Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Celebrim]

Many players (and DMs) of D&D would disagree with you on that point.

I, for one.

Back when 4e first began to leak out, and I saw how focused of a game it was going to be I said that the problem here was that WotC had made assumptions about how D&D was played and had been played over the years that just weren't true. WotC had this idea that there was some sort of consensus D&D that almost everyone played, and that people who didn't play it that way were a small fringe group.

I don't think the 'wierdos' are really that small of a fringe group. I think when you add up all the D&D tables that were playing horror games, historical recreation games, survival games, steam-punk games, detective games, and so forth that it constituted either a majority of the tables or close to one. Sure, no one style was even close to a plurality, but take all the 'fringe' groups together and it was a big percentage.

When I suggested that the new edition wouldn't support 'wierd' styles as well by virtue of being more tightly focused, I was told that people shouldn't have been playing D&D in that fashion anyway because D&D was never perfectly suited to supporting all those wierd styles. But it was never perfectly unsuited either, and over the years DMs had developed ways of coping. Often times it was easier to stay with an established system than move to something which in theory handled your game better, but which in the end would turn out to have rule issues of its own. The bad you knew was better than the bad you didn't, because you were prepared for it.

And really, from WotC perspective is, "If you don't like 4e, go play something else?", really a great selling point?

 

[Reynard]

I think you're underselling a particularly important part of 4e that's really benificial to an investigative-style adventure: It handles a low-combat game much better, in terms of resource management, than any other edition of the game.

With the separation of powers into daily and per encounter categories, and the addition of healing surges, you've got a system where you can throw just one encounter at your party each day and still have that encounter be challenging. A 3rd edition party facing a level appropriate challenge that didn't have to worry about conserving spells and hp for future encounters would have a cakewalk in front of them. If you tried to make things more challenging by adding tougher foes, it just got swingy--either PCs did just as well as they did against lower-level opponents, or they lacked the abilities necessary to effectivly counter their foes.

In 4e, if the party only has one fight a day, it's a little bit easier because they get to use their dailies, but you don't have the same why-even-bother fights that you had in 3e.

Excellent point, especially at higher levels. I was running a 13th-14th level 3.5 game that, due to constraints of both the campaign and the real world, ended up amounting to one major encounter per day and the PCs were juggernauts of destruction (especially since they usually made an effort to scout and plan their attack).

 

[Harlekin]

You'll note I just said "spellthief", which is, of course, a 3e class*. This campaign concept, to me, would only work in a 3e game (assuming we had to choose among editions of D&D). That sort of high magic investigation game would not work in a 4e model, as the main abilities of the characters (powers) do not translate well outside of combat. And in any investigative game, combat shouldn't be happening all that often.

I think exactly the opposite is true. I 3.x the investigation part will be handled by the spellcasters with some help by the high perception classes. So the majority of the game will be handled by some of the PCs while the rest stands around waiting for something useful to do. One of the nice things about 4th is that they also spread the non-combat utility around, every class gets about the same number of skills and can thus contribute in a skill based scenario. Furthermore, skill based characters actually get to shine, as magic cannot cheaply outdo skills. Finally skill challenges if done right are an other tool to allow all players to contribute.

I also agree with arscotts point that 4th edition is much better balanced if you only have one fight between extended rests, as 4th does not allow for the same amount of novaing.

In the end though this follows the general rule: If you think edition X cannot do Y at your table, you are probably right.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The point is, I don't *need* D&D to be all things. I need it to be what it is; there are other games for other scenarios.

I think one of the issues for me is that D&D in previous editions was more adaptable to different styles than 4e is. The modularity of 1e, the setting-specific fiddly bits of 2e, the universal d20 system in 3e....4e isn't very modular, applies its own philosophy to new settings instead of the other way around, and is more concerned about marketable D&D branding than about opening up the game to new experiments and individual styles.

4e has removed a lot of the things that made D&D in earlier editions capable of handling all those things well enough for a few months of gaming fun.

This isn't a problem if you like 4e's style, but if you're a fan of a different style, D&D might not work for you any more, forcing you to find a different game rather than use D&D.

 

[Imaro]

I think exactly the opposite is true. I 3.x the investigation part will be handled by the spellcasters with some help by the high perception classes. So the majority of the game will be handled by some of the PCs while the rest stands around waiting for something useful to do. One of the nice things about 4th is that they also spread the non-combat utility around, every class gets about the same number of skills and can thus contribute in a skill based scenario. Furthermore, skill based characters actually get to shine, as magic cannot cheaply outdo skills. Finally skill challenges if done right are an other tool to allow all players to contribute.

I also agree with arscotts point that 4th edition is much better balanced if you only have one fight between extended rests, as 4th does not allow for the same amount of novaing.

In the end though this follows the general rule: If you think edition X cannot do Y at your table, you are probably right.

Emphasis Mine: Huh? In my 4e books there's still a pretty big disparity between certain classes... like the fighter (3 starting skills) and the rogue (6 starting skills), now it can be offset by the expenditure of feats, but that's dependent upon the spending of character resources.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You, sir, had some very forgiving DMs...

One of the things I dislike most about the change in "culture" between the "old school" and the "new school" (and I'm not sure where the line is; I don't think it's a hard edition line, but "CRs" and "Encounter Levels" certainly didn't help) is the idea that the PCs will not encounter things outside of some arbitrary acceptable level spread -- that somehow the world changes to match their level.

In the deep places of the world, there are things from which even epic heroes should flee.

Of course, you don't have to use the new mechanics for a "new school" game. You can just use CRs and Encounter LEvels to figure out what kind of "monster" you just send against their PCs and maybe take this into account. If you put Ancient Dragon in an AD&D game, what did you expect your 1st level PCs to do?
If you put a CR 15 monster in your D&D 3E game, you can do to the same thing. You just are not "limited" to the monsters you know well enough to gauge, you just look at CR (or level in 4E) and figure it out "mechanically".

Of course the intention in both 3E and 4E is to set PCs against monsters in their level range so that they can experience a fair challenge, and neither waltz through nor just run. But if you don't need that for your games, don't use the tools...

 

[Harlekin]

Emphasis Mine: Huh? In my 4e books there's still a pretty big disparity between certain classes... like the fighter (3 starting skills) and the rogue (6 starting skills), now it can be offset by the expenditure of feats, but that's dependent upon the spending of character resources.

Well yo have picked the biggest difference in the game; almost all classes have 4 skills. And compared to 3.x where the skill-monkey rogue has 10-12 skills and the low int fighter has 1, I think the comparison of 3 to 6 is much less of a difference. Especially as takes a smallish expenditure of resources to even out.

 

[Rel]

IMO, D&D is for playing games of spell-carrying, sword-toting, door-kicking, monster-killing heroes.

If I want to play some other genre, say, Cthuluesque horror, I'll play some other game..such as Call of Cthulu (not the d20 version, either). If I want to play the "common man" sort of fantasy game, I have WHFRPG. Over-the-top badassness? Exalted. Something modern and scary? World of Darkness. Something futuristic? Dark Heresy or Shadowrun.

The point is, I don't *need* D&D to be all things. I need it to be what it is; there are other games for other scenarios.

Totally agree.

If I want to run a gritty, low fantasy game then I'd use WFRP. For "medium fantasy" I'd probably use Savage Worlds (if I hadn't ended up liking 4e and wanting to run a high fantasy game then I'd have dropped 3.5 to play Savage Worlds). If I wanted to play a Cthulhuesque horror game then I'd probably use Dread.

While I don't think that 4e is as limited as some others do, I do acknowledge that it's best to use the right tool for the right job.

 

[the Jester]

I think 4e can handle a wide variety of play styles with a good dm and good players. Investigation- hell, I ran a segment of my 4e campaign that was heavily focused on investigation, with hardly any combat, for about 4 or 5 sessions recently, and they were some of the best sessions we have had (in an overall very fun game). Horror? I think you can do horror quite well in 4e, but I haven't tried it yet. The key is exception-based design. This is a beautiful throwback to 1e and earlier design philosophy; you just make what the game requires, and remember- the suggested guidelines are only suggested guidelines. If you want a horror game with a monster that pcs will have massive incentive to run from, give it resist 15 all; also, have its attacks hit at level + 15 and, while they might only do level-appropriate damage, if you add a rider that "the target takes -5 to saves and cannot take standard or minor actions (save ends both); Aftereffect: the target is dazed and takes a -5 to saves (save ends both)". Suddenly a stand-up fight looks very, very bad to most groups of pcs. You just have to customize things. With the skill challenge rules, it is easy to put mechanics to almost any idea. I've done skill challenges for recognizing that the pcs are in an illusory trap, building a makeshift raft out of Underdark fungus, negotiating prices down from greedy dwarf merchants, escaping from a buried tower via a difficult climb and some tricky navigation, outrunning or outfoxing enemies, trying to deal with the insane, etc. In many of these cases, the skill challenge rules were modified (can't fail- but the challenge goes on, with consequences for each failure, until the pcs get 10 successes; pcs don't know they are in a skill challenge; the challenge is spread over 3 sessions, with many other events and encounters in between; etc etc).

One of the things I dislike most about the change in "culture" between the "old school" and the "new school" (and I'm not sure where the line is; I don't think it's a hard edition line, but "CRs" and "Encounter Levels" certainly didn't help) is the idea that the PCs will not encounter things outside of some arbitrary acceptable level spread -- that somehow the world changes to match their level.

In the deep places of the world, there are things from which even epic heroes should flee.

QFMFT!!!!

 

[Umbran]

And really, from WotC perspective is, "If you don't like 4e, go play something else?", really a great selling point?

Better than than giving players unrealistic expectations of what the game can do, I think. Or trying to build a game that is all things to all people.

I don't think there's any game out there that will do everything well. Part of the nature of a set of rules is that those rules are limiting, and that's okay. But then, I'd prefer to see a gaming culture that is less about finding your own perfect game, and sticking only to that, and instead finding the good parts of many games, and swapping between them as you wish.

I understand that, from a business perspective, this is hard on the publishers - it implies having less depth spread over wider areas.