D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Henry]

Anyhow, now I'm actually heading out on travels and won't be checking the boards, so I really am signing off. Have fun!

*looks at last ten posts*

SUUURE you are.

Seriously, have a safe trip!

 

[Hellcow]

OK, ok, just one more (it's like potato chips...).

A good GM works with her players to make sure they make characters that fit and can work in the story she is telling.

But that's exactly the problem, Nutluck. A good DM does this. But what if she's NOT a good DM? What if she's never run a game before, and has just picked up an RPG for the first time in her life?

This is what I see as the core of the issue. One of my favorite game systems is Over The Edge. One of the things I love about it is that every campaign is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. There's no class roles, no expectations; you can play virtually anything.

So let's take two groups I've run for as examples:
Group A: A woman who can enter your dreams if she can touch you (when you dream, mind you); a well-known gambler (well-known, but not always well-liked); and a drug-addled gonzo journalist who litterally can't tear his way out of a paper bag.

Group B: Five ducks in a battlesuit; a James Bond-level (amnesiac) secret agent; a prepubescent embodiment of chaos; and a homeless mad scientist who can build atomic weaponry out of trash.

To really give each group a satisfying experience, I have to create two entirely different stories. They're just too different. Group A will be seriously threatened by a gang of simple muggers with chains and knives; Group B would have the muggers laid out before they had time to say "Your money or--" Meanwhile, Group A has all sorts of noncombat talents group B doesn't possess - such as the ability to enter peoples' dreams, something that's not going to play a role in one of group B's stories.

I LOVE the fact that Over The Edge is so versatile and so interesting. But it means that I can't simply pick up a random Over The Edge adventure and expect it to work for my group. I can't even expect to be able to reuse an adventure I've written before. Every story has to be tailored to the group at hand.

Even with 4E D&D, I'm GOING to do the same thing; that's what a good DM does. If I've got the PC who's backstory is that he was driven from his ancestral fiefdom and now intends to depose Kaius and conquer Karrnath, well, I'll steer events in the stories towards that. Likewise, it turns out that the paladin and warlock in my group both have Intimidate and are good at it, and they used that to good effect. But not ALL paladins and warlocks are good at Intimidate. My second group has poor initimidation coverage, but strong diplomacy - so when it comes to social challenges, they'll take a different angle. Another group could simply have built themselves with no social skills at all; nothing's preventing you from doing that. There's no "EVERY GROUP AUTOMATICALLY HAS A +10 DIPLOMAT" rule. As a DM, I may point out to the group that they are weak in a certain area; one of my groups sucked at Perception, and they've since rectified it. It's EASY to set things up so that you can get a well-balanced group. But it's still about player choice; you aren't good at everything, you'll simply be good at SOMETHING in both the combat and noncombat arenas.

And now I'm running late... $%@^!

 

[nutluck]

But that's exactly the problem, Nutluck. A good DM does this. But what if she's NOT a good DM? What if she's never run a game before, and has just picked up an RPG for the first time in her life?

Never said the things I am asking for and lizard can't be optional rules. They can even have a note saying optional rules only for experienced GM's. Only offering stuff to the lowest common point to me is limiting the game to much and asking experienced people to eventually leave when they want more. I think 4e could and should offer that more as options for those that want them is all i am saying.

While I think that 3E is too scattershot. Again, that range of +0 to +28 depending on your personal ability to game the system is just too extreme for me. The default 4E fighter isn't going to have skill in Diplomacy. But he still CAN become a diplomat, if you want - and actually be pretty good at it, better than his 3E counterpart. I've got that level of versatility available to me; I can make the fighter of noble birth with some knowledge of Diplomacy. I'm just not sacrificing my fighting skill in the process - aside from a feat which could have given me a slight advantage in combat, but which doesn't form the entire foundation of my class abilities.

Never said 3e didn't have faults. In fact it has a lot of them and I was pumped for 4e at first cause I was hoping they would fix them and still leave a flexible system. As it stands right now 4e seems to be less the type of game i want than 3e was.

I am not and have never said 4e should cater to me. I only got in this debate to shore up a point of view. That is style of play makes a big difference on what one wants.

i wish 4e cater to me, it doesn't seem like it will. i am fine with that. i am not ranting demand it should. i am only experiencing my opinion I wish it had and why i think that would have been a better decision on the part of WotC.

 

[nutluck]

If an option exists such as allows a player to trade the great majority of their noncombat utiltiy for combat utility, or vice-versa, you destabilize the game automatically. There are certain inevitable consequences that come about from it, and you need a lot more communication and preference-matching with the rest of the group to overcome them.

If you make a Hawking, you either expect to dominate noncombat scenes or you expect to be in a party of Hawkings who share the noncombat limelight. The first expectation is something 4e explicitly dumps; they do not want to let one PC hog all the noncombat scene glory, no matter how useless they promise to be otherwise. The second expectation... well, if you're all skill peers, why not be skill peers at the baseline? If being combat-competent really bugs you, just forfeit abilities.

No it doesn't destabilize the game just because they do it. It depends on the type of game that is being run. if I run a political based game set in a city where combat is rare it works just fine. It only destablizes the game if it is a combat heavy game and the GM doesn't work with the players to insure they make characters that fit the game

Combat abilites don't bug me. I never once said it nor did I imply it. I said I wanted the game to have options so people could make characters the way they wanted and so GM's could run games they way they want and tell the stories they want.

I never said 4e must do this. I only said i think it is a mistake for them not to offer them as optional rules for those that want that. It cost them customers when their was no reason it had to.

 

[nutluck]

Even with 4E D&D, I'm GOING to do the same thing; that's what a good DM does. If I've got the PC who's backstory is that he was driven from his ancestral fiefdom and now intends to depose Kaius and conquer Karrnath, well, I'll steer events in the stories towards that. Likewise, it turns out that the paladin and warlock in my group both have Intimidate and are good at it, and they used that to good effect. But not ALL paladins and warlocks are good at Intimidate. My second group has poor initimidation coverage, but strong diplomacy - so when it comes to social challenges, they'll take a different angle. Another group could simply have built themselves with no social skills at all; nothing's preventing you from doing that. There's no "EVERY GROUP AUTOMATICALLY HAS A +10 DIPLOMAT" rule. As a DM, I may point out to the group that they are weak in a certain area; one of my groups sucked at Perception, and they've since rectified it. It's EASY to set things up so that you can get a well-balanced group. But it's still about player choice; you aren't good at everything, you'll simply be good at SOMETHING in both the combat and noncombat arenas.

And now I'm running late... $%@^!

Oh I get what your saying and i know their will be options. I fully get that nor do I nor did I mean to imply 4e wouldn't. But for me to put it in simple terms, it looks like 4e will have a scale of 1-5 on how good you are at combat and how good you are at social stuff. Most people are a 3 but can go up or down a little. Where as with optional rules I wanted to see 4 allow for a scale of 1-10 for example. I never encourage and actively discourage players from making characters that are one trick ponies regardless what that trick is. But on the other hand i don't feel they have to be even all that good at other stuff. just as long as they can do it a little.

I think this will be my last post on the subject. I think those that get what I am trying to say get it and those that don't... well i don't think there is anything I can say to change that.

of course i like potato chips too and might change my mind later and eat another... err i mean post again.

 

[Ximenes088]

No it doesn't destabilize the game just because they do it. It depends on the type of game that is being run. if I run a political based game set in a city where combat is rare it works just fine. It only destablizes the game if it is a combat heavy game and the GM doesn't work with the players to insure they make characters that fit the game

Combat abilites don't bug me. I never once said it nor did I imply it. I said I wanted the game to have options so people could make characters the way they wanted and so GM's could run games they way they want and tell the stories they want.

I never said 4e must do this. I only said i think it is a mistake for them not to offer them as optional rules for those that want that. It cost them customers when their was no reason it had to.

Well, suppose you do run a political, low-combat game. What advantage is gained by allowing players to eliminate their combat skills and double their noncombat skills? The end result will be a group of PCs with roughly identical levels of noncombat skill... which is exactly the same result as you get if you let them all stay baseline.

It's the D&D equivalent of taking "Save or die versus laser damage" as a character weakness in a campaign with no lasers, and then getting perks in exchange for the "weakness". If D&D is designed to allow people to utterly gimp themselves in talents they will never need in exchange for being doubly good in talents they will always need, then I can't help but see it as a fundamental destabilization of the system. It opens the gap between PC capabilities yet wider for a given power level, because a given challenge can no longer assume that the PCs will have around X resources available, but must contend with the risk that one or more of the PCs may have as little as 0 or as much as 2X of the relevant mojo. That's just not good design for a game like D&D.

 

[Benimoto]

But for me to put it in simple terms, it looks like 4e will have a scale of 1-5 on how good you are at combat and how good you are at social stuff. Most people are a 3 but can go up or down a little. Where as with optional rules I wanted to see 4 allow for a scale of 1-10 for example.

So you're saying that you would prefer 4e to a be system that goes from 1-10, but most people are still a 3?

I don't personally agree with that, but that's mostly because if 4e was the kind of game that required an expert DM carefully matching the adventure to the players that would rule out some types of games I like. In other words, I would see that as 4e only catering to one style of play, and ignoring types of games I sometimes like, like prewritten modules, or pick-up-games at a convention.

But, on the other hand, there's still no real reason to assume 4e won't eventually offer the style you want. After all, sections of rules marked "optional special rules for expert players only" don't usually go in the core books. The core books are meant for beginners, and the expansion books are more for experts. After all, many of the hyper-specialized characters people have mentioned rely heavily on options from expansion books.

Rephrasing the point, it's only natural to assume that if most players are "3s" that the core books are going to focus mostly on 1-5. It's expansion books or 3rd party books that would take it to 10 in most cases.

 

[Hamburger Mary]

But for me to put it in simple terms, it looks like 4e will have a scale of 1-5 on how good you are at combat and how good you are at social stuff. Most people are a 3 but can go up or down a little.

Looking to noncombat, as a playtester, this isn't true at all.

In 4E, at 2nd level, by my calculations skill values ranges from +0 to +15 (assuming an ability score range of 8 to 18). As that's divisible by 5, it's easy to use the 1-5 scale. The average person - no skill training, average ability score - will have a rank 1 on that scale - a modifier of +3 or below. In order to get to "3 out of 5" - a value of +9 - you'll need to have skill training and a decent statistic.

I think you're assuming these bland characters that are sort of equally good in all things. COMBAT is far more balanced. It's hard to make a character who just sucks at combat - though in all likelihood he WILL suck at a certain ASPECT of combat (melee, ranged, etc), because that's what class roles are about; each class has a role. And things like feats are a case where you have to choose whether to get abilities that will help you in combat or those that will help you out of it; it is the place where you shift the balance. To get to a ranking of 5 on that scale of one to five, a diplomat will need to use feats.

So you will have trouble making the crippled sage. But the idea that you never make ANY choice between combat or noncombat ability, that you can't make a character who is a true specialist in a noncombat area, simply isn't true. That 5/5 diplomat WILL be able to fight (though to get that score, she had to max her Charisma and devote feats to it). But she is a true master of Diplomacy - compared to the untrained Cha 8 fighter who has a +0 Diplomacy.

So this whole "All characters are at a 3 of 5" just isn't true. You pick your specialties, both in and out of combat, and you shine in those areas. But you're not average at all things. And if you want to go nuts on one thing, feats like Skill Focus still let you do that.

It's still not your system, Nutluck. I get that. It's not designed to let you play a commoner - though again, all you need to do to do that is to remove the class abilities from your class. But it's also not the "absolutely bland characters" system you seem to think.

 

[hong]

No it doesn't destabilize the game just because they do it. It depends on the type of game that is being run. if I run a political based game set in a city where combat is rare it works just fine. It only destablizes the game if it is a combat heavy game and the GM doesn't work with the players to insure they make characters that fit the game

This is D&D. If you can't do it with a sword, you do it with a fireball. If you can't do it with a fireball, it isn't worth doing.

 

[Hussar]

No it doesn't destabilize the game just because they do it. It depends on the type of game that is being run. if I run a political based game set in a city where combat is rare it works just fine. It only destablizes the game if it is a combat heavy game and the GM doesn't work with the players to insure they make characters that fit the game

Combat abilites don't bug me. I never once said it nor did I imply it. I said I wanted the game to have options so people could make characters the way they wanted and so GM's could run games they way they want and tell the stories they want.

I never said 4e must do this. I only said i think it is a mistake for them not to offer them as optional rules for those that want that. It cost them customers when their was no reason it had to.

Just to pile on here for a second.

It does destabilize the game if you have a group where only one person chooses this route. Now you have (presumably) three players who simply turn to the fourth every time his specialty comes up. Why bother even trying to solve X if the guy beside you solves X every time?

That's the heart of balance in a nutshell.