D&D 5th Edition With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base - Page 14





  1. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    The disparity just gets bigger and bigger in 4e. Which was half my point. The fact the disparity starts smaller in 3e and gets larger (much, much larger) is really academic, as once the disparity gets larger than 10-15 there's no point in the untrained rolling. Both systems have the exact same flaw: non-specialists sit out and play assistant to the specialists.
    Except they don't in 4e - they just don't do the absurd stuff. Once again, see my point about Skill Challenges.

    So... your argument is 4e is different because you can drop a feat to remove/lower the disparity and you couldn't in 3e and that the disparity doesn't increase in level?
    ....
    Except I just said it totally does.
    You can't do anything like as much to lower the disparity in 3e as 4e - and you need fewer resources to get to outstanding as you do to get to good. But with the skill challenge mechanics, an Ultra Specialist will get you ... 1 success. W00t! On the other hand, as most rolls in an SC are at medium the merely trained or high stat has about a 75% chance of succeeding - sufficient to be worth rolling except against the very hardest challenges. You can afford a failure. On the other hand if you're running solo against fixed numbers it's always worth pumping skills and 3.X skills like Diplomacy or UMD didn't have an effective soft-cap.

    No I'm not. Because the disparity doesn't really go away. Both editions are equally bad at the disparity.
    But you aren't normally rolling against the same thing in both. A number-of-successes mechanic actively rewards spread competence and can cope with failures, while a straight success rewards hyperspecialisation to prevent any failures.

    Which are neutral since the specialist can also take them making their bonus even more obscene.
    And before their bonus got totally obscene one roll had a 95% chance of contributing one success most of the time. After their bonus got obscene one roll had a 95% chance of contribuiting one success most of the time. If you are dealing with DC15 locks, the difference between a +13 and a +78 is academic - both fail on a natural 1 and succeed on any other number.

    There are precisely four skills worth pumping all the way.
    1: Arcana. A number of rituals have a differential effect based on an arcana check.
    2: Intimidate. The intimidate-in-combat rules are broken.
    3: Stealth. Screw up one stealth roll at the wrong time and you might just need a new PC
    4: Perception. See stealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    But I was explicitly hesitant to do so because I did not want to imply 4e was Batman & Robin, as that would be needlessly insulting.
    And then you went there. Classy.
    Please. You went there as soon as you said you were hesitant to do it. You were putting down in writing that there was a link. If you'd truly hesitated you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    7) Greater DM Control & Education Here's the first point where we really disagree.
    I don't think bad DMs are so common that the entire edition needs to be designed to protect players from them. I think they're a minority, and it's more efficient to assume some DM skill and work to improve DM skills. Raise the bad DMs up rather than just mitigate their awfulness.
    Greater than what? Can we just reprint the 4e DMG1 and DMG2 because they do exactly that. And skill challenges have literally improved my DM skills and allowed me to shortcut about a year's worth of DMing experience into three sessions.

    And as a DM I don't like to fiat out of nothing. Give me some guidance like the skill challenge table.

    Also can we add some of the wackier tables from the 1e DMG and some of Gygax's writing?

 

  • #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    What skill checks did for me was allowed me to frame and pace complex off the wall PC plans with the assurance and system mastery of a DM with years of experience despite it being my third session DMing. If you are a DM with years of experience you probably don't need them (although may find them useful the way @pmerton does).
    Yes, this is the key bit that is different. I'd argue, hypothetically, that in skilled hands, the outside observable differences, between running with straight skill checks versus a skill challenge, will approach zero. It will never get there entirely, but it will approach it.

    That is, there's really no inherent reason why, given d20 skill checks, you couldn't invent the skill challenge framework yourself. Because it is merely a framework on top of those skill checks. Practically speaking, most people wouldn't, but it could happen.

    OTOH, I'd also argue that everyone that uses straight skill checks skillfully does so in the context of some framework, whether developed ad hoc or more consciously. It's merely one that happens to work better for that person for the very good reason that everything in it was learned by experience.

    If I'm correct, then the advantage of the skill challenge framework is, as said above, that it helps some people get to their synthesized approach sooner. (I don't think it's any accident that many of us that found it such an advantage had the benefit of being familiar with some of the various narrative approaches.) The disadvantage of the skill challenge framework is the opposite side of that same coin, in that the same with any framework, if you get too attached to the framework itself, it may prevent you from adapting the underlying system to your style.

    Of course, one framework, or even a framework, aren't the only way to help here. The Take 10 rule in d20 is another example of exactly the same thing, a kind of formal guideline to "don't sweat the small stuff." Plenty of people figured that out all on their own, but if left to their own devices wouldn't have necessarily picked that exact implementation of the rule.

    Thus, it would be good to have multiple such rules, and maybe even multiple frameworks, with deliberate advice on how to to choose the ones that will help you and why. One of the reasons that the skill challenge examples and advice is so lousy in the initial implementation is that they are trying to make the skill challenges serve two incompatible agendas--the largely unspoken narrative one that SCs actually help but also as a kind of gamist "chase XP" one that are more implied by the advice, but falls apart mechanically when you look at it seriously.

    If you write advice and examples that are actually congruent with the framework or mechanics under inspection, then I think you'll find that such tools are good for some things, not so hot for others, which will in turn imply the need for other tools. So the push to standardize everything, so helpful in many areas and needed for making the game accessible, is harmful when you try to standardize across real playstyle differences (e.g. not mere genre).
    Last edited by Crazy Jerome; Thursday, 26th July, 2012 at 11:30 PM.

  • #133
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Jester Canuck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,983
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    2
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Jester Canuck
    I have a couple rules I've developed over the years for future content thought experiments and brainstorms.

    1) Every game element is someone's favorite. Someone out there loves (LOVES!) their shardmind runepriest.

    2) Any game element that has been in the game for four or more editions should be in future editions in some way, shape, or form. Any element that has been in 3 or more editions should be seriously considered for inclusion, even if barely recognizable. Any game element that has been in two or more editions should be carefully looked at but becomes less necessary.

    3) It's always easier to ignore rules and advice than have to make it up yourself.

    And there's the Jester Fallacy: Any source of inspiration, be it a video game or an older edition, is a valid source of inspiration, and can be just as functional if executed properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    For example, I liked 4E's marketing strategy built on explaining how 4E had improved upon 3E. I'd be perfectly happy if 5E used the same strategy, and I'm kinda disappointed that they have not... I guess it is a difference between "wanting to preserve the past" and "wanting to see dramatic change," or something like that.
    It was all a matter of tone. It typically insulted 3e and claimed 4e would fix the problem. And, more often than not it was some problem that had been beaten to the ground. "Grappling in 3e sucks, but we fixed it."
    Tell me it doesn't sting when someone at WotC talk negatively about 4e, discussing combat length, AEDU classes, or the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    I guess this gets into the argument I had in another thread that seemed to be ultimate based around what the term "house rules" means. I don't consider alternate rules to fit under the category of house rules... But, yeah, there should be many variants in there.
    I should have called it "variant rules", but there should be advice on making your own rules and hacking the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    The real trick is reconciling the desire for variation with the need for balance, and that can be pretty hard. Sometimes I wonder if D&D should just embrace the "tier" system that fans created for 3E, and allow come classes to be vastly stronger or weaker than others as long as the weak and strong ones were clearly distinguished from the balanced ones.
    I don't disagree. The interesting thing about rules modules is they don't necessarily have to be balanced. The core rules have to be but the modules could more broken. There could be low-magic spell variant that weakens wizards or a more old school quadratic wizard rule set.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    This is going to be a bit of a stickling point for me, as you might be aware if you've seen my arguments asking for Fighters who can chop mountains in half. If you ask me, this kind of request contradicts the "keep the game open for a variety of playstyles and genres" thing from above that I mostly agree with you about. I don't really want strict realism all of the time, especially in high-level, high-fantasy play. I think trying to enforce this intrudes on more important elements needed for a good compromise.
    This is a tier thing.
    I didn't emphasise it enough but this can (and should) change with tier. Start with narrative reality and drift into more and more fantastic. Then at epic you can start cutting mountains in half.
    Starting at different levels (and tiers) is a good way get different play styles without modules.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    Also, situational power differences are not actually an issue of balance... Balance is not "always equal all the time". Balance is "equal in the aggregate over a reasonable amount of time". It's fine if a fight has a M.V.PC, but it's a problem if it is the same person each time, or even half of the time. I also think that we can hope for a bit better level of balance than "average", since the average level of balance in games tends to be pretty poor...
    The catch being the M.V.PC can be determined more by the player than the rules. A skilled player can "win" at any game. Even playing a mid-level wizard in 3.5e I was not the most powerful character because I'm a terrible, terrible optimizer.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    This really isn't so much about protecting people from bad DMs as permitting other styles of playing and DMing. When I DM, I don't want a lot of DM control and need for DM fiat. It gets in the way of my fun and creativity. The job of DMing is really hard and bothersome (which is why many call it a job). The less strain the game places on that one player, the better the game can be for everyone. It also helps add predictability to the table, which helps players feel more comfortable with their actions and let's them feel more in control of their fate and free to experiment. Having clarity in the rules makes every part of the game run smoother.
    It's always easier to surrender control than take it back.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    This is going to be an issue of contention. You see, I'm the sort who would love to see a Monster Manual entirely dedicated to 300 statblocks for human opponents. Everything from guards, brigands, and hedgewizards to knight-commanders, pirate kings, and the dark sorcerers who command the armies of Evil Overlords. I like seeing a huge variety of easy-to-use humanoid statblocks that don't require templates or class levels, because they make the kinds of games I like running much, much easier.
    That would be handy, but a kobold guard, goblin guard, human guard, and elf guard are probably pretty darn similar. I think it would be easier to add "guard" to any of the monsters and, for the PC races, have a guard monster that you can add the standard elf/ dwarf/ human traits to.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    You know, I can understand the psychological disconnect caused by "the trap attacks you and rolls a 15", but I don't think it is worth changing the game over. The 4E defense system makes the game run much smoother for a lot of reasons, and trying to reconcile the differences caused by your trap example might require a significant overhaul of the way the dice mechanics in D&D work.
    Avoidence mechanism have other uses. Look at forced movement into hazards. You avoid it by making a saving throw, which is the 4e duration tracking mechanism. A bit of kludge design there.

    The 4e defense mechanic is also slower. Subtlety so. Mostly for AoEs. The player has to make multiple rolls and communicate the result across the table, doing math for each. Then the DM says if it succeeded or not. For saving throws the player just states the DC and the DM rolls, communicating success or failure. There's less of a break where a series of numbers are spat across the table before the turn ends.
    Small. But it adds up.

    [QUOTE=TwinBahamut;5977853That said, I'm totally be okay with a "the PCs roll all the dice" system. I liked that 3E variant. Players roll for their own attacks and defenses, while enemies always have static attacks and defenses. This kind of system works best to solve some of the complaints I've seen come up here and elsewhere, since the PCs are always being active, and NPCs are kept simple.[/QUOTE]
    It's something that would work well in 4e. The kind of rules variant that would have been cool had 4e really had alternate rules.
    My gaming Webcomic 5 Minute Workday at www.5mwd.com

  • #134
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Jester Canuck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,983
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Blog Entries
    2
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore Jester Canuck
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    You can't do anything like as much to lower the disparity in 3e as 4e - and you need fewer resources to get to outstanding as you do to get to good. But with the skill challenge mechanics, an Ultra Specialist will get you ... 1 success. W00t! On the other hand, as most rolls in an SC are at medium the merely trained or high stat has about a 75% chance of succeeding - sufficient to be worth rolling except against the very hardest challenges. You can afford a failure. On the other hand if you're running solo against fixed numbers it's always worth pumping skills and 3.X skills like Diplomacy or UMD didn't have an effective soft-cap.
    Again, not arguing 3e had a perfect skill system. Or a better skill system. Or even a less bad skill system.
    I am arguing 4e has a broken skill system independent of everything but itself.

    As you say above, for a Skill Challenge, just training or a high ability modifier nets a 75% success rate. Which means that both is 100%. There is no chance of failure. At first level. That is the definition of broken. And, at higher levels when you put ability score boosts into primary and secondary stats, the disparity does increase. And, unlike attack rolls, there are many, many ways of boosting your skills.

    Again, it's not bad or unfixable or not worth doing. I hope Skill Challenges make it into 5e.

    But let's imagine 4e skills differently for a moment.
    Remove the static numerical bonuses from races and backgrounds and just make that "this skill is always a class skill". So all elves can train Nature. And remove all the feats and items that only add a static bonus to skills from the game. And instead of a +5 bonus for training, imagine if it was a reroll (like 5e's advantage), so training didn't increase your potential but maximized your natural talent.
    Suddenly that DC table looks a little flatter. There are no autosuccesses because a 1 still fails. How do Skill Challenges look now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    Please. You went there as soon as you said you were hesitant to do it. You were putting down in writing that there was a link. If you'd truly hesitated you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    I wanted an example. It was the best that came to mind at the time and worked perfectly aside from the potential association. But I was very clear to emphasise that 4e did not equal Batman & Robin.
    Bond might have been better, with 4e being Brosnan. (I always say the movies were soft but he was my favorite Bond.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    Greater than what? Can we just reprint the 4e DMG1 and DMG2 because they do exactly that. And skill challenges have literally improved my DM skills and allowed me to shortcut about a year's worth of DMing experience into three sessions.
    They are great books. But 4e was never great at teaching rules mastery or letting DMs understand the hows and whys behind a rule. Great for managing players and running games but less so for educating how to make a call or arbitrate. My complaint with them is entirely not what they contain but what they left out (and given how tiny they were compared to the other core rulebooks this was an easily correctable oversight).
    But those are still great books. I recommend the DMG2 to new Pathfinder GMs all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    And as a DM I don't like to fiat out of nothing. Give me some guidance like the skill challenge table.
    Exactly. Give the guidelines, set the bar, and provide examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    Also can we add some of the wackier tables from the 1e DMG and some of Gygax's writing?
    Heh. Seconded.
    Every time there's a gap in a column or on a page... filler Gygax table!
    My gaming Webcomic 5 Minute Workday at www.5mwd.com

  • #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm still not seeing what about SC rules support or enable this anymore that another system with a DM who chooses to layer fiction in a less "causal" style? I see no difference in your example above than with an example of a 3.x fighter failing a climb check... failing on the roll to climb doesn't have to mean he lost his grip... it could mean rocks crumbled under his grasp, or a flock of bats suddenly burst forth from an unseen cave startling him and making him fall. I guess my big disconnect is that this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual mechanics of the game and more to do with the type of playstyle (as far as genre and fiction are concerned) thet the DM and group agree to.
    http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-hor...ml#post5971232

    See that post by me for my best go at an explanation. I don't want to keep reframing the same argument over and over in disparate locations. Its tedious and moreover, its disrespectful to the author of this thread as it feels like I'm coat-racking a pet topic as such a focused discussion is only orthogonally (at best) related to the innerdude's surmise. If you want to focus on skill challenges (their nature, their execution and how they can be improved), I'll gladly communicate in that thread (or PM me). If that explanation is not good enough for you, I can post a long, meticulous transcription of a skill challenge that I executed a few years back that I think might be illuminating. I can then provide analysis of it as a mechanical resolution framework and what it offered to the delivery of the fiction. That would be a long post and I would rather not do it if you either don't really care or would just gloss over it (or better yet, the post above is sufficiently illuminating).

  • #136
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,713
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    I have a couple rules I've developed over the years for future content thought experiments and brainstorms.

    1) Every game element is someone's favorite. Someone out there loves (LOVES!) their shardmind runepriest.
    Fair enough.

    2) Any game element that has been in the game for four or more editions should be in future editions in some way, shape, or form. Any element that has been in 3 or more editions should be seriously considered for inclusion, even if barely recognizable. Any game element that has been in two or more editions should be carefully looked at but becomes less necessary.
    So, in context: nothing in 4e deserves consideration, only past eds matter.

    3) It's always easier to ignore rules and advice than have to make it up yourself.
    Advice, sure. Rules, not /always/. Ignoring one rule can have throw another rule out of whack. Ignoring AoOs (or OAs), for instance, changes how characters move around the battlefield, makes rogues a little deadiler, and simultaneously empowers and emperils casters.

    It was all a matter of tone. It typically insulted 3e and claimed 4e would fix the problem. And, more often than not it was some problem that had been beaten to the ground. "Grappling in 3e sucks, but we fixed it."
    Well, it did happen to be true. Grappling was needlessly complicated in 3e and could be wildly imbalancing, as well (expecially when DM missed the semi-obscure rules in the monster manual that made escaping from larger monsters' grabs more doable). 4e's was simpler and better-balanced. And, if anyone thinks 3e grappling sucked, they should try 1e's Pummeling, Grappling & Overbearing rules. Wow.

    Tell me it doesn't sting when someone at WotC talk negatively about 4e, discussing combat length, AEDU classes, or the like.
    It was only really annoying when they actively get it wrong in order to talk down at it (like 3.5 edition warriors did so often). Mike Mearls hasn't really been doing that, though, since he's back to L&L. The closest thing to a 'dis' 4e is getting is that it's being ignored. The articulation of 5e is often couched in terms of addressing some problem from 3e or classic D&D as if it were a current problem, then offering a less ambitious solution than 4e already delivered. So, not insulting 4e, just acting like it doesn't exist. It does make you wonder.


    I didn't emphasise it enough but this can (and should) change with tier. Start with narrative reality and drift into more and more fantastic. Then at epic you can start cutting mountains in half.
    Starting at different levels (and tiers) is a good way get different play styles without modules.
    Solid ideas that I've seen expressed before but which rarely get much comment. If 'tiers' were more about just how fantastic the fantasy was (how powerful and prevelent magic is, how wildly superhuman heroes are), then about levels, the game could cover a much wider range of sub-genre and play styles.
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Friday, 27th July, 2012 at 03:59 AM.

  • #137
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,166
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Johnny3D3D
    Quote Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
    Other than "bounded accuracy" - which reduces but by no means eliminates differentials - is there is anything you've seen in D&Dnext that makes you think it would play differently?
    I am not sure yet. I don't feel as though the playtest adventure was one which really allowed me to see how the game would work.

    For what it is worth, I highly enjoyed some of the original ideas put forth in which ability scores played a heavier role in skills and doing things. I get the impression (and some of the designers have said things which make me believe) that some of those original ideas I liked will not be making it into the final version of the game though.

    To be completely fair, I have to also admit that I have not looking at D&D Durango in quite a while. I've settled into a sort of apathy. I still follow the conversations, I look at things from time to time, and I participate when I feel as though I have something to say, but my knowledge of the playtest material and what is going on with the game is starting to fade. As such, I accept the possibility that my input regarding 5th Edition is possibly not as valuable or as informed as the input provided by someone else.

  • #138
    Registered User
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,511
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore pemerton
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Canuck View Post
    The disparity just gets bigger and bigger in 4e.

    <snip>

    non-specialists sit out and play assistant to the specialists.
    I've tackled this a few times already in this thread, but will sally forth again . . .

    When you say "non-specialists sit out and play assistant to the specialists", are you intending that as (i) a statement of what actually (typically, usually) happens, or (ii) a statement of what you think would happen if rational players used the mechanics, or (iii) a prediction based on your own reading of the mechanics, or (iv) something else?

    Because it doesn't fit my experience, and my players are fairly rational. It's all about the stakes. Set up a situation in which the player of the dwarf fighter is more concerned about his/her PC not looking a tool to the NPCs than about whether or not, in the end, the party get's its way - and, as a GM, adjudicated that situation in a way which plays along with the player - and even a CHA-dump stat PC will start talking.

    Or, run a 4/3 challenge in which the dwarf can both talk and do other stuff at which s/he might be better - say, physical stuff - and you might find that the player will try talking as well as physical stuff, because s/he has the capacity for a few failures in his/her back pocket.

    None of what I'm saying is an argument against bounded accuracy - the scaling issues in 4e are well-known and make the maths for everything, including skill checks, harder than it needs to be.

    But even with bounded accuracy the problem will still be there, because you'll still have dwarf fighters with CHA dump stats. If you want them to talk nevertheless, then (assuming anything like the current approach to stats and skills) you're going to have to frame situations and stakes in the sort of way I'm describing.

    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    Consequences that aren't related to in-game, causal precursors (like failing a diplomacy check causing it to rain as the justification for why the attempt at diplomacy failed) are unnecessarily disruptive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I don't think billd91 is speaking to what caused the Dwarf to fail the diplomacy check... instead he's speaking to the consequences that arose when the check is failed. He is saying the consequences of that failed check should in some way be connected to the action that failed.
    The sorts of consequences that I and others are talking about are connected to the action that failed. It's just that they're not causally connected to the task attempted. They're narratively or thematically connected to what it was that the player was hoping the PC would achieve by the check (@Manbearcat uses the phrase "fiction first" to convey this).

    So a failed Ride check is narrated as a lame horse, or to encountering a yawning canyon - narratively/thematically connected to attempting to escape on horseback.

    A failed Diplomacy check is narrated as rain which leads the NPC to retreat back under cover before the PC can convey his/her full message - narratively/thematically connected to attempting a successful, genteel negotiation with a dignatory.

    What counts as the limit of narrative/thematic connection (which, if violated, makes the game seem absurdist) is obviously highly sensitive to shared genre expectations, shared plot expectations, and past experiences at the game table. Everyone seems to agree that "Rocks fall. Everybody dies," is a bit too much. But there's a lot of space to be explored between purely ingame causal processes and "Rocks fall. Everybody dies."


    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm still not seeing what about SC rules support or enable this anymore that another system with a DM who chooses to layer fiction in a less "causal" style?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagol View Post
    One advantage the SC offers is it controls pacing. Every situation will be resolved in (3/ # players rolling) to ((6+3)/ # players rolling) "rounds" of activity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    I'm starting to see why 4e sometimes necessitates non-causal relationships between actions and results... because the amount of times one can fail before failing the SC is 3, will always be 3 and that is an artificial limit as opposed to an organic one.
    The second two quotes here are correct, and answer the first. What skill challenges supply is a pacing requirement, which then feeds back in to shape, constrain and guide the narrative requirements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    that is an artificial limit as opposed to an organic one
    My feeling is that it's artificial in the same way hit points are - unlike in RQ, for example, you can't kill an NPC or monster in D&D, no matter how good your swing and how many your advantages (of position, timing, skill etc) until you cut through their hit points.

    Duels of Wits in Burning Wheel are the same - no matter how devastating your argument, if you don't deplete the opponent's Body of Argument then the duel is not over.

    (Of course, a standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, your swing simply wasn't that good. Another standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, then no matter how good your swing, their parry/dodge/etc is just as impressive. Similar narrative devices have to be used with these out-of-combat techniques too.)

    Now is this a good thing or not? That's for each group to judge. My own experience is that the pacing discipline provided by skill challenges, in conjunction with the emphasis on "genre logic" and narrative/thematic causation rather than ingame process causation, has produced far more interesting scenarios, with players exercising more imagination, situations heading off in more unexpected directions, and the game being more interesting. There have been negotiations with slave traders, dinner parties, interrogations, flying carpet escapes, and (yes, @Mustrum_Ridcully) reforgings of arteracts which I am very confident would not have happened within a process simulation framework (and I say this based on experience of GMing Rolemaster, a skill-rich process simulation game, for nearly 20 years prior to GMing 4e).

    I'm happy to provide links to the actual play reports for some of these for those who want them, and haven't already looked at and followed the links on the "Why I like skill challenges" thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Jerome View Post
    there's really no inherent reason why, given d20 skill checks, you couldn't invent the skill challenge framework yourself. Because it is merely a framework on top of those skill checks. Practically speaking, most people wouldn't, but it could happen.
    Yes. There's no inherent reason why I couldn't work out, for myself, all the stuff about GMing that I've learned from reading Luke Crane, Paul Czege, Ron Edwards, Robin Laws, @LostSoul and others on message boards, in rule books, in essays, etc.

    But somehow I doubt that I was ever going to work all that stuff out myself! In that respect, I'm one of the "most people" that you refer to!

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaro View Post
    This argument would be so much more convincing if it was in fact supported by the examples, advice or almost anything else in the actual DMG... but it's not. Even posters such as pemerton, who seem to argue for a similar interpretation of SC's as yours above, readily admit the DMG does not really support their claims
    I don't admit that at all. In fact I deny it.

    Read the example of a Skill Challenge in the Essentials Rules Compendium and DM's book (it's the same example). It depends upon adjudication via narrative/thematic logic, not ingame causal logic. In particular, on the 3rd failed check the way the GM brings the challenge to a close, which is also a failure, is to have some thugs whom, at an earlier stage, were successfully brushed off by the PCs, turn up again and make trouble. But there is nothing about that third failed check which, in ingame causal terms, causes the thugs to turn up (eg it is not a failed attempt to sneak past them). The GM is applying metagame causation of the sort that I, Mancatbear and others are talking about.

    My complaint has always been that skill challenges (including the examples of play) presuppose these techniques, but nowhere does the rulebook explain them. The reader is left to derive them from the examples of play presented. But, given those published examples of play, plus the more abstract instructional text, plus the overwhelmingly obvious resemblance of skill challenges to systems from other games like HeroWars/Quest, I am in no doubt as to how skill challenges are intended to work, and that they were not conceived of, by the designers, as simply complex skill checks.

  • #139
    That is another great post Pemerton and I would xp you if I could. You have the patience of a saint. I can only repeat myself and reframe long, circumnavigated analysis so many times before my eyes glaze over when I behold the same statements as if all of my words vanished into thin air.

    I'm only posting to amend my admission to Imaro's statement regarding the design intentions/expectations of in-game execution of the 4e skill challenge...specifically the statement that you rebutted in that last paragraph. I was posting after a 10 + hour drive and I've read the statement that "the early rules texts don't properly explain the infrastructure of the Skill Challenge and don't provide good examples" so many times that I assumed that was what Imaro was saying at a brief glance (my presuppositions infilled the rest). So I was agreeing, 100 %, with my misconception of his contention (my apologies for skimming and assuming Imaro). The actual contention - no I do not agree with it at all. I am in lockstep with Pemerton's position outlined above in the final 3 paragraphs.

  • #140
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,166
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore Johnny3D3D
    Generally, I like a lot of what I hear in Pem's posts. Unfortunately, my experiences with 4E have gone the exact opposite way. I found the group I normally game with and our sessions becoming (imo) less creative. Playing a game built more on the idea of narrative logic and game logic rather than in-game world logic seemed to have the effect of the group viewing the game more as game and less as rpg. I am in no way disputing what Pem says; I am only putting forth that 4E had the exact opposite impact on my gaming.

    For me personally, I moved from playing D&D 4E to learning GURPS. The negotiations with traders and things of that nature which have been mentioned were things which happened when I branched into different games. I would never suggest those things never happened in 4E. I ran a few games which I feel were very successful, but -every step of the way- I felt as though I (as the DM) was fighting against some sort of preconceived notion which the players held about how a 4E game should go.

    I mention my transition to a different game because it is my understanding that RQ is more similar to a game like GURPS (or at least far more similar to it than D&D in so far as the games are built upon different ideals about gaming.) In Pem's experience, there were things that would not have happened in RQ that did happen in D&D 4E. I moved from D&D 4E to a different game (GURPS in my case) because I found that the things I wanted to happen and the style of game I wanted was easier for me to achieve with the game I moved to. It's interesting to me that the same game can have what I feel is the opposite effect on two different people and their gaming habits.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 14 of 150 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516171819202122232464114 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.
      By WarlockLord in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 575
      Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 09:26 AM
    2. What happens if 5E fails to unite the base?
      By Bedrockgames in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 67
      Last Post: Tuesday, 31st January, 2012, 01:52 AM
    3. The Real Reason(s) Behind the PDF Debacle
      By Roman in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 50
      Last Post: Sunday, 12th April, 2009, 08:56 PM
    4. What's the real reason we RP?
      By Velira Evangeline in forum ISRP General Chit Chat
      Replies: 37
      Last Post: Sunday, 9th September, 2007, 02:37 PM
    5. 3.5 is the REAL reason everyone is angry
      By Gargauth in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 201
      Last Post: Saturday, 25th August, 2007, 04:13 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •