Not trying to start any fights, so don't bother if that's what you're looking for. I'm genuinely curious on whether or not that's true and if some of it could be applied to general GM style or not.
I see a lot of comments about how much easier 4E is to GM, but never really see any details on the subject.
Not trying to start any fights, so don't bother if that's what you're looking for. I'm genuinely curious on whether or not that's true and if some of it could be applied to general GM style or not.
I see a lot of comments about how much easier 4E is to GM, but never really see any details on the subject.
I'm a novice GM, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Some of the reasons I find 4th edition easier are:
1. Better balance. They have made a much greater effort at keeping powers/items/etcetera at various levels balanced. I have a standing rule that anything on DDI is allowable and dont have the same fear that some bizarre ability is going to crop up completely overshadowing all the other abilities the players have available.
2. Restricted divination/movement abilities. It's harder for mid level characters to cast a spell and ruin your mystery. Similarly with ghosting through all your cool encounters to the bad guy at the end. In 3.5 you can avoid this problem - but it takes a lot of mental effort. In 4th edition you can just map out a lair in whatever way takes your fancy and can place constraints on where players are able to go or in what order.
3. Ease of encounter assembly. I'm not eloquent enough to explain it if you've never looked, but imo it is far easier to create half a dozen balanced and enjoyable encounters in 4th edition than it is in 3.5. I always found the CR/EL system somewhat arcane anyhow - let alone the fact that it just didnt seem to work the way it was supposed to (at least in my hands).
4. Smaller stat blocks for monsters. Self explanatory why this is easier on the GM?
I'd say all of the above, plus the significant benefits that page 42 of the DMG provides, as well as the incredibly useful D&D Insider Compendium and Monster Builder.
I'd say all of the above, plus the significant benefits that page 42 of the DMG provides, as well as the incredibly useful D&D Insider Compendium and Monster Builder.
Yeah, the 4e DMG's a good enough for a even someone who's only a player like me would buy it just because it's a good read.
|
I think 4e makes it harder on the DM actually. 4e is in my opinion designed so for players to know very little about the game and make the DM know more about the game.
Yes so of the rules are easier.. but that's because there's also fewer (because it's a newer game), but you need to know more of them then the players do.
|
You pretty much don't have to do any work at all and just give monsters your own stats on the fly.
You've been able to do this for pretty much the whole history of the game of course, but 4E makes it less likely to be questioned by your players.
Pick a number to be your to hit, roll the d20 and then pick a die to do damage with. Easy enough. If you want to get really crazy, have it push or pull something.
Pick our a random PC in the group, find out their total HP and give that to the monsters.
That totally works, done it a number of times and in 4th edition none of the players seemed to notice.
You don't need to worry about equipping them or making sure they've got the right feats or stats, just throw a number out there and go.
I would have to say that 4th edition was definitely easier to learn and because of that it is easier to teach players. Additionally the fact that monsters have all they information they need removes any need for the GM to recall what a spell the monster has does. Additionally, the set of available powers does make adventure design easier, as in there are generally less powers or rituals characters can use to "skip" portions of the adventure or such.
On the other hand I haven't found the material to be better balanced overall. Which means, as a GM, one would still have to fiddle with the power and abilities of the enemies to best compliment your unique group.
The combats overall feel a bit more hectic (and long) to me, leaving me a lot more drained after even a short session.
If I had to suggest an easier game to GM to a stranger, I would say 4th edition. To me, to GM, one needs to learn all the rules (or at least get a solid idea) and 4th edition is easier to learn. But, for me, 4th edition currently seems to be the harder one to GM (that 3.5). Largely because I have already obtained a good, solid understanding of the system, but I think that there are other reasons for it (but I can't seem to figure out what they are).
4e is a lot better about spelling out most things to the DM than prior editions. For example the PHB explicitly tells us that PCs need enhancement bonuses, how many per level and which items provide them. Prior editions just gave us a bunch of random treasure charts, sometimes some vague WBL chart, and left DMs to generate treasure like Diablo does. Or to generate treasure by whatever oddball method the DM chooses -- in my first 3e campaign, my players were pathetically under-equipped because I didn't realize that items were so important.
Likewise, the DMG has the first set of halfway decent monster and encounter creation guidelines of any edition. It tells us how many and what level of monsters to use for our encounters, and a few monster-role templates to make them interesting. Previous editions gave us HD (ha!) and maybe CR, which expected DMs to recognize the minion monsters from the standards from the elites -- even though previous editions don't officially have those categories.
Oddly, 4e lacks one tidbit of encounter guidance that at least 3e has -- how many encounters a party is supposed to handle per day. I have a suspicion that epic PCs are supposed to handle a few more encounters between extended rests than heroic PCs are, but who knows?
I found I needed a really intense level of system mastery in 3rd Edition to keep control of the game, while in 4E, I've almost never had to even consult the rulebook during a game. I'm not disagreeing with your personal experiences here, but I am curious as to what specific issues you have run into where you felt the 4E rules required such significant knowledge from the DM? And is that from the experience of playing or DMing the game? (Or just from reading the rules?)I think 4e makes it harder on the DM actually. 4e is in my opinion designed so for players to know very little about the game and make the DM know more about the game.
Yes so of the rules are easier.. but that's because there's also fewer (because it's a newer game), but you need to know more of them then the players do.
I'd like to know as well.
|
I think 4e makes it harder on the DM actually. 4e is in my opinion designed so for players to know very little about the game and make the DM know more about the game.
Yes so of the rules are easier.. but that's because there's also fewer (because it's a newer game), but you need to know more of them then the players do.
I would have to disagree with this too, as in general fewer rules (and more sensibly organised) is easier in my view (for example, the rules on combat advantage make a series of rules in 3e around flat-footedness, flanking, surprise, and so on much easier, as do the much more limited different types of condition). I have found issues where 3e and 4e get mixed up, and the DM (in theory, though I am often corrected by my players) should arguably be on top of that. But the rules, as far as I can tell, have much less scope for min-maxing munchkinism (not that I've ever genuinely had problems in that area) as they are deliberately set to set up a more level playing field between the classes. And statting up encounters is also much, much easier in 4e.
|
|
threadjack imminent
I've found skill challenges can work, but not so much in the way the book says. I've found them useful for abstracting action. I think the first good use of a skill challenge in my game was to have the PCs travel on a long journey. I couldn't be bothered to draw map and design a set of encounters, since I wanted to cut to the chase of what was going on at the destination, but it also felt a bit duff just saying, "OK, you have now travelled 1,000 miles to xxxx." So I did it as a skill challenge and the number of bad things that happened to them (mostly attrition of consumable items like cash, ritual components and potions like, for example, having to buy their way out of jail) depended on how well or badly they rolled. So there was some feeling of something happening without getting bogged down. But the substitution of skill challenges for roleplaying (like Talking to the Baron) are much less satisfactory.
|
Not trying to start any fights, so don't bother if that's what you're looking for. I'm genuinely curious on whether or not that's true and if some of it could be applied to general GM style or not.
I see a lot of comments about how much easier 4E is to GM, but never really see any details on the subject.
Having run both 3.x, 4th edition, and Pathfinder for my homegames, RPGA, and the PFS, my observations include:
Less fiddly rules in 4th edition. The chart for Opportunity Attacks is like, what? Half the size in 3.x?
Rarely any multi-attack.
Saving rolls and their mods are super easy.
The 4e mods pretty much spell out the monsters' attacks, defenses, etc. Easier to track as well since they're a fraction to many of their 3.x equivalent.
The powers all use the same mechanic: at-will, encounter, and daily. This is opposed to tracking the time, for example, a 3.x druid has been in her shapeshift form; 3.x barbarian is in rage and how many uses of rage; how long has the 3.x/Pathfinder Darkness spell covering the area; etc. I actually DM'd 4th edition even before the game was officially released just using the hints on various boards (mainly EN World).
Power levels are roughly equivalent among the classes. Much easier to gauge the strength for the encounters as the GM. You won't have a cleric or, worse, sorcerer or wizard stop the Big Bad using one, may two tops, spells.
|
|
I've found skill challenges can work, but not so much in the way the book says.No, the math just doesn't work. There's little incentive to not just have your party member with the highest relevant bonus just hit the challenge with that bonus and hope for the best. Plus, as a nice little bonus, You Just Fail At Skill Challenges with some versions of the system.
It's a perfectly reasonable idea, and if they worked there'd be lots of cool things you could do with them. It's just a shame that they don't.
Well, the rules say you should roll initiative and do it that way. That way the guy with the best bonus doesn't always go first. I know most people (generally including me) don't but that is what is intended. But in any case few skill challenges are intended to be make-or-break encounters anyway, more places where the story takes a potential split in one direction or the other. As such, maths is less the issue as one of the key things with a skill challenge is making sure you have a plan if the players fail. I don't know if you have seen the DMG2 but it has some rules changes and some interesting versions of skill challenges. The example in play in that book is interesting in that it assumes that the players decide what skills to use by themselves and sort of segue into the skill challenge without being told it is happening. In some ways (and getting back to the original point at hand) that is probably some fairly nifty DM'ing (and assertive playing - some players can be quite passive, waiting to be told what to do, and that is where skill challenges can feel quite flat).
|
|
I think 4e makes it harder on the DM actually. 4e is in my opinion designed so for players to know very little about the game and make the DM know more about the game.
Yes so of the rules are easier.. but that's because there's also fewer (because it's a newer game), but you need to know more of them then the players do.
I agree with everything you said, but I see this as a positive not a negative. Many compare 4e with 1e because of this fact and the way monsters don't work like PC's. 4e puts the power back into the hands of the DM. Much less getting blind sided by some feat/rule combo that spoils your encounter or challenge. I personally think that a good RPG should have the qualities to speak of. The players should not have to know the game inside out to play, only their character.
For example, our DM of 4e knows little to nothing of mechanics of our PC's. He doesn't have too other than the number of each role (striker, defender etc). The balance of 4e means he doesn't have to stress over including "outs" for his critters in case player X has spell Y. Previously if you weren't fully aware of what the PC's were capable of (including feats etc) your encounters could end up destroyed in an un-fun way. Because of this a DM vs PC mentally could arise, not so with 4e.
S.
|
|
For example, our DM of 4e knows little to nothing of mechanics of our PC's. He doesn't have too other than the number of each role (striker, defender etc). The balance of 4e means he doesn't have to stress over including "outs" for his critters in case player X has spell Y. Previously if you weren't fully aware of what the PC's were capable of (including feats etc) your encounters could end up destroyed in an un-fun way. Because of this a DM vs PC mentally could arise, not so with 4e.S.
I'll vouch for this. The RPGA folks I run with are min-max powergamers. They know not only the PHs inside and out; many are DMs themselves and know the monsters. I'm more of a casual gamer, yet I feel I can easily hold my own even as DM with the published mods or with a slight tweak (e.g., extra Action point to the monsters). The system's that simple (when compared to 3.x/Pathfinder) and balanced.
|
|
But in any case few skill challenges are intended to be make-or-break encounters anyway, more places where the story takes a potential split in one direction or the other. As such, maths is less the issue as one of the key things with a skill challenge is making sure you have a plan if the players fail.Then skill challenges offer no advantage over purely arbitrary resolution, like flipping a coin or GM fiat. The math is simply obfuscated to the point where the systems are non-obviously broken.
Skill challenges are full of cool ideas, where players bid to use their different skills to all contribute to a given challenge. I really do like that idea as a goal and you have some cool ideas that would work with a skill challenge system that worked. The problem is that the DMG, DMG2, and the Dragon rules I'm aware of (maybe there are others?) all completely fail to accomplish that goal and are no more useful than simply having players all roll and the challenge wins if the even numbers exceed the odd numbers.
Which I've totally done to cheat when I was too lazy to set skill DCs. ¬_¬
Haven't we all :-) I agree the rules as written are duff, and really the best place to learn about them is from reading the examples in the published adventures which deviate quite significantly from them (and I have never had to use these either, only read them, and so don't know if they genuinely work or not from a mathematical perspective) if only to get an idea of how the rules can be altered. That said, I have had some quite good experiences with them from a play perspective, although I have also wandered off the path of what is suggested in the books. I have also found the rules changes in the DMG2 (which mainly reduce the DCs at the various levels) have been useful in making them reasonably doable for the PCs.
|
|
Then skill challenges offer no advantage over purely arbitrary resolution, like flipping a coin or GM fiat. The math is simply obfuscated to the point where the systems are non-obviously broken.
I am first not keen on skills playing apart in most social situations, at least major story ones. I see skill challenges as great for physical obstacles. I think that the DM deciding (or as you call it arbitrary resolution) is fine for social interactions. Of course up pops the spectre of "but my character has CHA 24 and I don't". That is why we have a DM, the player tells their intent and the DM parses the intent through the "what if someone of CHA 24 suggested X or Y" then determines the outcome. DM's shouldn't be relegated to passing out binary information based on dice rolls - meaning "you pass" or "you fail".
In our game of 4e skill challenges (broken or not on their maths) was an enjoyable reason to roll dice. I still cringe reading the first of the 4e Scale of War adventure and reading that social skill challenge <shudder>.
S.
It's hard to get my head around running it since most other games are built more on a rock, paper, scissors sort of balance and 4E seems to pit the characters against themselves for a more appropriate challenge. So when I look at the rules and I don't personally see it being easier to run, I think I'm mainly looking for workarounds to those style differences that I may not be particularly keen on.
|
|
It's hard to get my head around running it since most other games are built more on a rock, paper, scissors sort of balance and 4E seems to pit the characters against themselves for a more appropriate challenge. So when I look at the rules and I don't personally see it being easier to run, I think I'm mainly looking for workarounds to those style differences that I may not be particularly keen on.
Except for the bell and whistles 4e is d20 exactly like 3e was. Mechanically speaking the same reams of paper, scissors, rocks sitting behind the game. Linear d20+mod vs target number.
S.
|
|
It's hard to get my head around running it since most other games are built more on a rock, paper, scissors sort of balance and 4E seems to pit the characters against themselves for a more appropriate challenge.I can't parse what you mean by this. Monsters are nothing like PCs in 4e, and vanishingly few RPGs I can think of have a rock-paper-scissors balance.
Live RP Vampire. Stupidest darn thing I ever saw...
|
|
Live RP Vampire. Stupidest darn thing I ever saw...Playing rock-paper-scissors in lieu of rolling dice is not "rock-paper-scissors balance".
There are RP's without dice and in this example it must by definition have "rock-paper-scissors balance" because this system is based on "rock-paper-scissors". How do you figure its not? Any game that has an outcome based on the comparison of two or more outcomes has this type of balance (e.g. DBM)
S.
|
|
There are RP's without dice and in this example it must by definition have "rock-paper-scissors balance" because this system is based on "rock-paper-scissors". How do you figure its not? Any game that has an outcome based on the comparison of two or more outcomes has this type of balance (e.g. DBM)For one, this is getting way off topic. For another, the only DBM I know of is a now-obsolete WOW mod, so...
You are right this is a little left of centre for this topic.
DBM = De Bellis Multitudinis a tabletop wargame. Great example of P-S-R mechanics.
Returning to the OP query...
Sorry, what I mean is 3.x magic was all about dealing out massive effects out of the gate and physical abilities would be lesser effects based on multiple rolls that would be theoretically easier to hit. That's what I mean with the rock, paper, scissors balance; and when you build an encounter, based on that concept, there's a tendency to try to play on a character's weaknesses. The reverse is also true when your so-called min-maxer tries to 'exploit' the system.
From what I understand of 4E though, the concept seems more balancing the classes mechanically and there's a lot of scaling in the encounters, so it's not the rock, paper, scissors game of exploiting weaknesses, but offering up gameplay appropriate to the characters and their power level.
Not saying that's a bad thing at all, it's just different and the natural reaction is 'Boooo, different,' instead of looking at it and trying to ken how it plays or thinking how some of the concepts could apply to other games, or if they already have; I'm not the most prolific gamer these days.
Anyhoo, back on topic. There's no rock-paper-scissors balance in 4e....
Yeah, that. Seems more like GM knows a couple things and adjusts to the player rather than a player vs. GM arms race. 3.x really got me in that mode where you're anticipating what you have to toss at the character's flaws or what you need to do to diffuse a plot-breaker. This is more like, set up a fight and let the players sort it out.
Yeah, that. Seems more like GM knows a couple things and adjusts to the player rather than a player vs. GM arms race. 3.x really got me in that mode where you're anticipating what you have to toss at the character's flaws or what you need to do to diffuse a plot-breaker. This is more like, set up a fight and let the players sort it out.There's still a little bit of that. For example, don't expect to be able to use a solo against any even-marginally-optimized orb wizard, and invokers can be optimized to stunlock as well. There's other "You won't ever be able to run this sort of fight" stuff but it's not as gross and I'm too tired to go digging for examples.
There just aren't any classes built entirely around it, like in 3e.
I have found from a DMing point of view, you need to throw a lot of the previous conceptions of DMing in the bin and you make the creature how you see it(or modify an existing one) to match the PC's level (which is a case of increasing or decreasing the ATTACK,AC, FORT,REF,WILL to the level required). You can give them powers that fit your description ( a 16 foot tall giant carrying a tree could be given an encounter power that either pushes the PC or knocks them prone or both) without breaking the whole system. Neither do you need to worry about all the mechanics previously experienced and make an encounter what I envision. I spend the extra time concentrating on the campaign threads,story and NPC personality definition.
I can sum it up in 3 words: less prep time.
Building an encounter is very, very simple using the rules presented in the DMG. Building new monsters or altering existing monsters is also very easy. This means that a DM can focus more time on dressing up the encounter, rather than having to fiddle with numbers. Thus, you can create simple encounters on the fly, or spend a little time and create really great complex encounters.
I'll give an example. Last night, I wrote a complex encounter for level 5 characters in about an hour. In that time, I wrote up 4 new monsters, statted out 1 NPC, drew a map of the area, and created some interesting, unique terrain rules for the battle. In 3rd edition, creating the new monsters alone would have taken me more than an hour - probably almost two hours. The entire encounter would have been something I probably wouldn't have bothered with
The other nice thing is that the system puts more power in the hands of the DM. The terrain rules I created, for example, would be something that most 3rd edition groups would have taken issue with, because it isn't explicitly laid out in the rulebooks. In 4e, however, it just fits under the umbrella of "other stuff the DM can throw at you", and noone will question it.
No, the math just doesn't work. There's little incentive to not just have your party member with the highest relevant bonus just hit the challenge with that bonus and hope for the best. Plus, as a nice little bonus, You Just Fail At Skill Challenges with some versions of the system.It's a perfectly reasonable idea, and if they worked there'd be lots of cool things you could do with them. It's just a shame that they don't work.
I'm not really sure how the system is broken however - and I doubt most of the people on the thread are either nor are our players. Which strikes me as essentially solving the problem more or less right there. If the system can be worked by some arcane method its not really relevant unless that arcane method is devised by the players - otherwise they just run through them as best they can and everyones happy.
Furthermore I'm not even sure if some arcane method of working the system is all that useful once the DM gets some practice and mastery over the system. The last two skill Challenges our DM ran us through we were not even aware we were in a Skill Challenge until we earned the XP for them. If the DM gets some practice with this its possible to run some of them in such a way that the players are never aware that there is a skill challenge going on, disguising the Skill Challenge so that there are things going on that really are not part of the Challenge as a whole (but require skill checks) is an excellent way of doing this, as is breaking them up over extended periods of time.
If the players are just running their characters unaware that the DM is keeping score of the checks then they usually are not metagaming the situation enough to take advantage of whatever the mechanics flaw is.
Not to say that a Skill Challenge should always be a secret - if the players need to break through the arcane lock before the Cave Troll busts down the door (or hopefully soon after - before it kills some one) then there is going to be be a lot of benefit from the tension the players get with the passes and fails, which way to run them depends on the DMs objectives.
Furthermore - as Aubery mentions, there are tons of variations on the theme - many don't allow the players to pick whatever skill they happen to want to use - if your outrunning an Avalanche the DM may well be telling some or all the players what skill check to make. Furthermore the binary nature (Pass/Fail) of the challenges is a good place to start with them but not necessarily where one needs to end. If your investigating a crime scene each succsess can give a clue depending on the skill being used - there may be a larger reward for ultimate success like getting the Town Watch to co-operate but there is a reason to vary up your skill choices in such circumstances.
My feeling is you've evaluated the mechanic as broken because the players can attempt to max out two skills and then try and use them in all possible circumstances. Its up to the DM to move the players away from that sort of thinking and get them to use their skills in an organic manner depending on whats actually appropriate for the situation at hand. Because all players get skills at the rate of 1/2 their level its usually not a foregone conclusion if they use any of their skills so its not like they must use one of their skills or everything goes wrong (plus failing skill challenges are usually not fatal). How the DM goes about that can involve a number of methods from rewarding the use of diverse skills, forcing the players to utilize skills from a small subset based on the circumstances presented or tricking the players into role playing their characters instead of meta gaming a skill challenge.
Furthermore I'm not even sure if some arcane method of working the system is all that useful once the DM gets some practice and mastery over the system. The last two skill Challenges our DM ran us through we were not even aware we were in a Skill Challenge until we earned the XP for them. If the DM gets some practice with this its possible to run some of them in such a way that the players are never aware that there is a skill challenge going on, disguising the Skill Challenge so that there are things going on that really are not part of the Challenge as a whole (but require skill checks) is an excellent way of doing this, as is breaking them up over extended periods of time.If the players are just running their characters unaware that the DM is keeping score of the checks then they usually are not metagaming the situation enough to take advantage of whatever the mechanics flaw is.
This definitely. In the last adventure I ran for 4th ed my players didn't know when they ran into skill challenges and the whole experience felt far more organic, and the players didn't metagame at all ( at least to my knowledge).
As for 4th edition and GMing, I would say it is far easier IMHO to put things together without a ton of referencing/busy work and I seem to have more time to concentrate on more important aspects of the adventure (story/arcs/etc).In play it runs smoothly too, although for me I think it's because I tried to take everything I knew about 3e, and threw that out the window.
This definitely. In the last adventure I ran for 4th ed my players didn't know when they ran into skill challenges and the whole experience felt far more organic, and the players didn't metagame at all ( at least to my knowledge).
As for 4th edition and GMing, I would say it is far easier IMHO to put things together without a ton of referencing/busy work and I seem to have more time to concentrate on more important aspects of the adventure (story/arcs/etc).
In play it runs smoothly too, although for me I think it's because I tried to take everything I knew about 3e, and threw that out the window.
The same for me, as I'm going running 4th ed I am more inspired to find better new ways to run Skill challenges, and letting them become more 'organic' as Amael mentioned.
The PHB2 has some good suggestions, likewise I came across a new type of Skill Challenge on SCRIBD called CONFLIX (I think) which presented a challenge type( navigating a dwarven hold like moria for a number of days) and how the PC's would be challenged over 4 challenge types.It brings more PC's into Skill challenges rather than the ones who are good at skills.
Not trying to start any fights, so don't bother if that's what you're looking for. I'm genuinely curious on whether or not that's true and if some of it could be applied to general GM style or not.
I see a lot of comments about how much easier 4E is to GM, but never really see any details on the subject.
For me personally the biggest time saver in prep is time saved not working or reworking the monsters. 4Es split of rules for the DM and rules for the player means that one does not have to create a build for a specific type of monster. My favorite example is the Necromancer with an army of undead. in 4E the necromancer controls an army of undead simply because the DM says it is so (DM fiat). 3.5 tried to make the Necromancer play by the same rules as the players and therefore had a system in which if you choose certain spell casting classes, certain spells and certain feats and you were high enough level then it was possible to make a Necromancer that controlled something that could reasonably be called an undead army - but setting all of this up meant the DM had to be familiar with the various options available and usually had to do some serious research to create the Necromancer. Building ones Necromancer could take you the better part of an evening.
Similar theme with play balancing your adventure - there was some significant power creep in 3.5 and this meant that the monsters really started to fall behind the players in the power curve - a DM could keep up but only by re-choosing the monsters feats, spells and magic items. This used to be a big part of my prep time - simply rebuilding the monsters.
I think 4e makes it harder on the DM actually. 4e is in my opinion designed so for players to know very little about the game and make the DM know more about the game.
Yes so of the rules are easier.. but that's because there's also fewer (because it's a newer game), but you need to know more of them then the players do.
I disagree that it's harder. In my opinion, it is way easier for the reasons in the second post in this thread.
"I want this to be an easy challenge; how do I make that work?"
"I want this to be a hard challenge; how do I make that work?"
The actual answers to these questions are obscure and the written answers to these questions are wrong. The reason the system is broken (depending on the version) is that "easy" challenges are very hard and "hard" challenges are completely impossible, or that players are told that the good strategy is actually very weak, or other, similar flaws.
They're indistinguishable from just rolling dice and counting the number of rolls divisible by 3, because they're arbitrary, do not respond intuitively to strategy, and are completely imbalanced mathematically. You're suggesting obfuscating the math even more, which is a lot of work for zero payoff.
What's more, you're creating a whole complicated system of rules for challenges the players are expected to form some strategy to solve or defeat, then not telling the players about that system. It's a system meant to be "metagamed." Skill challenges are a challenge where the players are supposed to figure out what their character does best to solve the problem, then do that thing. That's how people figure out complex tasks in real life. The problem is that the system does not reward or replicate the real-life way of solving complex tasks: specifically, breaking it up into smaller tasks and having each person take the part best suited to their skills and temperament. Instead, it punishes that sort of strategy. Making it such that players don't get to form any strategy...
I run a 4e game, right now the PC's are at 12th level. There have been a few skill challenges. I've read how the math is broken, how the DC's are too high, and how the best option is to simply aid another so that only 1 character gets to play.
All of that might be true in thoery, but in practice, in actual play, I have to say skill challenges do what they're supposed to do. I give the players the set-up, and I emphasize what their goal is (not the skills to use, but the actual end goal). We take initiative and go around the table. I ask each player how he or she would like their character to contribute and have them make the relevant check. They succeed or fail and we keep playing. The success rate has been about 50/50 and nobody is questioning the system.
Sometimes there is a character that is the best in a situation. Sometimes there is a character that appears to have no way to contribute and can only aid another. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I seem to have players that would rather play D&D than win D&D. Some characters are better at hitting and dealing damage, but no party just aids another to let that character hit. Maybe people are just looking at skill challenges the wrong way. They aren't win or die situations, just a fun way to deal with non-combat situations that should allow all the characters to participate.
Just my experience.
My favorite example is the Necromancer with an army of undead...
So true. Great example of the way 4e puts the power in the hands of the DM, and then gives him the freedom to create something cool with it.
|
|
Sometimes there is a character that is the best in a situation. Sometimes there is a character that appears to have no way to contribute and can only aid another. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I seem to have players that would rather play D&D than win D&D. Some characters are better at hitting and dealing damage, but no party just aids another to let that character hit. Maybe people are just looking at skill challenges the wrong way. They aren't win or die situations, just a fun way to deal with non-combat situations that should allow all the characters to participate.
Very well put. Speaks to the heart of the issue. Dice will never be a great way to simulate most things we ask them too. So all systems are broken to some extent. If someone can prove to me at rolling a d20 and adding a modifier faithfully models the actual probably of swinging and hitting someone with a sword I'll gladly eat my words. To me "broken" means the game comes to a grinding halt with everyone scratching their heads. Things like, "rule 32 states that players wearing blue die immediately", that is broken as it potentially just plain stops play and someone's fun for no obvious reason. The skill challenges in 4e in no way act at a hurdle to a game of 4e running smoothly. Number crunchers may be losing sleep over it, but as they are many, many games of 4e with skills challenges included are going on all around them.
Opinions of the converted,
S.
Very well put. Speaks to the heart of the issue. Dice will never be a great way to simulate most things we ask them too. So all systems are broken to some extent. If someone can prove to me at rolling a d20 and adding a modifier faithfully models the actual probably of swinging and hitting someone with a sword I'll gladly eat my words. To me "broken" means the game comes to a grinding halt with everyone scratching their heads. Things like, "rule 32 states that players wearing blue die immediately", that is broken as it potentially just plain stops play and someone's fun for no obvious reason. The skill challenges in 4e in no way act at a hurdle to a game of 4e running smoothly. Number crunchers may be losing sleep over it, but as they are many, many games of 4e with skills challenges included are going on all around them.
Opinions of the converted,
S.
No rule system is going to be perfect (I can think of some that assume an agile opponent can be hit easier by swinging harder), but if a GM thinks the numbers or methods are off, depending on how they choose to correct the problem, that could be a valid reason for that GM to think it's harder to run the game.
No rule system is going to be perfect (I can think of some that assume an agile opponent can be hit easier by swinging harder), but if a GM thinks the numbers or methods are off, depending on how they choose to correct the problem, that could be a valid reason for that GM to think it's harder to run the game.Very well put. Speaks to the heart of the issue. Dice will never be a great way to simulate most things we ask them too. So all systems are broken to some extent. If someone can prove to me at rolling a d20 and adding a modifier faithfully models the actual probably of swinging and hitting someone with a sword I'll gladly eat my words. To me "broken" means the game comes to a grinding halt with everyone scratching their heads. Things like, "rule 32 states that players wearing blue die immediately", that is broken as it potentially just plain stops play and someone's fun for no obvious reason. The skill challenges in 4e in no way act at a hurdle to a game of 4e running smoothly. Number crunchers may be losing sleep over it, but as they are many, many games of 4e with skills challenges included are going on all around them.
Opinions of the converted,
S.
Ultimately any skill challenge should have a fall back option for failure to prevent a catastrophic halt in the game (PHB2 outlines this in some detail) . It's also up to the DM to run the game so if a player gives a good detailed description of his method of doing something which would achieve the task despite the dice rolling being low then the DM can say the action succeeds in the task but a slight slip causes a repercussion( eg deciphering an arcane puzzle but theres a magical backlash which causes a healing surge loss).
So in all its a successful skill challenge to get through the easy way or a new harder route if the skill challenge is failed.Look up the conflex system on SCRIBD for an interesting alternative with the skill challenge.