Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Parmandur]

Except this virtually inevitably leads to DM fiat. At this point, why not dispense with dice entirely and just play Vampire? 4E's beauty is (I almost wrote was!) that it gives DMs a fair and balanced system with which to work, one that doesn't rely upon whim, fancy, or inclination.

The party wants to try something? Set up the skill challenge and let them narrate (and then roll based upon their declared actions) how they approach it. Let the dice and the characters' skills (not the players' skills) determine how the outcome develops.

I dunno, why not play Vampire if that's your thing? Rolemaster to Amber is a spectrum of preference, not absolute or objective superiority.

As to your second paragraph, have a hard time seeing that as all that different to 3.x or 5E in terms of how skill use plays out in practical terms. Don't need a mechanical Skill Challenge system to do that, though I suppose it may helps some folks.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree.

But more to be point, this exchange started with me stating that my friends and I enjoy 4e for reasons that have nothing to do with tactical combat. In our experience, 4e runs more smoothly, in every aspect, than previous editions.




Same.

Well, you listed elements that sounded like they were grounded in tactical situations, like "reliable abilities"?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wouldn't necessarily say it improves on 4E, though a flat 1-30 range of absolute possibility is nice, as with AC and any other check. The system, in either case, works dandy as intended.

I never understood the whole argument about smaller numbers being better. I mean, sure, if we were talking about 2 digit numbers vs 3 digit numbers or something, but +38 instead of +27? I don't see what the big deal is there...

The narrower RANGE IMHO just means a narrower range of expression of what is possible. In 4e my level 1 wizard can answer questions about Arcana that the level 1 fighter simply cannot even pass a check for (admittedly even the wizard won't pass these often, and he's going to need to be HIGHLY optimized to pass higher level checks). Again, I don't think this is a HUGE problem, but it is certainly weird to say the very least.

 

[Parmandur]

I never understood the whole argument about smaller numbers being better. I mean, sure, if we were talking about 2 digit numbers vs 3 digit numbers or something, but +38 instead of +27? I don't see what the big deal is there...

The narrower RANGE IMHO just means a narrower range of expression of what is possible. In 4e my level 1 wizard can answer questions about Arcana that the level 1 fighter simply cannot even pass a check for (admittedly even the wizard won't pass these often, and he's going to need to be HIGHLY optimized to pass higher level checks). Again, I don't think this is a HUGE problem, but it is certainly weird to say the very least.

Well, it's part of the BA philosophy: it's easy to say an Arcana check just requires training, period, but leave even a high level question available to the level 1 Wizard. It really just is a preference of style, which is why I wouldn't call it an improvement. Makes improve pretty easy, though.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, you listed elements that sounded like they were grounded in tactical situations, like "reliable abilities"?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

That literally doesn't have anything to do with tactics. At all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I dunno, why not play Vampire if that's your thing? Rolemaster to Amber is a spectrum of preference, not absolute or objective superiority.

As to your second paragraph, have a hard time seeing that as all that different to 3.x or 5E in terms of how skill use plays out in practical terms. Don't need a mechanical Skill Challenge system to do that, though I suppose it may helps some folks.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

One of the big things that SCs do is put non-combat action into the same encounter/challenge framework as fights. That allows both to be first-class elements of the plot, decision points where things are at stake and the game can go in different directions, and where the players can weigh in on what they want to wager.

In 4e the game evolves as a series of challenges which are met and overcome (or not) with choices made by the players as to how they marshal elements to resolve them feeding back into the narrative and future challenges. That sort of game doesn't work well without SCs. Instead the model is more like the 'Chocolate Chip Cookie' model, where much of the game is a sort of undifferentiated mass of dialog and checks mixed together, punctuated by combats, which are almost a separate game entirely.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, it's part of the BA philosophy: it's easy to say an Arcana check just requires training, period, but leave even a high level question available to the level 1 Wizard. It really just is a preference of style, which is why I wouldn't call it an improvement. Makes improve pretty easy, though.

Yeah, 4e has 'trained only' as an option too, though only a very few things are actually called out by default as likely to use it (Detect Magic sub-function of the Arcana skill is the main one).

 

[Parmandur]

One of the big things that SCs do is put non-combat action into the same encounter/challenge framework as fights. That allows both to be first-class elements of the plot, decision points where things are at stake and the game can go in different directions, and where the players can weigh in on what they want to wager.

In 4e the game evolves as a series of challenges which are met and overcome (or not) with choices made by the players as to how they marshal elements to resolve them feeding back into the narrative and future challenges. That sort of game doesn't work well without SCs. Instead the model is more like the 'Chocolate Chip Cookie' model, where much of the game is a sort of undifferentiated mass of dialog and checks mixed together, punctuated by combats, which are almost a separate game entirely.

Yeah, that latter is how my experience of D&D is; I find it awesome, the Encounter model doesn't really do it for me.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, 4e has 'trained only' as an option too, though only a very few things are actually called out by default as likely to use it (Detect Magic sub-function of the Arcana skill is the main one).

I would criticize the 5E rules for making this less apparent, bit the DM can judge applicability themselves on the fly easily.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[S'mon]

Neither Alekto nor I have ever as far as we can remember played a character with a starting 20 so you've seen quite a few of them

I guess I last GM'd 4e for you guys in 2011? 4e Wilderlands? Couldn't recall your PC stats sorry!

Anyway I'm sure you agree Drago Katzar is AWESUM!!