Removing homogenity from 4e

[Betote]

I did not like 3.x niche protection. ("Hey it's a trap guys! Everyone except the Rogue, sit on your hands.")

I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.

 

[Rechan]

By Rob "Spirit of the Century" Donoghue, no less.

You mean on his LJ, or on the skill challenge article?

 

[Nifft]

I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.

I can't tell if you're serious.

Is that really the most memorable trap your DM came up with?

Oh well, -- N

 

[Barastrondo]

You mean on his LJ, or on the skill challenge article?

He's got credit in the article proper.

 

[Henry]

I think everyone would get really bored while the Rogue rolls one die. That's a very long time out of the spotlight.

For our group, it was more like, "OK rogue and ranger, sit on your hands while the wizard turns superiorly invisible, flies, and ethereally sneaks up on the entire party of opposing NPCs that was the crux of the adventure, and watch while he dismantles them with save or die spells for 20 minutes by himself." The rogue by contrast was damned good at sneaking around, and decent at traps when the cleric wasn't doing the whole "find traps" thing, but was better at just informing the wizard where the enemy was and letting the wizard do his thing.

 

[BryonD]

Frankly, I can't even see the homogeneity in the mechanics. And I spent quite a bit of time looking at and thinking about the system when it first came out, not simply in order to run a game, but in order to teach a university class on RPGs that included a number of academic papers on RPGs and other media. I mention this only to try to establish that I really, really, have spent a lot of time and effort onstudying this system. (At least that semster, it was paid time!)

Cool. We both understand the game well and we have a difference in perception.
I strongly suspect it comes from a difference in core expectations.
I agree with pretty much everything you said about where there are differences. And it does not even begin to move my conclusion. You have not even told me anything I did not even know.
There are games out there which are far less homogeneous and I prefer them.

edit: to be clear, if you asked me what was wrong with 4E, being homogeneous would not be the answer I would give. This thread kinda makes it sound like that is the beginning and the end of the pro/anti debate. It is just one of many results of the design philosophy.

 

[Jack99]

I can't tell if you're serious.

Is that really the most memorable trap your DM came up with?

Oh well, -- N

Be careful, maybe he is the DM

 

[Ariosto]

(1 in six ain't much, but its better than 2e's No-way, no-how).

Where is that "no way, no how" statement? I just now looked in the PHB and DMG, and did not find it. I did find that

The thief is trained to find small traps and alarms. These include poisoned needles, spring blades, deadly gases, and warning bells. This skill is not effective for finding deadfall ceilings, crushing walls, or other large, mechanical traps. To find the trap, the thief must be able to touch and inspect the trapped object.

 

[Tuft]

You know, I totally get the desire to shine and to take turns, but man, this sentence. Identifying "everyone participates" as a problems is just... well, I don't agree.

At any rate, it may be a matter of play style, but I don't see a contradiction between "people have a chance to shine" and "everyone participates." In any given skill challenge, I've found that everyone participates, but some people shine more in skill challenges that stress their character's strengths and "merely" pull their weight in others. Tracking some bastard across wilderness territory? The people with strong Nature and Perception shine, and everyone else participates. Negotiating with the canny madam of the high-rent bordello? The people with strong Diplomacy and Insight shine, and everyone else participates. Everyone has a shot at either "pulling your own weight" and "oops!", but super rolling or your skill build adds in the third possibility of "being really impressive."

The problem is that "super rolling" has no effect on the skill challenge what so ever. Skill challenges are passed by all members of the group avoiding failure rolls. If you pass with 2 or you pass with 20 does not matter in the slightest.


To quote from Mearls himself in the recent Dragon article on Skill Powers:

I was playing a tiefling wizard with a 16 Charisma and training in Diplomacy and Bluff. It was fun serving as the party’s spokesmen, but that didn’t quite feel like enough. I wanted the option to do interesting things with my skills outside of the specific scenes and roleplaying moments that came up.

Skill powers give us the chance to really reward characters who max out their bonus with a skill. When it comes to DCs, we can’t normally set them so high that we reward such a character with a slim chance at success. Instead, most DCs are set to reward such characters with near-automatic success. That’s useful, but it can prove a little anti-climatic.

Simply put, if you put a lot of resources into a skill, you are rewarded not with shine, but with anti-climax...

Unfortunately, the Skill Powers as listed in the article misses the mark; they do not reward good skill rolls either. (Only having utility power slots to spare, and who has that?)

 

[Barastrondo]

The problem is that "super rolling" has no effect on the skill challenge what so ever. Skill challenges are passed by all members of the group avoiding failure rolls. If you pass with 2 or you pass with 20 does not matter in the slightest.

Well, super rolling has two basic benefits: one, it lets you pull off a Hard difficulty check, and two (though this really depends on the group), it tends to have some roleplaying impact. It might be improvised as a mechanical benefit — if you pass a Diplomacy check by 20, you may wind up making the target particularly impressed, and the next Diplomacy check gets a +2 bonus. Or maybe it's just a straight-up roleplaying thing wherein if you pass your Acrobatics check by 20, you look damn good. That is of zero utility to some groups, but in other groups, looking damn good is not only fun, but critical successes and critical failures can help shape how you see your character.

Characters with maxed-out skills or lucky rolls tend to acquire a reputation in the games I've seen. There's almost a mystical reverence for the shifter priestess of the moon goddess who seems to perceive everything, and the feylock attracts friends easily because of his tendency to excel even on casual Diplomacy checks (before using Beguiling Tongue, no less).

I admit this is really dependent on the group, though. Whereas our group might really groove on a "critical" success or failure on a negotiation check or an athletic endeavor, and work it into roleplaying, others might just shrug and move on.

Simply put, if you put a lot of resources into a skill, you are rewarded not with shine, but with anti-climax...

And the ability to still succeed if you roll like the poop. That's worth a lot with the basic d20 resolution; it would be less significant if you were using 3d6 or something that rolled on a curve, but the ability to succeed on a 5 is more frequently relevant than I would personally like it to be.

Unfortunately, the Skill Powers as listed in the article misses the mark; they do not reward good skill rolls either. (Only having utility power slots to spare, and who has that?)

I dunno if that's the intention. It seems more like the desire to make your skill choices relevant outside of appropriate roleplaying situations, and relevant in any combat you get into. It doesn't seem to be so much "man, I wish I had more reward for beating a check by 10" as "man, I wish I could use my training in Bluff in some way against this behir."