D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[pemerton]

The problem is that Skill Challenges have to be very general where combat rules cover are specific.

<snip>

It's going to be incredibly difficult to make a set of deep, interesting, rules to that can cover these and more scenarios.

I think that this somewhat exaggerates the difficulty. Both Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroQuest 2nd ed give better guidelines, for example, and neither of those games is published by a company with the same resources and design capacity as WotC.

The task isn't trivial, but it is hardly that hard. The main problem with skill challenges is that they don't have enough axes for the player and DM to manipulate--both narratively and through the mechanics. Since most of the narration is supplied by the people at the table, a group that gets this can cover that side of the deficit. But mechanically, they will always be weak as long as everything is essentially a series of skill checks.

<snip>

For a quick example off the top of my head: Add "culture" and "resources" as narrative elements with mechanical backing. Then make the skill checks in the base system a bit more difficult than they are now.

<snip>

When you make a culture or resources checks (however those are done), what you are trying to do is avoid a skill check that is high risk and/or low reward and bypass/change it to another check more to your liking. Intimidate is your best skill and the skill challenge is infertile ground for such a check? Pick another high skill, or use culture or resources to move the ground where Intimidate makes sense.

Skill Challenges are supposed to be narratives, the die rolling aspect of the whole thing is simply a general accounting mechanism. There is no expectation that players will NOT change the context of the SC. In fact that turns out to be the most interesting part in any decent SC already.

<snip>

Advantages are one way that WotC has given us in the most recent SC rules to easily represent this kind of thing mechanically. A player takes actions which change the situation in his favor, he gets an advantage, maybe a check becomes easy, or making the hard DC gives an extra success, or a check can remove a failure. These are all possible ways to quickly and easily represent this. There are more sophisticated ways as well, like unlocking new skills.

And those are all bad design choices, or at least no answer whatsoever to problem I am addressing. It may or may not be a good idea to tweak/complicate how skills work, but doing so adds no appreciable mechanical depth to the system. And it would still resolve into defacto numbers that have predictable chances of success.

<snip>

Skill challenges, to give XP, should really have multiple types of levers with which to move things, and these levers should have different costs and risks. Then you quite easily get interesting decisions like, "If I bribe that guy now, we will get an easy in to the palace, but I won't have the money later, and we'll waste my pal's high bluff ability to lie our way through. On the other hand, if he blows the roll, we'll start out behind, and this is already a tough nut to crack. Hmm...."

Like I said, I'm sure a lot of DMs already do that. I certainly do. I'd rather have more mechanical heft backing me up, given what skill challenges are trying to accomplish, though.

Ever seen the resource system in Burning Wheel? Or the circles mechanics, for that matter? Those are good examples of how a mechanic can invoke a different axis, be used more or less generically within its sphere of control, but still provide a lot more depth than the space it takes up would first have one to suspect.

We can't just lift those directly from BW for 4E. For one thing, the resources system in BW isn't meant to handle a constant influx of gold from adventuring (though it does have provision for such at times). What makes it work but still be applicable is that is conceptually tight on what and when it addresses: Do you have enough cash, favors, friends, loans, etc. to make this thing happen that people want that stuff for, or do you not? If you try and fail, what are the consequences? That kind of stuff comes up in the narrative all the time, and with 4E we don't even have the existence of profession skills or merchant skills in the way to use something like it!

I think that the 4e designers are trying to hint at the greater depth that you (Crazy Jerome) are looking for, but doing a fairly bad job of it.

I think that there is some scope to introduce mutliple dimensions of player decision-making while still focusing on skill checks as the principle mechanic for resolution, via either (i) secondary skill checks, or (ii) primary skill checks with secondary consequences.

AbdulAlhazred gives the example of unlocking new skills. This is a distinct dimension of decision-making, resembling some of what you talk about in your example of using culture/resources/circles to move the ground to circumstances more fertile for an Intimidate check. Certain uses of advantages might also be deployed in a similar vein - obtaining the advantage might require shifting the circumstances in certain ways, or an advantage might be expended to achieve such a result.

DMG2 also gives some ideas about how to bring extra player resources into the mix, which don't necessarily add new mechanical axes but do add new dimensions to the decision-making - for example, it provides an equivalence between gp spent and successful aid-another checks, and also tries to deal with encounter and daily powers, and rituals, as meaningful contributors to a skill challenge.

In my view, then, before new mechanical axes are introduced, what is needed is a thorough and systematic attempt to bring all this existing stuff together and give a coherent account from the designers as to how they see it all working, and how a GM and players can work through it in the course of resolving a skill challenge. For example, do the designers envisage skill challenges permitting anything like a "quick take" in Maelstrom - where a player can make a check that is distinct from the overall resolution of the scene in order to lock-in some more local outcome - or not? And what would be required to secure such a result (eg spending an action point)? I'd like some of these basic questions to be sorted out.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I miss your point without a more concrete example.

The DM is introducing the ebbs and flows of what is happening, fine.

But, the only way that players (typically) have to respond to those ebbs and flows are by rolling yet another typically high chance to succeed skill check. An occasional power might work, but for the most part, it's the player describing yet another way to use Athletics or Arcana or Thievery and yet again rolling the dice. The high chance of success means that although there was a failure a moment ago, that has very little real bearing on the next die roll (except maybe for a +2/-2 that the DM introduces).

I think that the key is in your last two sentences. For a skill challenge to be interesting, the resolution of any given check (whether as a success or a failure) needs to have a bearing on the next die roll, either (i) by determining what sort of skill check is viable, or (ii) by determining what success or failure on that check would mean, or (iii) both.

There are some skill challenges where this is probably not the case - eg simple Arcana or Thievery checks to disarm traps and the like. That's part of why I tend to find these fairly boring, and to limit them to complexity 1 checks. Even then, I like to narrate the result in terms of what happens to the situation in terms perhaps of equipment lost or damaged, or magical forces unleashed, so as to change the circumstances for decision-making or the stakes of continuing as the challenge unfolds.

But in a more interesting challenge - and most of mine are either social challenges, or "travel" challenges (be that overland travel, escaping from collapsing ruins, sneaking into an enemy base, etc) - then there is a lot greater scope to bring out changing circumstances and stakes as part of the resolution of one skill check and the opening up of the next one.

A very simple example of what I have in mind comes from a recent session: the PCs encountered an irate dire bear in a ruined temple that they were exploring, and decided to try to pacify it rather than fight it. Two of the PCs reached out to it emotionally (the ranger using Nature up close, the wizard using Nature while patting it with Mage Hand) while two others cowed it (the paladin up close, the sorcerer by wreathing himself in lightning by expending his Spark Form power - both made Initimidate checks). The fighter, on the other hand, neither Intimidated it nor connected with it, and it therefore continue to want to eat him.

The upshot of these choices about skill use, then, aren't just that the bear is pacified. They also mean that the ranger and wizard have befriended it - and can subsequently interact with it in various ways - whereas the paladin and sorcerer, of whom it is scared, have to keep away if those interactions are to succeed. And the fighter, if left alone with the bear, is still in danger of being attacked by it.

For some discussion of that challenge, plus another one from the same session (involving a fight with a water weird), see this thread.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Wizards are not the only type of caster, for example your first level Druid not only outfights any martial character they can also cast spells. Same with the Cleric - who just outright does everything the fighter can do while casting spells.

Again if you played it with just Pathfinder you would perhaps see differently or otherwise just see what you are looking for. Cleric's can go supernova if they have the time to prepare but otherwise not, and casting spells AND trying to get into melee (cleric's are very limited at range) is actually pretty tough. The fighter/barbarian handily outdoes them in most general circumstances. As for the Druid, my main issue with it is summoning and the meta-effect that has on the game. Summoning is still something I would like addressed, otherwise from my extensive play and GM experience with Pathfinder, I really beg to differ.

These aspects only get worse as spellcasters level up. There is also no "Reasonable balance" because low level wizards are essentially useless up until mid levels - by the time they aren't useless the fighter is basically confined to the back of the party with a soup ladle and a colander hat. That by definition is not "balance" whatsoever.

I think you have done a good job of blinding yourself to the changes they made. However, if your DM is not pressuring the casters with concentration checks, then I can understand why you see little difference to 3.5.

I have and it doesn't fix a thing. It pretends to and gives a really good attempt at pretending like it did, but it ultimately doesn't.

A lot of people on the Paizo forums who have a greater experience with the system than you would significantly differ with your opinion here. I'm just one of them. That you have a different opinion is cool, but it does not invalidate those with vaster experience of the two versions. The style of play is different to 4e even though they are both fun. Perhaps you are reacting to this because of your vast preference to 4e; to which both 3.5 and Pathfinder don't satisfy your gaming urges?

While I haven't DM'ed pathfinder, what I have played indicates that anyone who knows how to build spellcasters can still break the system utterly in half.

At highest levels (16 to 20) those 8th and 9th level spells are significant but at the levels where the majority of people play (1st to 13th) you cannot really break the system in half. However, there is a degree of system mastery and so it can be just as easy to craft a highly specialised PC that is very powerful in some circumstances but not others. In play though, such characters be they fighters, barbarians, monks or druids do not break the game (and DMing my players with a broad range from Ultra-power-gamer to completely casual), I'd put forward that I have had to contend with extremes in this regard. The game does not break and has been enjoyable for all.

They didn't succeed at all - but made a notable attempt at pretending to actually do so. Part of why I never took more of an interest in Pathfinder, because they never actually fixed the aspects of 3.5 that were the significant problems. One of those to me was the fact casters are still far superior to martial characters (whom with higher levels rapidly become increasingly useless) and lo and behold, casters still are in Pathfinder.

Again the impression I get is that that you are basing this on your experience of 3e play (I ran an Age of Worms 3.5 campaign where the wizard powered up by all the splats completely dominated after 13th level). If you played Pathfinder (without the 3.5 splats most importantly) with a variety of casters/non-casters or DMed it for a campaign and truly got to feel the changes, I think you would not be quite as cavalier in your estimations.

Edit: Tony: I am aware of how spellcasting worked in 3rd edition. I started playing and then basically became a near permanent DM since 2nd edition. The fact is "Near useless at level 1" and "Overpowered after X level" is not balance. Nor does it fit any actual working definition of the term

My own experience applicable to 3e and Pathfinder has been that a good selection of wands/scrolls keeps the wizard on par with the other party members at lower levels.

Edit2: Also I am aware of the high level 3.x campaign magic user "DM wins initiative, party dies" vs. "They win initiative, everything dies" type of concept for making the game challenging. Glad those days are long gone.

As a Pathfinder/4e GM/DM, so am I.

Aegeri, I don't think I am going to change your mind on this one and your statements are not going to cast some modify memory spell on my experiences with Pathfinder either . All I can say is that if the play-problems of 3.5 were not addressed; surely Pathfinder would not have been as successful as it has been. It is not some con as you suggest above but genuine change and fixes. Obviously a lot of people have found that Pathfinder is enjoyable or has possibly even fixed a lot of the issues that they had with 3.5. Is it perfect? Obviously not. I can still list many issues I have with it compared to my ideal game; but it did fix a lot of things: one being balance of classes at regular play levels.

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could start up a thread in the Pathfinder forum. This thread doesn't really need a further tangent.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Aegeri]

If you played Pathfinder (without the 3.5 splats most importantly) with a variety of casters/non-casters or DMed it for a campaign and truly got to feel the changes, I think you would not be quite as cavalier in your estimations.

This was RAW pathfinder actually, no splat books so your insistence on this point is moot. Also saying that it's only balanced for 13 levels - rather than all the levels available inherently defeats your point as well. It's just we can actually build spellcasters properly When you can, it's pretty clear that Pathfinder fixed very little indeed. But you can have your opinion and perhaps Paizo released errata or fixed things with later supplements, but I found it just as bad as 3.x and not much improvement whatsoever. So I'll stick to 4E, Call of Cthulhu (when I feel the need for gritty) and Promethean the Created (when I feel like something whacky).

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could start up a thread in the Pathfinder forum.

Why? I think it's crap and you're honestly not going to convince me otherwise - so I'm not going to waste space telling people enjoying what they do in their forum otherwise. When we played it, we saw the exact same thing we'd seen since 3rd edition: Complete destruction of encounters by spellcasters and then when we ran out of spells forced resting (or not survive further encounters). As I have no interest or want to play Pathfinder any further, there really isn't the option for me to see if they did change things by releasing later books (but that I seriously doubt). Additionally, unless pathfinder managed to get balance at ALL levels - not a narrow range of levels you can vaguely say by squinting *just* right spellcasters are equivalent to non-spellcasters - then that's just proving they didn't really fix the problem anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My own preference is for a much flatter structure where an exquisitely constructed piece of full plate armour is the most expensive thing that you can actually purchase. There is generally not enough coin around to pay for highly magical items, so such items are either traded for something else (land, title, honour, other magical items or services) or else given away or possibly sold on the cheap in a black market.

Honestly the first thing that comes to my mind is that is pretty darn close to what the actual system does. PCs up into the top of heroic tier and maybe in some circumstances a bit into paragon can interact with the coin economy (say in a large city for early paragon). Mostly they will use their cash for a few big ticket items/expenses and a little that is left for more mundane stuff. The higher level treasure and items just launch off into their own practically separate economy where, as you say, a high level item might be traded for a castle or a title or something. Once you get on up into high paragon and epic the items are all vanishingly rare, probably unique in the normal world, and treasure is enough to buy any specific mundane thing. Still, the villagers won't EVER sell you their village, for any money, it is all they have and all they know. You might have the cash to buy it 10k times but so what? Even small things the same way, there are only 10 trail rations to be bought in Buckville. No amount of gold will change that.

If the system was flatter and started from a higher point you could get all magic out of any relation to mundane stuff, but bigger treasures would still be pretty absurdly huge.

As for 'selling on the black market quick' I'd say getting 20% is a pretty good abstraction... (when a player objects I let them go and do better, which is another adventure and nets more new treasure, which is then fluffed as what they got for the item, but is actually all/part of the next parcel).

Of course it is fun to either totally impoverish or lard with gold some group now and then. Either condition being easily solved. What 4e's steep slope does though is erase mistakes quickly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All I can say is that if the play-problems of 3.5 were not addressed; surely Pathfinder would not have been as successful as it has been. It is not some con as you suggest above but genuine change and fixes. Obviously a lot of people have found that Pathfinder is enjoyable or has possibly even fixed a lot of the issues that they had with 3.5.

The success of Pathfinder came with the virulent rejection of 4e by 3.5 fans. 4e did dramatically fix the balance problems with 3.5, very dramatically. I mean, when it leveled the playing field, it used the nuclear option to /level/ the playing field. People hated that. They now play Pathfinder. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that Pathfinder is a lot like 3.5, including having an un-nuked playing field.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Why?

To not derail this thread but heh...

It's just we can actually build spellcasters properly When you can, it's pretty clear that Pathfinder fixed very little indeed... When we played it, we saw the exact same thing we'd seen since 3rd edition: Complete destruction of encounters by spellcasters and then when we ran out of spells forced resting (or not survive further encounters).

So none of the spellcasters had wands or scrolls or any of the other stuff available to give casters greater staying power? All used up too? Didn't feel the need to worry about an ambush or make preparations? Your self-vaunted ability at building and playing spellcasters might not be all you make it out to be - although the encounter did seem pretty epic. Casters who consistently nova eventually get found out and usually to the complete detriment of their party. Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should. This is a principle I have found applicable in both 3e and 4e play (although 3e punishes the mistake more harshly).

Additionally, unless pathfinder managed to get balance at ALL levels - not a narrow range of levels you can vaguely say by squinting *just* right spellcasters are equivalent to non-spellcasters - then that's just proving they didn't really fix the problem anyway.

Narrow? Levels one to thirteen? This is where the majority of campaigns begin and finish and includes the entirety of Pathfinder Society play. To name it narrow seems a little... narrow-minded.

Peace man and enjoy your gaming.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Aegeri]

To not derail this thread but heh...
So none of the spellcasters had wands or scrolls or any of the other stuff available to give casters greater staying power? All used up too? Didn't feel the need to worry about an ambush or make preparations?

How on earth do you think we managed to live through it? Throwing rocks?

...actually that would have been awesome if that was possible...

But in the end the REAL mistake was not simply using rope trick. You seem to have missed the point in all this that the two characters - who shouldn't have been anywhere disadvantaged by not having rested - got wiped out first and had no chance surviving without the spellcasters.

That's the point.

This is where the majority of campaigns begin and finish and includes the entirety of Pathfinder Society play.

We typically never run any 3.X game (including Pathfinder) from level 1 - Pathfinder doesn't change that either incidentally. Usually level 5 to 13. That's not a lot of the game actually. In 4E I tend to run my games from level 1... to hmm about level 30

Just so you know

The success of Pathfinder came with the virulent rejection of 4e by 3.5 fans. 4e did dramatically fix the balance problems with 3.5, very dramatically. I mean, when it leveled the playing field, it used the nuclear option to /level/ the playing field. People hated that. They now play Pathfinder. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that Pathfinder is a lot like 3.5, including having an un-nuked, not at all level playing field.

I agree and that's precisely how Pathfinder felt to me when we played it. It did remove some warts, but then it just replaced them with new and sometimes equally obnoxious warts in some cases.

Honestly the first thing that comes to my mind is that is pretty darn close to what the actual system does. PCs up into the top of heroic tier and maybe in some circumstances a bit into paragon can interact with the coin economy (say in a large city for early paragon). Mostly they will use their cash for a few big ticket items/expenses and a little that is left for more mundane stuff. The higher level treasure and items just launch off into their own practically separate economy where, as you say, a high level item might be traded for a castle or a title or something. Once you get on up into high paragon and epic the items are all vanishingly rare, probably unique in the normal world, and treasure is enough to buy any specific mundane thing. Still, the villagers won't EVER sell you their village, for any money, it is all they have and all they know. You might have the cash to buy it 10k times but so what? Even small things the same way, there are only 10 trail rations to be bought in Buckville. No amount of gold will change that.

Yeah and this is one of the things that gets very funky when you want to run a "mortal" epic tier in 4E. Ultimately it is something you have to accept because the alternative was an increasing PC magic item economy, that was very difficult to stop once "manufacturing" style enchanting got under way. It also limits the amount if items that PCs could have. Personally my goals in my DS and Eberron games in epic are to give PCs things of high value - that will prove useful. Land holdings, strongholds, places to sneak off to rest and other things like that. I'm a little un-enthused now with handing out tons of gold, especially with the changes to magic item rarity and distribution.

I would like a better economy and one that felt less artificial, but only if it isn't going to be worse or a nightmare to stop PCs gaining exponential wealth after a period.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Honestly the first thing that comes to my mind is that is pretty darn close to what the actual system does. PCs up into the top of heroic tier and maybe in some circumstances a bit into paragon can interact with the coin economy (say in a large city for early paragon). Mostly they will use their cash for a few big ticket items/expenses and a little that is left for more mundane stuff. The higher level treasure and items just launch off into their own practically separate economy where, as you say, a high level item might be traded for a castle or a title or something. Once you get on up into high paragon and epic the items are all vanishingly rare, probably unique in the normal world, and treasure is enough to buy any specific mundane thing. Still, the villagers won't EVER sell you their village, for any money, it is all they have and all they know. You might have the cash to buy it 10k times but so what? Even small things the same way, there are only 10 trail rations to be bought in Buckville. No amount of gold will change that.

If the system was flatter and started from a higher point you could get all magic out of any relation to mundane stuff, but bigger treasures would still be pretty absurdly huge.

As for 'selling on the black market quick' I'd say getting 20% is a pretty good abstraction... (when a player objects I let them go and do better, which is another adventure and nets more new treasure, which is then fluffed as what they got for the item, but is actually all/part of the next parcel).

Of course it is fun to either totally impoverish or lard with gold some group now and then. Either condition being easily solved. What 4e's steep slope does though is erase mistakes quickly.

You make some excellent points here! I suppose this highlights that while I don't like the idea of multiple millions of gp on an item, what the designers are doing here is interpreting the gold piece and what it represents quite differently to previous versions. Just as I prefer to think of HPs in 4e as "available screen time", I suppose gp becomes more representative of "rarity and availability" rather than intrinsic value.

In our current 4e campaign we changed the economic system around but still used the prices as an availability guide with most magical items unable to be cashed in. It bends the system a little but not that much I suppose.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But in the end the REAL mistake was not simply using rope trick.

Sounds more like the party didn't prepare properly and the GM wanted to make you pay for it. I can only go on what you report happened but heh... you "was" there and I wasn't.

You seem to have missed the point in all this that the two characters - who shouldn't have been anywhere disadvantaged by not having rested - got wiped out first and had no chance surviving without the spellcasters.

Only you can answer that one: how well they played their characters, how easily they threw them away or how over-powered the GM decided to make the encounter. Your experiences differ vastly from my own is about the only conclusion I can make.

We typically never run any 3.X game (including Pathfinder) from level 1 - Pathfinder doesn't change that either incidentally. Usually level 5 to 13.

And thus why I am surprised you ran into so many problems. You were playing in the traditional sweet spot yet you still didn't enjoy? Go figure heh.

That's not a lot of the game actually. In 4E I tend to run my games from level 1... to hmm about level 30

Just so you know

More power to you although remember that old adage that it is what you do with it that counts. Sounds like you enjoy your 4e and I get to enjoy both 4e and Pathfinder/3e. Personally, I think I'm getting the better deal there but to each their own.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise