In the layest L&L column Mike Mearls gives a hint about the exploration rules they are developing: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130204
It is a bit tough to know how what this will look like in its final form, but to me it seems a bit stiff (and the bit about the GM mapping for the players feels like WOTC is once again telling you how to run the game----as a suggestion, I don't mind it, but it looks like they hardcoding playstyle into the mechanics here). This is just a limpse though so I could be leaping to concusions, and it is frankly something that's relatively easy to eliminate from the game. It also just might be how he is describing it. Having a solid procedure for exploration can be great, but if it is something like you have three actions you can choose from on an exploration turn (or something like the 4E class powers for exploration turns) that wouldn't suit my style of play very well. It really does come down to how they do it and what the specifics are I suppose. If it is more a case of just offering up a bunch of examples of what can be accomplished in an exploration turn, then I would be fine with it.
Why do you need rules for exploration?
Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?
Well, it can be handy to have procedures for it, epecially when people are first starting (just basic things though like how to handle movement, encounters, passing of time, etc). But you do have to take a light hand and there needs to that flexibility. This though is reminding me of skill challenges when they first started talking about them (granted I am basing it on a few lines of text).
I will say, the section in the column on adventures looks promising. There it seems they do understand people approach the games in different ways and the narrow view of adventure design taken by 4E drove many of us away.
I do like that hexcrawls as wilderness-dungeons are a feature. I am interested how strict these exploration rules will be. It may mean a lot of different things; from movement rates by terrain type to some kind of formalised, combat-like procedure. For example, the 1e DMG had pretty involved rules for things like encounter distance, becoming lost, movement speed with various levels of encumbrance encounter frequency, wind direction and force (in sailing) and so forth. If all that is taken strictly, outdoor adventures become very complicated. On the other side of the coin, we have completely subjective wilderness travel where everything is down to GM decision.
Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?
It can provide structure to help people grasp confusing concepts, for one. I had no real idea how to run a hexcrawl until I started reading various blogs, for instance. Granted those are more like guidelines than actual rules, but I still wouldn't have figured it out without the assistance.
Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?
Because exploration is a big part of D&D wilderness campaigns.
I wouldn't necessarily use them every game. If a group particularly likes the idea of exploration being a player skill-based thing where it comes down to them to draw the maps and so on, I won't use the exploration rules because the rules are there to cover stuff you don't want to delegate to player skill. At the same time, exploration rules of the sort they're talking about here strike me as the sort of thing which is nice to have if you want to make it more a matter of character skill.
Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;624727Well, it can be handy to have procedures for it, epecially when people are first starting (just basic things though like how to handle movement, encounters, passing of time, etc). But you do have to take a light hand and there needs to that flexibility. This though is reminding me of skill challenges when they first started talking about them (granted I am basing it on a few lines of text).
This is an issue that illustrates why WOTC just doesn't get it. It has to do with the nature and intent of "rules" for a particular aspect of play.
Why do we need rules?
As a guideline of how exploration is handled in the game, having some rules make sense. Even B/X had exploration rules. Times required for movement/searching, the need for rest one game turn in 6 to avoid penalties, the light radius of different light sources, the chances for becoming lost,etc. are all rules for exploration.
The problem arises when "rules for X" becomes a demand for regimented procedures and pointless dice fests instead of guidelines. The WOTC mentality for rules seems to be that if you are not taking turns and making die rolls then no actual play is happening.
This has come from a rules-first culture that marginalizes player input in favor of endless checks and turn sequences. If the ruleset for Next ends up being yet another in a series of rulesets that largely ignores the input of players it will get chucked into the crap bin by most old schoolers.
I've been saying for a long time that D&D needs turn by turn procedures for dungeon exploration ala BD&D and AD&D 1e. It was a mistake to burry them in 2e and 3e and remove them in 4e.
A new DM should be able to run a passible dungeon crawl with a map, some monsters and a checklist to follow.
EDIT: Mass combat rules? neat.
Quote from: One Horse Town;624725Why do you need rules for exploration?
Yeah. I thought the rules for D&D
were rules for exploration (and combat, and spending the rewards from).
Quote from: thedungeondelver;624785Yeah. I thought the rules for D&D were rules for exploration (and combat, and spending the rewards from).
In later versions of the game there are no, or minimal, or hidden, turn by turn procedures for running the game.
This was a mistake.
Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?
Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?
Hope to god not.
Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?
I don't expect so...
RPGPundit
Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?
I dislike skill challenges as presented in 4E dnd. Feels backwards to me; as in, Characters should perform actions (skills) and the results of those actions create events.
Not....Predetermined skill events that a character performs.
Feels backwards to me.
I scrapped skill challenges with 4E on day one, and ran a 2 year campaign just fine.
That being said, who likes skill challenges, and why?
Quote from: Bill;625224I dislike skill challenges as presented in 4E dnd. Feels backwards to me; as in, Characters should perform actions (skills) and the results of those actions create events.
Not....Predetermined skill events that a character performs.
Feels backwards to me.
I scrapped skill challenges with 4E on day one, and ran a 2 year campaign just fine.
That being said, who likes skill challenges, and why?
I love them, when you toss out the existing rules and replace them with your own :) We ran them as "Here is a challenge, many ways to deal with this challenge might involve skills, what do you do?" and then adjudicated depending on what players tried. We did not assume any skills would be used, or any particular skills. We did have a sort of "goal" in mind, and assigned progress towards that goal as characters did things, but not everything had a fixed progress, and it was mostly just adjudicated based on what happened with each action.
Quote from: Orpheo;624793Will this be a repeat of the skill challenge debacle?
Probably.
Quote from: Bill;625224That being said, who likes skill challenges, and why?
They work for me. I use them to have individual characters shine with their creative ideas much more than the dice rolls. Skill challenges allow me to compress time and focus more on the interesting bits.
Skill challenges as presented are total crap. utterly dissociated mechanics.
RPGPundit
They rocked in the 4e playtest, but sucked goat nut in the DMG. The DMG 2 did an okay job fixing them, but too little too late. Skill challenges were far more fluid, more roleplay oriented in the playtests where it was much more about "spotlight time" and creative roleplay than "roll high on 4 athletic checks before moving on the next fight board"
Quote from: RPGPundit;625405Skill challenges as presented are total crap. utterly dissociated mechanics.
RPGPundit
I have to agree completely. They solved a problem I just never had. It was very easy to use skills on a 1-1 basis to resolve anything that came up in play. N need to make it a mini-game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;625436I have to agree completely. They solved a problem I just never had. It was very easy to use skills on a 1-1 basis to resolve anything that came up in play. N need to make it a mini-game.
It wasn't so much about being a mini-game as it was the designer's goal that any character could potentially solve any problem using any skill; because, you know, its obviously no fun if you actually have to have the right skill for the job... there's a risk you might be unable to do something! In 4e that's just not acceptable.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;625741because, you know, its obviously no fun if you actually have to have the right skill for the job... there's a risk you might be unable to do something! In 4e that's just not acceptable.
That's right. It's a cinematic mainstay. The protagonist doesn't have the right skill so they somehow use what they do know to solve the mystery, save the world or get the girl.
Why does this trope exist so much in TV and movies? Because it speeds the story along and creates interesting (often humorous) moments where the hero overcomes challenges from an unusual angle.
4e chose to make this trope part of their system. If you use skill challenges as intended, they can absolutely rock at the table with amazing creativity and originality from players. Or it can just be lame dice rolling. DM's choice.
And its not really new to 4e. Plenty of GMs were allowing PCs to use their skills in odd ways for decades before, but 4e codified this concept into the game.
When it was done before, it was a reward for thinking outside the box and using your knowledge and resources as a character in an improvisational and ingenious manner.
In 4e, it was just hard-coded in as another system for a subsection of gamers who can't imagine not being able to win every encounter and situation, every time, or never having the right skill for the job at hand.
Quote from: Spinachcat;625760That's right. It's a cinematic mainstay. The protagonist doesn't have the right skill so they somehow use what they do know to solve the mystery, save the world or get the girl.
Why does this trope exist so much in TV and movies? Because it speeds the story along and creates interesting (often humorous) moments where the hero overcomes challenges from an unusual angle.
4e chose to make this trope part of their system. If you use skill challenges as intended, they can absolutely rock at the table with amazing creativity and originality from players. Or it can just be lame dice rolling. DM's choice.
And its not really new to 4e. Plenty of GMs were allowing PCs to use their skills in odd ways for decades before, but 4e codified this concept into the game.
These are the kinds of things for players to come up with and just do. 4E turned the whole exercise into a menu selective button mashing fest. Press your choice of X, Y, or Z repeatedly or in any combination enough times till you you win. Blech.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625741It wasn't so much about being a mini-game as it was the designer's goal that any character could potentially solve any problem using any skill; because, you know, its obviously no fun if you actually have to have the right skill for the job... there's a risk you might be unable to do something! In 4e that's just not acceptable.
RPGPundit
No you have that wrong. Its not that in 4e you had to be able to solve every issue its that you can't be allowed to select any skills that is weaker than any other.
The result may be the same but the intention is entirely different.
The 4e objective is not to make all challenges simple but to make the selection of useless skills impossible.
Quote from: RPGPundit;625741It wasn't so much about being a mini-game as it was the designer's goal that any character could potentially solve any problem using any skill; because, you know, its obviously no fun if you actually have to have the right skill for the job... there's a risk you might be unable to do something! In 4e that's just not acceptable.
RPGPundit
I did not catch that element. Good point!
Skill challenges make it difficult to fail.
Quote from: jibbajibba;625803No you have that wrong. Its not that in 4e you had to be able to solve every issue its that you can't be allowed to select any skills that is weaker than any other.
The result may be the same but the intention is entirely different.
The 4e objective is not to make all challenges simple but to make the selection of useless skills impossible.
A skill that is useless in EVERY situation should not be classified as a skill.
If a given skill can be useful in ANY situation then there is no need to have more than one skill in the list.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;625806A skill that is useless in EVERY situation should not be classified as a skill.
If a given skill can be useful in ANY situation then there is no need to have more than one skill in the list.
sounds like another basketweaver debate :)
I am not supporting 4e merely trying to explain what I see as the rationale behind their skills system.
I want to create an rpg that has a basket weaver skill.
Quote from: Bill;625814I want to create an rpg that has a basket weaver skill.
M74 Extended can do this. Just give the character a background of "basket weaver". Or a broader background that would include basket weaving. If nothing else you'd probably want to take either "urban basketweaver" or "rural basketweaver" Urban would likely give you knowledge of dealing with guilds and city regs where rural would likely give you knowledge of things like finding and harvesting your own reeds. Etc.
Quote from: Bill;625224That being said, who likes skill challenges, and why?
I use skill challenges. I just do not tell the players they are entering a skill challenge. I use the rules as a mechanical guideline to know when to wrap up the plot. It's a pacing mechanism with the player's determining the results. I usually have a list of events that could trigger a success or failure, but if the players come up with something I didn't consider, they get a check in progressing the skill challenge track.
The last time I played, my players were shocked to find out that I used skill challenges for the entirety of an investigation.
The real problem with Skill Challenges is they are mechanic that requires heavy GM adjudication without a frame of reference. In a way, I consider Skill Challenges to be one of the few old school mechanics in 4e. The rules allow the GM to run wars without having actual rules for wars. I was blown away by the presentation of the skill challenges in the War supplement in Dragon magazine.
But overall, it's a shame SCs are not presented with clearer objectives and guidelines. Because I have a clear set of objectives, it's another tool in my GM toolbox, and I use them even in a non-4e campaign.
Quote from: RandallS;625885Urban would likely give you knowledge of dealing with guilds and city regs
Secret societies of creatures that look like humans but are in fact secretive and romantic predators of the night, using their supernatural abiities to create baskets and deposit them in the homes of ordinary people who are little more to them than providers of storage. They are embroiled in a constant game of deception as they struggle for dominance with bigger and better basket designs.
Basket: The Weaving
Quote from: Zachary The First;625779In 4e, it was just hard-coded in as another system for a subsection of gamers who can't imagine not being able to win every encounter and situation, every time, or never having the right skill for the job at hand.
Except PCs fail skill challenges all the time. It's not an auto-win mechanic in the slightest.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;6257804E turned the whole exercise into a menu selective button mashing fest. Press your choice of X, Y, or Z repeatedly or in any combination enough times till you you win. Blech.
This is true for DM's who don't know how to properly use the skill challenge mechanic and mold the concept to what they want to achieve.
But not for the rest of us.
Quote from: Crabbyapples;625908In a way, I consider Skill Challenges to be one of the few old school mechanics in 4e.
This is why I love 4e. To me, 4e feels like an OD&D/Warhammer Quest hybrid. I get the boardgame skirmish combat and the total freeform non-combat rules.
Quote from: Spinachcat;625932This is why I love 4e. To me, 4e feels like an OD&D/Warhammer Quest hybrid. I get the boardgame skirmish combat and the total freeform non-combat rules.
I do not consider 4e a bad game. Very specific, even for a niche game, but not a bad one. Maybe it has something to do with my love for Warhammer Quest as well.
I'm a big WHQ fan as well. I think I played two "campaigns", both collapsing under their own weight (not necessarily a bad thing) around level 8.
Good times, but I never once thought of WHQ as D&D...it was its own game.