So...anything on Craft?

[Lizard]

There are lots of stuff that are non combat. In fact id like to think 4th lets the story flourish more. Not bogged down by rules.

Translation: Not important enough (in the designer's minds) to devote effort to.

That's their reading of the player base. We'll see. I know the people I play with like knowledge, craft, perform, and profession skills as ways to round out their character without it just being meaningless fluff text. Do most D&D players? Sales of 4e will tell...

I know the lack of general knowledge (Local, Nobility, etc) skills is really annoying. While some 3x skills were too narrow (Use Rope), the 4e skills are REALLY too broad, and the simplistic default/trained/focused thing allows for very little fine tuning of characters. Further, training seems to be of limited use -- it looks from early reports that 'trained only' uses of skills are few and far between, and most characters will be 'good enough' at most skills that, really, skill focus is probably a total waste of a feat, except MAYBE for Arcana and rituals. I'll bet no PC takes Skill Focus (History), for example, and since NPCs no longer have feats (or skill points, or, well, anything, really), it's not even useful for the NPC sage. Just write "History +12" and be done with it, right?

 

[Lizard]

Second, a skill like Profession is hard to use in the game from the the designer's point of view. In a home campaign, you know what the PCs took, but in writing modules it's impossible to use the skills without relying on blind luck that someone took Profession or Craft, and then happened to pick the right specialty.

See, this is real interesting. This right here.

3e, the design philosophy was "We give you the tools to build a world. You decide what kind of world to make."

4e, the design philosophy is, "We've built the world. Now we'll sell you modules for it." This isn't just limited to this one example. Many of the design blogs, etc, have talked about the need to make it easier to write adventures, produce art, and so on. The assumption that the DM is a worldbuilder is reduced; the assumption that the DM will buy, and run, modules is increased. From the pre-made city in the DMG to the more strongly defined "assumed world" to the emphasis on building monsters for combat roles as opposed to building them as races, 4e places worldbuilding as low as possible on the list of design priorities. Obviously, the WOTC ninjas will not storm your house if you design your own world, but the 4e rules, as written[1], are, if not actively hostile to it, then not remotely supportive of it -- unless your world consists mostly of a string of kick-ass fight scenes. Then you're golden.

Based on my KOTS experiences, 4e is fun to run combats in, no doubt there, but it's really hard to see how a DM can have any fun worldbuilding with it. The pieces seem to be just too big. 3e was lego; 4e is duplo.

Looking at the way the NPCs in KOTS were assembled, it looks like you can create interesting individuals if you try, but they're still going to be rough around the edges. Look at the spy. She lacks skills like Streetwise, Bluff, and Insight, because the duplo block of trained/untrained doesn't let her spread out skill points, and giving her training in all the skills she should have makes her too powerful and unbalanced. In 3e, a rogue/ranger is the perfect spy/archer; in 4e, it can't (seemingly) be done and still be balanced; NPCs are supposed to have 1-2 "tricks" at most.

I suppose I'll need to see a few more unique individuals and look at the bits of info coming from those with the books. I want to believe I can make interesting characters in 4e -- and to me, interesting means "their personalities have mechanical support".

I mean, exception based design, right? So if I want to give someone 2 skills at +3 instead of one at +5, that's my call, isn't?

In any event, I suppose I can always start writing rules to ratchet up the level of detail in 4e; I'll be there's a market for it. There's going to be people who like the fact you CAN be quick&dirty with 4e, but want the option to drill down more when the need arises. The neat thing about duplo is...you can fit lego blocks onto it.

[1]Based on what we're hearing from people with the books.

 

[smetzger]

See, this is real interesting. This right here.

3e, the design philosophy was "We give you the tools to build a world. You decide what kind of world to make."

4e, the design philosophy is, "We've built the world. Now we'll sell you modules for it." This isn't just limited to this one example. Many of the design blogs, etc, have talked about the need to make it easier to write adventures, produce art, and so on. The assumption that the DM is a worldbuilder is reduced; the assumption that the DM will buy, and run, modules is increased.

Thats it. Thats what I've been trying to put my finger on about what I don't like about 4e.

They simplified monster building and NPC creation so that WOTC can easily create adventures (and they won't mess up the math). Not necessarily for a better game, but so that WOTC can do their job easier.

Poeple are saying 'yea that's good I has such a hard time building monsters correct in 3e and NPC creation bogged me down in prep time'. But if you used modules in 3e then its no big deal and if you liked having consistency between monsters, NPCs and PCs then its a good thing.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Lizard - I agree completely. And my sig does too ;p

4e strikes me as being great for one-shots, but not so great for anything else.

Edit: Unless my sig decides not to show itself...

Also, I don't think it's just limited to modules or worldbuilding. A LOT of the emphasis on 4e is "Here's the game, here's what you do." One of my biggest complaints character wise is the warlord - how many of those abilities could've EASILY been used by other classes? By giving the warlord things like "Yell Really Loudly," it DOES diminish what other players can choose to do. I can see it now: "What, I have to take a multiclass feat in order to tell people what to do?"

 

[keterys]

exception based design, right? So if I want to give someone 2 skills at +3 instead of one at +5, that's my call, isn't?

Or 2 at +5. Or 3. Or 4.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

4e, the design philosophy is, "We've built the world. Now we'll sell you modules for it." This isn't just limited to this one example. Many of the design blogs, etc, have talked about the need to make it easier to write adventures, produce art, and so on. The assumption that the DM is a worldbuilder is reduced; the assumption that the DM will buy, and run, modules is increased.

I love how you look at something and derive the opposite conclusion from what was actually said.

Mearls was saying that they wanted to put decisions about the importance of elements like secondary skills in the hands of DMs, since they are the ones best equipped to do this work for their own world, rather than dictate how these are to be used.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Thats it. Thats what I've been trying to put my finger on about what I don't like about 4e.

They simplified monster building and NPC creation so that WOTC can easily create adventures (and they won't mess up the math). Not necessarily for a better game, but so that WOTC can do their job easier.

Poeple are saying 'yea that's good I has such a hard time building monsters correct in 3e and NPC creation bogged me down in prep time'. But if you used modules in 3e then its no big deal and if you liked having consistency between monsters, NPCs and PCs then its a good thing.

Not just so they can do THEIR job easier. But so I can do MY job easier as well. I write adventures for Living Greyhawk now and am in the midst of writing a 4e mod for Living Forgotten Realms.

I can tell you that a lot of the things about the way 3e worked made writing an adventure rather overly difficult. In 4e, that is gone. I can say that a lot of the planning and discussions that we(the campaign staff of Living Greyhawk) have had over the last 4 years(I can't speak to what happened after that as I wasn't a Triad member then) was about things like "How to write an appropriate adventure that won't kill a group full of players who chose to multiclass as a bard/barbarian/wizard/cleric with their feats chosen as Skill Focus(Profession(Basketweaving)) while still providing an appropriate challenge to the Fighter/Barbarians with max strength and power attack."

There has been enough debate on that one subject to last me 3 lifetimes. And, if you follow the rules of 4e, it appears that debate is dead.

And on top of that, there are DMs all over the world who go through the same process when they write their own adventures. They write an adventure in advance and then find a group of people to play in it, and they have the same problems. Sometimes they have the same problems within a group they are writing specifically for when they want to throw a dragon up against the party, but they just know the first breath weapon is going to kill Joe's character, since he is playing an elven sorcerer with a con of 6 who doesn't know any energy protection spells while it will have no effect at all on the cleric who keeps energy immunity(fire) up constantly and virtually no effect on the Dwarven Barbarian with the 32 con(40 while raging).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I love how you look at something and derive the opposite conclusion from what was actually said.

Mearls was saying that they wanted to put decisions about the importance of elements like secondary skills in the hands of DMs, since they are the ones best equipped to do this work for their own world, rather than dictate how these are to be used.

This isn't just arrogant, it's outright wrong. Players will always understand their characters better then you, the DM. And if you don't allow those players/characters to affect or change the story, your game isn't worth playing.

That goes to Majoru Oakheart as well. There's a place for modules, but I've yet to seriously use them. If the player gives himself basketweaving, have fun with it. Put something in the game that'll let it go to use.

 

[Lizard]

And on top of that, there are DMs all over the world who go through the same process when they write their own adventures. They write an adventure in advance and then find a group of people to play in it, and they have the same problems.

Wow.

That's really...alien.

I'm not saying you're wrong, obviously, you have no reason to lie, but it just seems so...weird.

What, do these people stand on street corners with a module and a sign reading "Will DM for food"?

I mean, for about the last two decades, I've always played:
a)Discuss a game I'd like to run. Find out who's interested.

b)Send out a detailed pile of notes on setting, background, and especially what kind of characters I'm looking for.

c)Get PC concepts back. Get players talking with each other to work out connections between their concepts. Pure mechanics can come later, I just want to know backgrounds/personalities/plot hooks.

d)When I have a good idea of the PCs and they more-or-less meet what I was looking for, write an intro adventure. Make sure each PC has a plot hook or two in it.

e)Then the game more-or-less runs itself as I react to whatever the PCs did last session and try to plot just enough ahead to keep them busy for the next one.

If a fight is going too hard -- or too easy -- I start fudging rolls. I don't do this if the PCs are being exceptionally clever -- or exceptionally dim -- but only if I, the DM, misjudged the intended threat level. Intelligence and stupidity is rewarded by the dice; my own screwups should not be taken out on the PCs.

I'm going to assume that since 4e was designed with a very different playstyle in mind, that "my way" isn't very common.

 

[Andor]

Wow, very old school. But heck if they are going to be that old school about it they could have at least reprinted the old random background/profession table from 1st ed.