Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I asked about this on ENworld a few weeks back, when the issue of my using Crucial Advice more than once during a long-term challenge came up in play, and the hivemind consensus was, barring extremely unusual circumstances, the CS was "an encounter" and any encounter power could be used only once.

I think it's never spelled out, theoretically a short rest would suffice. But I tend would use this interpretation, though if you had for some reason multiple simultaneously occuring challenges or encounters (e.g. a combat encounter in between a skill challenge), it could be used in both. But that's certainly not RAW.

 

[Fenes]

I'd say those are tremendous evidence to support my case, yes. In their ups, downs, treatment of game-related topics, repercussions on game play, etc.

For example, it's often interesting to consider what facets of a game setting are actively ignored by writers of fiction for that game setting, and how characters, items, rituals, etc from books are portrayed in game terms.

In my experience, novels generally ruin a setting.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

True. Authors who can do a setting justice (or even, heaven forbid, improve it) are few and far between. Michael A. Stackpole and Dan Abnett are the only ones who jump to mind.

 

[IanArgent]

True. Authors who can do a setting justice (or even, heaven forbid, improve it) are few and far between. Michael A. Stackpole and Dan Abnett are the only ones who jump to mind.

Shadowrun got more than it's fair share of the good ones, though. Nigel Findley and Steve Kenson jusmp to mind, and even Tom Dowd wasn't bad

 

[Mallus]

Speaking of scope... in our 4e campaign the party is currently preparing to put on a stage play. We've gotten ourselves into a feud with a famous playwright and challenged him to the duel of drama.

The DM is running it as a high-complexity Skill Challenge using Staker0's Obsidian system. It will involve every PC and most of the group's skill set, including the spells and swords (when you use adventurers instead of actors, why use stage combat?).

4e is first version of D&Dd to offer any kind of direct rules support (albeit a loose framework) for this sort of thing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I enjoy working on my setting. I also enjoy gaming. The setting is not anathema to gaming, and since most of it is written with 3.5 in mind, gaming functions rather well in the setting.

It may not be anathema to gaming. But it might not support it as well as a setting that is extremely mutable.

Let's say you've previously established that in the last 200 years, no one has ever gotten in to see the king without a 6 month waiting period and during that time dragons attacked neighboring kingdoms and the king has always refused emergency meetings.

Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands. If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone. In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow. But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.

In a mutable game where you have no idea who the King is or what the rules of the kingdom are before you start playing, you can make him a benevolent King who will help them out when they ask. It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.

I'm sure in a campaign with a set world, you might be able to avoid the situation. You might have someone else with an army who will help and a system of teleportation gates that let them get here on time, you might never write that situation into the plot because you don't want to blow up the world. However, if the situation DOES come up, you need to change your world and sacrifice consistency and realism in exchange for playability(likely ending up with the King changing his mind, strangely, since he never has before). Either that or you have to sacrifice playability in exchange for consistency(which generally means the bad guys win and the PCs have to deal with the aftermath...or they all die and start a new campaign).

I enjoy the idea of gaming groups having an impact on the setting. I also enjoy using it as a setting for writing. These two can co-exist in the same setting without instancing.

They just have different goals, that's all. The goal of a game is to allow the players to have fun, often while letting them be the heroes. The goal of writing is just to tell interesting stories.

Often the things players find fun aren't interesting stories for anyone not participating. Often the interesting stories are not fun for the players because they focus on people other than them. If you have extremely cooperative players, you can have adventures that don't focus on them.

I just know that if I had another adventuring group solve the problem for them, or even told tales of another adventuring group who did better things than they did, they'd either be annoyed or not care at all. So it would either make the game worse or simply not add anything to the game as it doesn't make it more fun for them.

Thus, the different focus of the two approaches.

I believe there was a quote that said something to the effect of "my game is not your playground". But from a player's point of view, I don't play in order to be forced to play in YOUR playground either. I play in order to get a chance to use my cool powers, role play my character, defeat my enemies, accomplish my goals, and become a hero.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands. If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone. In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow. But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.

In a mutable game where you have no idea who the King is or what the rules of the kingdom are before you start playing, you can make him a benevolent King who will help them out when they ask. It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.

It fits the story better? Whysoever should one draw that conclusion?

Why is "King grants help easily" a better fit than "PCs accomplish that which hasn't been accomplished in centuries, and see King immediately"? Why is it a better fit than "Because they could not get in to see the King, the PCs went to his Ministers and ended up ruling the Kingdom themselves"? Why is it a better fit than "Because they did not have the aid from the King, they went into the Ruined Dwarven City to recover the fabled Automaton Army"?

Methinks you presume too much.

A campaign setting where the future is fixed and immutable is not conducive to good play (because it, by definition, means that the PCs can affect little, if anything). A campaign setting where the past is fixed, though, causes merely a tradeoff between types of benefits.

Where the past is known, the PCs can remember the fabled Automaton Army and make that plan themselves.

Where the past is known, the PCs can know that trying normal channels to see the King immediately will not work.

Where the past is known, the players -- rather than merely the DM -- can decide where the action is going to go, because the players have a context to do so in.


RC

 

[GnomeWorks]

It may not be anathema to gaming. But it might not support it as well as a setting that is extremely mutable.

I find little purpose in playing in or running a setting that changes on a whim. Such a setting would lack consistency.

Now, the fate of the world lies in the PCs hands. If they fail, Tharizdun(or whoever) is going to be released and kill everyone. In order to build up a sense of urgency in the plot, you've established that the Ritual will be completed tomorrow. But there is no way they can assault the fortress without an army helping them and the King has the only army.

For one thing, I wouldn't do something to "build up a sense of urgency." The ritual would be completed when it is completed.

I also do not write into my adventures how issues are meant to be resolved. The players may be especially clever and find a way to speak to the king (sneaking in, teleportation, etc). They may say "screw it" and get help elsewhere. Rather than try to get an army they may attempt to sneak in and disrupt the ritual on their own. And so on and so forth; their chosen path may work, or it may not.

It fits the story better, it causes the campaign to end in a climactic fight between the good forces of the King and the evil forces of the fortress.

The games I run are not stories. They are a series of events. I don't care "what makes for a better story."

Either that or you have to sacrifice playability in exchange for consistency(which generally means the bad guys win and the PCs have to deal with the aftermath...or they all die and start a new campaign).

Consistency over what you would like to call playability.

If the players fail to find a way to stop the bad guys, then yes, they have to deal with the aftermath. There are consequences and repercussions. Without these, there is - for me - no point in gaming. I have no interest in running or playing in a setting where failure has no consequences.

Often the things players find fun aren't interesting stories for anyone not participating. Often the interesting stories are not fun for the players because they focus on people other than them. If you have extremely cooperative players, you can have adventures that don't focus on them.

I think you missed the part where I said that the games I run focus on the PCs, because that's what that particular game is interested in. That doesn't mean there aren't things going on in the background, but regardless of events in the world, they are dealt with via the perspective of the PCs in a given game.

I just know that if I had another adventuring group solve the problem for them, or even told tales of another adventuring group who did better things than they did, they'd either be annoyed or not care at all. So it would either make the game worse or simply not add anything to the game as it doesn't make it more fun for them.

I find it ridiculous that a group would get upset if they heard about another group of adventurers doing things in the world.

The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence.

I play in order to get a chance to use my cool powers, role play my character, defeat my enemies, accomplish my goals, and become a hero.

I don't think I have said, anywhere, that these kinds of things are cut from the games I run.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I think it's never spelled out, theoretically a short rest would suffice. But I tend would use this interpretation, though if you had for some reason multiple simultaneously occuring challenges or encounters (e.g. a combat encounter in between a skill challenge), it could be used in both. But that's certainly not RAW.

It is spelled out.

It's in the rules under when encounter powers can be used again.

It's after a short rest. Not an "encounter".

That's RAW. People are just being thrown off by the name Encounter Power. I swear they should've just named them Short Rest Powers and Long Rest Powers to reduce confusion.

 

[Scribble]

It is spelled out.

It's in the rules under when encounter powers can be used again.

It's after a short rest. Not an "encounter".

That's RAW. People are just being thrown off by the name Encounter Power. I swear they should've just named them Short Rest Powers and Long Rest Powers to reduce confusion.

Yep.

It's just assumed that the group will take a short rest between each encounter, and will therefore regain use of their encounter powers.

In game they would be spending 5 minutes or so cleaning and sharpening their weapons, binding their wounds, and just recouperating from the battle.

If you don't give them a 5 minute rest between encounters they don't refresh their powers.