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

[BryonD]

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

So if I want glass cannons to exist in my world, I should avoid 4E?

 

[shadzar]

My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in. I don't understand this point of view.

Then you need to go talk to the designers at WotC, those that still exist as employees there. That was a design goal and reason to take in Mike Mearls as a designer to gain that sort of focus as to gain MMO players.

MMO players have larger numbers than TTRPG players, so a design goal was to try to bring them over.

Look in the blogs surrounding 4th editions release and you will see several designers saying that that was an intended goal of the design.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Nor indestructible pillows, or whatever the opposite would be.

And it's such an easy fix, too. Just take the concept of hit dice and divide it up, so each creature has a "Fight Level", or FL (i.e. it is as good in combat as a this-level Fighter), a saving throw level that may or may not be related to FL (4e has done this already with variable defenses but maybe hasn't realized it), and a hit point total that is determined by whatever means you like but is or can be completely divorced from the other factors.

Thus, I can end up with the equivalent of a 2HD monster that saves like a 10HD monster and that has 135 h.p., or a 15 HD monster with 12 h.p. that saves like a 4 HD monster except vs. Con-based attacks where it saves like a 12 HD.

Lan-"it really is simpler than it sounds"-efan

 

[Gryph]

Then you need to go talk to the designers at WotC, those that still exist as employees there. That was a design goal and reason to take in Mike Mearls as a designer to gain that sort of focus as to gain MMO players.

MMO players have larger numbers than TTRPG players, so a design goal was to try to bring them over.

Look in the blogs surrounding 4th editions release and you will see several designers saying that that was an intended goal of the design.

At least anecdotally there is some evidence they have had some success. I'm running a table for a local Meetup group where 5 of the 6 players are MMO players looking for a broader gaming experience. For 3 of them my 4e game is their sole tabletop experience. A couple had tried a 3e game a few years ago and didn't like it. They specifically told me they gave 4e a try because of some of the design concepts they read about 4e (and listening to the PA podcasts). Honestly, the podcasts were probably the stronger reason.

3 to 5 individual cases are hardly compelling evidence, I know. However, on most Meetup game days we have 4 tables running with about 25 players. One of the tables playes 1e. Every other week there is a Pathfinder game going and the rest are 4e. The highest concentration of new players to tabletop gaming are at the 4e tables.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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".

Except, of course, that's not true at all.

A particularly excellent bit of roleplaying and outside-the-box thinking can easily be rewarded by counting as multiple successes, just as - ferinstance - collapsing a structure on-top of your enemies can be more effective than just swinging your sword again.

Additionally, one player's successful die roll may not provide any successes towards the required count, but might instead provide a bonus on subsequent checks (either of a particular type, or for a particular duration, etc.).

So, your specific complaint seems to be pretty well answered by the system.

 

[Gryph]

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.

Except you cut off part of his quote where he states that multiple succeses are possible for some actions.

There are some very good design notes and suggestions in DMG2 and in Mearls series of articles in Dragon concerning skill challenges. Things like allowing automatic successes for appropriate power usage. "High quality" action results or crit type rolls giving 2 successes. Even inappropriate skill choice giving automatic failures. More importantly, suggestions on how to blend skill challenges as an underlying framework to an extended bit of narration.

The common, mechanical usage that I have seen in play and described on this board where initiative is rolled and each player is forced to declare an action and roll is not described in the DMG or even offered up anywhere in the rules as a method for resolution.

To me the discussion and stands about skill challenges in this thread are quite interesting. It seems the one place where 4e took an almost old school approach to mechanics, supplying loose guidelines and leaving the rest to the GM, is one of the least liked features of the system. Even by those who, otherwise, criticize 4e for its rigid mechanistic play style.

<Spock> Fascinating </Spock>

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems the one place where 4e took an almost old school approach to mechanics, supplying loose guidelines and leaving the rest to the GM, is one of the least liked features of the system.

The skill challenge system (as initially presented) doesn't seem old school to me. Later revisions might have helped somewhat.

Old school would be: Determine what the players try, and then determine what happens as a result. There would be no base DC prior to the players making that determination, and there would be no set number of successes or failures to resolve the action. The number of successes or failures would be purely circumstantial based upon what occured in play.


RC

 

[BryonD]

Except, of course, that's not true at all.

A particularly excellent bit of roleplaying and outside-the-box thinking can easily be rewarded by counting as multiple successes, just as - ferinstance - collapsing a structure on-top of your enemies can be more effective than just swinging your sword again.

Additionally, one player's successful die roll may not provide any successes towards the required count, but might instead provide a bonus on subsequent checks (either of a particular type, or for a particular duration, etc.).

So, your specific complaint seems to be pretty well answered by the system.

That absolutely helps.

I think "answered by the system" is more than generous.
I'd say improving the granularity around 6/3 is clearly better than a hard core 6/3.

But it is still pretty weak. The mechanics are still controlling the story rather than the other way around.

 

[Gryph]

The skill challenge system (as initially presented) doesn't seem old school to me. Later revisions might have helped somewhat.

Old school would be: Determine what the players try, and then determine what happens as a result. There would be no base DC prior to the players making that determination, and there would be no set number of successes or failures to resolve the action. The number of successes or failures would be purely circumstantial based upon what occured in play.


RC

Hence the almost.

I probably should have left old school out of it since there is no more agreement on what that means than what is D&D.

It is the one place in the base rules where the DM is expected to use a lot of situational judgement to make a ruling on play. Something that the 4e designers don't get much credit for. I think if the concept where examined with an open mind it would be appreciated more. Or maybe not.

 

[Gryph]

That absolutely helps.

I think "answered by the system" is more than generous.
I'd say improving the granularity around 6/3 is clearly better than a hard core 6/3.

But it is still pretty weak. The mechanics are still controlling the story rather than the other way around.

Even the 6/3 was a DM choice, just like deciding he wanted to use Level 6 Ogres instead of Level 10 trolls for an encounter. The DM could as easily have decided more or fewer succeses were required for the skill challenge.