"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[Jack99]

Or indeed, people might begin to recognize that there are problems with the rules. Problems which (going back to the OP) might have caused a person a change of heart about the rules (for better or worse).

While this has gotten way too close to edition war territory (and I am one of the culprits!), highlighting our problems with any given edition can and will help people in the situation presented by the OP. That is, "We're trying to work out which edition to play to best suit our group".

Indeed. Now tell that to module designers.
"Hmm, we're writing this as a level 30 adventure. I guess we better make the door to the inn out of adamantine". *sigh*

Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.

You just agreed with blizzardb that the DMG indeed says what he quoted. Which totally goes against one of the problems you have with 4e. Does this mean that if you haven't read whatever module you are referring to, and instead just the core books, you wouldn't have this problem with 4e? Or does this mean that because some of the modules have problems, the system is flawed?

 

[Beginning of the End]

My interpretation is like this: I set DCs based on how hard the task is in the game world, just like I did in 3e. 4e provides me with information to figure out what the DCs should be for certain tasks* (...)

My point is that you don't have to dissociate the rules from the gameworld if it's important to you.

Skill DCs are certainly one of the easier things to house rule in 4th Edition (as you have done). But the dissociated mechanics hardly end there. Redesigning class powers and re-statting large swaths of the monsters is hardly a trivial undertaking.

Your Example: I don't know why you think there isn't any game world difference between these two mechanics.

That is not what I said.

It's really quite frustrating that people in this thread apparently find it impossible to actually read the messages they're responding to.

I think the idea is that when you're high level you'll be working with different locks.

Which is hugely problematic. Can you imagine if the real world actually worked like that? Muhammed Ali never wins more than X% of his fights because his opponents are always balanced against his current abilities. An expert locksmith never succeeds at opening more locks than he did as a novice because, for some reason, he's always called to service locks exactly matching his level of skill.

And so forth.

If the PCs go to the backdoor of the local tavern at 30th level, there's absolutely no reason to assume that the local barkeep has locks forged out Vecna's bones. In fact, it's pretty silly to assume that.

I mean, I get it. There are people who like the Oblivion method of "all the goblins in the world level up when you do". 4th Edition just takes that principle and expands it to every single aspect of the game world.

For me, though, I find the whole 4th Edition method of doing things silly. If you're that obsessed with everything having that X% chance of success, just grab the percentile dice and roll it. Why go through all the extra rigamorale?

And, more importantly, it renders achievement meaningless. Your characters never really become more powerful in any meaningful sense of the term -- the numbers just get bigger.

Also: I think that the fact that 4E has Quests means that it is far better system for telling stories than 3E.

People keep talking about Quests as if they were some sort of revolutionary mechanic. But to me they look virtually indistinguishable from Story Awards in 3rd Edition. And similar mechanics were found in 2nd Edition, too.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- some people are simply not psychologically prepared to understand game design.

See, here's the thing: Zustiur and I have both pointed out that we're aware of the differences in perception and that we simply have a different set of tastes.

You, OTOH, call us "psychologically unprepared" and "crazy" while strongly implying that we're just too stupid to understand game design.

Despite the fact that we have long since already discussed in detail everything you're talking about in your post.

I don't mean this as an insult!

I find it difficult to believe that.

I wish I could figure out why 4th Edition supporters find it so difficult to accept that some people don't like dissociated mechanics. I find it fairly trivial to understand what you like in the game. Why do you find it so difficult to understand any POV except your own?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.

I'm going to succumb to my snarkiness and point that while page 23 says: "Sometimes realism is a matter of very small details. If two wooden doors appear to be exactly the same, but one requires a DC 16 Strength check to break through and the other one requires a DC 20 check, the world feels arbitrary and inconsistent."

Page 42 tells the DM to do exactly the opposite.

From which one would be forced to conclude that, if you play according to the rules, 4th Edition is indicting itself as arbitrary, inconsistent, and unrealistic.

Ya know, if we're being snarky. And logical.

 

[Zustiur]

Trying really hard not to be snarky here, so please take the following as honestly curiosity of me not understand some of the points you are making.

You just agreed with blizzardb that the DMG indeed says what he quoted. Which totally goes against one of the problems you have with 4e. Does this mean that if you haven't read whatever module you are referring to, and instead just the core books, you wouldn't have this problem with 4e? Or does this mean that because some of the modules have problems, the system is flawed?

No snarkiness detected. Well done
In point of fact, I have not read any modules. This is a perception I have picked up almost totally without basis. I believe the system encourages modules to be written in a certain way. It is my opinion that that certain way is to encourage the use of level appropriate challenges at all times. (be it combat or locks)
The extrapolated example might be one where the bedroom doors at the inn are made of adamantine because the characters are participating in a level 30 adventure.

As with any extrapolation, it is subject to great skepticism, but it does well when understood as being a pure example of what is possible.

I haven't ever run published adventures, so it is somewhat of a moot point with me personally. However, I am an unwilling convert participating in a 4E game, in a published adventure (KotS). My experience thus far (with 4E and with published adventures) has not in any way improved my disposition towards the new system.

While I would be hard pressed to present examples from KotS (due to not having owned/read the adventure) I have certainly felt like every potentially challenging event has fallen within the level appropriate range, regardless of whether that makes for a good story or not.


To answer your question more directly. Flaws in the system exacerbate the problems that I have with published adventures in general. In this particular example, the flaw is one of emphasis, not of hard and fast rules or of wrong design intent. My preferred style of play dictates that level appropriate challenges should not be as frequent as the DMG indicates.

My not being already aware of the point raised by blizzardb is caused by a separate flaw of the system. Namely, that I find the books unpleasant to read, and therefore haven't read them as much as I should.
I read the 2E and 3.0E books extensively when I got them, but found I was unable to do so with 4E. This seems to be a common problem judging by the number of people who, as you put it, "do not realize that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else."

My dislike for the rules, and my lack of understanding the rules are two separate issues. Neither is caused by the other, but one may indeed be contributing to the other. The two are separate problems, but together they present a problem which is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Blizzardb]

On the matter of "pleasantness to read" - to each his own, I guess. For example, I loved playing 3.0/3.5, but for some reason never liked the way the DMG was written. 4E DMG appeals to me much, much more.

On the other hand the 4E PHB feels a little bland (just the basics, nothing more) and could use 50-60 pages more, in my opinion (though I am sure many people will disagree with me here).

By the way, I am really happy that the discussion here (even if a little off-topic) hasn't escalated into a flame war... yet.

 

[Jack99]

Thanks for a very good answer. I do have a few comments.

In point of fact, I have not read any modules. This is a perception I have picked up almost totally without basis. I believe the system encourages modules to be written in a certain way. It is my opinion that that certain way is to encourage the use of level appropriate challenges at all times. (be it combat or locks)

I agree with that. But how is that different from any other version of D&D? Published modules usually included only (or at least mostly) encounters that are more or less level-appropriate. That's is, IMO, just the nature of the published modules. Some like it, some do not.

The extrapolated example might be one where the bedroom doors at the inn are made of adamantine because the characters are participating in a level 30 adventure.

And it's a funny one, but bears on a misconception. The table doesn't tell you that all locks are of said DC. It merely gives examples of level-appropriate locks. Anyway, Cadfan explained it much better a couple of posts above.

As with any extrapolation, it is subject to great skepticism, but it does well when understood as being a pure example of what is possible.

Anything is possible. In a prior edition, you could slam a DC50 lock on a toilet door if you wanted.

I haven't ever run published adventures, so it is somewhat of a moot point with me personally. However, I am an unwilling convert participating in a 4E game, in a published adventure (KotS). My experience thus far (with 4E and with published adventures) has not in any way improved my disposition towards the new system.

While KotS should have been made great, since it's the introduction-adventure, it is sadly the worst published for 4e by WotC. I can only say that judging 4e by that is a mistake. I am not saying you would like it if you were playing another module (or some homebrew for that matter) but that KotS is far from the best 4e has to offer.

While I would be hard pressed to present examples from KotS (due to not having owned/read the adventure) I have certainly felt like every potentially challenging event has fallen within the level appropriate range, regardless of whether that makes for a good story or not.

To answer your question more directly. Flaws in the system exacerbate the problems that I have with published adventures in general. In this particular example, the flaw is one of emphasis, not of hard and fast rules or of wrong design intent. My preferred style of play dictates that level appropriate challenges should not be as frequent as the DMG indicates.

Yes and I totally agree with you in that challenges should vary much more. But again, when has modules not been like that?

My not being already aware of the point raised by blizzardb is caused by a separate flaw of the system. Namely, that I find the books unpleasant to read, and therefore haven't read them as much as I should.

Parts of them (powers especially), read like a text manual, so I can understand why you feel that way.

I read the 2E and 3.0E books extensively when I got them, but found I was unable to do so with 4E. This seems to be a common problem judging by the number of people who, as you put it, "do not realize that some of their problems with 4e derive from a lack of understanding of the rules, instead of something else."

It might. Or maybe it's my crappy English that makes me misunderstand the rules.

In summation: Things are more or less as they always has been. It's still just as easy to climb a ladder, no matter your level. You can still find a lock that is way too hard to open, just as you can find one that opens with ridiculous ease. 4e doesn't tell you that you can't use non-level-appropriate encounters or challenges, but instead focuses on the level-appropriate stuff. Which is fair, since one could easily argue that most challenges used in various campaigns are probably more or less level appropriate.

Now, I can see how page 42 can be a tad "weird" for some. But that's a debate for another interesting thread.

Cheers

 

[BryonD]

Some people are not psychologically prepared to handle that.

D&D is a game about fantasy.

To some people it is also a game about creation and engagement.
I guess some people, like perhaps you, may be psychologically prepared to handle the calibration changes to the pure in the moment fantasy elements of the game, but are not psychologically prepared to handle implications that this has on other aspects of the enjoyment the process can offer.

(And I agree with you completely, there is nothing insulting in that, you can't handle it, that's cool)

 

[JoeGKushner]

This is known as a GOOD thing. Easily churned out magical items become less magical and more like mundane equipment. Once magical items become standard gear, whats special or magical about them?

Highly campaign dependent.

If the whole party wants to wander around with the wizard/sorcerer to get components/special areas enchantments, etc..., it's "okay" but at that polint it's "follow the wizard" and not perfect for all campaigns.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3E did introduce Challenge Ratings for monsters.
4E basically expanded on this for monsters, but also expanded it to cover other types of challenges, most notably skills.

But just like 3E CR rules didn't demand of you to only ever use equal level enemies (quite the contrary), the 4E rules don't demand you to only ever use equal level challenges for your PCs.

The difference for skill DCs is just that they are now presented in a similar manner to monsters, while 3E still used "static" DCs. You had to figure out yourself that it would probably be a bad idea to demand all characters to jump over a 20 ft wide and 1,000 ft deep chasm at 1st level. (IIRC; requiring you to succeed at a DC 20 Jump check or suffer 20d6 falling damage.) If you created a similar situation in 4E, you might get the idea that this is a little too tough, since a DC of 20 would be an appropriate challenge for a 20th level group.

The "trick" is understanding that this doesn't mean that 4E characters never encounter such difficulties. It just means they are not appropriate challenges, so you should not expect them to "beat the odds". Don't base your adventure around the idea that the PCs face this challenge and succeed. A 1st level game might include this chasm, and the players would know. "No, we need to find another route." Or "We will have to come back later when we are better prepared or higher level to go on here". (For example, if they had a grappling hook and a rope, things look a lot easier. Climbing along the Rope is probably a level-appropriate challenge, and with proper securing, you wouldn't have to take the full 20d10 falling damage either)

Maybe it is the fault of the DMG that it doesn't explain this in detail. Maybe it's too technical and focuses to much on "challenges" and to little on "color". (Jumping the chasm would only exist for "color" - It is an option the PCs can discuss, but you don't expect them to take it.)

But ultimiately, no, you don't have to live in an "auto-scaling" world in your game. You can use the rules to create a internally consistent game world, where goblin locks might sometimes be encountered by 20 level heroes or PCs are stuck without a rope in front of a 20 ft wide chasm or meet but not fight (with hope of success) an Ancient Red Wyrm.

The game gives you two tools in one package:
- The ability to create an adventure for your player characters that contains all "fair" challenges.
- The ability to determine the difficulty of a scenario you have created and the changes for the PCs to "beat" it.