D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how 4E could have looked

[MwaO]

I understand where you coming from, but the issue I have is your example and my example are completely different.
Yours is a 3-day affair, mine is relatively much shorter.

My description is either 3 days or exactly as fast as yours. Up to the DM. I'm just presenting options about how you could take a skill challenge that appears to be a 10 minute thing of fast talk the Duke and turn it into 16 hour of play with the skill challenge overlapping all 4 sessions. Or something in-between that's just a session.

That's something important about skill challenges to understand — the point of them is to add structure to something that might otherwise just feel weird as a single check. It isn't to take a single check and make it into a repetition of several instances of the same check. And it doesn't have to resolve right then and there. It could extend across an entire session or multiple ones

 

[Sadras]

My description is either 3 days or exactly as fast as yours. Up to the DM. I'm just presenting options about how you could take a skill challenge that appears to be a 10 minute thing of fast talk the Duke and turn it into 16 hour of play with the skill challenge overlapping all 4 sessions. Or something in-between that's just a session.

Understood.

That's something important about skill challenges to understand — the point of them is to add structure to something that might otherwise just feel weird as a single check. It isn't to take a single check and make it into a repetition of several instances of the same check. And it doesn't have to resolve right then and there.

In this instance, I was using an idea presented by Iserith where using different approaches could permit an additional check for the same task, whether it be attempting to find a secret door or attempting to pacify a skittish animal...etc

In this SC, the PCs had to make/defeat different arguments in order to be permitted additional Persuasion checks.

I provide an example of each below (there were many more).

Argument made by PCs: She was being manipulated by the Black Ice, citing their experience with the affected dwarves and tribesmen.
Argument defeated by the PCs: If her own really sought her return, why then no one from her tribe, but her father, made the effort to seek her out? Why were foreigners (PCs) entrusted with this mission?

Just to reiterate the conversation flowed naturally, with the mechanics only interfering when conditions were met. In this instance DCs were not provided to the players, I used in-game narration to describe successes, failures or unpersuasive arguments...i.e. increasing/decreasing of winds in the room, softer/harder tones, slight descent (as she was levitating), looking at her father, softer/harder features...etc

It could extend across an entire session or multiple ones

Interesting. I seriously might consider something like this to conclude the remainder of the module.

 

[MwaO]

Interesting. I seriously might consider something like this for the rest of the module.

Skill Challenges really are a fantastic tool for figuring out in advance how you want to engage your players across a long campaign. Especially if you throw in interesting failure options. "You beat the living daylights out of the Rogue to get him in front of the Duke. Bad news is the Thieves Guild would like to have a talk with you about your continued presence in the land of the living...Good news is one of the nobles in the court looks favorably upon you having done that and among other things, would like to pay you to continue being a thorn in the Thieves Guild's side..."

 

[MoutonRustique]

Again then... when do you use character level to determine DC?[

To be pithy : always, and never.

Always - your role as DM is to set the scene, part of that is to decide the level of challenge (chance to succeed/fail) something offers. The suggested DC values in the DC-by-level chart offers generally reliable values to represent 3 broad difficulty levels.

So, you can reference the players' level(s) and then, you have guidance as to which values of DC will offer the difficulty type you want.

Never - if the "thing" you're trying to stat is well defined in the fiction, then the DC comes from that fiction based upon your world axioms. If it is appropriate as a challenge for the players or not, is then a secondary question - it is there, you have spent time putting it there, having the players interact with it.

What the rules tell you (by this I mean, the DC setting guidelines) is that, if you stray very far from those suggestions, you may find yourself in a situation where the challenge is trivial (then, why waste time stat-ing it up?) or impractical/impossible for the PCs to interact mechanically with (then, why waste time stat-it up?).

The difference here with 5E is a question of reliability/predictability, and granularity.
R/P - the bonuses in 4e are much bigger than in 5e. Thus the d20 has less weight = more predictable outcomes.
G - in 4e, the chart offers values for every single level to maximize the above point. It would still work (possibly better in some regards) if you used the same approach as 13thAge. 5E decided to use steps of 5 and qualifiers since, progress in skill values is both slower or "null".

There is a basic difference in the assumptions of 4e and 5e when it comes to skills - in 4e, your experiences are considered to have you grow in all aspects. In 5e, you grow only in aspects on which you actively spent resources on at some point.

Honestly all you've shown to me, in the convolutions to avoid using character level to set DC's, is that 4e is unnecessarily complicated in its methodologies and subsystems for setting a DC... I thought this system was supposed to be easy for new DM's...

So to determine a DC you can...

Use character level
Use an objective DC
Use a series of DC's based on the level of a skill challenge
Use the defenses or stats of a creature
Use the level of an encounter

Does that sum up all the different ways of determining a DC in 4e?

... dude... it's like you're looking through a telescope by the lens side.

There are 2 ways to set a DC suggested by 4e. One is encouraged for its ease of use, the other is encouraged for its power of world-building. You can use both, you can make mistakes in both, both can be awesome, both can suck.

1 (level based) - look at "thing" number(s) (i.e. level) and set DC based on % you want.
2 (fiction based) - look at game numbers, chose "thing" and set DC based on % you want from that.

Once you do 1 (compare with expected numbers), you've set 2 (fiction). Once you've done 2(fiction), you've set a level for 1(comparable numbers).

[sblock="Not really useful"]Use character level - if you want to have a DC that offers a set level of challenge, you need this info. This is system agnostic : you will always need to know the players' approximate numbers to set numbers yourself if your wanting to create a specified difficulty.

Use an objective DC - as I first pointed out, you do this always and never If you've already set the fiction, then you've already set the DC. If you've set the DC, then you've set the fiction - the idea of the same wooden door having a variable DC is false.

Use a series of DC's based on the level of a skill challenge - if you've set the level of your SC, then the suggest numbers are those that offer the greatest chance for the desired outcome. This is kind of asking if you use a monster's CR to set it's values in 5e.

You can set a CR and use appropriate values, or you can set the values and reverse engineer the CR - you can do the same with an SC (it's not common practice, but you could).

Use the defenses or stats of a creature - then it's already set... so there's no setting it...?

Use the level of an encounter - if you want to offer a consistent presentation of the situation as having a difficulty of X.[/sblock]

TL;DR
LEVEL is the gauge of "power".
If you want something to be of LEVEL power, then you use LEVEL suggested DCs.
Do you use LEVEL to set the DC :
Yes - you're building a challenge of LEVEL power
No - you're building a challenge of NOT-LEVEL power

This works in 4e because LEVEL is a fairly accurate representation of the numbers.
This works differently in 5e because LEVEL has less to bear on the numbers, and those numbers are smaller, so the d20 has more to say.

 

[Imaro]

The difference here with 5E is a question of reliability/predictability, and granularity.

For context I think this was asserted much earlier in this conversation by myself and a few other posters...

 

[BryonD]

1) Terrain Stunting and Skill Challenges both reference DCs being set with respect the encounter level. The RC text I quoted above is directly cribbed from the DMGs.

2) The Terrain Stunting text is below. If you're looking for me to say "apparently it would have been better if DMG1 (perhaps in the p42 section) had the Terrain Stunting section rather than DMG2 because there is some confusion around DC setting, then sure."

Here is the section on Terrain Stunting (which swinging on a chandelier would have to fall under At-WIll terrain):

DMG2 p62

..."or an ogre pushes against a wall attempting to topple it over onto nearby enemies. First, the ogre has to make a successful check to push the wall over.


...

Noted
Page 42 still says exactly what it says. Page 42 is clear.

Hussar has said that it is poorly written. Others have told me to imply the answer. Now you are referencing a completely separate book that came out a year later.

I'll totally accept the idea that they screwed up at first and then started trying to fix it. So, maybe for someone who played it for a long time and over the past nine years since DMG2 came out has grown to take these implications and guidelines as errata. But there is no remotely reasonable way to read page 42 and interpret it as anything other than saying what I'm saying.

Again, go back and read my posts. I've stated a few times now that the method being suggested is a dramatic improvement over the RAW presented on P42 of the DMG.

I don't understand why 4E fans can't bring themselves to just say "yeah, that sucked, but they fixed it" because that seems to be the case.
It is no secret that WotC tried all kinds of things to fix 4E.

There are plenty of newbie DMs who just followed the rules, didn't like the result and never bought DMG2. There are plenty of experienced players who read this kind of thing and moved on to other games well before the DMG2 came out. Remember what this thread is about "the 4E that could have been".
Refusing to concede that there were serious flaws was a problem that the 4E fanbase held to throughout and they added to the alienation. There seems to be nothing left to gain by seeming to be dead set on ignoring the reality at this point.

4E was an AWESOME game for a very specific type of player. I've always said that and I still believe it. But that doesn't mean it was without flaws.
This was a flaw. And the fact that nobody is will to address page 42 by actually talking about the words which actually appear on page 42 is telling.

 

[Garthanos]

Part 2
I do not mind at-will cantrips, but I think it's a matter of what and how. Cantrips seem appropriate for tying to an ability/skill check system. But you can also scale them back or toss out things like attack cantrips.

Aside from wizards attack rating fading to nothing Darts were insane ... one could reflavor them as Runes that screamed off of your stave during battle and were recovered afterwards by touching injuries or by performing a ritual which coincidentally cost as much as the darts. I suppose a sympathetic dm might provide a rune staff which gave one significant bonuses on your dart use I mean rune casting.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]

I've said it a dozen times in a dozen different threads that 4e's initial texts clearly suffered from a "too man cooks in the kitchen", "lack of editorial control/single voice", and an instance of needlessly provocative language (why say "skip the gate guards and get to the fun" when the indie axiom of "go to the action", which is what they clearly meant, was well-established at that point...the former is less clear and more provocative).

It could have been written clearer/better without a shadow of a doubt.

With respect, I'm done with this thread and moving on to a different sort of analysis.

 

[BryonD]

Well, your departure is noted. You leave behind a few inconsistencies. You took exception to what I said, now you are partly conceding the point. If that was your position, then why did you challenge me instead of agreeing with me?
You also say "what they clearly meant" (conveniently changing the subject first, of course). But that is inconsistent with the fact that page 42 is *completely* clear. There was no lack of editorial control ro single voice there. It flat out said "do it this way". Now, I am willing to defer to you that the references to "inferred" statements and comments in future books can be used to retcon the original text. (Did they ever flat out say "and you should do this instead of what we said on page 42"? If yes, where and when? If no, why not?)

But I don't accept that this clear text was anything less than exactly what they meant on the day the DMG hit the printers. They unambiguously meant that the DC for grabing and swinging from the chandelier was a direct function of the level of the singular character making the attempt. It is a dumb rule and you have fixed it. Hurray. But it is simply beyond reasonably to suggest that they so clearly explained it and meant something different. I'd also point out that when I first joined this conversation I was told that, for at least one 4E fan, burnt-out shacks DO have really strong doors if the characters are high enough level. I don't claim that is a perfect apples to apples thing. But it is in the same realm of gamist mechanics first approach. So, p42 really doesn't need any outside support to show what it says. But clearly this general approach does have a basis in some people embracing it.

(and because you have to repeat this every time or else someone will proclaim the opposite: me stating my dislike of this approach is not a claim of truth or even remotely an implied slam against people who love this approach and the glorious fun they have at their tables. It is to point out that there is a difference. And 4E's failure to account for the difference made it a HUGE hit for a tiny portion of the fanbase. And thus, it is not the 4E that could have been)

 

[Garthanos]

There is a basic difference in the assumptions of 4e and 5e when it comes to skills - in 4e, your experiences are considered to have you grow in all aspects. In 5e, you grow only in aspects on which you actively spent resources on at some point.

As a youth I thought that a generalized level which measured overall improvement in ability seemed odd, ie you learn in a fairly spikey way when you are learning basics and specialization is very culturally enforced throughout society. I have since found that confidence and the ability to adapt and apply general experience to an ever widening set of situations grows over time feels a very real thing even though not so spiky, hmmm.