The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

Playing GURPS until 5E shows up, and having lots of fun

If I were to leave D20, I'd probably be heading back to GURPS.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thats an interesting perspective from the DM side.

From the player side, my feeling is the complete opposite--I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.

Would that the next version of D&D serves players and DMs equally.

And from my player side, I find that 3e is full of spurious character flexibility. For instance you can choose to level up in any class you like - but if you're a spellcaster it's always going to be better to level up as a caster than to diversify. And likewise skills - I've seldom seen a character not max them out.

Yes, there's more total flexibility in 3e. But I like playing a monk who's a viable member of the party and a mobile kung fu master. Not a monk who's barely viable. My bravura warlord simply wouldn't work in 3e - the whole concept doesn't work. Pre-essentials, 4e had 25 classes with an average of about three fundamental archetypes per class (the fighter had six IIRC). We're on seventy five archetypes or so before we've started customising.

In that example (funny as it is) what player input is there beyond rolling dice? In the example given the decision of the player only impacts what dice to roll.

If the player were to receive a bonus to hit or damage based on information about the ogre relayed by the player during the description of the action then you might have something. That would affect the resolution of the situation based on relevant information used to advantage. It isn't something that can be chosen as a build option prior to play. It comes from the moment and the players ability to affect it due to quick thinking.

Put simply, if it can be quantified on the character sheet then it doesn't count.

Oh, nonsense. I can come up with a "Follow ad hoc plan" number. Which means according to your rule that any ad hoc plan doesn't count. And I can assure you that use of skills in skill challenges, at least when I run them, is based on what the PC says they are doing and how they are responding to the situation.

And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input. Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.

With such a dismal outlook it is indeed a miracle that so many DMs ran great games before such support structures existed.

Many DMs ran great games. Many DMs also ran appaling games. And structures like skill challenges as DM side tools in no way get in the way of running great games; the DM simply doesn't use them if he/she doesn't want to. On the other hand for an inexperienced DM they are useful for pacing, for setting the difficulty of the challenge and for setting the experience reward.

No ruleset can make a DM great. A great DM finds their way almost above the ruleset. But a ruleset can make the difference at the bottom of the structure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh, nonsense. I can come up with a "Follow ad hoc plan" number. Which means according to your rule that any ad hoc plan doesn't count. And I can assure you that use of skills in skill challenges, at least when I run them, is based on what the PC says they are doing and how they are responding to the situation.

As a DM? Great! That is the essence of what I am talking about, providing a concrete value for player ideas as they come up.

Does what the players say and do impact the difficulty of the challenge?
Can a really great plan lower the threshold of required successes?

And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input. Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.

I don't know anything about the game. I would need to at least read it before deciding if I thought it was a decent TTRPG or not.

No ruleset can make a DM great. A great DM finds their way almost above the ruleset. But a ruleset can make the difference at the bottom of the structure.

I will concede the point that if all DMs were mental vegetables, then a more structured ruleset would most likely improve play on the average.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, there's more total flexibility in 3e. But I like playing a monk who's a viable member of the party and a mobile kung fu master. Not a monk who's barely viable. My bravura warlord simply wouldn't work in 3e - the whole concept doesn't work. Pre-essentials, 4e had 25 classes with an average of about three fundamental archetypes per class (the fighter had six IIRC). We're on seventy five archetypes or so before we've started customising.

I'm curious... do you apply the same logic to 4e's choices in the areas of powers, classes, feats, etc. Like how the PHB 1 Warlock and the OAssasin are considered by most players to be sub-standard strikers? Or how the Fighter is, because of support, damage output and numerous other things the top-tiered defender? I mean sometimes I feel like the imbalances in 4e are just overlooked for some reason.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Speaking as one who loves his 3.5 monks and hates 4Ed's version, I'll just say that EVERYONE'S experiences differ.

However, I am somewhat dismayed with the imbalanced division of support in the game for classes other than those in PHB1. Especially for those of us without a DDI account.

 

[pemerton]

No matter how brilliant an idea, or how well it is executed, the value is identical- 1 success. In combat a character at least has options and opportunities that go beyond "a hit".

<snip>

Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.

I agree with your sentiments, but not your facts. Contra your first paragraph - there are ways for a successful check to count as more than just 1 success in the challenge. Contra the last sentence of your second paragraph, 4e already has what you say it is missing.

The mechanics I've got in mind here are secondary checks from the DMG and DMG2, plus "advantags" from the Rules Compendium, plus examples of how these can be done in some of the published skill challenges. Some of this came into play in my game on the weekend, but I left it out in my post for brevity (for example, when the paladin intimidated the bear, standing next to it and waving his khopesh while using an Encounter thunder power to help, he got a bonus on the roll).

As a DM? Great! That is the essence of what I am talking about, providing a concrete value for player ideas as they come up.

Does what the players say and do impact the difficulty of the challenge?
Can a really great plan lower the threshold of required successes?

In addition to what I said above - there are ways to affect the challenge other than by changing the number of successes required. One is to take actions that change the fictional situation such that new options to which the PCs are better suited open up. And if we go beyond the issue of mechanical difficulty, the PCs can take approaches which (for example) leave the bear calm and scared of them or calm and friendly to them (or, as in my party's case, scared of some and friendly to others). These are meaningful differences.

 

[pemerton]

There are work arounds for that, but in general I agree this is a problem. Taking a problem from combat and propagating into the rest of the game is a bad thing.

Fair enough. Having deliberately migrated from a crit-driven game (Rolemaster) to a hit points game (D&D) I see this a bit differently.

You say you strongly reject it, but then you immediately proceed to defend the postion you claim to be rejecting.

I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.

In a fiction-first game, hit points are representational of what the creature should be within that fictional space. They are not representational of what "challenge" the creature should be.....Which is why you get creatures that are glass cannons (for example).

Ah, but in 4e there are no glass cannons . . .

And thus the saga continues...

 

[pemerton]

And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input. Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.

I find that a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges are also (by implication) criticisms of HeroWars/Quest. Not normally a system criticised for undermining roleplaying.

 

[BryonD]

I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.

Yes, there are a vast number of iterations of descriptions of the path. But you had predestined that no action could provide more than, nor less than, 16.67% of the solution. With no knowledge of how good or bad the actions would be, you declared "the number will be six".

The path was "do six things". You set THAT path before play started. When we are discussing how the mechanics of the game work to model the system, the fact that those six things can have myriad flavor texts stapled on has no bearing. Because the flavor text does nothing to change the game reality of roll die, compare to DC, place check mark under yes or no. Count yeses, count nos.

The quality of the actions have zero bearing.

I want the quality of the action to be the center of the game's universe.

You are taking credit for different descriptions of the path. But when we are comparing two mechanical systems you can not take credit for something that the mechanics very pointedly disregard.

 

[Nagol]

Fair enough. Having deliberately migrated from a crit-driven game (Rolemaster) to a hit points game (D&D) I see this a bit differently.

I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.

Ah, but in 4e there are no glass cannons . . .

And thus the saga continues...

Minions a la 4e are the ultimate glass cannon. Additionally, would not a striker (or whatever cute name the monster equivalent gets) without support be considered one?