This mentality needs to die

[pemerton]

I'm not sure whether you're correct about this, because I don't know many examples of the type of "modernity" you're talking about. (I'm vaguely familiar with the R. Laws version of Runequest you mention, particularly the "characters get to loosely define their own special competencies at the start of the game, then negotiate with the GM how and when they get to use those improved skills during gameplay" thing, but I never saw the entire core rules, and I wasn't aware that there wasn't some sort of larger, more traditionally defined skill system that that mechanic worked into.)

HeroQuest has no skill lists. PCs consist of descriptions, with numbers attached. Conflict resolution difficulty is set by the GM based on considerations of dramatic pacing. There are rules for making challenges more difficult for a PC whose skill descriptons are broad relative to the other PCs - this is (i) to maintain balance between PCs, and (ii) to encourage rich detail rather than generic blandness in PC descriptions.

So, to give some examples taken from a review on RPGnet:

• A player can pitch his skill Hard to Kill against a fast advancing Massive Garbage Truck.

• Or Burn Lies can be pitched against the Shrewd Tactics of a villain in an interrogation.

• Practical Joker can be used against a serious Summoning of Otherworldly Horror.

• Always having the last Word can mock the authority of a Stone Cold Mafia Boss.

• See through Walls can be used to look inside Unbreakable Safe.

In the last example, if another PC has Expert Safecracker as an ability, then See through Walls (which is more generic in relation to the safe challenge) would suffer a penalty. And in the summoning example, if the GM took the view that using practical joking to defeat a summoning is a bit of a stretch, a penalty would also apply.

This isn't "mother-may-I", but it's not "rules" either, in quite the way that D&D, or Runequest, or Traveller, or Rolemaster, or Ars Magica, or Hero, or etc is.

Spelling out how it differs from mother-may-I is not trivial. But one important difference is that, by giving a PC an ability like "practical joker", the player has already stipulated that in this game some challenges can be overcome by practical joking. The GM does not have sole authority over what counts as a possible happening in the gameworld. Thus the resolution of conflicts does not depend entirely on "mother-may-I".

The design of 4e is not as elegant as this, but the inclusion of broad skills on the skill list, plus p 42 of the DMG which sets the range of DCs by level for actions that are possible in the gameworkd, also goes some way to reducing the degree of "mother-may-I".

My own (perhaps ill-informed) take on it is that they changed skills the way they did because they didn't want to deal with skill systems any more (or they felt that the customers didn't), not out of some urge to "modernize". See Heinsoo's interview describing fantasy simulation as "tedious", Mearls talking about making everything in the game a simple stat check, etc.

I think that they were expressly influenced by the sort of indie design that Heroquest exemplifies. I think this because at the time Heinsoo said as much. This approach - avoiding the "tediousness" of fantasy simulation - is precisely the sort of modern approach to RPGs that I was referring to.

I also find it strange that the "modernization" process didn't incorporate more straightforward post-D&D innovations, such as folding the combat and magic systems directly into the skill system (e.g. "cast-a-spell" and "swing-a-sword" skill checks instead of related-but-not-really-the-same "to-hit" rolls), and any real form of "degree of success" with skill checks (e.g. being able to "crit" with skills, or having the amount of damage you do in combat be directly linked to your hit roll). Sacred ground beef they didn't want to grill, I guess?

I don't really see these as modern approaches to design. They are at least as old as Rolemaster, which is to say close to 30 years old (ie when D&D was itself less than 10 years old).

That said, 4e does have a system for non-combat degrees of success, but rather than linked to invidual skill checks it is linked to the number of failures accumulated over the course of a skill challenge, or the number of successes accumulated before reaching 3 failures (as per the DMG2 and some of the examples therein). This is also an appraoch which draws on the indie RPG ideas exemplified by HeroQuest.

 

[nedjer]

Now the dust's settled we seem dangerously close to a consensus

Regardless of the rule set it should be down to GMs/ players how the rules are interpreted.

Tabletop RPGs offer loads of options for different kinds of gameplay. Different options use different 'skills'/ gameplay to get different kinds of enjoyment/ 'fun'.

Ultimately, it's up to players to decide which types of 'skills' and 'fun' they want to include in their games.

 

[Windjammer]

Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:

Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.

From the first roll of errata for the 4E PHB,

Target

Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following
text.

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or
objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some
powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion,
a power that targets a creature can also target an
object, whether or not the power identifies an object
as a potential target.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:

Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.

From the first roll of errata for the 4E PHB,

Target

Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following
text.

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or
objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some
powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion,
a power that targets a creature can also target an
object, whether or not the power identifies an object
as a potential target.

I think you have been ninjaed. By dozens of pages, probably.

 

[MrMyth]

Now that the dust is settled, we can perhaps return to the OP. How about this question:

Do you play with errata? Because WotC' own Creative Director doesn't.

From the first roll of errata for the 4E PHB,

Target

Page 57: Replace the first paragraph with the following
text.

If a power directly affects one or more creatures or
objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. Some
powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion,
a power that targets a creature can also target an
object, whether or not the power identifies an object
as a potential target.

How is he not playing with errata when the errata specifically mentions this is entirely at the DM's discretion?

In fact, he does use it since he later has them bashing apart statues just fine. Ruling that magical light that outlines a person can't target a smooth wall seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Windjammer]

How is he not playing with errata when the errata specifically mentions this is entirely at the DM's discretion?

Easy. When he explains to the player why powers can't target a door he's referencing the rules text instead of his DM discretion.

Pre-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is RAW
Post-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is a matter of DM discretion

 

[MrMyth]

Easy. When he explains to the player why powers can't target a door he's referencing the rules text instead of his DM discretion.

Pre-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is RAW
Post-errata: 'powers target creatures only' is a matter of DM discretion

Does he really need to go into that much detail for an intro session? Especially given that in another encounter, he lets them use powers that target creatures to target objects?

Look, I'm entirely in agreement that it was a poor explanation to give for the situation at hand and a bad example to set. But I just don't agree with or approve of using one isolated incident to try and claim that "WotC's own Creative Director doesn't" "play with errata".

 

[Nikosandros]

I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".

1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.

2) He doesn't point out to the players that the bard could boost their healing surges between encounters.

3) Darkfire is a minor action, not a standard one.

4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

That said, I'm enjoying the videos a lot and I'd love to play at Chris' table. He might make a few mistakes on the rules, but from the videos he seems like a great DM (and I love his maps).

 

[SkidAce]

4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

Yea, I was actually looking forward to hearing him explain it to the player and then was like "waaa" when it didn't happen.

Still love the videos of the games and thumbs up to his adventures...

 

[nedjer]

I really like Chris style as a DM, but I noticed several other "mistakes".

1) No mention is made of second wind when the players ask about recovering hit points during combat.

2) He doesn't point out to the players that the bard could boost their healing surges between encounters.

3) Darkfire is a minor action, not a standard one.

4) If you ready an action, your initiative changes.

That said, I'm enjoying the videos a lot and I'd love to play at Chris' table. He might make a few mistakes on the rules, but from the videos he seems like a great DM (and I love his maps).

But are those really mistakes, or someone trying to adapt a very complex system to make it playable for new/ newer players? Add the four points to the considerations that were used and every GM goes straight past the limit for human working memory. Without an actual checklist it is pretty much impossible to remember to apply so many conditions on every occasion.

Which suggests that while complex systems aren't necessarily broken in themsleves, they are bound to break the limits of our brains' capacity to handle several things at once. Sure provides a sound explanation for why new players and GMs are relatively thin on the ground.