D&D 4E Star Wars Saga Edition as preview of 4e?

[Victim]

General skill bonuses are really simple, in my opinion. Figuring out what to add might take a bit of time at level up/character gen, but after that it's all precalculated. Situational effects (like rerolls), slow things down since you need to check applicability every time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It ultimately doesn't matter whether or not you replace numerical bonuses with other benefits. Factoring in that you take 10, and then factoring in that you can go ahead and roll and then reroll if you don't like what you get, and then factoring in whatever other abilities you have, and so on...folks, this ain't really speeding things up. At the end of the day, if we have a pile of things that modify our ability to resolve a check, then we'll still have a bloated process for check resolution. You actually have to pare away the number of benefits you get, not just paint a smiley face on them to make them look more friendly.

While true, I think the re-roll is going to go down a lot "smoother" than numerous minor bonuses.

Why?

#1: It's easier to remember having a re-roll than to remember several different minor modifiers. I don't have to factor in 10 different +2's from 9 different sources. I have a much more limited (and more potent) resource at my disposal.

#2: Rolling dice is more fun than adding numbers. So reducing the number of additives and increasing how often we roll dice might not make it speedier, but it's going to make that time go by faster because it'll be less tedious (more action packed!)

#3: Those rare bonuses you DO get will be more memorable because they're bigger and farther in between. It's pretty huge that I can get a +10 to a skill with two simple choices. I'm not likely to forget they're there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

General skill bonuses are really simple, in my opinion. Figuring out what to add might take a bit of time at level up/character gen, but after that it's all precalculated. Situational effects (like rerolls), slow things down since you need to check applicability every time.

It doesn't seem that terribly situational in the examples, though. Just "you can do it if you want." Not "you can only do it when surrounded by 47 mildly irate koala bears in tuxedos whom all happen to be named Valdez."

 

[Ry]

"you can only do it when surrounded by 47 mildly irate koala bears in tuxedos whom all happen to be named Valdez."

My secret shame.

 

[Felon]

#1: It's easier to remember having a re-roll than to remember several different minor modifiers. I don't have to factor in 10 different +2's from 9 different sources. I have a much more limited (and more potent) resource at my disposal.

But see, one reroll doesn't take the place of several different modifiers. It takes the place of one modifier. Instead of ten different +2's from nine different sources, you'll have ten different non-additive success-modifying traits from nine different sources. Or you'll have fewer things that modify success, period. Which, like I said, is what really would streamline the game.

#2: Rolling dice is more fun than adding numbers. So reducing the number of additives and increasing how often we roll dice might not make it speedier, but it's going to make that time go by faster because it'll be less tedious (more action packed!)

I don't think the whole "math = bad, speedplay = worth any sacrifice" line of logic is as tautological as folks in this thread or the designers are presenting it to be. There are plenty of folks who love racking up as many numbers as they can get their mits on. Hell, it's the sole purpose of Living Greyhawk these days. I certainly enjoy Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and would miss the tactical element they provide.

#3: Those rare bonuses you DO get will be more memorable because they're bigger and farther in between. It's pretty huge that I can get a +10 to a skill with two simple choices. I'm not likely to forget they're there.

And again, that's really what will streamline the game: just reducing the number of sources there are for gaining bonuses, not changing numerical bonuses into other non-numerical things. But, all things in moderation, including reducing options for the sake of speedplay.

 

[Felon]

Wonder if we'll get another preview today?

 

[Ds Da Man]

Personally, the in-game math doesn't bother me. Its the pre-game math involved for making NPCs and the like.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 3E hater, I just dislike DMing 3E, and really hate high level D&D. Of course, I haven't found any system that do any better. So maybe I'm just a whiner!

 

[Turjan]

But see, one reroll doesn't take the place of several different modifiers. It takes the place of one modifier. Instead of ten different +2's from nine different sources, you'll have ten different non-additive success-modifying traits from nine different sources. Or you'll have fewer things that modify success, period. Which, like I said, is what really would streamline the game.

Rerolls are not the same as boni. They work in a slightly different way. And someone suggested just to take two dice in the same roll, which would save time. At least for 'yes or no' type rolls, that's a valid alternative.

 

[Turjan]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 3E hater, I just dislike DMing 3E, and really hate high level D&D. Of course, I haven't found any system that do any better. So maybe I'm just a whiner!

Perhaps, you are just a busy guy. Or neither an accountant nor a programmer who enjoys juggling with some "easy numbers" in his spare time .

 

[I'm A Banana]

But see, one reroll doesn't take the place of several different modifiers. It takes the place of one modifier. Instead of ten different +2's from nine different sources, you'll have ten different non-additive success-modifying traits from nine different sources. Or you'll have fewer things that modify success, period. Which, like I said, is what really would streamline the game.

I don't think that it will be a 1-for-1 transition, for sure. I don't think every success-modifying trait will be a re-roll, and, with the goal of streamlining the game, I would be surprised if there are as many "success modifying" traits as there are +1's in D&D.

I don't think the whole "math = bad, speedplay = worth any sacrifice" line of logic is as tautological as folks in this thread or the designers are presenting it to be. There are plenty of folks who love racking up as many numbers as they can get their mits on. Hell, it's the sole purpose of Living Greyhawk these days. I certainly enjoy Power Attack and Combat Expertise, and would miss the tactical element they provide.

They're different kinds of fun. One is "let's see how lucky you are right now!" the other is "let's see how thorough you are in designing your character." They former is more action-oriented, while the latter is necessarily slower if you're "good" at it. It takes more time to calculate the optimal Power Attack number than it does to roll again. The latter isn't co-opted, because there seems to still be plenty of number-crunching in character design, just less of it (reducing complexity, which improves the speed of selection).

And again, that's really what will streamline the game: just reducing the number of sources there are for gaining bonuses, not changing numerical bonuses into other non-numerical things. But, all things in moderation, including reducing options for the sake of speedplay.

And being able to pro-actively, in the heat of the moment, decide to do a take-back might not streamline the system, but it will almost certainly make the game flow faster and better at the table.