D&D 4E Ron Edwards on D&D 4e

[pemerton]

Skill challenges were dismal in both explanation and implementation.

That's a matter of opinion. I found the explanation in the DMG clear enough - perhaps because I was already familiar with HeroWars extended contests - and was able to implement it without much trouble.

The aspect of skill challenges that I found tricky follows from the GM never rolling: when you want to narrate an active opposition, this creates questions as to how far you can go in narrating what a PC does as part of your own framing and narration of consequence. There is - unsurprisingly, I guess - a resemblance to Apocalypse World here. I have seen posters on these boards object to the GM narration in the AW rulebook example of play ("Moves Snowball") because it includes narrating things about how the PC responds when the NPCs turn up at her house and throw a grenade into it.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

That's a matter of opinion. I found the explanation in the DMG clear enough - perhaps because I was already familiar with HeroWars extended contests - and was able to implement it without much trouble.

The aspect of skill challenges that I found tricky follows from the GM never rolling: when you want to narrate an active opposition, this creates questions as to how far you can go in narrating what a PC does as part of your own framing and narration of consequence. There is - unsurprisingly, I guess - a resemblance to Apocalypse World here. I have seen posters on these boards object to the GM narration in the AW rulebook example of play ("Moves Snowball") because it includes narrating things about how the PC responds when the NPCs turn up at her house and throw a grenade into it.

Familiarity with non-D&D systems (particularly narrative-oriented systems) aids in the execution and structuring of skill challenges, in the same way that familiarity with wargames aids in those processes with regards to AD&D. However, the systems were lackluster in terms of mathematical soundness in the same way that initial Monster Manual math was off-kilter; the numerous attempts at revising them indicate such. Nonetheless, there was an attempt at implementing narrative mechanics within D&D, for which I cannot fault the designers, but in the end, it felt awkward and out of place alongside a system designed first and foremost to facilitate the balanced tactical combat desired by 3e players. (The cruel irony being that developers gave them precisely what was demanded and yet it wasn't what they wanted.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Familiarity with non-D&D systems (particularly narrative-oriented systems) aids in the execution and structuring of skill challenges, in the same way that familiarity with wargames aids in those processes with regards to AD&D. However, the systems were lackluster in terms of mathematical soundness in the same way that initial Monster Manual math was off-kilter; the numerous attempts at revising them indicate such. Nonetheless, there was an attempt at implementing narrative mechanics within D&D, for which I cannot fault the designers, but in the end, it felt awkward and out of place alongside a system designed first and foremost to facilitate the balanced tactical combat desired by 3e players. (The cruel irony being that developers gave them precisely what was demanded and yet it wasn't what they wanted.)

Again, this is not some sort of canonical position. In fact I played some 4e EARLY on where the GM in question used the original SC system presented in DMG1 exactly as presented, and it worked brilliantly. When WotC started changing it he just laughed said whoever revised it really didn't 'get' SCs and that they were making a mistake, and continued to run the campaign according to what he felt was the best rule.

I personally didn't have a huge problem with the DMG1 SC rules either, though when the errata were issued I did switch to the new official version, and it works fine too. Yes, the 'probability of success' and thus 'danger' of SCs is HIGHLY variable. So what? There's nothing in the story game paradigm which cares about that! The fact is, the dice are simply a way of generating an outcome. That is, they are simply a source of entropy which makes 'what happens' not some 100% certainty and not 100% dictated. 4e, like DW and other similar games, doesn't really have "level of difficulty" in much of a real sense. There's UNCERTAINTY, most things you attempt have about a 50/50 chance of success, ideally. Once you factor in that the PCs get to pick how to respond to things, and thus select favorable tactics, it appears you have basically something like maybe 90% goal attainment on SCs. While technically the higher complexity ones (in the revised system) are 'harder' I think that is deceptive in that more plot complexity should lead to more possible approaches, and thus better optimization and thus things should/may (IME do) balance out.

Still, the original argument that the 4e SC as presented was mathematically sound and correct is pretty good if you think about it. I mean, overall PCs should pass a fixed ratio of all checks, and the original SCs used a fixed ratio to gauge success! It wasn't a bad design at all, someone considered it carefully!