Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Who's still playing 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6829297" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Well, perhaps we're abusing the thread's purpose, but there have been MANY long digressions on interesting side topics of 4e, so I don't feel like we're really bothering anyone. </p><p></p><p>As I say, I think the SC framework, in and of itself, is simply a convenience. If I was playing, say, 2e, I could write up an adventure, and have a section "shoot the rapids and beat the bad guys to the cave". As DM I'd have to decide the whole structure of this thing, since 2e lacks any sort of subsystem that would help here. I can obviously use NWPs and characters can employ spells and class features of whatever sort, and ability score checks (though 2e lacks an actual rule for these). I then have to decide what sequences of checks will produce was sorts of plot complications, what will advance the scenario, what will create difficulties, etc. Then I have to, at run-time, adjudicate all the crazy stuff the PCs ACTUALLY do, which will probably crush all this planning anyway. </p><p></p><p>In 4e I have a structure to follow, lets say I decide its complexity 5, so there's 12 successes required before 3 failures, with the PCs getting 6 advantages. 8 moderate DCs, and 4 hard DCs should normally be used. The DM will then designate roughly 7 skills that can contribute, 3 secondary and 4 primary. In the example given the primary skills might easily be Athletics, Acrobatics, Nature, and Endurance for instance. Now the DM could simply run this without further prep, beyond nailing down the details of what the PCs are facing and what their resources are (IE they have a boat, some rope, and 2 oars or whatever and they need to navigate past 3 dangerous points and try to keep the barrel full of dried fish with them). Different levels of success COULD be specified, but aren't needed. The DM could explicitly decide certain powers/rituals/etc can help in certain ways, and he can designate which advantages represent specific actions and are available, which checks are hard/medium/easy (group) checks, etc etc etc. </p><p></p><p>Obviously the 4e SC can potentially derail in certain cases depending on the capabilities of the PCs and the situation, but it is a lot more nailed down in terms of PROCEDURE and the DM's job should be easier. Its easy enough that ad-libbing this sort of SC isn't terribly hard. There are additional benefits, you now know how much action equals an encounter worth of XP and treasure, something that isn't obvious with older systems or if you simply avoid SCs. </p><p></p><p>I'd argue that the SC is the beating heart of the 4e skill system too. Because skills themselves are so general in nature, its the SC system that fleshes things out. There's no 'farming' skill, but a guy with Endurance, Nature, Athletics, and a bonus to checks involving domestic plants and animals (+2 to checks related to them, or perhaps just undefined advantages, see PHB2 p189 sidebar). Thus to really have 'farmer' mean something in the game, you'd want there to be an SC that involved farming elements, which would be the place where the farmer would shine. He'd likely have most of the primary skills and access to advantages and bonuses that the other PCs might lack. Thus the non-existence of a farmer skill in 4e is of no real consequence, whereas in 3e its lack effectively meant that farming, per se, couldn't come up in any mechanical sense in the game, and its existence meant that everyone else was SOL if it did come up (whereas in 4e they just have to muddle through the SC, and in fact probably won't be seriously disadvantaged by the lack). </p><p></p><p>Now, all of this is taking advantage of RC level SC/DC rules, and PHB2's background system. The presentation in DMG1 on day one was kind of a mess. Its a pretty slick system now with some real implications for 4e adventure design and DM convenience, if you ask me. </p><p></p><p>The question of the nature of failure really isn't IMHO that germane, nor limited to SCs. After all, in my example, the traversal of the river is going to be necessary in either 2e or 4e for the adventure to continue to the caves. In either case the game allows for either some sort of 'fail forward' scenario where the conflict is only partly resolved by the SC/checks (IE the PCs arrive but simply in better or worse condition and ahead or behind team monster) or some absolute stopper sort of consequence where the adventure cannot continue and play goes off in some other direction (or even ends entirely with the drowning of all the PCs if you want).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6829297, member: 82106"] Well, perhaps we're abusing the thread's purpose, but there have been MANY long digressions on interesting side topics of 4e, so I don't feel like we're really bothering anyone. As I say, I think the SC framework, in and of itself, is simply a convenience. If I was playing, say, 2e, I could write up an adventure, and have a section "shoot the rapids and beat the bad guys to the cave". As DM I'd have to decide the whole structure of this thing, since 2e lacks any sort of subsystem that would help here. I can obviously use NWPs and characters can employ spells and class features of whatever sort, and ability score checks (though 2e lacks an actual rule for these). I then have to decide what sequences of checks will produce was sorts of plot complications, what will advance the scenario, what will create difficulties, etc. Then I have to, at run-time, adjudicate all the crazy stuff the PCs ACTUALLY do, which will probably crush all this planning anyway. In 4e I have a structure to follow, lets say I decide its complexity 5, so there's 12 successes required before 3 failures, with the PCs getting 6 advantages. 8 moderate DCs, and 4 hard DCs should normally be used. The DM will then designate roughly 7 skills that can contribute, 3 secondary and 4 primary. In the example given the primary skills might easily be Athletics, Acrobatics, Nature, and Endurance for instance. Now the DM could simply run this without further prep, beyond nailing down the details of what the PCs are facing and what their resources are (IE they have a boat, some rope, and 2 oars or whatever and they need to navigate past 3 dangerous points and try to keep the barrel full of dried fish with them). Different levels of success COULD be specified, but aren't needed. The DM could explicitly decide certain powers/rituals/etc can help in certain ways, and he can designate which advantages represent specific actions and are available, which checks are hard/medium/easy (group) checks, etc etc etc. Obviously the 4e SC can potentially derail in certain cases depending on the capabilities of the PCs and the situation, but it is a lot more nailed down in terms of PROCEDURE and the DM's job should be easier. Its easy enough that ad-libbing this sort of SC isn't terribly hard. There are additional benefits, you now know how much action equals an encounter worth of XP and treasure, something that isn't obvious with older systems or if you simply avoid SCs. I'd argue that the SC is the beating heart of the 4e skill system too. Because skills themselves are so general in nature, its the SC system that fleshes things out. There's no 'farming' skill, but a guy with Endurance, Nature, Athletics, and a bonus to checks involving domestic plants and animals (+2 to checks related to them, or perhaps just undefined advantages, see PHB2 p189 sidebar). Thus to really have 'farmer' mean something in the game, you'd want there to be an SC that involved farming elements, which would be the place where the farmer would shine. He'd likely have most of the primary skills and access to advantages and bonuses that the other PCs might lack. Thus the non-existence of a farmer skill in 4e is of no real consequence, whereas in 3e its lack effectively meant that farming, per se, couldn't come up in any mechanical sense in the game, and its existence meant that everyone else was SOL if it did come up (whereas in 4e they just have to muddle through the SC, and in fact probably won't be seriously disadvantaged by the lack). Now, all of this is taking advantage of RC level SC/DC rules, and PHB2's background system. The presentation in DMG1 on day one was kind of a mess. Its a pretty slick system now with some real implications for 4e adventure design and DM convenience, if you ask me. The question of the nature of failure really isn't IMHO that germane, nor limited to SCs. After all, in my example, the traversal of the river is going to be necessary in either 2e or 4e for the adventure to continue to the caves. In either case the game allows for either some sort of 'fail forward' scenario where the conflict is only partly resolved by the SC/checks (IE the PCs arrive but simply in better or worse condition and ahead or behind team monster) or some absolute stopper sort of consequence where the adventure cannot continue and play goes off in some other direction (or even ends entirely with the drowning of all the PCs if you want). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Who's still playing 4E
Top