Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Neonchameleon]

Tell me this Balesir... why is encounter balance and player balance (in combat) so important for 4e?

Because it makes things vastly easier to DM for a new DM. And it allows much better narrative pacing than to have to be cautious with my monsters lest I accidently kill a PC. Balance is information. And 4e is the best game I have ever played for new DMs - partly because the information presented on what the bad guys can do and how to keep the story feeling hard but actually manageable is so good.

And add to that everything AbdulAlhazred just said.

 

[Imaro]

It is far more than a gamist consideration. Systematic imbalance directly impacts what you can do with the system at every level. In 3.5 you simply cannot construct a fighter that is a credible super heroic character at higher levels. The system SAYS you should be able to do this, but the option is simply non-existent. In point of fact said character has little to contribute to the party in any sense and will be largely ineffective aside from some very contrived situations. In 3.5 you could make "Hercules" or "Conan" but any garden variety spell caster will almost instantly make said character irrelevant in play.

Contrast this to 4e where such character concepts are perfectly valid and function as intended. My 30th level barbarian is a genuine force to be reckoned with. This goes far beyond mere gamism.

Notice that in any of the three systems you cite the same issue exists. It may not be considered a problem if said systems are just straight up telling us that such concepts aren't valid or supported in that system, but they are still more limited in that respect than 4e is. Conversely if the genre those systems are intended to support actually supposes that my 'barbarian' should be irrelevant then they've got a perfectly valid reason for being designed the way they are. However I'd say that certainly this wasn't the case with 3.5. It is arguable with other systems and I'm not familiar enough with some of them to comment specifically.

But again this mainly serves the combat encounter in 4e which centers around a gamist challenge... a Fighter is still imbalanced and a scrub when it comes to anything outside combat with his 3 skills.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So lowering the impact of surprise makes things both more forgiving and harder.

Good post.

However, making some things easier and some things harder either (A) makes the game harder overall, (B) makes the game easier overall, or (C) is a net wash.


RC

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But again this mainly serves the combat encounter in 4e which centers around a gamist challenge... a Fighter is still imbalanced and a scrub when it comes to anything outside combat with his 3 skills.

It goes far beyond combat and right to the heart of my character concept. A 3.5 high level fighter running around thinking he's going to lord it over anything even approaching his level has got to be a darn fool.

Now, a 4e fighter DOES start with 3 skills, not a design decision I would consider one of the best thought out in the history of 4e. OTOH the class skills lists in 4e are rather irrelevant since you can pick up any old skill you want simply by telling the DM you had a background element that made it relevant to your character. And given that all skills are broadly applicable almost any skill is potentially relevant in a wide range of situations.

Again, my 4e fighter works CONCEPTUALLY and in an RP sense because he does have equality with wizards, 'spell' using monsters, etc. Sure, the equality is in combat, but his whole concept is based around that. He's genuinely deadly and effective and he knows it. Likewise he could (also) be a renowned explorer, a respected leader, etc.

One of the big issues that 4e actually addressed WRT 3.5 was PLOT power too. Notice that my fighter can easily have quite a bit of traction here over all levels. His 3.5 counterpart was also gimped on this front. Not only by a skill system that punished him horribly, but simply by the fact that again casters easily made trivial any pretense he had to using even the abilities he did have out of combat. 4e did a pretty decent job of opening up a lot of space for more interesting plots and storylines by reigning in the caster's ability to address practically every problem with magic. Once again we see that by providing a good balance between different classes the game is opened up a lot. There are many more valid choices and approaches to solving problems now and thus many more character concepts which actually work in play. It isn't perfect and the system did have to tone down magic in some respects to achieve it, which certainly removes a few options, but I think it was a logical and carefully considered design decision.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But again this mainly serves the combat encounter in 4e which centers around a gamist challenge... a Fighter is still imbalanced and a scrub when it comes to anything outside combat with his 3 skills.

I'd hardly call three trained skills out of seventeen. Sure he's not as effective as a thief (seven skills). But there are three factors coming into play. First that the skills are pretty broad and that the fighter has a wide ranging list (perception is almost invariably useful - and heal and streetwise are pretty good). Second you only need one relevant trained skill to be useful. And there are a number of ... specialist skills on the list (Thievery). Third, unlike in 3.X you aren't a scrub at a skill you're untrained in. Everyone gains ranks in all skills. You're just weaker - it's no longer a case of "I hope the fighter doesn't even try diplomacy with his +0". If he's smart he'll be rolling at easy DCs and can pass those relatively often. Good backup rather than lead - but good backup is not a scrub.

 

[MrMyth]

But again this mainly serves the combat encounter in 4e which centers around a gamist challenge... a Fighter is still imbalanced and a scrub when it comes to anything outside combat with his 3 skills.

"Anything" outside of combat? That hasn't been my experience. Even aside from the many wilderness challenges in which the most common fighter skills - Athletics and Endurance - are applicable, most Fighters will have at least one other. Two of the remaining options - Intimidate and Streetwise - are likely relevant in many social skill challenges.

The Fighter likely won't contribute as much as the Rogue. But they have been given much more ability to be involved in many, many scenarios.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Anything" outside of combat? That hasn't been my experience. Even aside from the many wilderness challenges in which the most common fighter skills - Athletics and Endurance - are applicable, most Fighters will have at least one other. Two of the remaining options - Intimidate and Streetwise - are likely relevant in many social skill challenges.

The Fighter likely won't contribute as much as the Rogue. But they have been given much more ability to be involved in many, many scenarios.

Rogues and Rangers DO have a longer skill list than other classes. OTOH they also have a fairly significant number of mandatory skills. In the case of the rogue you're really not going to be able to function in your chosen profession without Thievery, Stealth, Perception, and probably Acrobatics. That does leave a decent number of open choices and they're certainly substantially better off than the Fighter, but it isn't quite as lopsided as it might seem. Similarly with the Ranger, they're pretty much going to have to train Nature/Dungeoneering and Perception at the very least (and IIRC both are locked in). I think there's a pretty good consensus though that the Fighter should be getting 4 skills, which seems to be what all classes devised since PHB1 get. Not really sure why they've resisted updating this.

 

[Imaro]

Rogues and Rangers DO have a longer skill list than other classes. OTOH they also have a fairly significant number of mandatory skills. In the case of the rogue you're really not going to be able to function in your chosen profession without Thievery, Stealth, Perception, and probably Acrobatics. That does leave a decent number of open choices and they're certainly substantially better off than the Fighter, but it isn't quite as lopsided as it might seem. Similarly with the Ranger, they're pretty much going to have to train Nature/Dungeoneering and Perception at the very least (and IIRC both are locked in). I think there's a pretty good consensus though that the Fighter should be getting 4 skills, which seems to be what all classes devised since PHB1 get. Not really sure why they've resisted updating this.

Actually I would argue that it's out-of-combat options... until essentials took away the ritual caster feat... classes like the Wizard and Cleric didn't get as many skills as the Ranger and Rogue... but they got the ritual caster feat and some rituals for free as well to make up for out-of-combat options. Only the Fighter and Barbarian (I believe) get less than 4 skills...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Because it makes things vastly easier to DM for a new DM. And it allows much better narrative pacing than to have to be cautious with my monsters lest I accidently kill a PC. Balance is information. And 4e is the best game I have ever played for new DMs - partly because the information presented on what the bad guys can do and how to keep the story feeling hard but actually manageable is so good.

And add to that everything AbdulAlhazred just said.

Having just read the whole topic , let me second that and add to it. There is really not much on this front that an experienced group couldn't eventually get with any version of D&D. My group pretty much got to that point with 1E, for example, after several years play. I could run low to mid level 3E that way, now.

But besides making it easier for beginners, the other aspect of that is how the balance changes over levels in earlier versions. We didn't play high level 1E much--because it all changed, and we would have had to relearn how to manage it. We had problems with high level 3E for the same reason. Sure, if we kept at it long enough, we would have eventually come to some understanding of how to make it work for us.

Thing is, though, that I don't want to do that, and neither does the group. We want some system mastery competence to matter, but we don't want to spend a couple of years mastering it before we can settle down with telling stories with it. And if I try to shield the players from the complexity, then that is just trading GM burnout issues for system mastery issues.

From a strictly personal preference, it is not simply "amount" of system master, either. It is when and how it is introduced. Fantasy Hero and Burning Wheel are extremely front-loaded, but once you get them, there isn't much else to learn. To a lesser degree, RuneQuest is too. (Setting mastery is the thing in RQ.) D&D has traditionally added complexity as the game progressed. 4E fits that basic model, more or less, but it is more front-loaded, with less of a curve as it goes, than other versions of D&D, for the players, while being significantly less front-loaded and difficult overall for the GM.

I don't really have much experience dealing with people who are incremental learners by choice. In software development, as with many complex disciplines, we are forced to by the sheer immensity of the problem. In games, including roleplaying games, everyone I knows wants to master the game options as quickly as possible, to then let whatever emergent gameplay is there to emerge. I have no idea how widespread that attitude is, though.

 

[Balesir]

Tell me this Balesir... why is encounter balance and player balance (in combat) so important for 4e? I think gamist focused play benefits much more from a robustly balanced encounter design system than other games... I think Exalted, LoA, and Heroquest are all more focused on the type of thematic play that permerton speaks to... and none of them have a robustly balanced encounter design system (in fact they don't seem particularly concerned with balance in encounters, at all.).... this is one of the major features of 4e yet it, IMO, serves gamism more than anything else.

I'm not saying that 4E isn't gamist at its core - you may not have seen it all but pemerton and I had quite a discussion on this, and my position is still that 4E primarily supports a gamist agenda (and does so well). But, nevertheless, pemerton has convinced me that the same "manoeuvre room" that 4E affords that allow long campaigns of functional gamist play can also be used to bring in thematic (i.e. narrativist) elements.

That is not to say that I don't think there are many better narrativist supporting games out there, but many people do seem to be attached to D&D for colour/nostalgia/mythology reasons. As a result we get huge "edition wars" and impassioned tirades because, even though other games may do someone's preferred style far better than D&D ever did, they are wedded to D&D and now can't make it do what they want it to.

D&D is also far easier to find players for than other RPGs, for much the same reasons.

The end result, then, is that D&D 4E can support gamism - which was always D&d's "core competency" - and narrativism. The only folk "out in the cold" are the simulationist guys. That doesn't bother me - I found better places to scratch my sim itch long ago - but it does tear some folk up. Sad, really, since any move that will really help them will, I'm pretty sure, really screw the game up for those served already by 4E.

This goes far beyond mere gamism.

Whaddaya mean, "mere" gamism??? Let's not start up that whole style snobbishness stuff again, please