Archmage said:
People are hanging on this one thing like this is what has to happen. Any changes made to the environment are still the DM's decision. Sure, you didn't originally map an alley there, but maybe there is one? Or a crack in a wall the PC can duck into. Or they spot something they can use to climb up to a 2nd floor window. Or whatever makes sense in the context of the encounter. People are clinging to this "PC creates a secret door argument" far too tightly - that's just a decision one DM made in one specific scenario.
Our biggest disagreement is simply DMing style (which is nothing to argue over, so please don't think I am starting an arguement over it!). The point of my post was that, while Derren and I seem to have similar DMing styles, I very much disagree with him that 4e deters from that style.
This particular arguement (the secret door) is not one that I think even happened in the Sembia scene...it is just one that has been quoted a few times as an example. My point was simply this: if the alley way a character ducks into is a dead end, then that is what it is. They might be able to climb out, but unless I have it noted that there is a crack, a small passage, or a sewer drain there, then the alley is a dead end with no means of escape. I know before the adventure starts if a streetwise or spot check finds some way out of the area.
If this is one of the ways in which 4e is supposedly making the DM's job easier, it might not be working that way for me (but there is so much I like about 4e, that alone wouldn't stop me from trying it).
You design where each apple cart in your towns is? Really? The apple cart example seems like a perfect usage for this system, because it's a random element that's easily added.
Generally, no.
If I know I am planning an Escape from Sembia scene, then yes, yes I do. Infact, I know every stopped apple cart and every horse-pulled apple cart, the route it is taking, and how fast it is moving so I know where it is every round.
I would even have a good idea of which merchants in the market square were selling what type of things, so that if the fighter knocked over the third stall on the left, I know if it is jewelery spewed all over the ground acting as caltrops or cooked meat all over the place, possibly enticing some of the 1d6+1 stray dogs in the area to come over and eat in 1d4 rounds.
But it's OK if the DM rolls a die to make him corrupt? That makes absolutely no sense. If you're allowing a random chance for random guard #347 to be corrupt, why does it make a difference if the die roll is the DM assigning an arbitrary percentage or a PC making a skill check against a DC set by the DM? Again, this seems like a great usage of the system.
I know if the captain of the guards is loyal and honest.
Depending on the situation, I either have each guard made up and know which is which and what they are doing and their motives (that is unlikely). Or I have general knowledge of the make-up of the policing force (20% corrupt, most wear scale armor and use maces).
Agreed that this might be one place in which this system might work out over my own style. However, something just feels wrong about a successful Diplomicy check determining if the guard is corrupt over a random check to determine if it was one of the corrupt guards that got to the PCs (and thus lowering the DC of the diplomacy check because of it).
And if they stand around in the town square they get caught.
One review of the scene I read showed the characters doing acrobatics and performances to gather the crowd and the cleric giving a sermon about their god on the street and the like. While gathering a crowd and over-turning carts can slow down the guards, neither actually move someone out of the city. Players can wrack up a load of successes which can all prevent them from being caught without even trying to get away. This is why I say X successed does not get you out; only getting out gets you out. Successful skill checks just give you information or show that you completed an action that helps prevent your capture.
Obviously they have to be actively trying to get away - this skill system is just a way to help adjudicate if they succeed or not. I am currently running a Ptolus campaign - there is no way I could reasonably expect the player of the rogue to know the streets a fraction as well as her character would. In a chase with guards then, why would it be fair to ask her to choose which way her character runs? If she succeeds on checks, she eventually winds up near a handy sewer grate or even escapes cleanly. If she fails, the guards are on her heels and possibly catch her.
Were the escape in a city the PCs had only just arrived in, I would present them with a mostly covered map, detailing the area they are in and slowly revealing it as they went to new places.
In a city the PCs know well, they would get a map showing everything they know about the city off the top of their heads. They could ask questions about the map (might prompt skill checks to see if they know the answers), but the map would be the defined bounds of the encounter.
And your players can't be reasonably expected to know your world as well as you do, regardless if their character would or not. We are not discussing a skill called "create secret door" here. The DM decides what skill the character is checking against, and the DM decides what the result of the check means. I don't see players creating anything.
True, they don't know the world like I do. The point is, when the encounter starts, 95% of the world is already created for that encounter, with that 5% being the few things I did not think of and need to ad lib, and I am more than happy to do it.
So it turns up something else. Again, what the check means is the DM's decision.
I quite agree with you. All of this is DM's decision. The major difference here is, 4e invites the DM to not plan all that a head of time and let the PC's checks determin this during the game. In 20 years, I have never played so freeform. I, as you can gather, plan everything out every tactically.
That's what the DM decided in that particular instance - you would have likely decided something different.
Was more a point of what the 4e guidelines might suggest. The design philosophy looks like it encourages DMs to think along the lines of success does not mean you were successful in achieving the skill, but that you were successful in getting the outcome you wanted. The difference here being Heraldry revealing the the player what I the DM pretermined (corruption or no corruption as the case may be) vs. Heraldry revealing to the player what they were hoping to find (corruption). It isn't always this way, of course, but it is seems like that is, in general, the basic philosophy of the way skills work.
I think breaking it down into multiple rolls encourages more roleplaying of the encounter. They get the negotiations to a certain point and make a check, which if they succeed at guides the tone of the next set of negotiations, etc. "The councilman seems to be considering your points with a newfound respect" or "As you speak the disdain is clear on the councilman's face."
Agreed. This change in thought on how to handle such a situation in 4e is much better, in my mind, than a single modified diplomacy check.
Any particular reason to boil it down to one check? There are some goals that it makes sense for, but it seems to me something like a negotiation lends itself to "X successes before Y failures" multiple check solution.
I think you mistook. Players are given time to make their arguement and can make as many checks as they can in that time. Successes count for them (+1), failures against them (-1). If they get to five (5 successes in a row, no failures; 6 and 1, whatever), they can't argue anything more favoribly than that, so they made their point and even if they have more time, need not continue. Conversely, at -5 they will have completely flubbed their point so badly, no matter what they say, the council won't listen.
The antagonist of this scene then gets his chance to argue against the PCs and makes his checks, trying to score higher on the -5 to 5 scale then the PCs in order to win the arguement.
This would be like one party getting a chance to speak and then the second party doing so.
In other situations, I could see the PCs argueing against the antagonist point for counter point, at which time the PCs would make their rolls while the opponent made his, back and forth, trying to swing success in their favor as they went along. Each has their place.
I can definitely see opposed checks as part of the sequence that the PCs have to succeed at.
Quite so.
While I still fail to see where these rules oppose said philosophy, I agree with your conclusion here.
The guildelines of the skills as supposed from what we know seems to encourage a "figure it out while you play: here's how to be spontaneous in your D&D game and cut down on prep time!" way of playing. It has a sense of "don't worry about that guy's background, let the PC's rolls figure it out for you and play off those."
I don't do that.
