Oh boy! Megaquote time...
I actually didn't like the 4e skill system because I like the customizability of skill points where you can be better than most people, but not a master, and also you can get trained in more things without blowing a feat on it.
The key problem: "skill point" systems don't actually end up doing that. As 3e demonstrated pretty handily, it becomes "you must be at least this tall to ride," and it HARSHLY punished anyone who fell behind. Skill points were way more of a "treadmill" than 4e was, they just made it LOOK like it was a viable choice to fall off.
I'm not sure I understand why it is desirable to have characters get better at everything, even if it is not their forte.
Because it shows general learning. You may not be a professional cook, for example, but in general even without actively
pursuing better cooking skills, you pick up knowledge over time. Fantastical PCs should be that much better. Sure, your "clanker" Paladin (as a friend of mine calls them) won't be able to sneak past people like your Rogue colleague can. It's not your wheelhouse. But if you need to sneak past some relatively mundane folks, well, now you get a chance to show that yes, you are in fact better than you were before.
That general, passive learning is a great tool in the toolbox. It gives insight and context for their growth, for their
journey as characters.
I think static DCs with characters only progressing if it's in their wheelhouse is better for various reasons. But I would go back to spending skill points if I had my druthers.
4e does all of that, except that it allows for small, minor growth outside your core--passive learning. So you can see that you've grown from your adventures, and not just in your ideal preplanned ways.
Ah, but static DCs is how you get every door being adamantine with a mastercraft artisanal locks in every city by level 10.
Eh. 4e did a pretty good job of avoiding this (despite claims to the contrary, mostly by folks who had no idea what they were talking about.)
I don't understand why that would be.
Because power creep. Dunno if you've ever seen or played a high-level PF1e party, for example, but
good Lord almighty it's a nightmare. I've had two DMs burn out trying
very enthusiastically to run high-level PF1e. People often talk about high levels not being supported; part of the reason they weren't supported in the past is that, in 3e and PF, those levels are just too damn janky to support. You
started seeing that trend even before 3e. I'd even argue that, before 4e, the last time D&D really properly
supported high-level play was friggin' BECMI.
How did it try to correct it? Even in 4e the higher DCs at higher levels were supposed to represent more difficult challenges. And if that is not the case, then what's the bloody point of the numbers increasing?
Because the increased challenges are
different challenges other than the ones you faced before?
Like...how is this difficult? Threats you used to deal with still exist. They're just generally below your notice now, because you have bigger fish to fry. The people who make FFXIV actually did some really cool work with this concept, since narratively it applies just as much to D&D-inspired video games (including MMOs) as it does to tabletop gaming. Specifically, in the previous expansion (Shadowbringers), the relatively one-off "capstone" quests for each class (formally, for each
job, as that's the Final Fantasy term) gave insight into events that were going on while you were separated from the world and doing separate but vital stuff. One of the things revealed in some of those quests is that some of your allies, who have the same "can't be mind controlled by big nasty summons" protection you have, have been leading the charge to deal with the aforementioned "big nasty summons" while you're preoccupied. They explicitly refer to it as "putting out the small fires" so you can stay focused on the larger picture, because
you've graduated beyond dealing with these threats.
Having such moments, where you can look back and realize how far you've come, is an extremely useful tool. And not just in fiction. I've worked with several students as a tutor in mathematics, some of them over the course of multiple years. I distinctly remember one young woman who was working on a calculus question of some kind, and it was clear from her face and gestures that she was getting frustrated and angry at herself for not being able to do it super quick. So I asked her, in a very rapid-fire kind of way, "What's the sine of pi/3 radians?" She said, without missing a beat but a little confused as to why I was asking: "...Square root of 3 divided by 2?" And I told her, "A year ago, that question was hard. Now you can do it in a flash. That's how far you've come." The look of shock and relief on her face was delightful.
It's genuinely a shame that, in the quest to quash
even the tiniest, vaguest hint of "treadmill," we have thrown out such a valuable tool.
In a real static difficulty game, the DC 30 lock and CR 26 dragon were always there. Maybe the PCs didn't see them because they were in the wrong place, or maybe they did. Neither the locks on the potion shop nor the King's vault door should change as the PCs level (unless they already broke in). But new, more difficult zones are fine.
Correct. The problem is, what about when you're inventing
new things, because you're writing a brand-new adventure for level 15 characters? 4e had a clear answer: there is a set of tables which tell you what ranges values should fall in
if you already know that this adventure is written to be an interesting challenge for level 15 characters. But a lot of games that strive for "static DC" design try to have their cake and eat it too, and it results in an arms race between power creep and scope creep.
The number increasing represented increasing skills.
The DCs were always static. The point is that you wouldn't or couldn't encounter the higher DCs stuff until you were strong enough.
And eventually you level up enough to abandon the normal world. In 4e, this was literal. You'd level up so hard, you become immortal and NP yourself. At best your old PC and his or her +100 to X rolls would be the DEM that stops your new party's TPK.
Yep. Again, despite the claims of "treadmill," 4e
actually had an internal concept of a character's arc. It's why, if I ever make a 4e "heartbreaker" (more like "4e with Ezekiel's House Rule Module"), one of the key components would be merging and expanding Themes+Backgrounds into
Heroic Origins, so that you'd have a full character arc: Heroic Origin says where you came from and how you got started as an adventurer; Paragon Path shows how you outgrew your humble beginnings and became a renowned exemplar; and Epic Destiny tells how your great deeds left an indelible mark on the world.
Why do you think so?
Our DnD Game also works like this. And we teied a lot of different systems but gravitated back to DnD, for different reasons.
Because D&D has been extremely combat-centric for decades, perhaps forever (the old "heist" style focused on more strategic-level combat rather than tactical-level combat). It has also, historically, struggled
heavily with non-combat abilities and spells, either making them so weak as to be pointless (e.g. the spell
augury is often nigh-useless) or so strong as to trivialize anything you use them on (Rangers are often accused of this in 5e, for example.) There are several systems out there which both place less emphasis on combat alone, and handle non-combat stuff in a more effective and productive way. Of course, familiarity is a powerful thing in TTRPGs, so just because other things might work better does not mean they would necessarily work better
for your group, at least not right away.
That was due to DMs not understanding how to run a high level game. I ran many 3e campaigns to 15-21st or so level and I can tell you that adamantine doors were not everywhere. Almost nowhere in fact. That wasn't how to challenge a high level group.
If we can say this of 3e, then we absolutely should say the same of 4e. 4e wasn't a treadmill, and anyone saying it
was a treadmill simply misunderstood how to run it, even though the books were
quite clear about these things. (E.g. explicit instructions NOT to use only encounters tailored to the party's level, but a mix of encounters across a fairly broad range of levels, e.g. anywhere between level-4 and level+4, favoring high variety.)
So, again, if the baseline is a combat of 3-5 rounds, why does a monster stat block (not the monster itself, that's a different story, but, just the stat block) need more than 5 discrete actions?
Because, honestly, people want the "read a novel" part to be dispersed uniformly across the text. Even if that's neither easy-to-use nor productive. Or at least that's what I've come to see from this discussion thus far. Well, that and people (even ones who
stridently defend "DM empowerment" and "rulings not rules" etc.)
It's funny though. In the past, I absolutely would have done that. The game says that the monster can't do X, so, it can't do X. Now? Yeah, rulings over rules baby. Full DM power ahead. I don't have to restrict myself to the stat block. Poof, instant change, and my fun idea is full steam ahead.
If this is what people have meant by "rulings not rules," they've done an absolutely
terrible job of explaining it for literally a decade at this point. This doesn't, in the slightest, look like "rulings not rules" to me. It looks like treating the rules as an extant baseline, and then
building new things on top of them. It's not that you're treating the rules as mere suggestions with no validity. Instead, you look to them for grounding, and build upon them with
additions where you need such, only overriding or overwriting them when a serious issue comes up. That's a hell of a lot more
cautious than any presentation of the "rulings not rules" concept I've been presented with.