![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Initial thoughts on 4E
Sep. 12th, 2008 12:45 pmI had a borrowed copy of the PHB and DMG with me on the trip, so I got a chance to look over the new rules.
First things first, the new DMG is GREAT. Hands down, no holds barred the best books I've ever seen for the starting game master. Starting with knowing your players and table rules to building encounters into stories, stories into quests and quests into campaigns it is a great piece of work - one long needed. Yes, it's strongly Narrativist, but it works for other gamer types as well. (Please note, I am using the original, accurate definitions for Narrativist, Gamist and Simulationist here, not the rewritten and self-contradictory Forge ones.)
And besides, the rest of the rules strapped Simulation to a heavy anchor and threw it over the side on about page 3. So we're really only looking at Narrative and Gamist play. And while the Narrativist trend is heavy in the DMG, the PHB - which I have not yet finished - is all about the Gamist player. This does not overly thrill me.
There is a lovely looking chart in the DMG that the DM can quickly check to find a 'close enough' DC and damage level for any unexpected player action, balancing the outcome against the PC level. It's an interesting concept, and one that the book uses well in other places, such as listing the best height for cliffs and pits based on party level, so that the falls are measured against the PCs ability to survive them just as the monsters are. That use, however, ties to the GM building the encounter in advance. I can understand that. This, however is balancing reality directly against the PCs skills on the fly. (possible since the PCs can try anything with a die bonus of half their level plus the relevant stat modifier, plus 5 if they have the skill).
The example they give is the party rogue swinging from a chandalier to knock an ogre into the fire pit. The difficulty for this is set based not on how hard it might be, but on the rogue's level. The GM wants the players to do stuff like this, so he makes the difficulty Easy, and then jacks that up by 5 points because it's a skill use (acrobatics) rather than a flat Dex roll. So for the 7th level rogue in the example, the difficulty is 20. Since she likely has a +4 Dex mod and the Acrobatics skill, that means she has a +12 total on the roll, or a 60% chance to make the roll. The damage for the attack (falling into the fire pit) is based not on how hot the fire is, but again on the PC level on that chart. 2d8+5
If she had tried to kick an ogre into a fire pit at 1st level she would have had to make an easy skill check for a 1st level character, so the DC would be 15, with a bonus of likely +3 for her dex, for a total of +8. In other words, a 65% chance to succeed in the kick. It would have been easier for her if she were less experienced. But don't worry, the fire pit now does only 2d6+3 damage.
If she tried this again at 16th level - and let me stress, this is the type of maneuver the rulebook says you're supposed to encourage, so her doing so wouldn't be a surprise - her bonus would be roughly +17, but the difficulty would have jumped to 25 because of her higher level. that's a 60% chance of success. In 9 levels the character hasn't gotten functionally better at this sort of thing at all. Except that the fire pit now does 3d8+7 damage.
I'm skipping the second die roll in this - the example also requires a to-hit roll, which the 16th level character would likely ace and the 1st level one would likely fail - but it still underscores the point (especially since in this edition as well as the last a 1st level character wouldn't be fighting an ogre because it was too tough, and a 16th level one wouldn't encounter one because it was too weak). We've gone from designing a world that will likely challenge the character's skill level to one that explicitly changes to make every easy action one with a 60-70% chance of success and every hard one a 20-30% chance regardless of the character's level or skills.
I understand it from a certain perspective, but if this is the design goal, why have skills go up with levels at all? Just have a flat chance of success for levels 1-30 and let the PCs get better in this by raising stats or buying new skills for the +5 bonus. As it stands this chart just plays into large number psychology: "I have a +16, I'm kickass! I'll ignore how all my difficulties are automatically 11 points higher than they were when I had a +5."
First things first, the new DMG is GREAT. Hands down, no holds barred the best books I've ever seen for the starting game master. Starting with knowing your players and table rules to building encounters into stories, stories into quests and quests into campaigns it is a great piece of work - one long needed. Yes, it's strongly Narrativist, but it works for other gamer types as well. (Please note, I am using the original, accurate definitions for Narrativist, Gamist and Simulationist here, not the rewritten and self-contradictory Forge ones.)
And besides, the rest of the rules strapped Simulation to a heavy anchor and threw it over the side on about page 3. So we're really only looking at Narrative and Gamist play. And while the Narrativist trend is heavy in the DMG, the PHB - which I have not yet finished - is all about the Gamist player. This does not overly thrill me.
There is a lovely looking chart in the DMG that the DM can quickly check to find a 'close enough' DC and damage level for any unexpected player action, balancing the outcome against the PC level. It's an interesting concept, and one that the book uses well in other places, such as listing the best height for cliffs and pits based on party level, so that the falls are measured against the PCs ability to survive them just as the monsters are. That use, however, ties to the GM building the encounter in advance. I can understand that. This, however is balancing reality directly against the PCs skills on the fly. (possible since the PCs can try anything with a die bonus of half their level plus the relevant stat modifier, plus 5 if they have the skill).
The example they give is the party rogue swinging from a chandalier to knock an ogre into the fire pit. The difficulty for this is set based not on how hard it might be, but on the rogue's level. The GM wants the players to do stuff like this, so he makes the difficulty Easy, and then jacks that up by 5 points because it's a skill use (acrobatics) rather than a flat Dex roll. So for the 7th level rogue in the example, the difficulty is 20. Since she likely has a +4 Dex mod and the Acrobatics skill, that means she has a +12 total on the roll, or a 60% chance to make the roll. The damage for the attack (falling into the fire pit) is based not on how hot the fire is, but again on the PC level on that chart. 2d8+5
If she had tried to kick an ogre into a fire pit at 1st level she would have had to make an easy skill check for a 1st level character, so the DC would be 15, with a bonus of likely +3 for her dex, for a total of +8. In other words, a 65% chance to succeed in the kick. It would have been easier for her if she were less experienced. But don't worry, the fire pit now does only 2d6+3 damage.
If she tried this again at 16th level - and let me stress, this is the type of maneuver the rulebook says you're supposed to encourage, so her doing so wouldn't be a surprise - her bonus would be roughly +17, but the difficulty would have jumped to 25 because of her higher level. that's a 60% chance of success. In 9 levels the character hasn't gotten functionally better at this sort of thing at all. Except that the fire pit now does 3d8+7 damage.
I'm skipping the second die roll in this - the example also requires a to-hit roll, which the 16th level character would likely ace and the 1st level one would likely fail - but it still underscores the point (especially since in this edition as well as the last a 1st level character wouldn't be fighting an ogre because it was too tough, and a 16th level one wouldn't encounter one because it was too weak). We've gone from designing a world that will likely challenge the character's skill level to one that explicitly changes to make every easy action one with a 60-70% chance of success and every hard one a 20-30% chance regardless of the character's level or skills.
I understand it from a certain perspective, but if this is the design goal, why have skills go up with levels at all? Just have a flat chance of success for levels 1-30 and let the PCs get better in this by raising stats or buying new skills for the +5 bonus. As it stands this chart just plays into large number psychology: "I have a +16, I'm kickass! I'll ignore how all my difficulties are automatically 11 points higher than they were when I had a +5."
