Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[Nymrohd]

Well no, by what they say you don'y say I want to roll Skill X. You say I want to do this, which is accomplished by Skill X and I think I can manage to do it this good.

 

[Derren]

So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).

Imo improvement = 0.

 

[small pumpkin man]

It's like 3.x, except everyone gets to join in, it's more involved and dynamic, and there are rules for the xp you get.

 

[Nymrohd]

No it really is nothing like 3e. You have multiple checks, successes and losses give synergistic effects based on the encounter. Also it has been confirmed that the encounter also has an XP tag. Difficulty levels and multiple successes are not a gamist element, they are a mechanical element that improves simulation of a complicated encounter. The need for multiple checks and the freeform use of abilities promotes multiple characters using skills as long as they can justify skill usage. This promotes roleplay.

 

[cwhs01]

So instead of reacting to the actual situation you simply say "I want to roll skill X" and when you succeed 6 times you have "won" this skill encounter?

If the gm allows it, it might be as simple as that. Somewhat equivalent to the 3e diplomacy check. But the example quoted just above your post implies that it could be a lot more complicated.

I also get the feeling that they have had a look at some non-task resolution type rpgs when they made the skill check system for 4e. at least it seems to be inspired by conflict resolution systems?

 

[vagabundo]

So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).

Imo improvement = 0.

Sounds like there is more of a structure to this, my group will like this kinda stuff, if used right could be a fun meta-encounter, it lets the players use there imagination in a new way. It gives the players a structure for some small control over the world that previously only the DM had and would rarely give to the players.

They can setup situations for their characters to shine in and there is still a strong element of chance.

Definitely an improvement over something that was not there in previous editions, but is not a system that you, as a DM, have to use. You may not like the system but it is up to how you resolve this kind of situation, you could go pure roleplay if you wished.

EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.

 

[Derren]

Sounds like there is more of a structure to this, my group will like this kinda stuff, if used right could be a fun meta-encounter, it lets the players use there imagination in a new way. It gives the players a structure for some small control over the world that previously only the DM had and would rarely give to the players.

They can setup situations for their characters to shine in and there is still a strong element of chance.

Definitely an improvement over something that was not there in previous editions, but is not a system that you, as a DM, have to use. You may not like the system but it is up to how you resolve this kind of situation, you could go pure roleplay if you wished.

Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.

So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.

EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.

There are a few things, but not many.
I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.
I also don't believe that 4E is automatically better than 3E just because it is new. Can I do such a chase scene in 3E with multiple ways to use skills etc? Yes I can and in 3E I don't have this silly 6 successes to win and dificulty levels for bonuses mechanic behind it which hurts the living feel of the world.

 

[vagabundo]

Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.

So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.

Sure you could do much of the simple skill checks in 3e and duplicate the round robin way it was done at the adventure. But, assuming what we seen in the Adventure was outlined in the DMG, the whole system is new, not just a simple check any more. If you don't like the new sub-system I'd guess that it is pretty modular and ripping it out will not cause any problems.

I really like the sound of it, I will most likely be using it. I can understand that some people will not like it though.

As to the second check after the wall, maybe doing it on Hard means you do it very fast and that leaves an opportunity for something else to happen.

There are a few things, but not many.
I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.
I also don't believe that 4E is automatically better than 3E just because it is new. Can I do such a chase scene in 3E with multiple ways to use skills etc? Yes I can and in 3E I don't have this silly 6 successes to win and dificulty levels for bonuses mechanic behind it which hurts the living feel of the world.

I am curious now, as we have seen some substantial previews of 4e, both fluff and crunch, if you would not be better off sticking with 3.5e as it seems to suit your personal style. Are you still hoping for 4e to change direction or have something you can use?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.

My advice: Check your personal profile / Account and look for the key word "buddy list". That's not what you want to use, but there is a similar list with opposite intent. It works wonders... It doesn't protect you against quotes, though.

Ahem.

I wonder how much the system also supports DM influence on the allowed skills. But even if there is no explicit mentioning of it, it can definitely be used to create a more structured scene, if that's what the group/DM prefers.
Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)

So, you can use the same guidelines both for a "player-narrated" scenario and a "DM-narrated" scenario - or for a mix of both.

 

[hong]

I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.

The people with blue circles around their feet define where the dungeon is.

The dungeon does not define where the people with blue circles around their feet are.

From such snippets is enlightenment gleaned.