 4e players seem to have gotten the message.

I really do think a significant source of the disconnect is going from an edition that supported strict RAW, and the legion of players who whole-heartedly embraced that have difficulty wrestling with an edition that rejects strict RAW in favor of a more DM and story interpretive approach. "The DC is whatever you need it to be, now here's some guidelines" is anathema to certain types, but its freeing and liberating to many others and easy enough to follow for a lot of casual players who don't think about these things nearly as much as those of us spending hours online discussing these things do.

 

[Imaro]

It's not arbitrary. Rodney explains the intent well, and I think its quite clear. In the DMG you are given the tools to handle any mechanical aspect of world building and adventure design. You are shown how to assign appropriate DCs to tasks. The PHB, under skills, has a few DC examples based on common adventuring tasks that were created from the guidelines to assigning DCs (or maybe a bit of chicken and egg, either way). A DC 30 wall is paragon tier. Between the two, you have the understanding that DCs should be based on level and examples of what that looks like in a couple of cases. You know from the DMG that a paragon tier wall should be around a DC 30 and from the PHB that a DC 30 wall is going to be very tough to climb, it will be smooth and slick. The two aren't contrary to each other, the DCs in the skill section are illustrative. A paragon tier lock would match the difficulty of that paragon tier wall. What does that mean?

Well, unless you or your group are experts on locks, it doesn't require a lot of specific description.

Paragon lock:
Paragon Rogue: I examine the lock
DM: It's quite complex. You think you could get through it, but it may take awhile.

Low epic lock:
DM: You've never seen a lock this extraordinary. You seriously doubt you have the skill to get past it, but you won't know unless you try. And with the right tools and a bit of luck, who knows...


And of course, story matters. If the PCs are encountering the lock, it is often because they are meant to go through it (I said often, not always). You may through an epic lock at a paragon party because you don't want the PCs to just stroll through it like a standard obstacle. In which case, you have probably seeded other areas of the adventure or situation with some aid, - perhaps a skill challenge to get some information on how to get past a layer or two of the lock (like the vault security layers in the first Die Hard movie), or a set of tools that can be acquired to give a bonus, or maybe just a collective effort on the party with the bard increasing competence, the aid of a magic item or a potion that boosts dex based checks for a moment, things to take it out of the ordinary.

Also, Imaro, it is not a fact that these things are not clearly explained in the books. Comprehension is as much a part of communication as writing. A lot of people had no trouble understanding it, so it was not "clearly" badly presented. Some things maybe could have been presented better (skill challenges I'm looking at you), but many 4e players seem to have gotten the message.

I really do think a significant source of the disconnect is going from an edition that supported strict RAW, and the legion of players who whole-heartedly embraced that have difficulty wrestling with an edition that rejects strict RAW in favor of a more DM and story interpretive approach. "The DC is whatever you need it to be, now here's some guidelines" is anathema to certain types, but its freeing and liberating to many others and easy enough to follow for a lot of casual players who don't think about these things nearly as much as those of us spending hours online discussing these things do.

And I think you're wrong... but then again we are both entitled to our opinions. Rodney asked for reasons why certain things might not be clear (no one said it was a fact they were unclear to everyone... but it is a fact they were unclear to some of the fan base.), I gave some thoughts on it... all you did was basically insinuate that, it's not the books that are unclear...it's that all the people who didn't get it actually just don't think in the right way. Well I'm glad you brought that up for Rodney to consider ...maybe that is it, of course then there's basically no way for these people to get it since it's their brain not the books...of course it's funny how some got it after discussing it on messageboards and other places...but you're probably right it really was just them all along.

And yes IMO, describing everything else with descriptors except locks and traps is arbitrary. It certainly isn't consistent. YMMV of course.

Also, I thought the table on page 42 was for actions the rules don't cover... aren't you suppose to use the actual skill DC's for those things covered? Or am I not understanding this part of the game either? If that's the case why am I creating tiere'd locks and traps but using an organic away to determine other challenges?

 

[Thasmodious]

And I think you're wrong... but then again we are both entitled to our opinions. Rodney asked for reasons why certain things might not be clear (no one said it was a fact they were unclear to everyone... but it is a fact they were unclear to some of the fan base.), I gave some thoughts on it... all you did was basically insinuate that, it's not the books that are unclear...it's that all the people who didn't get it actually just don't think in the right way. Well I'm glad you brought that up for Rodney to consider ...maybe that is it, of course then there's basically no way for these people to get it since it's their brain not the books...of course it's funny how some got it after discussing it on messageboards and other places...but you're probably right it really was just them all along.

Apparently it is just you. Because, instead of reading my rather clear post as an effort to help the discussion, you decide it's an attack on your intelligence or something and respond as a snarky jerk instead of understanding it for what it was. YMMV

 

[Imaro]

Apparently it is just you. Because, instead of reading my rather clear post as an effort to help the discussion, you decide it's an attack on your intelligence or something and respond as a snarky jerk instead of understanding it for what it was. YMMV

Thas,
I think that perhaps I'm just a little testy because I did feel like you were attacking my intelligence and admittedly I am a little irritated I have spent the money on a game I have loved for years and now find myself not really enjoying it and honestly finding it hard to articulate exactly why. I could have read your post in a better light instead of jumping the gun and for that I apologize.

 

[Thasmodious]

Thas,
I think that perhaps I'm just a little testy because I did feel like you were attacking my intelligence and admittedly I am a little irritated I have spent the money on a game I have loved for years and now find myself not really enjoying it and honestly finding it hard to articulate exactly why. I could have read your post in a better light instead of jumping the gun and for that I apologize.

That's cool. I appreciate the apology. One love, ma brudda.

 

[Scribble]

I really do think a significant source of the disconnect is going from an edition that supported strict RAW, and the legion of players who whole-heartedly embraced that have difficulty wrestling with an edition that rejects strict RAW in favor of a more DM and story interpretive approach. "The DC is whatever you need it to be, now here's some guidelines" is anathema to certain types, but its freeing and liberating to many others and easy enough to follow for a lot of casual players who don't think about these things nearly as much as those of us spending hours online discussing these things do.

I kind of agree... I think it speaks again to the two mindsets thing again.

One side wants a baseline to start with. The DC for picking a normal lock is 15. Modifiers are then added to it if you want a more difficult lock. It's rusty +2 to the DC, it's effected by magic +10 to the DC etc...

The other side doesn't want or care about a baseline, they just want the end result. This lock is difficult to pick, the DC is 25.

I think 3e spoke more to the first group. It seemed to support the idea of a universal baseline for things, with modifiers to change it. 4e seems to support the second group more. The end result is king.

Again I find myself (probably why I like 4e a lot) in the second group. I want the lock to be harder to pick, so it is. The reason could be evident, it might not be evident. If your haracter wants to spend the time to investigate and test the lock to discover why, I'll give them a reason, but until that point in time, it's not that important.

 

[Lizard]

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.

I like skill challenges; my only real complaint is that they aren't well integrated with the rest of the rules. That is, aside from skill bonus feats and a very small number of reroll powers (which work differently within a skill challenge than outside it), there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I like skill challenges; my only real complaint is that they aren't well integrated with the rest of the rules. That is, aside from skill bonus feats and a very small number of reroll powers (which work differently within a skill challenge than outside it), there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.

I somewhat agree, for the most part I am fine with Skill Challenges being oriented just around Skills and such, and having a grand time with it.

But, I like seeing Powers interact as well. Now that being said I don't want Powers made specifically for just Skill Challenges and such (partially since it could take away from Skills and also I fear return of Powers like old Wizard spells that circumnavigate any need for Skills and such). While I have been able to Houserule it/DM fiat it be interesting to see official rules for how both combat and non-combat Powers interact with Skill Challenges.

I so far have done stuff like allowing a Power that is movement based to give bonuses to a chase, or if it hinders the movement of another give negatives to another person running. A attack Power to influence someone, such as intimidate, etc.

 

[D'karr]

there's not much connecting the system to characters -- you can't manipulate the "rules" of challenge in the same way you can play around with the environment of combat.

I'm not really following this here. Would you mind elaborating more on this. It sounds like an interesting "disconnect" but I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.