Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Halivar]

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

What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.

Or to see the completion of the plot/campaign, or simply the joy of running around doing unbelievable things. Or well, simply to have fun with friends with make-believe (since really that is all we are doing sure it is matured and has rules and everything but it goes back to childhood make-believe which was about just plain fun).

 

[GnomeWorks]

What about character development? As a player, I'm not at the table just to complete the DM's milieu.

I'm not really certain where you get the idea that I'd be against character development?

Or to see the completion of the plot/campaign, or simply the joy of running around doing unbelievable things.

There is plot completion. Why is it so hard to envision playing in the same setting after finishing up one plot?

As for running around and doing unbelievable things... though I try to restrain my players from doing things incredibly ridiculous, they still do ridiculous things.

It's not as if, when running a game, I'm putting my setting up on a pedestal and telling my players to behave themselves. The approach is simply different; the setting isn't there because of them, and has existence independent of that one game.

If they really wanted to, and really put their minds to it, they could trash my setting. And as much as that would irritate me, I would do what I could with the remnants to make the world interesting and playable again. I would not simply ignore their actions.

 

[Stoat]

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.

I suggest this is another version of the lock that is DC 10 at the Heroic tier and DC: 20 at the Epic tier. In other words, that there is an implicit assumption that the skill challenge is tailored to the party's level. 1st Level parties are assumed to riddle with very young, easily gulled dragons. 20th Level parties are assumed to riddle with older and wiser wyrms.

I don't think this is explicitly spelled out in the DMG. But it is certainly how I would handle it.

 

[Obryn]

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.

I think you're giving too much credence to the independent reality of an imagined construct.

You say that this DM has said, once this adventure is over, we won't play in this game world again.

How would this be different from him saying that there would be further adventures, but with those adventures never materializing? Say, he moves away or the game disbands.

Or, he's said the game world is gone once the adventure is over, but then changes his mind?

As a player, I can't tell the difference. Nothing really matters - in any case, we're doing imaginary things in an imaginary world, perhaps seeing imaginary repercussions of our imaginary actions. It's great for a story, but I'm not going to pretend that it somehow exists outside of the imaginations of myself and my players, nor am I going to pretend that each of our imaginings is coherent with the others.

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.

So do you have multiple campaign worlds?

Have you run any modern-world campaigns set on Earth?

How can your players distinguish from something that has existed all along in your head, and something you've made up at the spur of the moment due to unexpected questions at the game table? Should they be able to make a distinction?

I dunno.

-O

 

[The Ghost]

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.

That's an interesting perspective - a campaign world that is almost a living-breathing entity. Let me ask you then... do your players ever feel as though the situation has become hopeless? What I mean is that does the world's story ever eclipse the players story? I have always gamed with the belief that the DM brings the setting and the players bring the story. The players are the focus of the game. Your way of doing things certainly intrigues me. I am curious to know how it works.

 

[LostSoul]

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).

This is like the lock DC issue.

I'd set the level of the challenge equal to the Dragon's level. That's generally what I do; whatever the opposition is, it has a level, and I use that as the level of the skill challenge. I don't exactly use the level of the creatures, it's more the like the level of the encounter, but it boils down to the same thing. The level of the challenge is derived from the opposition.

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.

I've let players use their Powers in skill challenges. My basic thought is that, if it's an at-will, it allows the PC to do something that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do - roll the attack vs. the DC. If it's an encounter power, then I'll give them a +2 bonus to the roll. If it's a Daily, then a +4.

An example would be: the PCs are being chased by some spined devils; the warlock uses Eldritch Blast to drops some rock in their way. He rolls his attack vs. the DC of the skill challenge, makes it. The spines that the devils shoot are blocked by the falling rubble just in time.

Anyway. Since attack rolls are the same as a skill check (1d20+mods) you can substitue them in for a skill check in a skill challenge.

 

[Halivar]

I'm not really certain where you get the idea that I'd be against character development?

When you said that if you don't have a persistent setting, you don't care about your character or the story.

EDIT: Not "against"... I never said that... but it certainly doesn't sound like a priority.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I think you're giving too much credence to the independent reality of an imagined construct.

It's not like I'm saying "Oh yes, this really is real somewhere."

How would this be different from him saying that there would be further adventures, but with those adventures never materializing? Say, he moves away or the game disbands.

It's like... the difference between a movie and real life.

You know that, when you get towards the end of the movie, things are going to wrap up. There is going to be finality to it, and then - that's it.

Reality keeps going.

If he were to say that we would keep playing in this setting, then it would be more like reality. The way it is now, it is more like a movie.

As a player, I can't tell the difference. Nothing really matters - in any case, we're doing imaginary things in an imaginary world, perhaps seeing imaginary repercussions of our imaginary actions. It's great for a story, but I'm not going to pretend that it somehow exists outside of the imaginations of myself and my players, nor am I going to pretend that each of our imaginings is coherent with the others.

Look, if you disagree with my take, that's fine.

So do you have multiple campaign worlds?

No.

Have you run any modern-world campaigns set on Earth?

No.

How can your players distinguish from something that has existed all along in your head, and something you've made up at the spur of the moment due to unexpected questions at the game table? Should they be able to make a distinction?

I attempt to head off unexpected questions at the table for this very reason (by providing a wiki, it's not like I try to keep my players in the dark), because I don't like giving off-the-cuff answers because it could possibly mess with versimilitude or - perhaps worse - I may have answered the question on the wiki, but it's been so long that I've forgotten about it and give a different answer now.

Should they be able to make a distinction? I'm not really sure it matters.

That's an interesting perspective - a campaign world that is almost a living-breathing entity.

That is the thing I'm attempting to get at.

Let me ask you then... do your players ever feel as though the situation has become hopeless? What I mean is that does the world's story ever eclipse the players story? I have always gamed with the belief that the DM brings the setting and the players bring the story. The players are the focus of the game. Your way of doing things certainly intrigues me. I am curious to know how it works.

That's a bit difficult to answer.

There are things going on in the background, almost always. The world doesn't stand still.

However, whatever game I'm running, the PCs are the focus of that game. It is their story, and while the world story - or even the stories of other simultaneous PC groups - may have an impact on it, we're more interested in the story of the group, for the purposes of a game.

 

[GnomeWorks]

When you said that if you don't have a persistent setting, you don't care about your character or the story.

Oh! I thought you meant in my setting, when I'm running a game, not the game I'm playing in.

Initially, I did. The reason I stopped up is because the DM took our backgrounds (which I spent a good deal of time on) and pretty much threw them out the window. Our characters had no real reason to care about what we were doing - it was primarily a "we'll do this so we can get back to what we were doing prior to the start of the game." Character development options were stunted because of the irrelevance of our backgrounds, and since it's all going to not really matter in the end anyway...