Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[justanobody]

Exactly the same thing a PC in 3e needs to do to succeed/win a challenge that involves the use of skills.

Which is what?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So what you're saying is, 1e is what Paranoia would be if it didn't realize it was a farce.

Ok...............THAT is funny. You sir, get a cookie. And XP.

 

[RFisher]

Something I thought was odd about 3e.

The unified mechanic and skill system tended to encourage moving everything more towards challenge the PC.

Except combat. By lowering the level of abstraction, it encouraged moving combat more towards challenge the player.

You know, I used to criticize D&D and AD&D as being too combat-focused. Going from 3e to classic D&D, though, classic doesn’t feel nearly as combat-focused to me as it used to. In fact, using the Basic and Expert rule booklets made me realize that classic is really more adventure-focused (or maybe “delving-focused”).

I wish I knew how to explain to people who played classic D&D combat as just stand-up hp attrition that it can be more than that (and without DM fiat). If you have rules for moving, you can apply tactics.

One of the things I like about classic D&D combat is that simply a basic knowledge of tactics will serve a player well, while in 3e the player really needs to master the rules as well.

But, I’ve really wandered off-topic now.

A thought just occurred to me: Your car might have a GPS system.

You know, I was going to put something in there about how the cars of today and the near future are going to kill that analogy. (^_^)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Something I thought was odd about 3e.

The unified mechanic and skill system tended to encourage moving everything more towards challenge the PC.

Except combat. By lowering the level of abstraction, it encouraged moving combat more towards challenge the player.

You know, I used to criticize D&D and AD&D as being too combat-focused. Going from 3e to classic D&D, though, classic doesn’t feel nearly as combat-focused to me as it used to. In fact, using the Basic and Expert rule booklets made me realize that classic is really more adventure-focused (or maybe “delving-focused”).

I wish I knew how to explain to people who played classic D&D combat as just stand-up hp attrition that it can be more than that (and without DM fiat). If you have rules for moving, you can apply tactics.

One of the things I like about classic D&D combat is that simply a basic knowledge of tactics will serve a player well, while in 3e the player really needs to master the rules as well.

But, I’ve really wandered off-topic now.



You know, I was going to put something in there about how the cars of today and the near future are going to kill that analogy. (^_^)

Well said. You get a cookie and XP too. Thats a noticeable effect about older/ newer editions. The focus of the newer rulesets (including 3E) is on the powers and abilities of the characters AND monsters. Older editions focused more on the adventure itself. Abilities were something that characters and monsters used to achieve thier goals.

 

[pemerton]

Players have to only come up with the stuff that influence their relations with the other players (through PCs).

I don't know if I quite understand this. Are you saying that, in the end, all that counts in roleplaying is the state that player 1 is able to engender in player 2 by way of her action at the table? That is true, I guess, but it is a little too abstract to differentiate RPGing from other games, from pleasant conversation, from argument etc.

And I'm also not sure about the "through PCs" bit. There are all sorts of ways I can influence the shared understanding of the players of an RPG other than by calling actions for my PC. As one example, I can give another player a suggestion as to what her/his PC might do.

I prefer RPG campaigns that do all of the above; challenge the player through their characters ("What would Conan do?"), challenge the characters directly ("Hey look, a puzzle"), and challenge the characters directly (so the players can experience being faux-awesome).

I lilke this distinction of the different sorts of challenges. Good stuff.

I think I like the first sort of challenge the best, although in a slight variant: How can I use my PC to achieve goal X? Which is not quite "What would Conan do?" but more about shaping the character in the course of play.

My view is, challenge the players. The abilities of the character are the tools that the players use to meet the challenge.

I think Mallus is right that a mix of challenges is probably most enjoyable (at least for me), but I think that this is the sort of challenge I'd like to be most prominent in the mix.

On the discussion on what part of the game should be challenging I think the ony answer can be the creativity of the girls and guys sitting around the table. Sometimes that should be a question about what is the best tactical sollution to a battle, sometimes it is about what the crazy dwarf they are playing would actually do when the king insults him. But the real challenge of d&d game is always for the players to move the game forward by not just responding to the challenges of the DM but adding their own creativity.

I like this too. Especially because sometimes the creativity won't necessarily involve me playing my PC.

 

[Cadfan]

Which is what?

Presumably you believe you know, since you thought we might be enlightened by your earlier lengthy post.

 

[joethelawyer]

Here is difference that causes the argument.


In a 1e adventure, if you do something stupid, you're dead. If you try and explore every room the dungeon, you're dead. If you often leap before you look, you're dead. The best way to survive 1e adventures is lots of caution, divination, henchmen, listening at doors, sending in henchmen, and so on. Luck is also very helpful. How to survive is not spelled out to you on your character sheet. You have to use your player skill to figure out a strategy to navigate the dungeon.

.

thats funny as hell, man. but was true all too back then. player skill was critical.

one thing i remember also was the thorough room searching we did. it wasnt just roll a d20 and and your search skill vs. a dc. our dm made us look in every nook and cranny.

PC: "i open the door of the chest. i pull out the drawers, all the way. i look behind the drawers. i look to see if there are false floors in the chest. i move the chest to see if there is anything under it. i tear apart the bed and bedding ripping it all to shreds."

DM: in all that time, the bad guys just jumped your greedy asses and got the surprise on you. oh, you didnt heal after that last fight in your haste to loot? hmm. your loss. fireball incoming!!! roll your saving throws losers!"

the game was often a battle between the dm and the pc's, the dm trying to kill the group, and the group trying to live to fight another day.

i admit i haven't played 4e. i just read the books. to the extent that the skill system is better/different than 3.x, i have no first hand knowledge. to the extent that there is still a detailed skill system taking the place of what we used to do without the use of a skill system, then it goes to my position that 1e is different than later editions for the reasons i stated in the OP. 4e may be better or more realistic than 3e was. i dunno. i just know that they are both different than 1e in that they both have a skill system taking the place of what we used to do without one. in other words, making it a challenge to the character rather than to the player.

i do appreciate the various viewpoints and want to thank everyone for not letting this interesting discussion degenerate into a BS editions war thread.

the player v. character differences dont just go to the skill systems though. i think there is something to be said for some aspects of the feat system in 3.x and the tactical aspect of some powers in 4e taking the place of what used to be creative moves players just made up on the spot, which the dm would just assign a random dex or str check to roll against to determine success. i feel that the in depth detailing of what spells can and cannot do has the same effect of limiting their creative use.

thanks for the discussion guys.

 

[pemerton]

Probably the default assumption of 4th edition that you don't need to play through a skill challenge, but can just roll the dice through it, and then IF every party member fails you would need to worry with thinking through it.

Where do you get this from?

DMG p 72, first sentence under the heading "Designing a skill challenge":

More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure.​

DMG pp 74-75, under the heading "Running a skill challenge":

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players' responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

You can also make use of the "DM's best friend" rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check. Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action...

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth . . .

However, it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don't say no to often, but don't say yes if it doesn't make sense in the context of the challenge.​

This text is not identical to that found in the HeroWars rulebooks on the running of extended contests, or in other RPGs which feature mechanically comparable conflict-resolution mechanics. But it's pretty similar.

I'll admit that the text on pages 74-75 is a little bit ambiguous as to who has narrative rights, initially suggesting that they lie with the GM and then suggesting (via the idea of a +2 bonus, and the use of alternative skills) that these rights are shared by the GM with the players. But this infelicity doesn't at all suggest that the skill challenge is just a dice-rolling exercise.

 

[joethelawyer]

However, it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don't say no to often, but don't say yes if it doesn't make sense in the context of the challenge.​

what our group would do in this situation in our weird 1e/3.0 hybrid that we houseruled would be for the dm to tell the player "you cant just use diplomacy and roll. if it is a speech you want to make, you have to stand up, take on you character's voice and physical bearing and mannerisms, and make the speech to rally the troops. the diplomacy skill, as well as the quality of the speech you give will affect its success. i'm not telling you which will weigh more heavily--the speech you give and your ability to act it out in character or the diplomacy skill score--or what the dc is."

 

[Freakohollik]

I'm sorry... how are 4e and 1e different again? Certainly, 4e doesn't have that "Oops, I'm dead" all the time from single bad actions, but you can certainly have your PC die from stupid play. Nor is every encounter an assured win (see Irontooth). If you assume that all 4e adventures use APL=EL encounters, you're dead wrong.

Cheers!

I'm not interested in debating the corectness of the GROGNARDIA quote as I already know how I like to game, and know I won't change anyone's opinion. I just want to show where I think it came from, since I don't think the skill system is a good example. Since I have a similar view on 4e, I thought I could explain the reasoning behind the quote. My mistake for not saying that more clearly.

I'm saying that its a lot easier to survive in 4e than it is in 1e. Also that the 4e adventures don't require the paranoia/player skill that the 1e adventures required. The player skill that 4e focuses on is the tactical combat, where as the player skill required by 1e is the caution of dungeon navigation since once you were in a 1e combat, it was mostly luck.

My experience, and I suspect that of GROGNARDIA, with 4e is that the tactical combat doesn't really take much player skill. If there is no skill required for combat, and now no dungeon navigation skill required, there is little skill left.

I doubt you'll agree with me about 4e tactical combat requiring little player skill, so I won't go into a lot of detail about why I think that is the case. But my general thought is that to die due to poor player skill you'd have to do something really really stupid, where as in previous editions much less stupidity was required to die. Thus reducing the importance of player skill to survive.