Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Imban]

But what I really find interesting is the larger question: what encourages role-playing? People have very different opinions on the subject --which of course feeds into the even larger question of the how they define role-playing-- and I like discussing fundamental differences like that.

I guess I'll throw in my hat here. I find that I can roleplay better when I've made the character I wanted to make. If I end up making a guy I don't like because of the system, or didn't make a character at all, it's hit or miss whether I'll feel like playing him for more than a session or two. 4e isn't actually bad about this, but 3e was better, partially as a result of having 500 or so books. 2e was worse than 4e, though, and I'd play that again any day.

Also, well... having room for the act of roleplaying aids roleplaying. Talking in character, deciding what your character would do, and so on. Roleplaying, at least for me, does not have 'stage directions' - I don't know what my character's going to do for sure until play starts, things happen, and I make choices. This gives me a bit of a problem with how a lot of skill challenges are written in 4e - it feels hard to convey that you can specifically use Bluff, Diplomacy, or Insight in this skill challenge, and if you use Insight it opens up History because you have the specific insight that he was a general in a major war in the past, without just saying that and, when someone uses it, giving them 'stage directions' as to what that skill means they're saying. Or just not roleplaying it.

I mean, I guess you could just have them pick and use skills as they'd think they'd be useful, but some of the "primary skills" in these skill challenges are kind of... arbitrary, and thus not conducive to being discoveed in play.

(Of course, not all skill challenges are alike, especially the ones you write up at home.)

At some point you're faced with the choice of fixing problems or retaining backwards compatibility. Note the big break between 2e and 3e, and the fact the 3e rejuvenated D&D even though it's essentially incompatible with the previous editions.

Also, just as a comment, the break between 2e and 3e is almost entirely systemic. They stopped support for several 2e settings in the process, but in a lot of ways 3e clung very closely to 2e in setting and "meta-setting" material. I mean, heck, between 1e and 2e in FR, two editions that didn't change very much, they had gods walking the planet and blowing each other up. Between 2e and 3e, a huge mechanical change... a few years passed. 3e and 4e, not so much.

 

[The_Gneech]

That's why I was asking for your honest opinion regarding what fostered role-playing in previous editions of D&D. Your experiences of those games is different from mine and I was curious. For the record, I don't think any edition of the game does much in the way of encouraging or discouraging role-playing. My groups did a lot of role-playing in AD&D, 2e, and 3e, but not because of anything in the books, it was all from what we brought to the table personally.

...

I wanted to know precisely what we were disagreeing about.

...

But what I really find interesting is the larger question: what encourages role-playing? People have very different opinions on the subject --which of course feeds into the even larger question of the how they define role-playing-- and I like discussing fundamental differences like that.

The whole "skills for crafting" and "mechanics to encourage RP" question is sort of hard to explain to people who don't instinctively get it; but to some extent, it's a matter of focus.

When you create an RPG character, you have a limited amount of resources with which to build it; allocating those resources is one way to prioritize that character's interests and experience.

I forget which game it was now, but there was one RPG that mentioned in the gamemastering section that the GM should be familiar with the PCs' character sheets not just for the number-crunching of "will this encounter kill 'em" but also as a guide for what sorts of adventures the player wants to take part in. Somebody who has poured a lot of resources into being a good swimmer (to pick a random example) is going to be disappointed by a campaign that takes place in the desert. Obviously, they want to swim! Or at the very least, expect to swim.

So if somebody makes a point of allocating their character's limited resources to, just to grab an example from elsewhere, "Perform (Haiku)," you can reasonably expect that the player wants the performance of haiku to feature somehow. A feat, even more so! If somebody is willing to burn one of their precious feats on "Skill Focus: Perform (Haiku)" then it stands to reason that they value having their character be "a great hiaku composer" far more than they would, say, being able to fight with two weapons.

The recurring refrain from some corners of "So go play GURPs/HERO then!" is particularly frustrating for a number of reasons (1), not the least of which is that the core d20 system is a perfectly good system and there's no good reason why it can't easily support that style of play -- it's just that for whatever reason some people don't want it to. Heck, Star Wars Saga Edition supports that style of play beautifully by simply starting from the assumption that everybody is decent in combat, so allocating character resources to highly personalized skill sets doesn't debilitate you as much as it might in D&D.

-The Gneech

(1) On top of the whole "externalities" thing about finding a group, the availability of resources for the time-strapped GM, and all that jazz. "Go play GURPs/HERO!" is the gaming equivalent of "Let 'em eat cake."

 

[Scribble]

The whole "skills for crafting" and "mechanics to encourage RP" question is sort of hard to explain to people who don't instinctively get it; but to some extent, it's a matter of focus...

The recurring refrain from some corners of "So go play GURPs/HERO then!" is particularly frustrating for a number of reasons (1), not the least of which is that the core d20 system is a perfectly good system and there's no good reason why it can't easily support that style of play -- it's just that for whatever reason some people don't want it to. Heck, Star Wars Saga Edition supports that style of play beautifully by simply starting from the assumption that everybody is decent in combat, so allocating character resources to highly personalized skill sets doesn't debilitate you as much as it might in D&D.

Gneech...

I think anyone telling you to go play GURPS or HEROS is being kind of silly... because I think 4e can easily handle things like this. It's just the resources you character expends are slightkly different then they were in 3e, partially because of what I think the focus on the skills were. I think the issue is, it wasn't really pointed out, and they're only now expanding on the idea.

Skills in 4e seem to be focused primarily on answering yes or no type situations.

Did you jump over the thing? Yes/No

Did you pick the lock? Yes/No

Does it see you? Yes/No

Anything that requires a little more to the answer thn that falls outside the scope of single DC skill rolls.

In 3e skills all functioned in a similar fashion, however, they seemed to want to bunch everything into the yes or no question, even if it could be better moddeled in other ways, or through multiple steps.

The 4e approach seems to be to break these types of abilities into multi step processes, and in some cases multi-resourse processes.

Some things I think would be best modled with a skill challenge, while others sort of like rituals/alchemy.

Craft I think would be best suited to working like rituals. I would take, perhaps a "tinker" feat, and then from there maybe buy instructions for making other things. Each thing requiring a different skill, or perhaps combination.

Haiku performance would be best modled (in my opinion) as a skill challange. Afteral just about anyone can write what would technically be a haiku... But there are other steps that could be used for game purposes...

Like if you want to impress the local lord... Perhaps history knowledge can gain you some insight into what to write about... Streetwise can help you get to know what kinds of things the lord finds taboo. all leading towards a bonus to your diploamcy check when yo actually try to influence the lord with your mad rhyme'n skillz.

Shrug. I can see how someone might not like it, but I do... Personaly I think it actually opens up a lot more to what you can do outside of combat.

 

[Mallus]

I find that I can roleplay better when I've made the character I wanted to make. If I end up making a guy I don't like because of the system, or didn't make a character at all, it's hit or miss whether I'll feel like playing him for more than a session or two.

So you're looking for a robust character creation system because a detailed mechanical representation of your character concept helps you role-play them?

I can appreciate that... tonight some friends are playing Mutants and Masterminds (an effect-based point-buy d20 supers system, in case you didn't know), and one of the best things about M&M is the chargen rules. The mechanics can model just about anything, and well. For example, my character is the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling.

For me, robust chargen and detailed mechanical representation are nice, but they're ultimately not that important to me vis-a-vis role-playing a character. I'm happy with the bulk of my PC existing in my head, rather than on the character sheet.

Also, well... having room for the act of roleplaying aids roleplaying. Talking in character, deciding what your character would do, and so on.

Doesn't the DM/GM create the 'room to role-play'?

Roleplaying, at least for me, does not have 'stage directions' - I don't know what my character's going to do for sure until play starts, things happen, and I make choices. This gives me a bit of a problem with how a lot of skill challenges are written in 4e... snip

So you don't like 4e Skill Challenges because because they put you in the role of director (or author) of your character, rather than in direct role of the character himself? Am I reading that right?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In my case, even 3E went "too far" away from what I like most about D&D, although it took me a while to realize that. (That is, I bought and ran 3E for a while before coming to that decision.) With 4E, there was never any question. I read through the books, and that was enough to make me shrug and say "not for me." (However, I should note that I have a much clearer understanding of what works for me and what I'm looking for in D&D, these days.)

 

[Imban]

So you're looking for a robust character creation system because a detailed mechanical representation of your character concept helps you role-play them?

Hmm, not entirely. I can go off of "Human Fighter 12" in 2e D&D just as well. But having a detailed mechanical representation of a character that I don't want to play is the worst. I don't think any version of D&D does this, but a lot of games have things like WoD's derangements acquired in play which... well, now my character has a detailed mechanic for his being nuts in a way I don't like.

I can appreciate that... tonight some friends are playing Mutants and Masterminds (an effect-based point-buy d20 supers system, in case you didn't know), and one of the best things about M&M is the chargen rules. The mechanics can model just about anything, and well. For example, my character is the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling.

M&M is one of my favorite systems ever, partially because of this.

Doesn't the DM/GM create the 'room to role-play'?

I could argue that 'deciding what your character would do' is partially a function of the rules and scenario (insofar as we're assuming the GM isn't throwing all the rules out and may not necessarily be writing the scenario) but it's not a very productive line of argument. In general, yes, the GM (and play group - if your entire group just wants to roll dice and reduce HPs to 0, you're not gonna get much RP either) is the determinant of that.

So you don't like 4e Skill Challenges because because they put you in the role of director (or author) of your character, rather than in direct role of the character himself? Am I reading that right?

Yes, though I wouldn't say I don't like "4e Skill Challenges". I don't like a lot - possibly the majority, but I'm not currently tempted to go count - of specific 4e Skill Challenges that are written in the DMG or in adventure modules because they put me in an external-narration / director / author / whatever role that I'm not a fan of having during play unless I am the GM.

It's certainly possible to write or run a Skill Challenge that does not put you in that role. There are some extant in the DMG and in adventure modules, for instance.

 

[Mallus]

The whole "skills for crafting" and "mechanics to encourage RP" question is sort of hard to explain to people who don't instinctively get it; but to some extent, it's a matter of focus.

I admit to being puzzled by the 'skills for crafting' thing... I think of my PC's as fictional characters that I'm both writing and performing --at a nerdy dinner theater that bears a curious resemblance to my living room-- and as such, having mechanics that represent their ability to farm or blow glass have nothing to do with the real business of characterization; creating a personality, motivations, mannerisms, etc.

When you create an RPG character, you have a limited amount of resources with which to build it; allocating those resources is one way to prioritize that character's interests and experience.

Looking at it that way, you can only prioritize what's included in the system. Seeing as there are so many potential interests and areas of knowledge/expertise for an RPG character, I prefer that the system only concern itself with the most relevant --to the genre(s) at hand-- skills and abilities, leaving any further description of character outside the purview of the rules.

So if somebody makes a point of allocating their character's limited resources to, just to grab an example from elsewhere, "Perform (Haiku)," you can reasonably expect that the player wants the performance of haiku to feature somehow.

Of course. But a player could just as easily tell the DM/GM that their character is into haiku and would like them to factor into the campaign. In other words, if a given skill is really just a marker of interest, why does it need to be part of the skill/task resolution system?

An example: my 4e paladin is a poet. There is no way (exact) way to represent this in the system. It's no big deal. The DM will use Diplomacy checks and straight WIS/CHR checks when necessary. The DM knows that aspect of the character is important, because I've told him it is, and I play in up during the session. Having rules for poetry writing and performance won't help me further characterize my poet PC (for that I'll have to write some real doggerel, or, more likely, parody some famous poems), and these rules, if they existed, would just clutter up the PHB (or some splatbook).

If somebody is willing to burn one of their precious feats on "Skill Focus: Perform (Haiku)" then it stands to reason that they value having their character be "a great hiaku composer" far more than they would, say, being able to fight with two weapons.

Why should a player have to choose between being an interesting character and a good (more effective) D&D character? The last thing I want to do as DM is impose a mechanical cost on characterization.

 

[The_Gneech]

I think anyone telling you to go play GURPS or HEROS is being kind of silly... because I think 4e can easily handle things like this. It's just the resources you character expends are slightkly different then they were in 3e, partially because of what I think the focus on the skills were. I think the issue is, it wasn't really pointed out, and they're only now expanding on the idea.

I can't actually address whether 4E can or can't -- I haven't studied the 4E skill system enough to say from direct experience. (1) I was primarily trying to address Mallus' question in regard to why having mechanics for "non-combat" skills matters to some people. The prevailing opinion seems to be that most non-combat stuff in 4E is more-or-less handwaved, with some people saying that's a bug and others saying it's a feature, but whether that's an accurate assessment or not, I don't myself know.

I guess it boils down to, "some people (myself) find the framework really helpful, while others find it a pain in the tuckus." My own opinion is that the easy way to please both camps is to include it, but not make a big deal about it, which is pretty much the approach 3E took. I love giving my 3E characters esoteric knowledge skills. If anything, I would have liked to have seen that system made more flexible -- perhaps give everybody a handful of "Apprenticeship Development" ranks that could be put in Knowledge or Profession (including Perform) skills for those who were interested, and be roundly ignored by those who don't want to bother with them.

I imagine that would be an easy thing to house-rule into 4E, but from the POV of a compulsive "quirky character builder," it would be nice not to have to.

-The Gneech

(1) My gripes with 4E, while there are many, are not particularly related to the skill system; aside from having been a bit too consolidated, it looks basically like the SWSE one, except without the customizable "Knowledge" catchall.

 

[The_Gneech]

I admit to being puzzled by the 'skills for crafting' thing... I think of my PC's as fictional characters that I'm both writing and performing --at a nerdy dinner theater that bears a curious resemblance to my living room-- and as such, having mechanics that represent their ability to farm or blow glass have nothing to do with the real business of characterization; creating a personality, motivations, mannerisms, etc.

By that logic, what do you need rules for combat or casting spells for? I don't see an inherent difference.

Looking at it that way, you can only prioritize what's included in the system. Seeing as there are so many potential interests and areas of knowledge/expertise for an PRG character, I prefer that the system only concern itself with the most relevant --to the genre(s) at hand-- skills and abilities, leaving any further description of character outside the purview of the rules.

What are skills and abilities if they aren't knowledge/expertise? Again, I don't see the difference, unless you're saying that the "genre at hand" in D&D is only the business of hacking monsters and avoiding traps.

That's one of the great things about a catchall kind of skill like "Knowledge" or "Perform" or what-have-you -- the player has a place to put their "out-of-the-box" ability on the sheet and into the framework of the ruleset.

Of course. But a player could just as easily tell the DM/GM that their character is into haiku and would like them to factor into the campaign. In other words, if a given skill is really just a marker of interest, why does it need to be part of the skill/task resolution system?

An example: my 4e paladin is a poet. There is no way (exact) way to represent this in the system. It's no big deal. The DM will use Diplomacy checks and straight WIS/CHR checks when necessary. The DM knows that aspect of the character is important, because I've told him it is, and I play in up during the session. Having rules for poetry writing and performance won't help me further characterize my poet PC (for that I'll have to write some real doggerel, or, more likely, parody some famous poems), and said rules would just clutter up the PHB.

How good of a poet is he? How do you know if he's written the epic of the ages or Manos: The Hand of Fate? If at some point he comes upon a rival poet (which would be a neat scenario, don't you think?), how will you know who "wins" the poetry slam? Diplomacy doesn't make much sense there to me; you could do opposed Wis/Chr checks I guess, but there's not much room for expertise there.

Add a simple Perform (______) skill, write poetry in the blank, and suddenly you have rules for it. With a paragraph of "clutter," you've opened a practically-infinite range of possibilities.

Codifying a skill gives you a baseline for comparison. In a world where DC 10 is "easy," DC 20 is "hard," and DC 30 is "incredible," Perform (Poetry) +10 has a very specific meaning. You'd actually know how good a poet your paladin was: in the case of +10, he's better than average and occasionally brilliant.

Why should a player have to choose between being an interesting character and a good (more effective) D&D character? The last thing I want to do as DM is impose a mechanical cost on characterization.

I see that as a completely false choice. For me a "good" character is one I enjoy playing. For some characters, that means kicking butt and taking names, but for others, fighting is what I do when all my other options have failed. Again, what you've said implies that D&D is "Kill monsters and take their treasure." I prefer it when D&D includes that, but isn't just that.

However, as I mentioned above, SWSE got away from the whole issue by making it almost impossible to make an "ineffective" character. Or as I mentioned a little later on, you could have two separate subsystems. You could build the whole thing as an adjunct to the "important" skills in a single sidebar.

-The Gneech

 

[Mallus]

By that logic, what do you need rules for combat or casting spells for? I don't see an inherent difference.

Combat and spell casting occur more frequently (in most games) than farming or glass-blowing. Therefore it is reasonable that the rules prioritizes them.

Also, part of my point is that you don't need rules --not even those that govern whacking and blasting-- in order to create a character to role-play. Because "characters" are personalities, motivations, mannerisms, the qualities we associate with the denizens of fiction.

Again, I don't see the difference, unless you're saying that the "genre at hand" in D&D is only the business of hacking monsters and avoiding traps.

I'm saying that there are a small set of frequently-used skills that are relevant to the kind of adventure stories (most) RPG's seek to recreate. And those are the one's the rules should be concerned with.

That's one of the great things about a catchall kind of skill like "Knowledge" or "Perform" or what-have-you -- the player has a place to put their "out-of-the-box" ability on the sheet and into the framework of the ruleset.

The problem is one of costing. Creating a multi-instrumentalist in D&D would use up most, if not all, of a character's skills. This is wonderful in terms of characterization but terrible in terms of the kinds of general adventuring situations PC's find themselves in. That PC has fewer skills with which to mechanically participant in non-combat encounters. Unless, of course, the majority of campaign's encounters take place during studio recording sessions or in a concert hall.

Infrequently-used 'flavor' abilities should cost much less than adventure-relevant ones. Otherwise, the system incentivizes taking primarily adventure-relevant abilities.

How do you know if he's written the epic of the ages or Manos: The Hand of Fate?

I said he was a poet, not a filmmaker.

If at some point he comes upon a rival poet (which would be a neat scenario, don't you think?), how will you know who "wins" the poetry slam?

I'd roll for it (1/2 level + CHA bonus + 1d20), in addition to making up some hideous verse on the spot.

... you could do opposed Wis/Chr checks I guess, but there's not much room for expertise there.

His character level denotes his expertise (this is 4e, 1/2 level to all skill checks). It's less granular than 3e, but honestly, I've never seen a 3e character with less than max ranks in their important skills, so this is kinda moot.

Codifying a skill gives you a baseline for comparison. In a world where DC 10 is "easy," DC 20 is "hard," and DC 30 is "incredible," Perform (Poetry) +10 has a very specific meaning. You'd actually know how good a poet your paladin was: in the case of +10, he's better than average and occasionally brilliant.

I don't understand your point here. My PC still has a bonus to perform poetry, it's currently +4, at 10th level it'll be +10, and so on. I know exactly how good he is.

Again, what you've said implies that D&D is "Kill monsters and take their treasure." I prefer it when D&D includes that, but isn't just that.

What I've said was that attempts to more fully characterize your character shouldn't make them less effective at killing things and taking their stuff.