Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Imaro]

I suppose it should have been spelled out clearer, but the DMG does allude to it in the encounters chapter and probably elsewhere as well. It seemed pretty obvious to me, at least.

Frankly I don't see how anyone could look at the open lock table and conclude that the same lock is harder to open depending on the character's level. The table lists lock quality by tier, not lock DCs by player level.

Where does it say anything about lock quality? And why are we rating the quality of a lock in an arbitrary measurement used to denote the level of play PC's have attained in the game...Especially when other skills, like climb, are rated like this...

Balance:
Narrow or Unstable 20
Very narrow (less than 6 inches) +5
Narrow and Unstable +5


What are we measuring here 4e team? Are DC's measured by tiers and if so what exactly is refrenced in using the tier (PC tier, tier level of the challenge, tier level of the item...which actually makes no sense since it's not used consistently)? Or by pseudo-reality based descriptors (which are sometimes used and sometimes not). Or are we just using whatever, and while we're at it throwing in an arbitrary improv tale that uses a totally different way of determining and measuring DC's than the above ways.

Side Note: Interpreting the OL DC's as dependent upon the player's tier is actually more consistent with how the improvisation tables work in the DMG than interpreting it as the "tier" of the lock... which again makes no sense as the "quality" of the lock.

 

[Greg K]

I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."

So did a lot of people. I was one of them. However, in various forums, I have seen a number of people interpret it as Rodney wrote it was meant to be. I went back took a look and it made more sense that it would be a challenge appropriate for characters of a given level than varying DCs of a particular challenge based on the characters current level (e.g, the character's encountering a slippery surface at one level and then returning to find the same surface was now more slippery (higher DC) simply, because they were higher levels).

 

[Lizard]

I read up to page 6. I can't read anymore! But I wanted to chime in on why 4E non-combat r0x0rz 3.x non-combat.

See, I always play paladins. It's... my thing. Here's a transcript of how I handled "inter-character conflict resolution" in 3E:

ME: Ok! I cast detect evil. Is he evil?
DM: Umm... yes.
ME: Excellent! Mystery solved! I take off his head.

Your DM was, frankly, incompetent.

Here's how it worked in the games I was in.
Me: My paladin casts detect evil. Is he evil?
DM: Sure.
Me: "Surrender or die, varlet!"
DM: Well, let's see. The guards -- who are not evil, by the way -- move in to disarm you. If you explain you used Detect Evil on a member of the Jarl's retinue while oaths of protection, if you're VERY lucky, they'll just exile you and your friends from the territory and you can forget about the peace treaty you've been trying to forge. Do you have ANY evidence that the man has ACTUALLY done ANYTHING illegal, anything you can present to a council of judges? Remember, they've known this guy for years and just met you yesterday.
Me:Uhm... can I take that back?

In the campaigns I've been in, detection spells aren't admissable evidence and using them is a gross violation of manners and protocol. Besides, "Evil" and "guilty" are not the same thing -- a "good" man might commit a crime because he believed it to be the right thing to do, an "evil" man might never break the law in any way.

 

[RodneyThompson]

I don't see that noted. I'll be honest, when I first saw that table, I assumed that you intended for it to be read to say, "The DC for the same lock is different for people of different levels."

Based on the rest of your post, that is not what was intended, and fair enough; but that is how I honestly read it.

Then obviously it needs to be communicated better. I think the concept is communicated--such as, in the quote from the DMG I provided--but it may be worth including elsewhere down the line.

I don't like the assumption that the PCs are always going to be up against something vaguely their level.

I like the idea of high-level PCs having to deal with things that are significantly lower-level than they are, because that sort of thing happens sometimes - and so does the converse.

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. However, the improvisation rules make that assumption because the majority of the challenges the heroes will face are going to be level-appropriate. Facing vastly lower-level challenges, in many cases, aren't actually challenges at all. In the example of the 26th level rogue breaking into the mayor's house, at that point there's likely no roll even involved--it's auto success. That's fine, but it's also not something that the DM is likely to need to improvise in the first place. It's either something he already improvised (at low levels, and thus has those numbers for his reference already), or it's something that isn't intended to stand in the players' way and the DM just narrates it rather than requiring a roll.

The problem is that, by assuming the PCs are always going up against something appropriate, you have made the game feel as though it is all about the PCs, and just about the PCs. And from the game perspective, that's all well and good - but for someone like me, who isn't interested in just that perspective, I find it irksome. The PCs aren't the center of the universe, and assumptions like this make it feel like they are.

Well, maybe it's just a philosophical difference between you and I, but the game is all about the PCs. Your world, as the DM, only actually matters when the players are interacting with it. I'm not saying that other details about the world--such as, what is the economy of this city based on--don't matter unless the PCs are going to interact with them. They do, because they help you as the DM have a more clear picture of the world, and that, in turn, makes it easier for you to both design adventures that used logical consistency as well as improvise more consistently. However, I personally think that the campaign world exists for the PCs to adventure in.

This is not level-based, this is world-based. Give me world-based DCs, and I will determine what I should throw at my PCs based upon their level.

The end result is most likely the same, sure, whether we use your method or mine. But I value processes as much as I do results.

I think that the two are inextricably linked, actually. When you design your world, you are probably creating it with some idea of what level the heroes are going to interact with what element. We assume that players will be interacting with the City of Brass at epic level, so when we create the adventure and other elements of the city we do so with that in mind.

World-based DCs absolutely, 100% do exist in 4th Edition, but they're in a different place. Now, they're in adventures. What the DMG gives you is the guidelines to build your own locations, with their own DCs. Instead of giving you six locks, we've given you every possible lock in existence (or, close enough). When you buy or write an adventure, you're using those tools to create the DCs of your world. You're not choosing a pre-made lock and inserting it into your world; you're creating the lock for your world, and assigning the right DC to it.

It really does come down to a matter of why the DCs are different. You are trying to tell me that it's due to the PCs being higher-level, and that that means that the DCs should reflect that and be more difficult. And I would agree, because otherwise the game would be a cakewalk, and that wouldn't be fun.

The problem is the reason. I want tables with varying DCs based upon the world; I like the 3.5 open locks table, which describes the difficulty based on the kind of lock (admittedly not very well, but it's the principle behind the lackluster execution). The 4e open locks table is based on level, which just rubs me the wrong way.

The truth is, though, that lock DCs are different because you need them to be different. The reason why those different locks exist is to provide you with different challenges for your heroes. The idea that there's some academic reason why the locks in the City of Brass are better is really just an illusion; what it boils down to is that the City of Brass is a place where epic adventures take place, and so it needs to be able to provide epic challenges. Part of that, of course, is that it makes sense. After all, if the City of Brass didn't have epic locks, then the epic inhabitants would just barge through any door.

I feel like what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are almost the same thing. However, I think it's like you're approaching the same endpoint from the same direction. It's like I say that locks in the City of Brass are DC 35, which makes sense because it's guarding against epic threats like the PCs; you're saying that the locks in the City of Brass are designed to guard against epic threats like PCs, so they are DC 35.

 

[Lizard]

Because it's a different lock.

See, that's one thing that I think is commonly misunderstood about 4th Edition's "DCs that scale by level" system. Perhaps we've just not adequately explained the intent, in which case further explanation may be necessary.

Yeah, it might be a good subject for a Dragon article or even some errata. Because, frankly, as I read the DMG, I got the impression that if the PCs encountered a wall at 3rd level and the same wall at 15th level, the climb DC should be increased. (The famous "chart on page 42" seems to feed into this, with the same maneuver doing more damage the higher levels the PC are -- I guess when an epic PC slides down a bannister to kick a monster in the teeth, he slides REALLY fast!)

Essentially, the idea of DCs that scale with level assume that you are throwing level-appropriate challenges at the PCs. The charts by themselves assume that, whatever task the heroes are facing, they are facing it because it's meant to be a challenge for their level. The reason the DC to pick a lock is higher at a higher level is because it's a more complex lock, or perhaps it's forged with magic, etc.

This really is not as clear as it could be in the text. As written, it seems that you should interpret it as "If the PCs are level X, the DCs are Y", rather than "A DC of Y is a challenge for a level X party". Some parts of the PHB and DMG seem to use "objective" DCs (i.e, this kind of door is DC 10, this kind is DC 20) while others use "subjective" DCs ("This is a Hard DC for the party"). Skill challenges, in particular, seem infinitely scalable -- the exact same challenge can work for a 1st level party or a 30th level one. Whether this is a bug or a feature depends on design goals and context: For example, should a group of Epic level PCs REALLY have a hard time persuading a petty duke to do their bidding? By the same token, should 1st level PCs be able to bargain with an Efreet prince? Use of skill challenges for wilderness survival, etc, has the same issues -- does Aragorn have as much trouble scavenging for food in the Shire as he does in the depths of Mordor?

I get what the DMG is trying to do -- to say, "At party level X, here are how tough the challenges should be" -- but it comes across as very Morrowindish, where the same dungeon that held level 1 monsters when you were level 1 holds level 10 monster if you're level 10. (And, my gawd, was THAT a turnoff when I realized it. Killed the whole game for me. Really.)

To a certain extent, "auto scaling" has always been a part of D&D and any other "zero to hero" style game. If you're 15th level, you rarely, if ever, run into first level monsters -- or 25th level monsters. This is explained in all kinds of ways, from "Yes, you've met a lot of orcs on your journey. You killed them in seconds and got no XP" to "You have left behind the old lands and entered the deeper dungeons" and everything else. There's always been a background assumption that you'll encounter "level appropriate" challenges whether in terms of monsters, skills, or whatever. Older editions of D&D have devoted more space to helping DMs justify these things, whether it's "monsters by dungeon level" in 1e, or extensive details of just how tough a door is based on what it's made of in 3e. 4e just eliminates the middleman and says "If your party is 10th level, the DCs should be between X and Y", and leaves it mostly up to the DM to figure out why that is and convey it to the players. Experienced DMs will have no trouble saying, "Not only is this lock exceptionally well made, it seems to be slightly enchanted -- your lockpicks bend and twist as you struggle to work them". Less experienced DMs might not be conditioned to convey this kind of information, or, even worse, not to include "too high" DCs to let the PCs know when they've wandered off track. ("You want to pick the lock on the high wizard's tower? Uh, well, you're first level, so I guess that's DC 12".)

 

[GnomeWorks]

Then obviously it needs to be communicated better. I think the concept is communicated--such as, in the quote from the DMG I provided--but it may be worth including elsewhere down the line.

I'll admit that your interpretation makes more sense than my initial one did. But yes, it could have been clearer.

Well, maybe it's just a philosophical difference between you and I, but the game is all about the PCs.

Oh yes, we most definitely have a philosophical difference.

Your world, as the DM, only actually matters when the players are interacting with it.

No, it doesn't.

I DM for multiple groups, which means that the world needs to matter when a group isn't adventuring in it, because another group *could* be. When I'm not DM'ing, I write fiction based in my setting. This is not just a place for gaming - it is a setting in which gaming happens to take place.

I think that the two are inextricably linked, actually. When you design your world, you are probably creating it with some idea of what level the heroes are going to interact with what element.

That... strikes me as a completely alien approach to world design, actually. I design the world in such a way that it includes elements that interest me and that make sense. Nothing is put there specifically for PCs.

The idea that there's some academic reason why the locks in the City of Brass are better is really just an illusion; what it boils down to is that the City of Brass is a place where epic adventures take place, and so it needs to be able to provide epic challenges.

This seems to be circular, to me, though I'm not quite able to put my finger on how or why.

Things need to be the way they are for a reason. Not necessarily a readily-obvious one, but there needs to be one, and one that is based on the world, not a metagame concept like level.

Why are all the threats in the city of brass epic - why are all the inhabitants epic? The premise of why you need the open lock DCs to all be higher based on tier seems to be based on the idea that everyone the PCs interact with at a given tier is also going to be at that same tier, which seems awkward.

I feel like what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are almost the same thing. However, I think it's like you're approaching the same endpoint from the same direction. It's like I say that locks in the City of Brass are DC 35, which makes sense because it's guarding against epic threats like the PCs; you're saying that the locks in the City of Brass are designed to guard against epic threats like PCs, so they are DC 35.

That would seem to be the way it is going. We are arriving at the same destination, but again, it is not just results I am interested in, but also processes.

 

[Lizard]

World-based DCs absolutely, 100% do exist in 4th Edition, but they're in a different place. Now, they're in adventures. What the DMG gives you is the guidelines to build your own locations, with their own DCs. Instead of giving you six locks, we've given you every possible lock in existence (or, close enough). When you buy or write an adventure, you're using those tools to create the DCs of your world. You're not choosing a pre-made lock and inserting it into your world; you're creating the lock for your world, and assigning the right DC to it.

This is an area where the DMG could have used quite a few more examples. Because, to a lot of DMs, you're NOT giving them every lock in the world -- you're giving them a seemingly arbitrary DC and no tools to help convey the world TO the players in a way which makes it make sense. You seem to be saying, "It's limiting to make DMs pick 'adamantine door' from a list if they need a door to challenge a 20th level party -- we should just say 20th level doors have a Break DC of 30. Then the DM can make up whatever kind of door he wants." The problem is, it can be hard, especially for newbie DMs, to "make up" an appropriate door (or lock, or surface to climb, or whatever), and the "Level->DC" chart doesn't do much to fire the imagination. I know that if I saw a list of, say, six doors with DCs from 10 to 40, I'd be a lot more likely to make up a dozen more than if I just saw a generic DC by level chart. A tiny nudge to the imagination can go a long, long, way, and it also helps make the world more real.

A list of "typical challenges" at DCs 10, 15, 20, etc, for various skills, would be very helpful. I think a lot of DMs start with a cool idea, vision, etc, and would like to know "how hard would that be", instead of starting with "I want a DC 20 challenge" and working forward to thinking what it should look like.

Sure, a tremendous amount of D&D (or any RPG) is pure illusion, all handwaving and "magician's choice". The more obvious the illusion is, though, the less fun it is. The players need to suspend disbelief, too -- they need to believe the door is made of treant wood and banded with iron dragon skin because that's how it was built a thousand years ago, not because they're 20th level and that's the level of door they're going to be challenged by. They need to believe if they'd found that door 10 levels back, it would have been impassable, and if they find it 10 levels from now, they will laugh at it. The world must feel like it exists beyond the game table, beyond the PCs -- that they're walking through a world, not standing still on the holodeck as the world forms around them.

At least, that's what I try to do, for better or worse, in my games, and since my players keep coming back, I must be doing something right.

 

[Umbran]

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, failure the critical.

Welcome to EN World Murad!

We want to be heartily open to discussion of differing opinions. However, when you come into a thread and say, "This thing stinks!" you are not giving any food for discussion. This amounts to simple dumping of negativity in the middle of otherwise constructive talk - something we might call "threadcrapping". It adds no value to the discussion, and takes a lot away from goodwill among posters, so we don't encourage it.

Folks, feel free to talk about what you do and don't like about various editions, but please don't threadcrap.

 

[Spatula]

Where does it say anything about lock quality?

The table is headed "Locks", not "Player Level". Heroic tier locks have an Open DC of 20, Paragon tier locks have an Open DC of 30, etc.

Skill challenges, in particular, seem infinitely scalable -- the exact same challenge can work for a 1st level party or a 30th level one. Whether this is a bug or a feature depends on design goals and context: For example, should a group of Epic level PCs REALLY have a hard time persuading a petty duke to do their bidding? By the same token, should 1st level PCs be able to bargain with an Efreet prince?

A petty duke is pretty clearly a heroic-level challenge. Efreets are epic-level. There's nothing that says challenges are the same level as the party.

 

[Spatula]

I know that if I saw a list of, say, six doors with DCs from 10 to 40

DMG page 64. And the section above it notes that you should think about the DCs as they relate to the player's abilities (i.e. scaling the environment to the players).