The Playtest Fighter

[Sadras]

Again, speaking for myself, I don't think it's a function of the MM - it's far more general than that. It has to do with having rules for non-magical ways to impose conditions outside combat encounters. D&DNext is showing a few hints of this, and yet is running back to the BS distinction between "Spells" and "mundane stuff". Take the D&DN "Frightened" condition; Intimidation should be able to impose that condition.

Okay, I agree becoming Frightened by Intimidation is fine. But I DID use intimidation to get that roleplaying effect (if not gamist effect) in our game. I always thought that was implied - for instance 4E has skill powers which DO that in a gamist way, so D&D has done this already, its not a new idea and has been addressed, so I really dont get all this hype about D&D not catering for mundane skill effects.

 

[Sadras]

Behind the curtain - plausible if slightly silly plan. Level 1 or 2 complexity 1 or 2 skill challenge* involving at least an acrobatics check for balance (I'll call for) and a bluff or intimidate check (they'll mention if they have any clue at all). This allows me to set the rough time and difficulty of the tasks.
Note that at no point would I have mentioned the phrase "Skill Challenge" or told them to just roll any dice. The skill challenge system is merely how I'd have kept score on the PC's plan.

First off the bat, this is not what I was asking about (refer Walking Dads post and then mine) It wasn't about "How would you run it?" It was that the DMG does not provide the necessary tools so every DM runs things differently, so I was asking how would you like that encounter to be catered for in the DMG/MM.

Secondly, I was running a systems-loose campaign, with few die involved. Their character sheet consisted of a name, one craft skill, 1 character/physical flaw & strength each and two primary abilities (thats all). When I play 4E I never mention "this is a skills challenge". They were young no armour - I didnt see it necessary to make acrobatics and a series of ridiculous checks just so I can wait for that "1". Basic mundane stuff gets hand waved. I can climb on my friends back without making non-sensical die rolls. The point was for them to appear larger - whatever form the four of them took.

Also one of them threw a stone - direct hit at the bears face, they succeeded in the intimidate/nature die roll and the young bear turned and left.
The campaign was more narrative, wounds were based on actual description and attack rolls were assessed on difficulty taking all factors into account. And I was not a lenient DM, as you might believe from the above example; By the end of the adventure one character, heavily wounded, was foolish enough to engage an assassin poisoning their foods which resulted in him being left dead in a pile of his own blood, while two others were poisoned due to the others mistake.

 

[Walking Dad]

I think its mostly DM style. What you allow as a DM, affects your players' thinking/creativity. A DM open to reasonable suggestions grows the PCs to think further than their character sheets. ...

No problem with making the players think. But my problem is, that I thought their tactic to be silly, not creative. Just think about the time it takes to make a pyramid and the required training to pull it of in this situation.
They could have backed away slowly, or try to climb a tree or something.
A bear is predator, not prey, so I think an attack on it (throwing stones) will have another outcome than making it flee.

You cannot have rules for everything, there is advice for the DM in the DMG for that and the group and DM play as they like. To have everything codified is just rediculous.

A set difficulties for checks appropriate for the danger of the situation (challenge rating) would work.

As an example - how would you have liked the DMG/MM to have catered for the bear encounter in my adventure? Because it sounds like you asking for the impossible.

This is actually a pretty hard question. Maybe some difficulties how hard it is to influence the creature?

How I would have handled the exactly same situation:
With the pyramid tactic, which I consider bad and silly (sorry), intimidating the bear, I would set (in 5e terms) the difficulties to intimidate the bear to Extreme (DC 19). If they had tried to intimidate it by loud shouting, waving with sticks or clapping clubs against the tree, I would have set it to Advanced (DC 15).
If one had not made the pyramid, but had used the same time they need to do this, to make a fire, his difficulty would have been only moderate (DC 11). Would you have been satisfied by my decision?

But no, the guides cannot give you guidelines which tactics are good and which bad. You have a point.

 

[Sadras]

No problem with making the players think. But my problem is, that I thought their tactic to be silly, not creative. Just think about the time it takes to make a pyramid and the required training to pull it of in this situation.

Jeez-Louise, they didnt form the perfect pyramid for the national cheerleading squad. The two largest huddled together and the other two go on their backs (please read my post to Neonchameleon to see what type of game I was running). I believe a harsh DM would make their PCs (mid-late teenagers) make rolls for something like that I handwaived it. And it generally takes a few seconds.

They could have backed away slowly, or try to climb a tree or something.

Yes they could have tried to back away or climb a tree, problem was - at the time they were carrying a dead guy from their village, so they opted out of leaving the dead guy on the ground for the bear.

A bear is predator, not prey, so I think an attack on it (throwing stones) will have another outcome than making it flee.

A bear is a predator yes, but as I have already mentioned this was not your adult bear (it also wasnt a cub).

A set difficulties for checks appropriate for the danger of the situation (challenge rating) would work.

Which I did do, through the use of skills.

With the pyramid tactic, which I consider bad and silly (sorry), intimidating the bear, I would set (in 5e terms) the difficulties to intimidate the bear to Extreme (DC 19).

Them climbing on each others backs was to gain height advantage to AID their attempt to intimidate the bear. Their intimidation consisted of growling & making general threatening noises, stomping the ground, throwing stones and the like. Sorry maybe I wasnt clear enough about it on my first description. They rolled well.
And given that the bear was not a full adult and that they landed a stone right in its face...I had the bear turn and leave. There was no time for making fire and they indeed did not have the tools to make one. They were pressed for time as players.

 

[Walking Dad]

Alright, it actually sounds we are maybe on the same page and the difference of tactics that people think could succeed isn't as big as I thought. (I acttually start to wish to be in one of your games )

 

[Balesir]

Okay, I agree becoming Frightened by Intimidation is fine. But I DID use intimidation to get that roleplaying effect (if not gamist effect) in our game. I always thought that was implied - for instance 4E has skill powers which DO that in a gamist way, so D&D has done this already, its not a new idea and has been addressed, so I really dont get all this hype about D&D not catering for mundane skill effects.

4E took some steps in this direction (it did it pretty much consistently for combat, but not for non-combat effects), but that is just what D&DNext is running to move away from. I think that's the lament, here - there was a good and functional direction started, but before we get far down the path the crowd is being called back to carry on along the old, rutty road we were originally on in this respect.

 

[Sadras]

Alright, it actually sounds we are maybe on the same page and the difference of tactics that people think could succeed isn't as big as I thought. (I acttually start to wish to be in one of your games )

Well, we'd be honoured to have a fellow En-Worlder at our table