Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[keterys]

My world has more purpose than to be your freaking playground.

That's an interesting response. It's probably important to note that it's a _different_ purpose, not 'more' purpose.

If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.

If you're designing a world to play adventures in it, you design it differently than you would to write novels about it.

If you're designing a world as an exercise, such as for historical, philosophical, linguistic, or anthropological analysis, you design it differently...

That doesn't mean that these all can't function together in the same design space, but they have very different requirements and goals. Even with those goals, you still need to consider your audience... where the intended audience may even almost entirely be yourself.

For example, I have one player in one group who is a very serious and grim player, where I'd want to make sure that things felt realistic, there were serious repurcussions, death, destruction, etc. I have one player in another group who would stop playing entirely if the barest hint of depression ended up in the game and focuses on jokes and more beer and pretzel combat.

Now, let's say that I have designed a world and intend to write short stories and/or novels in it - that's fantastic. I might want to DM characters playing in that world too, but that doesn't necessarily make it an optimal situation. If I start making concessions to the setting for the PCs I might hinder the novelization, and vice versa. Especially in writing stories you might easily hit a point of 'My god, it'd be perfect if X were Y!' and not being willing to change that because of some outside reason is a limitation.

At any rate, world building is fun and awesome no matter how or why you do it, but it's tremendously useful to understand why you make different decisions in world building.

 

[Lizard]

I'm not really following this here. Would you mind elaborating more on this. It sounds like an interesting "disconnect" but I'm not understanding how you come to that conclusion.

The SC system sits "outside" the rest of the rules. The DC are determined by the level of the challenge, not by the nature of the beings (if any) involved -- in other words, if the challenge is "Win a riddle contest with a dragon", it can be given to a level 1 party or a level 20 party, and the dragons bluff, insight, or whatever score don't play into it. (It's strongly recommended that SCs not be opposed checks). Now, you can choose to ignore this, or to set the DCs based on the dragon's attributes, but the default, as I read it, is not to.

There are no feats or utility powers which specifically address "skill use within a challenge". For example, there's nothing which might let you substitute one skill for another even if it's not supposed to be part of the challenge -- for example, "You may always use Acrobatics instead of Athletics in a skill challenge, at the same DC". The fact a skill challenge, no matter how long it takes, is considered to be a single "encounter" interacts poorly with "encounter powers recharge after a short rest". To use a real-world example, my ranger has Crucial Advice (or as I call it, "You're doing it wrong.") In a skill challenge where each "round" represents an hour or more of time, and we're not physically stressed, he should (by the "five minutes" rule) be able to use that power once per round, since he would have had more than enough time to recharge it. However, since the SC is a single "encounter", he can only use it once. Ditto the various other reroll/luck type powers. (We could also discuss why a high dexterity gives you a bonus to going first during a debate... )

It's a good system, and if you make sure that there's roleplaying involved as well as skill checks, it provides a good balance between player skill and character skill, but it has a "bolted on" feeling to me, as if it were developed apart from the main rules.

 

[Lizard]

That's an interesting response. It's probably important to note that it's a _different_ purpose, not 'more' purpose.

If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.

Uhm....
Amazon.com: forgotten realms novels
Amazon.com: warhammer novels
Amazon.com: dragonlance novels
Amazon.com: greyhawk novels
Amazon.com: shadowrun novels

I think the prosecution rests... or is it the defense? I lose track...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The fact a skill challenge, no matter how long it takes, is considered to be a single "encounter" interacts poorly with "encounter powers recharge after a short rest". To use a real-world example, my ranger has Crucial Advice (or as I call it, "You're doing it wrong.") In a skill challenge where each "round" represents an hour or more of time, and we're not physically stressed, he should (by the "five minutes" rule) be able to use that power once per round, since he would have had more than enough time to recharge it. However, since the SC is a single "encounter", he can only use it once. Ditto the various other reroll/luck type powers. (We could also discuss why a high dexterity gives you a bonus to going first during a debate... )

This is one reason I changed Encounter and Daily Powers. Encounters are now Per Scene and Daily are Per Chapter. It may be too narrativist oriented for some but it works well for us, since it makes it more flexible how they are used, it also cuts down on resting.

 

[Mallus]

If you're designing a world to write fictional books for it, you design it differently than you would to run games in it.

If you're designing a world to play adventures in it, you design it differently than you would to write novels about it.

If you're designing a world as an exercise, such as for historical, philosophical, linguistic, or anthropological analysis, you design it differently...

That doesn't mean that these all can't function together in the same design space, but they have very different requirements and goals. Even with those goals, you still need to consider your audience... where the intended audience may even almost entirely be yourself.

Thanks for posting what I was going to post, only clearer and quicker!

The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form.

Isn't a setting a kind of fiction? A collection of information, easily and endlessly mutable. One can an instance of setting meant for fiction and another more suited for use w/your gaming group (with all the assumptions about setting that games imply), both variations on a theme.

 

[Mallus]

]I think the prosecution rests... or is it the defense? I lose track...

That list demonstrates that people write (and consume!) novels based on games.

The question is how faithful those books are to those games (my limited experience is 'not very'), to what extent did they need to be altered in order to work as fiction (I think anyone who writes a Story Hour here can attest to the fact alterations need to made when making the jump from Cheeto-stained graph paper to page).

 

[GnomeWorks]

The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form.

Isn't a setting a kind of fiction? A collection of information, easily and endlessly mutable. One can an instance of setting meant for fiction and another more suited for use w/your gaming group (with all the assumptions about setting that games imply), both variations on a theme.

Why would you want to separate the two?

I enjoy working on my setting. I also enjoy gaming. The setting is not anathema to gaming, and since most of it is written with 3.5 in mind, gaming functions rather well in the setting.

I enjoy the idea of gaming groups having an impact on the setting. I also enjoy using it as a setting for writing. These two can co-exist in the same setting without instancing.

It's not like the setting is immutable. A gaming group can - and has! - impacted the direction of the setting's future. But I don't change the setting for the sake of the group; I change the setting based on what makes sense and what has happened, which includes the group's actions.

 

[Mallus]

Why would you want to separate the two?

Because I don't neccessarily want role-playing game assumptions/conventions in my fiction. And vice versa. What makes a good novel (usually) doesn't make a good game. And vice versa (redux!).

The needs of fiction and the needs of gaming are different.

But I don't change the setting for the sake of the group; I change the setting based on what makes sense and what has happened, which includes the group's actions.

Why not change things for the player's sake, play to your audience a little, let them bull around in your finely-wrought chinashop (pardon my compound wording, I've been reading Cormac McCarthy)? It's not like they can damage anything, you've always got a pristine version of your setting safely stored away...

 

[The Ghost]

The thing I don't get about GW's position is it treats a setting as if it were a physical object/artwork, cast in some sort of barely mutable material, that's set once in its singular form.

I do, or at least I understand where he is coming from. It is an issue of consistency. If a group of first level characters travel to a city that city should, in all ways, be the same city that a group of eighteenth level characters encounter. The same holds true for dungeons, dragons, wizards, mountains, etc.

Does it matter that it is made up before the characters choose to adventure there or after? I think not. What matters is that everyone enjoys the story.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Because I don't neccessarily want role-playing game assumptions/conventions in my fiction. And vice versa. What makes a good novel (usually) doesn't make a good game. And vice versa (redux!).

I find it interesting to try to make fiction deal with the ramifications of the game physics. It makes me really think about the system from an in-world standpoint, which is good for immersion when at the table.

Why not change things for the player's sake, play to your audience a little, let them bull around in your finely-wrought chinashop (pardon my compound wording, I've been reading Cormac McCarthy)? It's not like they can damage anything, you've always got a pristine version of your setting safely stored away...

Because then - for me - there is no point in gaming.

Right now, I'm playing in a 4e game that one of my regular players is running. Everyone involved knows that he wrote this setting specifically for this game, and that once we're done, the setting is done - we're never going to see it again.

That makes it rather difficult for me to get involved in the game, because it doesn't really matter. We could completely trash the setting, and... there aren't any repercussions. It has no reality, even of an imaginary sort.

When I run a game in my setting, the actions of the group impact the world. There are consequences and ramifications. My groups are both aware of the fact that when they do things, those actions won't just vanish - they have an impact.

Without that, IMO, there is almost no reason to sit down at the table to begin with.