Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

+2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.

It increases the absolute percentage of you succeeded by 10 points. If you had a 10 % chance to succeed, that would be doubling your chance. If you had a 80 % chance to succeed, that would be increasing your chance by 11.25 %.

But that is actually of no consequence if there is someone around that has an 80 % chance to succeed, and you need only one success. (And in some cases, two people trying the same and one failing might be worse then just one succeeded.)

Your chance to fail with 2 skill points: 90 %. Without them: 80 %.
Your comrades chance to fail: 20 %.

Total chance of failure if both of you get to try and only the better result counts with 2 skill points on your side: 80 % x 20 % = 16 %.
Without the 2 skill points: 90 % x 20 % = 18 %.
Chance of Success is accordingly 84 % vs 82 %. In total, that's roughly a 2 % increase in your chance for the party to succeed.

If your comrade had these 2 ranks to spend, he would have a straigth 90 % to succeed without your help. With your help but no ranks, 90 % x 10 % = 9 % chance of failure. That's more than a 50 % improvement of his chance to succeed.

And that is basically your best case scenario - both rolls can be used, failure of an individual doesn't count. So in a "everyone rolls Knowledge/Gather Information" scenario, it is a tiny benefit.
Your lesson: Maximize the skills in your party. Don't have Jack of Trades, Specialize.

Notable Exception: Skills that have fixed DCs don't need to be maximized. They only need to be spread around if these skills checks have to be taken individually.

Unfortunately, most of these skills are like Climb or Swim, and those are the most costly for those that are already bad at them (e.g. they are cross class skills and the ability score is a "dump" stat, or their armor makes things worse.)

Of course, similar success/failure changes apply in 4E. But you never just have "2 ranks", you get a solid +5 to +8 bonus, and the rest scales with levels.

 

[Mallus]

Does 4e impose a larger restriction on campaign setting/tone than is present in earlier editions?

Not that we've seen. While my group made a new setting for our 4e game, the tone is fairly similar to our 3.5e campaign (as seen in the "Chronicles of Burne" Story Hour).

I don't accept that 4e only works for combat-oriented games. Then again, I don't think the inclusion of Craft/Profession skills and charm spells somehow equate to 'robust non-combat support'. 4e Skill Challenge system --work in progress thought it may be-- with it's linking of task-level resolution and conflict-level resolution is worth more than any of 3e's 'non-combat' mechanics as far as I'm concerned.

What, really, can be done using a 4e campaign setting using rules as written?

It's easier to list what it can't: horror/survival horror (no edition of D&D did this out of the box, so it's a moot point), emulating the prior edition (you could use 2e to run a 1e campaign, the same can't be said for 4e and 3e), any kind of historical game (without copious pruning/reskinning), ahem, 'grim-and-gritty (again, D&D never did this well).

BTW, my group runs a PC-initiated story and role-playing focused campaign heavy on atmosphere and loony characterizations. One adventure was a Great Expectations homage that led to fighting wraiths in the land of the dead. In an upcoming one the party is going to put on the most spectacularly bad play in the history of theater, which is part of a convoluted plan to keep ownership of a dire pig sow from across the Astral Sea which they've been building a false religion around.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

+2 comes to about a 10% increase in your ability. I don't think that is as insignificant as you think.

Then you misunderstand my point and the math behind it. If the goal of the party is to succeed, and that is defined by someone in the party succeeding, then the chance of succeeding is exactly the same with the +2 as without it.

If you have someone in the group with +25 in Diplomacy and someone with a +2 in Diplomacy then the chance of succeeding in a DC 25 Diplomacy check is 100%. If you don't have the +2, the chance is still 100%. Therefore, no improvement at all. In fact, there is no DC that could cause the +2 to have any significance at all. If it is below 25, the chance is 100% still, if it is above 25, your +2 doesn't change the percentage since you can't possibly succeed.

The only time you can help at all is with an assist. In which case, anything that gives you more than a +9 to your roll is completely useless.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Then you misunderstand my point and the math behind it. If the goal of the party is to succeed, and that is defined by someone in the party succeeding, then the chance of succeeding is exactly the same with the +2 as without it.

If you have someone in the group with +25 in Diplomacy and someone with a +2 in Diplomacy then the chance of succeeding in a DC 25 Diplomacy check is 100%. If you don't have the +2, the chance is still 100%. Therefore, no improvement at all. In fact, there is no DC that could cause the +2 to have any significance at all. If it is below 25, the chance is 100% still, if it is above 25, your +2 doesn't change the percentage since you can't possibly succeed.

The only time you can help at all is with an assist. In which case, anything that gives you more than a +9 to your roll is completely useless.

But lots of times, skills are about individual success (do I jump the canyon). You are building a straw man. Most skills tests are not just about one member of the party getting the whole party through. And even when they are, it is often a matter of who gets to shine. I have had countless instances in my campaigns, especially during investigations, where the party split, and the guy with the two ranks in diplomacy mattered. Or where the rogue with the +14 succeeding, didn't get the whole party through, because everyone had to make their own check and be judged indivudally by an NPC. Or what about those rare instances where the +14 rogue doesn't want to help the party, and they need to fall back on the next guy. Who succeeds and how is often very important to story, and creating texture in the party.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Of course, similar success/failure changes apply in 4E. But you never just have "2 ranks", you get a solid +5 to +8 bonus, and the rest scales with levels.

Again, this just ends up making everyone the same. And I think
you are both overplaying the "one guy succeeds so the party does" thing. This definitely happened rarely in most of campaigns. Especially on city based adventures. Sure there are moments when that happens. But there are also lots of times when everyone has to make their own roll and suffer differing consquences.

 

[Irda Ranger]

It's wrong to assume that more vagueness is a good thing in "roleplaying." It's a matter of focus.

I see vagueness as a good, since the dividend that vagueness pays is "rule-space for creative DM interpretation." Very specific charts may be less vague, but they also pin you down; and what happens if the chart doesn't have a modifier for "NPC is a religious zealot of the Order of St. Croix."

Here is perhaps a heretical thought: Combat is no different from a skill check. They both do the same thing. Combat could be reduced to a skill check.

Oh, I see the problem now. You're an idiot.

I'm kidding of course, but I think combat is not at all like a skill check. They're measurably, objectively different.

would you have a problem with skill challenges replacing combat in your game?

Depends on the game, I guess. If you want a really abstract combat system where no time at all is spent on combat - sure. Just create a "Kill it with an axe!" and "Kill it, kill it with fire!" Skills (for Martial and Arcane classes, respectively) and call it a day. Why not? Burning Wheel has a combat system like that and resolving a combat (no matter how many people are involved) takes about 20 seconds.

But of course the price you pay for that is loss of tactical control. But if the tradeoff works for you, go for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming. Every edition has had a primary focus on combat. It has always been the most detailed system within the game system.

I agree.

If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D? There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs).

There's a whole bundle of reasons to use D&D even though it has never been perfectly suited to noncombat to handle noncombat things. The biggest one is probably that it is the most popular RPG out there, so it's the one that everyone in the group knows how to play, has been playing since high school, and the one you can find new players or a DM for. Because the campaign will probably only last a few months, it doesn't need to be ideal at handling those noncombat things, just "good enough." Because most often, individual sessions might focus on other things, but the campaign overall might use combat as an important tool. Because D&D has always modeled a class-and-level based system. Because you want said political mechanics to occur along with the cults to Demogorgon. Because no one wants to bother to buy or to research other games.

Because, basically, D&D was easier to use and it was "good enough" for the time you'd use it for.

People did it all the time.

"4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions"

"Those editions didn't do games without combat well either"

"Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er."

This isn't a strawman argument -- it is the real situation. This isn't about what systems are theoretically ideal for a game that isn't about combat, this is about specifically 4e doing it less well in comparison to an earlier edition. That's the point.

Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly. Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it?

Because that is how D&D has been actually used by a multitude of gamers for 30 years. It was a playstyle that 4e has abandoned in favor of doing one thing well.

The game has always been the same. Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this.

Of course it does. The game has always been different. Not one normal group has played by-the-book D&D, I'd wager, since it was invented (possible exception for RPGA and other "official" play, but I'd hardly call those "normal" groups). That diversity was a strength of the game, it allowed the most popular RPG to be "good enough" for a variety of things.

4e has narrowed this focus considerably, meaning that, in part, this strength has been lost.

Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do. There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play.

So ultimately, you're saying this:

"KM, you're absolutely right, but I just think those people who want that shouldn't be playing D&D.'

We can probably agree to disagree on that side-point for this conversation, since it's not about who theoretically should or shouldn't be playing D&D, it's about what 4e actually does in practice.

Because I am playing D&D.

If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?

Unless you WANT more detail for combat?

So perhaps you could envision a situation where a D&D player WANTS more detail for non-combat?

That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute. It is D&D afterall. What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&D were not combat focused.

I certainly never said that. Just that 4e, by decreasing the noncombat rules, has damaged the campaigns of those who use those rules extensively.

Your "unsuported hogwash" that these people don't exist or should be playing some other game doesn't actually matter for what people actually do. They still want to play D&D, even if they want to play it differently than you do.

And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&D are combat focused, what are we arguing about? The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions?

Yes, actually. I'm as surprised as you are that people are defending 4e's capability for noncombat-focused campaigns since 4e clearly doesn't have as many.

I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why.

For instance, that you think skill challenges are "better" at handling noncombat than what previous editions had speaks to the fact that you're not doing a whole lot of non-combat focused games (since you won't use them to replace combat, I'm guessing you're not generally comfortable with open-ended rules), and thus really aren't talking about the same thing as I am.

 

[Pbartender]

If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?

Nothing. In fact, some of the new 4E supplements suggest just that for certain "combat" scenarios. I was just reading Open Grave, in which they have an example of using a skill challenge for a city-wide zombie infestation. I could see the same idea being used for PCs being involved in large-scale battles between armies, or leading (or defending) a beseiged city.

A 4E Lite system that effectively used skill challenges (or somethign similar) for everything, including combats, could be interesting.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But lots of times, skills are about individual success (do I jump the canyon). You are building a straw man. Most skills tests are not just about one member of the party getting the whole party through.

I'll have to say we have very different experiences on this. It's possibly because of the players I play with. If there is a check to be made, it only gets made by the highest modifier. When an NPC asks them a question, they immediately ask out of character "Who has the best Diplomacy again? Right, you should answer him. The rest of us, shut up, if we say anything, the DM might make us make a roll. That means you, Half-Orc Barbarian!"

Rule number one in every party I've been in has been "Don't split up!" So, the highest modifier is ALWAYS around to roll. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare.

Or where the rogue with the +14 succeeding, didn't get the whole party through, because everyone had to make their own check and be judged indivudally by an NPC.

The thing about individual checks is that they often end up in a situation that makes an adventure unworkable. If everyone needs to make a jump check to get over a pit, then either the DC is easy enough for even the lowest skill or one person doesn't get across the pit.

Either the group continues without the one person who couldn't make the jump check and you make the player bored as he has to sit their and watch for the rest of the session or the group finds another way that doesn't involve making the jump check. If they find another way, then then jump check was unimportant and it doesn't matter if everyone made it.

If everyone has to impress the king or they won't be allowed to go on the mission, anyone who fails either has to roll up a new character, sit there being bored, or the DM finds a way to involve him despite the fact that he failed. In which case the failure doesn't mean anything.

The thing about these situations is that parties avoid putting themselves into them as well. If the Rogue has a -2 jump check and the party comes to a 20 foot wide pit, no one is going to suggest that they all jump across. The Rogue is going to fail for sure. The only options are to leave him behind or find a way that doesn't involve jumping. Very few groups are going to opt for a solution that involves one person not playing for a while.

Or what about those rare instances where the +14 rogue doesn't want to help the party, and they need to fall back on the next guy. Who succeeds and how is often very important to story, and creating texture in the party.

There certainly ARE circumstances that are exceptions. I'm not disagreeing with that. It's just that the exceptions are so rare as to prove the rule. It heavily depends on how your DM plans his/her game, I think. Most published adventures, RPGA adventures and homebrew adventures written without specifically being tailored to the group can't really plan the adventure around WHO succeeds.

When they are being written, they normally are in this format:

The innkeeper knows about the cultists' plan, but he is being threatened by them. He can be persuaded to tell the PCs, however, with a DC 20 Diplomacy or Intimidate check.

In practice, this is normally run like this:

Innkeeper: (fearfully) "Sorry, I know nothing about the cultists. Please, just go away."
Players: "Alright, who has the best Diplomacy? The Cleric? Ok, maybe you should try to convince him to change his mind."
Cleric: "Please, we won't hurt you. We'll make sure no one harms you, but we need to find out where they are."
DM: "Make a Diplomacy check."
Cleric: "I have +20, I rolled a 15 for 35."
DM: "He tells you that the Cultists are hiding out in his cellar."

That is pretty much how 95% of all skill checks are handled in games I've been in. In this situation, it simply doesn't matter that the Rogue has a +2 to Diplomacy. It also doesn't matter if you are running the game in 4e or 3.5e, the game works exactly the same. Except the DC in the 4e game is 25 and the Rogue has +15, meaning the Cleric needs a 5 and the Rogue needs a 10. Which means they both have a chance of succeeding and the Rogue can role play his outgoing character without fear that he's screwed over the party by opening his mouth. Even though it might have been better to let the Cleric speak.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A 4E Lite system that effectively used skill challenges (or somethign similar) for everything, including combats, could be interesting.

So you're more on the "open-ended rules are cool with me!" side of things, yeah?

Which is great. It's not what I like playing with, but if you're OK with those kinds of rules for most of your game, 4e, I imagine, does noncombat just fine for you, even if you focus on it for a little while.

Since I like something more robust than rules like that (though, it must be said, it doesn't need to be MUCH more robust), it's not something that satisfies what I'm looking for out of the game, usually. But that just seems to be a difference in playstyle between us, which is just really saying "noncombat in 4e doesn't support my playstyle as well as noncombat 3e (or 2e or whatever) did"