Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

And in these cases, those 2 skill ranks will not do much, either.

Look at a "Jump the Pit" - every party member in a 4 man party (level 4) has to clear a 15 ft wide chasm (DC 15) in mid-combat. Rogue and Fighter have 7 ranks. The Rogue has a +1 bonus from Strength and a +2 synergy bonus for a total of +10. The Fighter has a Strength of 18, an armor check penalty of -3, and a -6 penalty from speed, for a total of +2.
The Wizard has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of -1 for a total of -1.
The Cleric has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of +2 but a -3 penalty from armor and -6 from speed for a total of -7.
Rogue: Success Chance 80 %
Fighter: Success Chance: 40 %. (Without Armor: 80 %.)
Wizard: Success Chance of 25 %.
Cleric: Success Chance of 0 %. (Without Armor: 40 %)
Total Chance for the party to succeed with armor (for example, in combat) :
80 % x 40 % x 25 % x 0 % = 0 %.
Total Chance for the party to succeed without armor:
80 % x 80 % x 25 & x 40 % = 6.4 %
Let's give the Cleric and the Wizard 2 extra ranks (costing them a total of 8 ranks)
80 % x 80 % x 35 % x 50 % = 11.2 %

Your chances almost doubled. And are still pathetic. Luckily, one level later, the Wizard can cast Fly, and I think Air Walk isn't too far away for the Cleric, either.
But at 4th level, Rogue and Fighter will notice the chances of success and the Fighter or Rogue will jump over and affix a rope, making it vastly easier for Cleric and Wizard to get over. Again, making it only depending on one character to get over the pit. It works similar for Climb.
Swim is maybe the only case where this isn't your way out, and if the scenario is really at DC 15 or even DC 20, say good bye to your Wizard and your Cleric.

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

And your point is wrong. 4e does it better than previous editions of D&D, but still worse than a great number of other system choices if the focus of your campaign is noncombat.

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.

4e does noncombat better than previous versions of D&D.

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.

This claim is unsupportable. You still won't find any two groups that are the same and 4e does noncombat better than previous editions of D&D.

it's about what 4e actually does in practice.

Which is to have the best combat system D&D has yet had coupled with the most involved and fluid noncombat system yet.

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

I like the combat system, too.

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

Yes. Unfortunately, no other edition of D&D gives you more detail because this is not the focus of any edition of D&D. This is where a gamer's imagination comes in. It is gamer's imagination that has led to so many different ways of playing D&D over the years. 4e didn't take any of that way and it frees the game from the unnecessary constraints of the 3e system.

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

4e didn't decrease the noncombat rules. It increased their functionality and streamlined their presentation while making them more exciting, fun, and tense.

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.

Your assertion doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny.

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.

You don't know anything about my games. That I've actually used skill challenges numerous times shows that I do, indeed, do a lot of non-combat. My games certainly feature combat, we are roleplaying adventurers, after all. My games are pretty heavily roleplay focused, in and out of combat, and my group enjoys a lot of involved noncombat activity. I've used skill challenges to see if the group, invited as guests to a feast given by the local ruler, could impress said ruler and gain his favor; to determine what kind of impression the group could make on the townspeople in the first couple weeks, having established a base of operations as a mercenary company; more than once in a hybrid situation along with combat; to play out a duel of wits and song between a PC musician and a rival bard; to cover days of exploration searching for an ancient temple in a barren landscape; to handle the PCs scaling a dangerous mountain to an ancient fortress while avoiding detection from enemy patrols.

That you think skill challenges don't work shows your inexperience and lack of understanding of the subsystem and what it brings to the game. I understand skill challenges inside and out, and more importantly, I get the intent of the system, so I can use it in a very flexible manner to handle just about anything.

As for open ended rules, 4e is a lot more open ended than 3e, which is one of its strengths. It restored the game to its 1e state of DM empowerment and unshackled us from the constraints of 3es player mastery/rules lawyering.

 

[ProfessorPain]

And in these cases, those 2 skill ranks will not do much, either.

Look at a "Jump the Pit" - every party member in a 4 man party (level 4) has to clear a 15 ft wide chasm (DC 15) in mid-combat. Rogue and Fighter have 7 ranks. The Rogue has a +1 bonus from Strength and a +2 synergy bonus for a total of +10. The Fighter has a Strength of 18, an armor check penalty of -3, and a -6 penalty from speed, for a total of +2.
The Wizard has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of -1 for a total of -1.
The Cleric has no ranks and a Strength Modifier of +2 but a -3 penalty from armor and -6 from speed for a total of -7.
Rogue: Success Chance 80 %
Fighter: Success Chance: 40 %. (Without Armor: 80 %.)
Wizard: Success Chance of 25 %.
Cleric: Success Chance of 0 %. (Without Armor: 40 %)
Total Chance for the party to succeed with armor (for example, in combat) :
80 % x 40 % x 25 % x 0 % = 0 %.
Total Chance for the party to succeed without armor:
80 % x 80 % x 25 & x 40 % = 6.4 %
Let's give the Cleric and the Wizard 2 extra ranks (costing them a total of 8 ranks)
80 % x 80 % x 35 % x 50 % = 11.2 %

Your chances almost doubled. And are still pathetic. Luckily, one level later, the Wizard can cast Fly, and I think Air Walk isn't too far away for the Cleric, either.
But at 4th level, Rogue and Fighter will notice the chances of success and the Fighter or Rogue will jump over and affix a rope, making it vastly easier for Cleric and Wizard to get over. Again, making it only depending on one character to get over the pit. It works similar for Climb.
Swim is maybe the only case where this isn't your way out, and if the scenario is really at DC 15 or even DC 20, say good bye to your Wizard and your Cleric.

I never said it mattered a lot. But +2 still matters, even in the example you give. The point is, in 4E you are either on or off with a skill. A +5 or not a plus 5 in terms of ranking. In 3E there are lots of gradients. I can take +2 (someone who just started learning the skill), a +3-6( Somone who has been at it for a bit, a +7-10 (someone who has been at it for some times, etc. And within those ranges there is variety. That is the point. Also the party doesn;t fail, because the wizard falls down the chasm. The wizard fails. The party must decide if they want to go on without a wizard, and that is up to them (it also makes for interesting gaming). But you are creating a false example by saying if one member fails, everyone else does as well. And if the wizard knows he probably can't make the jump, he probably needs to find an alternate means across (magic wouldn't be a bad idea here-- though it does waste a spell slot).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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"

Regarding "free-form" vs "detailed":
I remember that we have exchanged ideas on making non-combat more like combat, including stuff like an equivalent for hit points.

I am trying to figure out why this idea doesn't appeal to me. I like a reasonably detailed combat system. But a "combat-like" approach to social encounters or navigating a dungeon somehow feels wrong to me.
Would you also agree that it is going too far, or would you go for that approach?

Here is an example system:
In a social challenge, each skill check might represent an argument or counter-argument. Your opponent has a certain amount of "social points" (which might depend on what the PCs want to achieve), and each successful attack costs him points. At the same time, he gets to "roll back" and deal damage to the PC social points, and whoever loses all his points, must accept the NPCs demands. (Maybe you could use "Bloodied" for in-between states of compromises.)
I think what you had suggested looked a little similar, but it's been some time...

I am trying to figure out _what_ I don't like about these systems, and I think it is because I have no idea what these individual rolls "mean" in the game world. Now, we might often have no clues what hit points represent exactly in 4E. But basically, if I make an attack roll, I can describe what I am doing - I swing my sword in some fancy way and if I hit the enemy is hampered and if I don't I fail. I can basically do this all day, regardless of whether the combat takes 3 rounds or 30. Ultimately, I might repeat myself a lot (or don't bother to narrate anything), but that is not a big problem, because I can accept combat being so repetitive.

But my approach to playing a social scenario would be different. I would try to decide what my character is saying, and a roll represents that. But I can only make up so many things I can say (or describe saying). If the system tries to resolve the scenario with too many dice, I have no idea what to say, and I'd have to go back to not describing what I actually do, or repeating myself, and either feels "wrong" to do.

Of course, this just "proves" to myself that my approach to "social combat" fails for me. Maybe your idea would be better?

Maybe a different approach might be to divide the social encounter in various aspects. You roll once for "properly adressing the NPC(s)", one roll for "intoning the argument", one roll for "explaining the logic". That would cut down the number of things to talk about... But it seems a little ... fiddly. THere still doesn't seem to be a big point to it.

Another aspect might be "Where are the tactics?". Combat is full of tactics. Who to attack when with what power, combat option or spell. Where to move?
Can I find something similar in a non-combat challenge? Social, Exploration, Investigation, Research? What is the equivalent of a "charge" in exploration or research?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never said it mattered a lot. But +2 still matters, even in the example you give. The point is, in 4E you are either on or off with a skill. A +5 or not a plus 5 in terms of ranking. In 3E there are lots of gradients. I can take +2 (someone who just started learning the skill), a +3-6( Somone who has been at it for a bit, a +7-10 (someone who has been at it for some times, etc. And within those ranges there is variety. That is the point. Also the party doesn;t fail, because the wizard falls down the chasm.

Well, if losing a party member is not failure, okay. The Wizard fails the check, but the party fails the "encounter". Well, or at least takes a serious loss.

The wizard fails. The party must decide if they want to go on without a wizard, and that is up to them (it also makes for interesting gaming). But you are creating a false example by saying if one member fails, everyone else does as well.

Goal: Get the party over the chasm.
Failure: Not the enitre party gets over it.
Success: The entire party gets over it.

The game doesn't end because of this failure, but it even doesn't end if the entire party is disintegrated and dusted to the wind. But I think it is a reasonable definition of failure to not meet your goals. There might be degrees of failure, but it is not a success.

And if the wizard knows he probably can't make the jump, he probably needs to find an alternate means across (magic wouldn't be a bad idea here-- though it does waste a spell slot).

So, did the 2 ranks help him avoiding to look for an alternate way or not waste a spell slot?

 

[Pbartender]

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

Absolutely. In the past, my players ahve gotten stuck in the mentality of "the rules don't say I can do it, so I can't". It got particularly bad a few times while we were playing 3E.

Explicit open-ended rules (4E isn't completely open-ended, but are generally more so than 3E out of combat) help my players break out of that mind set and be a little more creative about their solutions.

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.

Right. I persoanlly enjoy detailed combat rules that allow for occassional open-ended rulings -- it satisfies the little tactician in my head. But at the same time, I prefer looser, wide-open rules for non-combat situations -- that satifies my creative problem solver.

That's part of the reason I've been enjoying 4E... It's the version of D&D that's come closest to those two ideals.

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"

You've got that right. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Overall, the different are really no better or worse than each other. They're just diffrent styles of play.

I, for one, am glad that we finally have enough different editions of D&D that almost everyone can pick and choose an edition best suits their play style and still be playing D&D.

 

[ProfessorPain]

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!"

Every group is different. And everyone takes home a different impression of each edition.

In my group, this would be considered metagaming, and I would ask the party to keep it in character. Even if they persist in metagaming though, you need to spice it up. Sometimes the guy with the highest rank in diplomacy, isn't the person the NPC wants to address. Maybe the mayor of the town, refuses to deal with someone who appears too manipulative, or has a "roguish" manner about them. They might single out the most dim-witted looking member of the party in order to take advantage of them.

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.

This is normally true in combat adventures, but in investigations splitting up usually speeds things up a lot. It is much easier if people pair up and follow different leads.

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.

No adventure should hinge on a single roll of the dice. There should always be alternatives to jumping the pit. In these circumstances, different levels of skill in different things, allow characters to shine in different ways. A good way to solve this, is to have failure result in making things harder, but not impossible. Think of it like a movie, maybe the guy falls onto a small ledge fifteen to twenty feet down. Sure he takes some damage as punishment, but now the party has to figure out a way to rescue him. In my mind this is more exciting anyways.

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.

See my suggestion above. Again, this boils down to adventure design and how you handle failures. I always try to keep all my players from gettting bored no matter what. The question you need to answer, is where does the player fall? This can be really interesting. Even if the party leaves him, he can still try to figure his own way out and catch up later (and hey that makes for a great little side trek--plus it is an opportunity to do a split party which is often fun if done well)

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.

Again this is adventure design. If failure of one roll means the adventure stops, then it is bad no matter what skill system you use, because you either let them fail and everything comes to an end, or you make it a cake walk. You need to be creative with failures, and understand there is always more than one way to overcome a challenge. Okay, so maybe they didn't impress the king. But maybe the king's uncle saw an opportunity, and offers to get them on the king's good side in exchange for a favor. Or maybe they have to deal with the theives guild instead of the king.

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.

Sure. In near impossible situations, people will seek alternate paths. I would argue a clever party can use the theives high rank to get everyone across (maybe he jumps and then throws a rope back for everyone else). In this case, he shines, but the others still get across.

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.

They aren't rare at all in my games. Especially if you are playing a non-combat heavy adventure, where skills keep coming up.

So don't plan around who succeeds. Just make sure there are different paths to success. and that these different paths yield different results.

 

[Rel]

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.

IR, you KNOW we frown on this kind of thing here. Do you see me frowning? That's me frowning really hard. DON'T do this again and I don't care that you added a smiley and a "kidding".

 

[ProfessorPain]

So, did the 2 ranks help him avoiding to look for an alternate way or not waste a spell slot?

I think I addressed most of your concerns in my previous post (above), but this one is important. If you are facing a skill roll that is a life/death situation and it hinges on rolling well, of course you will seek an alternate path. And on those rolls I wouldn't put all my eggs into two ranks. But most skill checks don't result in death if failed. haggling with the inn keeper, those two ranks may come in handy. Or trying get the skinny on the head of the thieves guild at a loval gambling den, +2 or +3 might make the difference. Does it assure success? Absolutely not, and it shouldn't. 2 ranks means you character has just picked up a skill recenlty. He shouldn't be an expert yet. But he can try his hand at it. If it becomes important enough to you, then you will take more ranks down the road as your character grows.

 

[ProfessorPain]

IR, you KNOW we frown on this kind of thing here. Do you see me frowning? That's me frowning really hard. DON'T do this again and I don't care that you added a smiley and a "kidding".

I think this boils down to respect. Having respect for the other side to form its own opinions.