Implicit in the Presentation

[Mort]

Ha, it's all good. I'm sure most of us have been there. You should see me when someone tries to criticize Bladerunner or Dark Sun.



I'm inclined to think otherwise, but it's probably just because of terminology. I like the exploration part of D&D quite a bit - to me, exploring hallways and interacting with weird elements outside of rules elements are a big part of the fun (probably one of the biggest parts, actually). And I don't really want to turn that haunted hallway into an "encounter" - it's more just some weird flavour that the PCs can observe and question, and then move along their way.

That does seem to be just an issue of terminology. Whether it's interacting with your environment between encounters or an encounter with your environment - your still interacting with the haunted hallway in an interesting way. Framing it as an encounter may help those that need a sense of pacing and might make it easier to define power use outside of combat ( I do wish there was a more defined use for 4e powers outside of combat) but for experienced DMs - there's little difference.

As for skill challenges... I never really understood them in the DMG presentation, and I ignore that incarnation. However, I use Stalker0's Obsidian Challenge System now, and find it works a lot better with how I prefer to run D&D.

That being said, I've never had a problem with running non-combat encounters, so that particular part of 4e wasn't built for me - it actively got in the way of my fun, so it was dropped. No biggie.

I think Stalker0 has an excellent system and prefer it myself, but yes it's just a tool and not everyone needs it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suppose I should have specified "in the ritual system" big solutions come with big costs (or at least costs), but I thought that was implied in the out of combat nature of the response - since that was what the ritual system deals with. But then if I had decided to parce my language with such care (for an offhand comment for a message board) I guess you wouldn’t have your chance to be (unhelpfully) snide.

Sorry, but I thought you said that there wasn't a shift toward more combat. So naturally, I didn't think you meant "magic needs to be toned or at least slowed down except in combat", as this would imply a more combat-focused shift.

I haven't seen the DMG2 or the PHB2, but I have heard good things about how skill challenges are presented in the DMG2. I thought that perhaps the PH2 showed a shift in character from PHB1.


RC

 

[Snoweel]

Another interesting example- the PHB and DMG use edition-specific language. "Adventure" in 4e is specifically defined, whereas in earlier editions "adventure" was loosely defined. In 4e, it is a string or series of encounters. Encounters being defined as a combat.

No.

Encounters are any interaction between the PCs and the game world where there is a chance of failure.

Meaning that exploration and non-pivotal RP interactions are not considered 'encounters' for the purpose of the rules.

You can either play through them or handwave them, to taste.

 

[Chrono22]

No.

Yes.

The above statement is profound because it's a one word sentence.
Really.

Encounters are any interaction between the PCs and the game world where there is a chance of failure.

This isn't really true^
Many things have a risk of failure, but no mind is payed to them because they are inconsequential. Because you pay them no mind.

Meaning that exploration and non-pivotal RP interactions are not considered 'encounters' for the purpose of the rules.

You can either play through them or handwave them, to taste.

So, by extension that means that non-pivotal RP (aka conversation) and exploration are not adventure?
So what would non-pivotal role play be defined as? Stuff that can't get you killed? Stuff that can only have a consequence on the larger campaign? What about exploration that can get you killed? Have all the sharp edges of the 4e multiverse been sanded smooth?

In a game where the only things that warrant a mechanical presentation must
1: pose a threat or risk or challenge
and
2: if you can't fight it, it doesn't need a statblock
it comes out to much the same thing. Combat is king.

 

[Chrono22]

Statblocks. . . hm. Maybe. I'll have to look up some older edition statblocks to make sure there. I have a feeling there is not an extreme difference, if indeed there is any at all, in that way. Assumptions being what they were, and still are. . .

Actually the assumptions of play are not the same! And in fact they vary from edition to edition. In fact you could even say each edition of D&D is its own distinct game with each having some similar (but in some cases conflicting) purposes.
And please do look it up. You'll see beyond a doubt what I am saying is true. Almost every monster in D&D from previous editions had "finicky bits" that didn't substantially contribute to combat. For example, the ability of a minotaur to navigate mazes. Or that silver dragons can talk to animals.

How is this different from the skill system in 3e, for example? Except for it being more than one roll of a d20 at times, that is. And otherwise, that 'ritual junk drawer' you mention was only open to spellcasters (edit: and those with certain magic items, depending. . .), so how it that fundamentally different, other than being alternatively organised, as it were?

4e magic economy 101: never sell anything you find. It's just not worth it, not when you can make substantially more use out of a substandard item than a substandard item of 1/5th the first item's value.
For this reason, many groups aren't going to be sitting on alot of loose gold.
The material costs of rituals, and the time it takes to create them, make them routinely useless in all but very specific circumstances. Circumstances where an "overcome challenge button" is the only way to proceed.
As for skill challenges- the best skill challenges I've ever used... I never even knew were skill challenges. I thought I was just enacting a plan of my own, and using skill checks to proceed. My stance on skill challenges: why bother? They add nothing to play that you can't create yourself.

The first part that I bolded, I'd really need to see some evidence for. D&D, to me, seems to have always been much the same with its base assumptions and suchlike.

It's in the first few pages of the PHB if you care to look. You can believe whatever you like, but the fact remains- 4e adventures are a series of encounters.

The second part that I bolded. . . just no. There's even a chapter in the DMG specifically devoted to non-combat encounters (and titled appropriately, I believe,) so sorry, you're simply flat out wrong there.

Just one chapter? Just one? How many chapters are devoted to monsters? Creating encounters? Creating new monsters? Creating NPCs for the PCs to fight? Dynamic combats?
Oh and there is also a chapter on environmental hazards, social challenges, and objective-based resolution. Big deal.

Basically, I'll need something a little more solid, before believing you.

It isn't my job to convince you. I'm simply stating my beliefs about 4e, which are supported by the rules of the game and the intentions of the developers. I am not expressing a value judgment about those rules or intentions. I'm merely pointing out that they exist.

 

[Snoweel]

Many things have a risk of failure, but no mind is payed to them because they are inconsequential. Because you pay them no mind.

Are you trying to say something or just arguing semantics?

So, by extension that means that non-pivotal RP (aka conversation) and exploration are not adventure?

No.

They're adventure; they are not 'encounters' (according to 4e).

They are what links encounters together.

Combat is king.

Agreed.

It's Dungeons & Dragons for God's sake.

 

[Snoweel]

What's with the anti-combat snobbery around here anyway?

 

[Chrono22]

Are you trying to say something or just arguing semantics?

Saying something is inconsequential is a subjective assessment. Things that are non-pivotal to you could constitute the purpose of play for others. The relevance of any activity in a roleplaying game should be determined by the people playing it. It should not be passively enforced by the rules- by making deviations from the supported style restrictively expensive or suboptimal.
In other words, 4e's purpose is combat. All the other stuff is just pauses between encounters.

No.

They're adventure; they are not 'encounters' (according to 4e).

They are what links encounters together.

Repeat this slowly.
Adventures are a series of encounters. You are saying exploration is not a type of encounter. It's merely an activity that punctuates encounters. Therefore, exploration is not a type of adventure, in the same fashion that opening doors and downtime are not adventures.

Agreed.

It's Dungeons & Dragons for God's sake.

Yeah, exactly! Combat is king in D&D. Even in other editions. But in 4e the other stuff is even less of a consideration.

 

[Pig Champion]

What's with the anti-combat snobbery around here anyway?

I play the game for game world interactions, role-playing opportunities and aas close to a total immersion as I can get.

Why is that so bad? There have been two different groups of players in DnD for a long time now and 4E leans towards one group over another.

Which is fine but I wouldn't call those people who aren't combat heavy snobbish or anti-combat.

 

[Snoweel]

Saying something is inconsequential is a subjective assessment. Things that are non-pivotal to you could constitute the purpose of play for others. The relevance of any activity in a roleplaying game should be determined by the people playing it.

One would think people would gravitate toward the rulesets that support their favoured playstyles.

Plus there are some incredibly generic systems out there.

It should not be passively enforced by the rules- by making deviations from the supported style restrictively expensive or suboptimal.
In other words, 4e's purpose is combat. All the other stuff is just pauses between encounters.

I guess years of experience showed them that combat is the part of the game most in need of detailed rules.

Adventures are a series of encounters.

Do you call this subtlety?

The key word I think you're deliberately missing is 'linked'.

Adventures are a series of linked encounters. Linked by what, you might ask? Let's read on...

You are saying exploration is not a type of encounter.

True.

Exploration is one of those story elements that is used to link (that word again) encounters together.

It's merely an activity that punctuates encounters.

If that's all you want it to be, then go ahead. Nobody's forcing you to handwave anything.

Therefore, exploration is not a type of adventure

Your logic is poor:

1. Adventures contain encounters.

2. Exploration is not a type of encounter.

Therefore, exploration is not a type of adventure.

Your conclusion only holds if 'adventures only contain encounters'. But they don't.

Although they can, if that's how you want to play.

But for most of us, adventures consists of encounters as well as the non-encounter elements that link them together.

Yeah, exactly! Combat is king in D&D. Even in other editions. But in 4e the other stuff is even less of a consideration.

And thank God for that.

Why should my PC need a profession (blacksmith) skill? If I want my PC to make a set of horseshoes I'll just narrate it with the DM. Do I really need a chance of failure for something so banal?