Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[D'karr]

However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.

Once again I point to the opinion that it is generally more time consuming to stop the game in mid-stream while a "rule" is researched, than to adjudicate it on the fly.

Will some adjudications be "more difficult"? Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going. Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO. Just make a ruling and move on.

In 3e there was nothing more frustrating to me, than to spend 10-15 minutes waiting for a DM to go figure out how X or Y interacted. Or for a player to argue the point and then have to spend time while he researched his point. I'm really glad that nonsense is over.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The issue is that having to look up rules can greatly slow down the game. That's the trade off for slightly increased consistency.

I am more than willing to spend a few extra moments of time to gain some amount of consistency.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going. Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO. Just make a ruling and move on.

You and I clearly play the game for different reasons.

If the Green Fungus Acid is something the DM has deemed important enough to have it affect the characters, then it is something that is important enough to warrant time to determine its effects. Whether it is part of "the action" or not is irrelevant; it is part of the world, and has such-and-such effects, and the characters should - as members of that world - be affected by the GFA.

It is also preferable that these effects remain consistent, or have a logical reason for varying over time (and "it's magic" is a valid logical reason in a setting with magic, though a weak one).

 

[The Ghost]

1) Every game has aspects missing to some players. For every player who says this part rocks, there is a player who wants less of it and more of something else.

But 4e has a very robust and popular skill system. Far better than anything we have previously had for D&D. The fact that you do not like it because it isn't 3e's skill system doesn't make it bad or any less robust. It simply shows that your taste run opposite that of the vast majority, since, if you look at the many threads here on ENworld, the 4e skill system is one of those things that people usually like - if they have an issue with 4e, it's not because of the skill system. Obviously some do, but by all anecdotal evidence, those are in the minority.

I've run into this playstyle a couple of times as well. But it isn't nearly as common as you think.

Is it possible for one of the three of you to offer some industry wide statistics that back up these claims? More so than "The impression I get..." or "Anecdotal evidence I see..." or "The groups I play in..." or "A poll at enworld said..."

My fifteen years of gaming experience with over fifty different players and game masters tells me that there is some truth in what all three of you have said. I am interested to know just how much of a "minority" ProfessorPain's position actually is.

(And I understand the irony of using anecdotal evidence to make this point )

 

[Imaro]

There's really two debates here: Whether skill granularity is good and whether 3e had balanced DCs for skill checks. I think it's worth noting, though, that 4e also has some balance issues with skill checks, though tilting the other way -- the DCs are set so that every shmuck has a chance, and thus, the specialists don't even need to roll.

At first level, the difference between an expert and a non-expert can be immense: +5 trained, +3 focus, +1 from background (if being used), +4 from stat (minimum +2), and +2 from race (often). This can be a +15 bonus at first level, enough to make a "hard" skill check (using errata'ed DCs) 100% of the time. An untrained person with an average attribute is at +0. Since skill bonus magic items are still pretty common, this difference will only grow with level, even assuming no more feats which can raise skill checks (but we now have Tribal feats for an additional +2 to +5, kicking the bonus up even more). In order to keep the "Everyone gets to play!" feature, the DCs have to be low enough that 1/2 level alone has around a 25% chance of success.

Maybe this is deliberate design, 4e's version of "system mastery" -- the munchkin who pours everything into being an expert at a skill will not gain a meaningful mechanical advantage since the DCs are scaled back; he'd be just as well off taking fewer skill bonus feats and tricks since, if a DC is 25, the difference between a +26 bonus and a +30 bonus is meaningless, success is success.

Yeah, honestly doesn't it create the same problems being cited in 3.5, without DM intervention you can have skill ratings so far apart they can't meaningfully interact with the same skill DC's. You can have the master of a skill with (+4 attribute, +5 trained, +2 background, +3 focus, +2 race) a +16 dominating and making the character with (+2 attribute and +5 training) +7 pointless... at least according to the arguments leveled at 3.5. Why don't you just sit back and let this character handle anythng concerning this skill (and with less actual skills it's easier to dominate a wider variety of in game actions through dominating in one skill.)?

So really what is the difference if people choose to max their skills out in 4e as opposed to 3.5? How has any of this actually been solved, except through player agreement or DM fiat (same as in 3.5) in 4e?

 

[malraux]

I am more than willing to spend a few extra moments of time to gain some amount of consistency.

A few extra moments, maybe. A few extra minutes, if I can't find the right chart, or left the proper book in another room, or need to check if books have a different entry than paper, in the middle of combat? I really don't think that sort of rigid consistency is worth it.

 

[Imaro]

Once again I point to the opinion that it is generally more time consuming to stop the game in mid-stream while a "rule" is researched, than to adjudicate it on the fly.

Will some adjudications be "more difficult"? Absolutely, but IMO the DMs job is to keep the game moving and the action going. Stopping to look up how Green Fungus Acid interacts with the soles of the characters feet is a waste of time, IMO. Just make a ruling and move on.

In 3e there was nothing more frustrating to me, than to spend 10-15 minutes waiting for a DM to go figure out how X or Y interacted. Or for a player to argue the point and then have to spend time while he researched his point. I'm really glad that nonsense is over.

And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1). Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.? I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?

 

[GnomeWorks]

A few extra moments, maybe. A few extra minutes, if I can't find the right chart, or left the proper book in another room, or need to check if books have a different entry than paper, in the middle of combat? I really don't think that sort of rigid consistency is worth it.

*shrug*

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[malraux]

And yet we need over 500 discrete exception based rules for combat (In just the PHB 1). Why can't the player just attack, and the DM adjudicate what happens outside of the basic damage... whether it's a burst, causes a condition, forces movement, etc.? I mean isn't it just a waste of time to have to look up those powers or through those power cards to research how they work... and really, aren't there arguments, questions, etc. on the 4e rules boards about the minutiae of these powers, keywords, etc. all the time?

Because of rules knowledge specialization. The DM might not know how power x works, but the player does. In addition, the use of things like power cards means there isn't a need to look things up.

 

[LostSoul]

However, rules can be written in such a way that unforeseen rules interactions, such as the one in the fireball example, can be handled by application of one subsystem to another and/or an extension of guidelines that exist for similar effects.

This is pretty much how it works. Is it an attack? Make an attack roll vs the DC that's right there in the stat block. Is it a check? Figure out the level of the check and set the DC.

Then you work out the effects. If it is pure damage, there's a table for it. If it's not pure damage it's a little tricky but not too bad. Does this make sense? Is it balanced? If both answers are yes, go for it. (Balance for non-damaging effects is a mostly unsupported part of the game.)