Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[ProfessorPain]

I'm going to jump over most of this with the general idea that Wik (and others) are basically making the same points I would.

I did want to tease out this, because I think it's illustrative of the difference in focus:


Compare that lantern with even the lowly light spell (which that lantern is basically the equivalent of in 4e). It's basic purpose was pretty clear (you use it if you don't have a torch), but 2e included rules for using it to blind enemies (casting it on their eyes!), and in 3e, the idea of using it to negate darkvision was present.

In those games, that spell was a tool -- it generated some effect, and how you used that effect was up to you (fireball to start campfires, etc.)

In 4e, that spell is an effect -- it basically generates that effect. The tool used to accomplish that is mostly up to you (making it easy to reskin, and also very clear in its effect). Anything else is not given real support.

In 3e, when you cast fireball, you made a fireball, and the spell described the effects that fireball would have in certain circumstances (but, it was implied, by no means all).

In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.

It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.

I'm OK with 4e. I play and DM 4e. I'll probably end up doing some 4e design sooner or later (I can't resist tinkering with whatever I'm playing with). But that doesn't mean that 4e couldn't do better in many areas.

One of the areas that 4e really and honestly could do better in is in providing more variety and strategy in the rules for solving noncombat challenges.

It has the potential to do better than any edition before it for that.

It just depends on if the designers have any interest in doing that.

This is a good point. I am definitely more on the simulationist side of things.

 

[MerricB]

I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.

There's a difference between noting that some people play the game differently and asserting that the game should be designed differently because you don't enjoy how it was designed.

The discussion in this thread has mostly been of the latter.

 

[drothgery]

And for dungeon delves, what you are saying is mostly correct. Though I would much rather spread out and increase my chances of not falling down a cliff or getting stuck halfway up the cliff. Since Rondo's jump skill won't really impact my leap over the chasm. But most of what I said applied to city adventures, and those are very different in terms of skill use.

You do realize that you're using as your examples skills that are easily replaced by low-level magic and many magic items in D&D 3.x, right? And that if Rondo climbs up first or jumps across first and throws your character a rope, that's enough to make the task easy even for someone with no ranks, right?

But to just declare that a two 7s are useless when you could have a single 13, doesn't mean anything outside the context of how the game is played. Sure the 13 will be a sure bet for that one skill. But on occasions where you really want to succeed at both skills, the two 7s is a better bet.

No, it's not. Because half-max ranks is so far below max ranks at mid-levels or beyond that it's the difference between a likely success and a likely fail. With the one 13, you'll likely succeed at one task and you can try to work around the other (by using magic or other means). With the two 7s, you'll likely fail at both tasks unless the GM is throwing far-too-easy-for-your-level tasks at you just to cater to your gimped character.

 

[Scribble]

In 4e, when you cast a fireball, you simply deal a kind damage in an area. This is clear and unambiguous, but it's also not much of a launching point for imagination; it's just a mechanical effect.

It's that Simulationist/Gamist divide. And I'd say I'm with Wik when he says if he wanted pure gamism, he'd go play Xbox. A D&D that doesn't focus on what D&D can do that Xbox CAN'T do is, overall, less useful to me.

See I see this again as some people want or need the game rules to tell them what can be done and what can't. (Or imply that much.)

Vrs

Some people want to use the game rules to arbitrate what happens when they choose to do something in the game.

Again I find myself in the later category, and feel contrary to what you feel, that THIS is the real reason tabletop RPGs are so much better then computer games to me.

With a tabetop RPG we have a human involvement that can take a basic concept (fireball causes fire damage) and apply other ideas on the spot. Something a computer can't do very well.

If my player says, hey man, fireball does fire damage... Can I use it to set a tree on fire? I would probably think.. hrmm trees are wood... fireball does fire damage... Sure if you do enough fire damage to the tree it will light ablaze.

Games like GURPS, Rolemaster, and to an extent 3e start to move me away from this ability. By adding in specific rules for everything they start to nullify what I find great about tabletop RPGS and turning the DM into just a script monkey that needs to memorize lots of rules.

Worse yet, if I say hrmm ok you can use fireball to light that tree ablaze... I risk annoying the player who wasted a feat that granted him the ability to start fires with fireball.

Give me the basics of what something does, and I'll run with it. Start getting more specific, and I feel like I'm locked in by what it IS.

 

[drothgery]

I just don't unerstand why people get so heated over something as subjective as how and why people play the game.

Pot. Kettle.

 

[ProfessorPain]

There's a difference between noting that some people play the game differently and asserting that the game should be designed differently because you don't enjoy how it was designed.

The discussion in this thread has mostly been of the latter.

I understand, and I am not a fan of system trashing, since I understand the difficulties of designing a game that appeals to everyone. But the subject of the thread was what 4E has difficulty handling. I have tried to give my opinion of 4E without saying everyone should agree with it. There is nothing wrong with prefering one system over another. What I take issue with is the hostility it seems to generate.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Pot. Kettle.

Not at all. Please show me where I have been angry because someone disagreed with my position. You like the 4E skill system, and thats fine. I don't think it makes you wrong. We just disagree on preferences. And the only time I have expressed anything approaching "heat" is when you have insulted me. And that is a different thing entirely. We can disagree politely. But if you are going to call my intelligence into question because of my position, that is not acceptable.

 

[ProfessorPain]

You do realize that you're using as your examples skills that are easily replaced by low-level magic and many magic items in D&D 3.x, right? And that if Rondo climbs up first or jumps across first and throws your character a rope, that's enough to make the task easy even for someone with no ranks, right?

Spells are not always an option. Charming the guard to get information is usually a back up plan, since people don't like having spells cast on them.

Sure. But Rondo can't always do that. It depends on the obstacle. And you still have to make a check even if you are using rope. If he throws the rope and you tie it to two objects, you are still going to have to use the rope to climb accross. If Rondo simply holds the rope, then he better be strong if you don't make it.

No, it's not. Because half-max ranks is so far below max ranks at mid-levels or beyond that it's the difference between a likely success and a likely fail. With the one 13, you'll likely succeed at one task and you can try to work around the other (by using magic or other means). With the two 7s, you'll likely fail at both tasks unless the GM is throwing far-too-easy-for-your-level tasks at you just to cater to your gimped character.

It depends on what you are setting the DCs at. But even then a +7 isn't that bad compared to a +13. A plus 13 is much better. But a +7 certainly beats a +0 if your going up against a DC 20. This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I think this thread really clearly illustrates one of the fundamental differences in philosophy between 4e and 3e:

If a tree falls in the woods, and there are no PCs around, is it difficult terrain?

In the 4th edition mindset, mechanics are a means to an end - namely, the adjucation of actions and internactions. If a game mechanic exists and isn't used for anything, then it shouldn't exist. It misses the point of having mechanics. This is why Dungeon submission guidelines don't want backstory beyond what the PCs are likely to actually learn; if it doesn't appear in game play, it doesn't have a place in the rules.

In the 3rd edition mindset, mechanics are their own end; their existence justifies itself. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned putting skill points in stealth skills even though it wouldn't be enough to make them really viable at using those skills, because merely having the points in the skill said something about his character, even if he never rolled a Hide check.

This is why Profession and Craft skills aren't in 4th edition, and why they are in 3rd edition. They never get used in-game unless you're really going out of your way to do so, which justifies their removal in the 4e mindset, and means absolutely nothing in the 3e mindset.



As for the original question - does 4e limit the scope of campaigns? Yes. Any RPG system that is good at any particular kind of campaign is poorer in other kinds of campaigns, and anybody who says otherwise is fooling themselves. There's a lot of systems that can be used for any kind of game, but just because you can doesn't mean you should; GURPS can run a "kick in the door, fireball everything, stab anything that's still moving" kind of game, but it can't run it as smoothly as 4e, because 4e specializes in that kind of game.

In the case of an Eberron investigative game, 3e is your best bet, but for a somewhat nonintuitive reason. It's not because 3e is better suited to mysteries than 4e; it's because Eberron is better suited to 3e than 4e (or, at least, it is until they release a 4e Eberron campaign setting) and inquisitive games are very well suited to Eberron. Eberron was designed from the ground up to make the quirky bits of the 3rd edition rules a little more internally consistent (very much a 3e mindset concern, you'll note) and with 4e's wholesale removal of said quirky rules, Eberron loses its great mechanical design and is left with only its (still great) thematic design.

Go find a back issue of Dungeon #133; "Chimes at Midnight" is an Eberron-designed mystery, one of the best short modules I've ever played, and eventually turned into a trilogy.

 

[Nightson]

This is an adventure design issue. If you are making adventures so only the people with maxed out ranks can suceed at anything, then that is a design flaw. You don't use the higher end numbers as baseline. In a balanced adventure the guy with the 7 should still have a shot.

If you're giving the guy with 7 a shot then the guy with 14 is going to find it trivial even before you throw in ability modifiers.