Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[I'm A Banana]

All of these things allowed players to quickly and easily bypass non-combat encounters without having to actually resolve anything through problem solving or roleplaying.

These, being removed or shnted off to the side in 4e, in many ways, encourages my players to use more thoughtful and innovative methods for handling noncombat challenges... As opposed to relying on skills checks, spells and magic items to solve every problem.

I could apply the same logic to combat though. Having a magic missile at-will (for instance) allows the player to quickly and easily bypass the challenge of resolving not having a spell to attack with through problem-solving or role-playing.

The fact of the matter is the rules are the game -- you can free-form and ask DM permission for anything you want, including combat. But the rules are what is supported.

4e overwhelmingly supports beatin' the fudge out of things as the most ideal method of conflict resolution.

One person's "bypassed [combat] encounter" is another person's clever strategy or interesting role-playing choice (why SHOULDN'T an enchantress PC be able to avoid combat using other skills? Why SHOULDN'T a clever sneaky rogue PC avoid combat by not being noticed? Why does combat HAVE to happen?).

Every edition before it was largely OK with that.

I, as an improv-heavy DM, was totally OK with that.

4e is NOT OK with that.

This is a problem for any genre or playstyle that does not want to encourage combat. Not every play style or genre should encourage combat.

4e doesn't HAVE to be that way, especially going forward. It's understandable that it would look that way in the first round of books given 4e's "progressive core" model and the importance of combat in general, but my big concern is that 4e won't bother to model other genres or playstyles, and continue to use the trappings of those things to just change up the combats. There is, as I said, a lot of design space for non-combat challenges in 4e that has yet to be tapped.

That's 4e's focus, the idea that D&D is a combat game, but that certainly wasn't how the game was played around my table -- and isn't how it continues to be, even as I DM 4e.

Solving your problems with spells and skill checks is still creatively solving your problem using character resources.

The early core is focused on providing strong, balanced gameplay for the core of D&D gaming.

The core of my D&D gaming looks nothing like what the first three core books actively support (that is, minis combat). The designers, with regards to my campaign anyway, were wrong.

here's some clunky firearms rules in the equipment section, people like guns, oh and here's some psionics, over here is an inadequate system to craft things using skills...

Here's a clunky Rituals system in a tacked-on chapter because people liked the old problem-solving spells. Oh, and here's some broken skill challenge rules because some people don't want to fight everything. Oh, and here's an encumbrance system that still measures things by the pound because who DOESN'T love that?

4e doesn't get a pass in the "providing useless rules" thing.

If you've used D&D in the past to play games that are very far from the core of D&D gameplay, which has always been the same,

Now who's being short-sighted.

The D&D game has always embraced a diversity of playstyles, and 4e even tries to (it just fails to, so far). D&D was what each DM defined it to be, not what TSR or Gygax or WotC defined it to be.

4e is easier to tweak than previous editions because you are starting from a much stronger, more stable ruleset. It is easy to add on the things you need to suit your playstyle.

That doesn't change what 4e clearly supports in the rules as published thus far, and that is combat. This makes 4e, as published so far, an awkward fit for many styles and genres that don't put as much emphasis on combat as 4e does, and who need more robust options for handling non-combat options than 4e provides so far.

I believe I clearly stated that 4e doesn't HAVE to be like this, even if it has been like this so far. It's totally possible for a Dark Sun 4e to introduce more rules about survival, resource management, long-term exposure and survival, breaking equipment, stone age crafting, etc., then core 4e has. I'm just not necessarily confident that it's going to happen, given that 4e seems more interested in applying different window dressing than in changing what the game can be about (which, I'm sure, is as much a branding consideration as it is a game design philosophical descision).

There are so few options, and the "dimension and variety" are so shallow, that it's complaining that a radio only gets 99 stations, not 100, and this is a great limitation to the radio.

Most of your post is arguing specifics, which is not what I'm doing here, so I'm ignoring that part of the post.

The thing to note is that it was more dimension and variety.

It didn't necessarily need to be a lot more -- as many have rightfully pointed out, the focus on combat in D&D has been omnipresent, and combat SHOULD be focused on in D&D. But challenges other than combat deserve a lot better than what 4e gave them. 4e gave them this shallow treatment because 4e, so far, doesn't want you to resolve things in ways other than combat, whereas other editions were, to varying degrees, ENCOURAGING you to avoid combat by giving you easy outs and by making your characters easy to kill (especially at low levels).

The entire philosophy of 4e thus far believes that combat is the One True Fun.

That idea is wrong.

In fact, for me, if I wanted to fight goblins, I'd go play a video game. D&D, especially for me, is not a game about fighting goblins, and never, ever has been.

 

[malraux]

The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.

Once it stops being flawed, shallow, and boring, it's more than welcome to.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The skill challenges chapter of the DMG would like to have a word with you.

The amount of content the system provides for a particular aspect of play informs the way the game is played.

95% of the game is well-balanced combat engine. 5% is poorly-written, badly-designed generic mechanic for dealing with everything not-combat.

Sorry, but calling upon the skill challenges part of 4e does not make your argument look better.

 

[malraux]

Once it stops being flawed, shallow, and boring, it's more than welcome to.

Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat. Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.

edit: To be more specific, the skill challenges chapter specifically counters the claim that

The entire philosophy of 4e thus far believes that combat is the One True Fun.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat. Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.

The skill challenge system is an after-thought.

Compare the amount of work that went into the combat system with how much went into skill challenges.

Skill challenges reek of "Oh, I guess we should put this in..."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its more to the claim the 4e was intended to be nothing but combat. Sure, it might not work quite as well, but clearly the designers' intent was to make 4e about more than just combat.

If the rule is flawed, shallow, and boring, who wants to use it? Ultimately, it ends up encouraging combat by not accomplishing what it sets out to do -- it isn't a very good resolution system, so, if you don't like that, you go fight things.

If they wanted to design a game that wasn't just about combat, they'd have put more work into the skill challenge system to make it an attractive alternative option.

As it is, the system is just there as an ultimately failed attempt to show that 4e can embrace other playstyles. It is not evidence of the designers actually giving much of fig about those other playstyles, because it is shallow, flawed, and boring, whereas the parts the designers cared about -- combat, the powers system, monster generation -- were pretty well designed by all accounts.

 

[malraux]

Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.

This is actually a problem for noncombat resolution -- it's part of the reason that it is shallow, boring, and flawed. It's like every character being able to mark, sneak attack, cast fireball, and heal -- there's no difference between what someone can contribute.

It's part of something that a theoretical "noncombat roles" kind of philosophy can remedy, in the future of 4e.

I'm not sure that the designers have any desire whatsoever to do that, though.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Also, 4e has a lot more support for all classes having useful skills and everyone being able to use all the skills.

Awesome, so all characters can use all skills that are really only useful in combat. Doesn't change the fact that the scope of 4e is heavily combat-centric.

And "useful" skills is relative. There are numerous skills cut in the 3e => 4e transition that some folks found useful.