The "real" reason the game has changed.

[pemerton]

There must be at least X number of dice rolls, up to so many successes or failures, to the prescribed DCs. No shortcuts around that are kosher, because rolling the dice -- pretty darned precisely just that -- is how you 'earn' the experience points.

I don't want to be "creative" about coming up with an excuse to roll stat X some number of times. I don't want to be "creative" about rationalizing why nothing I do changes the need for so many dice rolls, or by much the consequent previously established probability of success or failure.

I want to be "creative" about about making my own plans and seeing them succeed or fail on their own merits.

This feature of skill challenges is not very different from the fact that no matter how creative my PC's plan in the arena, I must hit the monster a certain number of times to eliminate its hit points.

One imagines that, on occassion, there will be circumstances in the arena combat in which something so unexpected happens that the monster's hit points become irrelevant. Perhaps I find a way to trick it into stepping into a sphere of annihiliation.

The same can equally be true of a skill challenge. In fact, DMG2 makes the point expressly (at page 82):

Is there a chance that a really good idea could completely trump your skill challenge? Don't fret! That's a good thing. D&D is a game about creativity and imagination. . . When you build a skill challenge, be prepared for it to head in a direction you didn't anticipate or for the party to fail utterly. That way, the game moves on regardless of what happens with the challenge.​

I don't think this is very radical stuff, though.

The stuff about earning XP is more interesting. DMG 2 made a significant addition to the XP rules - one monster's XP for every 15 minutes of significant, focused roleplaying. Essentials has made a further significant addition - XP for a skill challenge are received whether the PCs succeed or fail at the challenge.

This is consistent with the notion that the main function of XP in 4e is to generate a change in PC level over time regardless of what exactly the PC's are doing in the gameworld. This in turn would fit in with the notion of levels in 4e, and particularly the half-level bump to attacks/skills/defences, that I have been articulating since the game was published, that they produce a game in which "the story of D&D unfolds" - first the PCs fight goblins, then gnolls, then trolls and ogres, then drow, then demons, then Lolth and Orcus. It's not so much about ingame power-ups (paragon paths and epic destinies represent this).

So the upshot is that circumventing the skill challenge won't cost XP - because the time spent doing other things (roleplaying, fighting, another skill challenge) will substitute for it.

Again, not everyone wants to play this sort of game. But some do.

(Oddly, then, 4e is in this respect perhaps closer to Classic Traveller than to classic D&D - the aim of play is not to accumulate the most XP for the least risk, but simply to pursue the goals of the PCs within the gameworld. Level ups help shape the changing character of that gameworld relative to the PCs - that it, at higher level they will meet more demons and fewer goblins - and also give the players new tricks to enjoy, with new powers, retraining, etc. But they don't bring the PCs closer to achieving their goals, which have to be understood in purely ingame terms.)

 

[Hussar]

Again, why have it built into the power in the first place. Why not just let the powers do whatever they do, and let this "push" be referred to ONLY when the player wants to enable it?

That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers.

So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times. Magic Missile type things that don't have a real "force" behind it to "push" that is. (Cause I am SO tired of getting into that argument which is simple that some people say it should and play it that way, others disagree; so each should play their own way with Magic Missile.)

Shadzar, first off, it's very difficult to have this conversation when you insist on failings in the mechanics when it's pretty obvious you have very little idea of what the mechanics actually are. It's like arguing how bad a certain make of car is when you've never driven it, never seen it, and are only going on third hand reports by people who also have never driven it or seen it.

First. Bull Rush is a specific maneuver. It does no damage. All it does is move a target. Specific powers with push mechanics sometimes include a shift and other times don't. Depending on the power, you can push the target away (possibly further than 1 square) and on others, other effects will occur.

Let's not forget that there are quite literally around a hundred different effects for each class spread over 30 levels. Some are pretty similar, and others are not. The effects will be broadly grouped by the class' role - striker, defender, whatnot, although there is some cross pollination as well. For example, a warlock (a striker) has a number of controllery type powers - forced movement, debuffs, that sort of thing.

Also keep in mind that every character has a pretty lenghty shopping list of effects to choose from. By 5th level, you have a bare minimum of 7 powers, plus class abilities to choose from, at least two of which are generally usable out of combat. This number will only increase as you go up levels. And, these choices are in addition to basic maneuvers available to everyone, and to skills and magic items.

Lack of choices is not really a valid criticism for 4e. You typically have a boatload of choices, all mechanically defined. That's not counting thinking outside the box and trying to do stuff that isn't specifically described, such as tapping locks with a spoon.

Yes, if you use a specific power, that power will have specific mechanical effects. Again, this is no different than any other edition - if a wizard casts a spell, if a bard uses a class ability, if the fighter swings a weapon, these are all specifically, mechanically defined.

Even adding in things like called shots from 2e are still specifically defined. You try to perform the specific called shot, you take either a -4 or -8 (for a head shot) penalty to your attack and a successful attack has a specified effect (Complete Fighter's Handbook has the details).

Where D&D did allow for narrative control was in places where there were no mechanics at all. Social interactions in 1e and 2e, for example, had very little mechanical resolution beyond some very basic Charisma checks. If you wanted to bluff the guard, you had to talk to your DM and your DM determined by fiat (mostly) whether the guard believed you or not.

Since 3e, we've had mechanics for that same interaction. Most RPG's now have social interaction mechanics of one sort or another for a variety of reasons. Whether you like those reasons or not is a matter of personal taste.

 

[pemerton]

So why have the "push" or "shift" built in, if it can be ignored at all times, then it should be able to be added to ANYTHING at all times.

It's a matter of taste.

A game in which some players can switch on forced movement but others can't (i) might have better mechanical balance, and (ii) might encourage more interesting tactical play.

Or it might not. It would depend on how good the design was.

In AD&D only clerics can heal significant amounts of injury. In some other games anyone can (by attempting a First Aid or Heal check). Which is the better game? Again, it's a matter of taste.

In AD&D if I know the fireball spell I can create a 20' R ball of fire, but not a 5' R ball of fire. And I can't create fireworks. (I need pyrotechnics for that.) In some other games any PC can do attempt any of these things at any time. Or any PC with the Fire Magic ability may attempt any of them.

The idea that certain PC abilities are distributed across various particular PCs according to constraints built into the PC build rules is hardly novel to 4e. It's a feature of most RPGs.

Some people - particularly many traditional D&D players - seem to prefer a system where magic use is very heavily constrained by the character build rules, but displays of physical prowess are not. It's obvious that 4e departs from this model. But, like I said, I can't see that this is anything more than a taste thing.

 

[Ariosto]

Despite the errors in your presentation of (1) to (6)...

Which would be what?

Follow these steps to design skill challenges for your adventures....
Step 1: Goal and Context...
Step 2: Level and Complexity...
Step 3: Skills...
Step 4: Other Conditions...
Step 5: Consequences...
Running A Skill Challenge...
Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge....
In a skill challenge encounter, every player character must make skill checks to contribute to the success or failure of the encounter. Characters must make a check on their turn using one of the identified primary skills (usually with a moderate DC) or they must use a different skill, if they can come up with a way to use it to contribute to the challenge (with a hard DC). A secondary skill can be used only once by a single character in any given skill challenge. They can also decide, if appropriate, to cooperate with any character (see "Group Checks," below)....

compared with

1) DM decides goal and context
2) DM decides level and complexity
3) DM decides what skill numbers are applicable, with what +/- factors
4) DM decides on other conditions
5) DM decides on consequences
6) Players roll dice and make up excuses for why

 

[shadzar]

It's a matter of taste.

A game in which some players can switch on forced movement but others can't (i) might have better mechanical balance, and (ii) might encourage more interesting tactical play.

Or it might not. It would depend on how good the design was.

In AD&D only clerics can heal significant amounts of injury. In some other games anyone can (by attempting a First Aid or Heal check). Which is the better game? Again, it's a matter of taste.

In AD&D if I know the fireball spell I can create a 20' R ball of fire, but not a 5' R ball of fire. And I can't create fireworks. (I need pyrotechnics for that.) In some other games any PC can do attempt any of these things at any time. Or any PC with the Fire Magic ability may attempt any of them.

The idea that certain PC abilities are distributed across various particular PCs according to constraints built into the PC build rules is hardly novel to 4e. It's a feature of most RPGs.

Some people - particularly many traditional D&D players - seem to prefer a system where magic use is very heavily constrained by the character build rules, but displays of physical prowess are not. It's obvious that 4e departs from this model. But, like I said, I can't see that this is anything more than a taste thing.

So all classes don't have a power that can "push"? If they do, then that taste is lost.

I am not saying fighters should be able to throw fireballs, neither are you, but something like the "push" is not even similar.

I guess it does really just boil down to the people that thought fighters were useless somehow because after level X the wizard could mimic any other class. So they had to do something for those people that couldn't see the fighter a anything but useless. Feels like too much competition to me, rather than cooperation.

C'est la vie.

And we know that is why the powers system itself exists so that "all classes would have something "cool" to do at every level"....or whatever the thing is they said to promote 4th and its powers system.

 

[Ariosto]

On the example of Bull Rush, I believe that Shift is not forced movement. You don't have to shift into the empty square if you choose not to. From the Glossary:

In that case, Bull Rush alone gets the job done. Thanks!

Still, it was an excuse to show how one can use DMG page 42 to come up with numbers for various maneuvers. No doubt that has been considerably expanded upon in subsequent works.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, I'm not sure if all classes have an ability that can push, specifically. I know that you are certainly not forced to take those powers, even if they exist. Some do and some don't have specific abilities. Push is a pretty basic element of 4e combat where the focus on movement and positioning is so important, so, I'd be rather surprised if all classes didn't have push somewhere in their list. Again, not that you have to take that specific power.

What more typically happens is some classes and builds focus on forced movement abilities and others don't. Strikers, generally, don't for example. They're more about dealing damage than moving stuff around the battlefield. Other classes might dabble in it and others might focus in it. A warlord, for example, doesn't have a lot of forced movement powers, but, it does have a lot of ally movement powers - use this power to let an ally shift or get a free move action or whatever. That's their schtick.

In a way, I think it boils down to whether or not you think classes represent strict archetypes or not. In earlier editions, a class was a very strong archetype and you were heavily penalized for stepping out of that. A wizard cannot wear armor and cast spells, has a very limited weapon choice, and extremely poor attack bonus meaning that if I go all Gandalf on someone and start attacking with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other, I'm going to die very, very quickly.

A wizard must use specific components to cast a spell. A wizard must perform mechanically required actions (verbal/somatic actions) to cast a spell. A wizard cannot cast spells in armor, or, in 3e, can cast spells in armor but will fail to cast sometimes. A wizard will lose his memorized spell after casting. His spells will always look exactly the same - duration, area of effect, saving throws are all mechanically dictated.

And, in some editions, if I choose to step outside of that archetype, I'm penalized by the training rules and forced to spend character resources. So, Gandalf would be spending two or three times as much money and time training for new levels as Aragorn would.

3e weakened the archetypes considerably, but still has fairly strong ones. This is why you see a bajillion different classes. Every archetype is a new class. If you want an armored wizard, play a War Wizard. If you want a scholarly wizard, play that class. So one and so forth.

4e weakens archetypes even further. Class is really just a bag of abilities centered around a specific (typically combat) theme. It mixes in a fair bit of point buy class concepts - each level you have a list of three or four options (more once you go beyond core) for a new ability to add to your character. It's similar to how point buy works - each time the PC is rewarded, he can buy new skills or improve existing ones.

It's still a class based system. But, it's further removed from the traditional classes as strong archetypes to a much larger degree than 3e was. So, my human rogue takes an ability from the cleric list as his racial ability, and becomes a prophet of his mighty thewitude, Kord.

Not that I couldn't do that in 3e. In 3e, I'd take a level of cleric to do the same thing. But, that comes with it's own shopping list of issues as well.

I'm not saying you can't do things in one system or another. Just that their approach to the goals are different. The goals remain largely the same.

 

[pemerton]

Which would be what?

Your step 6, and your failure to give an accurate account of how skill selection and skill check resolution feed into the way the situation evolves over the course of the challenge.

 

[Ariosto]

There are examples in the DMG (p 77) and the Rules Compendium (pp 162-63).

I don't have the latter.

The former states right off the bat:
Setup: For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way.
Level: Equal to the level of the party.
Complexity: 3 (requires 8 successes before 4 failures).
Primary Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight.
Bluff (moderate DCs):...
Diplomacy (moderate DCs): You entreat the NPC for aid in your quest. First success with this skill opens up the use of the History skill (the NPC mentions an event from the past that has significance to him)....

I don't need that, and I don't want that. It demands a lot of work I don't want, and in return delivers nothing but a lot of restrictions I don't want. There's not a single appealing thing here for me.

 

[shadzar]

[good stuff about archetypes]

Seems likely the reason most boils down to for change is like cropping a photo. You can't shrink it anymore to get more people into it, and have to be within X margins, so you are just trying to figure out where to crop it to get the less people ticked off they aren't in the picture.

I don't agree with your archetypes analysis exactly, but could simply be key, again tastes...such as the entire discussion about where the narrative control has been moved, and why it exists where it is within each edition.

I think we all agree, that it was changed, or we wouldn't be in this thread discussing the reason behind the change.

Which can only bring us back to the question, why change?

I can only see it as said by Mel Brooks in Spaceballs, and apply that to D&D editions...."See you again Spaceballs 2: The Quest for More Money."