Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

Vyvyan Basterd said:

But one point you seem to ignore is that as DM you can continue to say 'no' all you want. So your playstyle is safe and sound.

Click to expand...

I realize I can say no. But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.

Ken

By the way, Defiler, you make good points that I mostly agree with.


I think what set me off about the blog was the specific example (making a history check to find a sewer entrance). That, and the idea that the sewer system _didn't_ exist apriori, and that the player essentially took narrative control and invented it with his successful history check.


I am fine with creative use of skills. If the 4E rules don't in fact depart from 3E in terms of how much narrative control they give to players, I won't have a problem.

Ken

Haffrung Helleyes said:

I think what set me off about the blog was the specific example (making a history check to find a sewer entrance). That, and the idea that the sewer system _didn't_ exist apriori, and that the player essentially took narrative control and invented it with his successful history check.

Click to expand...

You do realize that this is a D&D game, referring to a fictional universe, where nothing exists a priori (or a posteriori, for that matter).

Haffrung Helleyes said:

I realize I can say no. But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.

Ken

Click to expand...

No. Why would you think you would have to say no nore often? Because the rules will encourage the players to come up with creative solutions? Would you rather the players not try to think outside the box? Do your 3E players come up with ideas outside the ones you have planned now? Or have you taken the opposite approach 4E is suggesting and discouraged them from creative thinking?

Haffrung Helleyes said:

There's nothing to stop a party without +15 in disable device from:

1) coming back later after the rogue studies disable device some more

2) hiring an NPC to come disable the device for them.

I think it makes the world more believable and interesting when there are some challenges that have to be met by asking others for help, or waiting for another day. I don't think that every path has to be navigable to its end by anyone , all the time.

Ken

Click to expand...

Can we not debate the hypothetical? I know that YOU know that it is entirely possible for a DM to put the party in a situation where they literally cannot achieve a particular challenge. I specifically avoided giving precise examples because I knew we'd just bog down in a discussion of "But the PCs could fix the problem with X!" "But what if X isn't available for plot reasons?" "But they could use Y!" "But what if Y isn't available for plot reasons?" etc, etc, etc, blah blah blah.

You know that sometimes the party can end up in situations where they cannot progress due to skill point allocation, or spell choice, or whichever. You know that the DM can avoid this with skillful DMing. Lets not pretend otherwise.

All people are saying is that when these things happen, it is lame. 1/2 skill ranks and a system that encourages creative problem solving will reduce the frequency with which that happens.

At the absolute very least, it will reduce the frequency of lame moments where the party realizes that one character didn't allocate any ranks to Ride, and a particular cool scenario can no longer happen.

I realize I can say no. But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.

Click to expand...

Creativity is bad because sometimes it means people come up with poor ideas?

I think you've lost track of your point. You proclaim to like alternative solutions, but the more alternative solutions are possible within the ruleset, the more often you will have to decide whether to allow them to work. IE, the more often you will have to say no.

Haffrung Helleyes said:

If there's a single story that has to happen, then yeah, I can see how you'd have a problem with a PC's lack of a particular skill getting in the way of telling it. But that's not how I prefer to play D&D.

Click to expand...

Aren't you a big fan of Paizo's Adventure Paths? Almost by definition, these are "single stories" that have to happen. They certainly are fairly "railroad"-y (and I say this as a fan myself).

BMM

I've said this in previous posts, but I'll say it one more time.

I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example) . That isn't the kind of game I want to play.

If in fact the PHB talks about doing this, then when new players join my game they're going to expect this, and I'm going to have to say 'no' more than I would in a system where the PHB doesn't talk about doing this.

Ken

Vyvyan Basterd said:

No. Why would you think you would have to say no nore often? Because the rules will encourage the players to come up with creative solutions? Would you rather the players not try to think outside the box? Do your 3E players come up with ideas outside the ones you have planned now? Or have you taken the opposite approach 4E is suggesting and discouraged them from creative thinking?

Click to expand...

bmcdaniel said:

Aren't you a big fan of Paizo's Adventure Paths? Almost by definition, these are "single stories" that have to happen. They certainly are fairly "railroad"-y (and I say this as a fan myself).

BMM

Click to expand...

Yes, bmcdaniel, I am, as you well know ;-)

However, I consider their single story nature to be a weakness, not a strength. I think I would like them better if they were less railroady. But they're so good in other ways that I just try to deal with it.

Ken

Haffrung Helleyes said:

I've said this in previous posts, but I'll say it one more time.

I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example) . That isn't the kind of game I want to play.

If in fact the PHB talks about doing this, then when new players join my game they're going to expect this, and I'm going to have to say 'no' more than I would in a system where the PHB doesn't talk about doing this.

Ken

Click to expand...

I think you are envisioning the PHB and the circumstance of the DDXP example incorrectly.

The player at DDXP did not invent the sewer system. The adventure was most likely silent to the existance of an old sewer system. The player most likely asked something to the following effect:

"Using my History skill, do I know if there are any old sewer systems that I could use to escape the city?"

The DM at that table, after the character made a successful check, had to decide if there was a sewer system. The DM invented the sewer system when he said 'yes.'

The blog post does not suggest the players should be able to create things that were established not to exist, but instead for the DM to be open to player ideas about unestablished things.

If you don't enjoy ad-libbing events that you as DM have not created yourself, then this advice will not appeal to you.

Vyvyan Basterd said:

If you don't enjoy ad-libbing events that you as DM have not created yourself, then this advice will not appeal to you.

Click to expand...

Exactly. As I mentioned in another thread, as a DM, I could have always decided beforehand which specific skills would enable a PC to overcome a challenge if he successfully made a skill check (at DCs which could vary depending on the skill), e.g. if he succeeded at a Knowledge (History) check, he will know that there was a sewer that led to a forgotten escape route from the city. All the above system does is to encourage a shift in the time of making these decisions from before the game to during the game. It is a more freeform and interactive system, and in some ways, it may even be a better one.

This interactivity - the ability of the PCs to find creative solutions to problems which may not have occured to the DM, and the ability of the DM to make changes to the game world on the fly in response to what the PCs do, or even depending on whether the PCs succeed or fail - is one thing that computers are not yet able to do, and it is thus going to be one critical factor in distinguishing a role-playing game with a human DM from one run by a computer.