D&D 4E 4e and reality

[LostSoul]

I don't think 4E is terribly dissociated from the game world; some powers and implementations of those powers (ie. how the PC uses it in a certain situation), yes, but not that much.

pemerton has pointed out to me a few times that there are a lot of fictional elements that have great influence over resolution; elements such as terrain, positioning, and skill checks.

(I was reading the skill chapter in the PHB and it seems to me that the only time you actually make skill checks is in response to a fictional action that triggers one. I think, by RAW (and I could be wrong), that you can't say, "I make a Perception check", you have to say, "I look for the hidden creature", and that triggers the need for a Perception check.)

I still fail to see why "I sweep my sword down at his legs and he crumbles to the floor" is more roleplaying than "I use <Insert Power Name> and it knocks him prone"

(I broke up the quote into two parts because I want to deal with this quote first and the narration stuff later.)

I personally find play more rewarding if your PC has a style of fighting that says he can sweep his sword at someone's legs and crumple them to the floor. It's an ability he's picked up somewhere, either through training or experience.

The reason I find that more rewarding is that the details of the fiction have influence on the mechanical resolution of actions. You can't use that trick against opponents without legs!

Let's say you're fighting a human opponent; you're both on stairs, but he's above you, and he's got all his weight on his back leg. Can you still use your trick? That's a judgement call.

Let's say that the the wizard shoots some bolts of flame at a gelatinous cube; it raises its bulk off the floor, holding itself up by two strands of ooze in order to avoid the fire. Can you now use that power?

That's what I prefer, though I wouldn't call it "more roleplaying" since I don't care to get into debates about what roleplaying is. My own definition is something like "What you do when you play an RPG", but that's obviously a poor one.

- I see why it is more storytelling but not why it is more roleplaying, especially as it could be used to describe the actions of a bloodthristy fighter trying to avenge his sister's murder when the more in character choice may well seem to be to use something that actually dealt damage but the Storyteller didn't want to do that as it was tactically unsound. You may notice I implied the Storyteller may not be roleplaying very well despite describing things well - as his choices were purely "board-gaming" the battle effects, he just used more narrative language.

Personally, I find it less rewarding if the description of the action doesn't have influence on the resolution of said action. If that's the case, I find description to be a chore - I still do it, because that's what I do, but I don't get excited or wedded to that description because I know it doesn't really matter.

What I mean by that is that, in a fight with Mr. Trippy, I describe my PC fighting with a stance low to the ground, weight on his back leg, so that it's harder for him to sweep out my legs and drop me prone. If that description doesn't actually make it more difficult for Mr. Trippy, I'll still do it, but I won't really "get into" the fiction. (Is that immersion? Maybe.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think 4E is terribly dissociated from the game world; some powers and implementations of those powers (ie. how the PC uses it in a certain situation), yes, but not that much.

pemerton has pointed out to me a few times that there are a lot of fictional elements that have great influence over resolution; elements such as terrain, positioning, and skill checks.

(I was reading the skill chapter in the PHB and it seems to me that the only time you actually make skill checks is in response to a fictional action that triggers one. I think, by RAW (and I could be wrong), that you can't say, "I make a Perception check", you have to say, "I look for the hidden creature", and that triggers the need for a Perception check.)

My take on this is that a player saying "I make a Perception check" is USUALLY shorthand. The situation is explained, a problem exists which the player wishes to resolve. It is usually pretty clear what the player intends the character to do. It might be considered 'sloppy' at some tables and if the players get too much into the habit of it they do risk falling into bad habits, but generally speaking there's not a lot of difference between "I make a Perception check" and "I look for the hidden creature" in practice. I think from a theoretical perspective you are correct. There are a few edge cases like knowledge checks where the character isn't really taking an action at all though. Still I agree, character actions can only interact with the fictional world. The rules IMHO are just guidelines for how to do that in a nice systematic way.

I personally find play more rewarding if your PC has a style of fighting that says he can sweep his sword at someone's legs and crumple them to the floor. It's an ability he's picked up somewhere, either through training or experience.

The reason I find that more rewarding is that the details of the fiction have influence on the mechanical resolution of actions. You can't use that trick against opponents without legs!

Let's say you're fighting a human opponent; you're both on stairs, but he's above you, and he's got all his weight on his back leg. Can you still use your trick? That's a judgement call.

I would say that last example is actually a DIE ROLL. This is exactly the sort of thing the dice are there for. They allow you to play out complex situations without knowing every single detail of the world. Remember, the world works in a deterministic fashion. In reality when a person decides to climb a wall they succeed or fail for entirely deterministic reasons. The factors involved are however immensely complex. Dice just give you a way of 'fudging'. In the above example the to-hit roll determines whether or not the wizard was effective in using his tactics or not. The player may choose to describe how some of those factors play out as part of a description. "I see that the wizard is putting his weight on his back foot, so I press forward hard and slam him back against the next step, causing him to fall." Maybe that works and maybe it doesn't.

Personally, I find it less rewarding if the description of the action doesn't have influence on the resolution of said action. If that's the case, I find description to be a chore - I still do it, because that's what I do, but I don't get excited or wedded to that description because I know it doesn't really matter.

Careful, you're coming close to advocating "you can't grab that swarm"

What I mean by that is that, in a fight with Mr. Trippy, I describe my PC fighting with a stance low to the ground, weight on his back leg, so that it's harder for him to sweep out my legs and drop me prone. If that description doesn't actually make it more difficult for Mr. Trippy, I'll still do it, but I won't really "get into" the fiction. (Is that immersion? Maybe.)

I would say that your PC is assumed to skilled enough at what he does to use the best possible tactics at all times. Given that I'm no martial arts/fighting expert I wouldn't even dream of knowing what those tactics would be, but presumably my character does. Now, I might describe the tactics I imagine he's going to use, but I doubt that most DMs are any more qualified to judge their theoretical effectiveness than I am. I wouldn't even dream of giving players die roll modifiers on that basis.

I can understand your point about wanting your narrative to have an impact on the game. The problem I have with that is it is at least as much a slippery slope as ruling you can't grab a swarm. It isn't especially fair to the players either since it gives a mechanical advantage to the player based on something that isn't part of the game (the player's skill at describing combat). For the same reason I don't hold much with giving 'role playing bonuses' to the people that are more skilled at describing their social interactions, etc.

I know this position can be criticized by arguments such as "well, players with greater tactical skill do better in combat" and that is true. All it illustrates to me is that there IS a game element involved in the game. In some perfect world we'd be able to assume the role of the characters completely, but since that isn't in the offing this decade (this century, certainly not in my lifetime) then we'll just have to do the best we can. People with a good understanding of social situations are STILL more likely to do better in those cases even without bonuses too, so it isn't like that kind of thing is only happening in one aspect of the game.

 

[Hussar]

The reason I find that more rewarding is that the details of the fiction have influence on the mechanical resolution of actions. You can't use that trick against opponents without legs!

I have two problems with this though.

First, is it required that a particular power works the same way every single time? If the power knocks the opponent prone, does the flavour of that power have to be set in stone before it can be used? Or can we adjust the flavour to suit the situation. So, using the same power, I can narrate it two different ways even though the effect (knock opponent prone) is exactly the same.

If, OTOH, the flavour has to be set in stone beforehand, you wind up with the situation where every power becomes situational. The rogue can't backstab undead. Can you "trip" a flying creature? Can you, indeed, grapple a swarm?

If the flavour has to be specified beforehand, then the answer will be defined beforehand. If the flavor of the trip power is that you sweep the legs, then anything without legs can't be tripped.

Which brings me to my second objection. When options are specific and situational, two things, IME, happen. First, general will always trump specific. Sure, in that special situation you might rule, but, because the player has no real control over the situation, that special ability is just so much wasted ink. So, players being fairly smart, will choose vanilla options over specific options just so they know their choices will come into play.

Secondly, you create endless corner cases because the specified description can't possibly cover all situations. You trip by sweeping the legs. Ok, how many legs? Can I trip a giant spider? Carrion Crawler? Yuan-Ti? So on and so forth. It tends to cause all sorts of disagreements at the table because no one can agree whether something should apply or not.

The two approaches have strengths and weaknesses. The Flavour approach gains flexibility - the DM can apply it based on his own judgement. But, it loses out on consistency and predictability. The Mechanical approach loses flexibility. You might have pretty ridiculous situations (tripping a Gelantinous Cube) that are allowable by the mechanics. But, you gain predictability and consistency at the table. The players know what to expect when they try to use an ability.

It all depends on what you want to get out of things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have two problems with this though.

First, is it required that a particular power works the same way every single time? If the power knocks the opponent prone, does the flavour of that power have to be set in stone before it can be used? Or can we adjust the flavour to suit the situation. So, using the same power, I can narrate it two different ways even though the effect (knock opponent prone) is exactly the same.

If, OTOH, the flavour has to be set in stone beforehand, you wind up with the situation where every power becomes situational. The rogue can't backstab undead. Can you "trip" a flying creature? Can you, indeed, grapple a swarm?

Well, then you end up with Mr Tripping Guy too, who's mysteriously able to 'trip' anything. Yeah, you fluff it different ways but it can get a bit ODD after a while. Powers become purely coupons. "This Spinning Sweep power card can be tapped to apply the Prone condition to any creature." Personally I don't usually have an issue with this and to a large extent that's the way things go here in our games. However I think LS has a point.

On the whole though I think the issue gets overblown. Sure, you will run into plenty of creatures and situations that might fall under "narrative exceptions" but the actual instances where those exceptions are needed are pretty rare. You'd probably go several sessions in any of my games for instance before running into so minor instance of something and it would very often be player initiated. In fact I am pretty sure it is safe to say my players self-censor. They don't grab swarms, it doesn't even occur to them even though they can easily enough verify that it works and they know that in general the rules work consistently.

There have been maybe 2-3 situations since 4e came out where some combat rule has gotten overridden due to narrative considerations. Those times DID add to the game though. Just ask Gilladian about Jermlaine!

 

[pemerton]

Then you and I have a fundamental difference on what a "Roleplaying Game" is and how they should be designed.

When you play a game that has no bearing on the shared fiction we're creating, you are not playing a "roleplaying" game. You're playing a game, and doing some improv acting over top of it. It's completely separate.

I agree with this, in the sense that (as far as I can tell) you and I overlap to a reasonable extent in what we think an RPG is. And it's not improv acting that is independent of the rules.

Where we disagree is on the character of the 4e rules, and the way that they produce engagement with the fiction. In particular, I simply don't agree that they produce "dissociation" in the way that you assert. That's why I think it's mistaken to bring out the board game/card game comparison.

Some people seem to think that if you equate D&D combat to a "tactical board game" that's a bad thing. It's not. Why? Because some people want to go into board game mode when they go into combat.

This may be true. But it's not my view. Hence my objection to you bringing in the comparison.

Others, however, like to stay "immersed" or whatever you want to call it.

<snip>

I know there are some people that prefer this method of combat. They want everything to be codified, like chess. It doesn't matter if it makes sense in the fiction, so long as it follows the rigid formula set by the game parameters. That's fine. In fact, I can really understand why you would want to do that. It's a big flaw in 4E, that it's hard to associate the mechanics in combat to the fiction.

I just don't agree with this.

Two reasons - one positive, one negative. On the postive side, 4e combat has a lot of terrain, positioning, movement etc that is both crucial to the mechanical resolution and intimately connected to the fiction. So far from being dissociated, it produces (in my experience) a very rich association with the fictional geography - much more, for example, than Rolemaster. Because position and terrain matter in the mechanics, players think about them in the context of the fiction. Whereas in Rolemaster they are mostly mechanically irrelevant colour until you get to fairly unusual cases like fighting in a swamp or in a gravel pit. And even then the spacial distribution of those terrain features over the whole encounter environment tends not to be taken up into the play.

The negative reason - Rolemaster has tactically rich combat, although the tactics are attack vs parry rather than positioning. And there is no requirement to aim at legs vs arms or anything like that, and the rules specify that crit results that make no sense for a given monster (eg leg crit vs amoeboid mass) should simply be reflavoured on the fly. But I've never see anyone object to RM as having dissociated mechanics, or as not being an RPG once combat starts. It therefore puzzle me why the contrary suggestion is so frequently made in relation to 4e. As someone asked upthread, is it just because it's D&D?

4E's combat mechanics are more like a board game and less like a roleplaying game. This is made doubly true if you completely ignore the fiction going on in the game to adhere to the strict disassociated mechanics in place at the table.

There is a difference, I think, between mechanics and play. 4e's mechanics bear some resemblance to a boardgame's, in so far as it uses a visual play surface with token on it. Many RPGs have mechanics resembling dice games, because like dice games they determine outcomes via rolling one or more dice. Some RPGs resemble PBMs, because they use turn sheets (The Burning Wheel and Rolemaster are two that come to mind).

It doesn't follow from the fact that a RPG uses dice or turn sheets that it's play is anything like craps or a PBM. And in my experience, at least, the play of 4e combat is not especially like a board game. Apart from anything else, there is a fiction, that is relevant to action resolution and other elements of play. Sometimes this relevance might take the form of narrating what "prone" means for an ooze, or "grabbed" for a swarm - ie the fiction is read off the mechanics rather than vice versa - but in my view that does not stop it being an RPG, for two reasons: first, that fiction supports further action (esp skill checks and/or p 42) in a way that is not the case for a board game; and second, that fiction determines the subsequent state of the fiction in a path-dependent and potentially signficant way (eg the character of a PC, and/or what NPCs think of that PC, may depend upon what happened in the course of a combat, as determined by the narration that took place).

The same could be said of skill challenges. As someone mentioned above, they adore the idea of skill challenges, but had to completely re-write them for them to work. Why? Because they said that skill challenges "as written" were an exercise in dice-rolling. Why does it seem that way? Likely, because those dice rolls aren't being tied to fiction or fictional choices the players are making.

I keep a handy set of quotes from the DMG and PHB to pull out whenever the suggestion is made that, by the rules as written, the fiction is irrelevent to a skill challenge:

From the PHB (pp 179, 259):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.​

From the DMG (pp 72–75):

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

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...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

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 too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

To me, these passages make it pretty clear that the fiction is crucial ("describe your actions", "think of ways you can use your skills", "make sure these check are grounded in action that make sense in the adventure and the situation", "let that player’s character use any skill the player wants [a]s long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge"). They also make it clear that the fiction develops with each check ("describe the consequences and go on to the next action") which - in light of the previous sentence - means that a skill challenge and the fiction unfold dynamically, with the former deeply embedded in the latter.

When you say, "you can't push a swarm with a melee attack" and I say, "but he just used a board to shove the rats back into the wall!" Well, there's a fundamental difference there.

As someone else said upthread, this is an improvised Close Blast 1, push 1. Given that it's strictly better than bull rush, it need some type of penalty associated with it. I don't agree with the suggestion that it provoke an opportunity attack, as close attacks in general don't do this. Following the example on p 42, the need for a successful prior STR or Athletics or Acrobatics or even Thievery check would seem the way to go.

 

[pemerton]

I personally find play more rewarding if your PC has a style of fighting that says he can sweep his sword at someone's legs and crumple them to the floor. It's an ability he's picked up somewhere, either through training or experience.

The reason I find that more rewarding is that the details of the fiction have influence on the mechanical resolution of actions. You can't use that trick against opponents without legs!

<snip>

Personally, I find it less rewarding if the description of the action doesn't have influence on the resolution of said action. If that's the case, I find description to be a chore - I still do it, because that's what I do, but I don't get excited or wedded to that description because I know it doesn't really matter.

I agree with your last paragraph. I also agree that the stuff you talk about in your first couple of paragraphs isn't in 4e. It's not in Rolemaster either, and having come to 4e after playing a lot of RM may explain why I don't miss it. I'm happy enough to focus on the slightly larger scale stuff like position, terrain etc.

Also, like I said in my post just above this one, some of the narration that powers like Come and Get It, or knocking an ooze prone, or grabbing a swarm, seem to demand in order to render the fiction coherent aren't necessarily irrelevant, because they can express the character of a PC or shed some light on the fictional situation. Even if this doesn't affect the immediate resolution of the combat, it can still be relevant in the longer run of play. I think this "continuity" of the fiction, which 4e isn't inimical to (in my experience), is another respect in which the comparison to board game play is misleading.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nah. I never said that. Tactical combat has nothing to do with it. Disassociated mechanics do. When you play a game that has no bearing on the shared fiction we're creating, you are not playing a "roleplaying" game. You're playing a game, and doing some improv acting over top of it. It's completely separate.

And I've already asked you to explain how "disassociated mechanics" aren't something that plagued every single edition of D&D there has ever been. And most RPGs right from the get go. By your definition, most pre-Forge RPGs weren't.

Like I said, it's like playing chess as a roleplaying game. It doesn't work.

Of course not. In chess you take an army rather than a single role. Cleudo would be a better example here. Or for that matter, using Jenga for the mechanics of a RPG. I dread to think what would happen if anyone tried that.

I'm not saying 4th Edition is completely like this, but if you ignore the fiction, you're taking it in that direction. Some people here seem to be ignoring the fiction.

Most seem to simply be emphasising different aspects of the fiction from you. The Homeric Grappler being able to grab a swarm rather than the person struggling.

Has nothing to do with "tactical combat". The same could be said of skill challenges. As someone mentioned above, they adore the idea of skill challenges, but had to completely re-write them for them to work. Why? Because they said that skill challenges "as written" were an exercise in dice-rolling. Why does it seem that way? Likely, because those dice rolls aren't being tied to fiction or fictional choices the players are making.

I do not have to re-write skill challenges as written (as long as I use the errata'd versions). All the examples of skill challenges in the book have the skill challenges actually tied to the fluff. And when done so, they work very well. Breaking them away from the fluff and turning them into dice rolling excercises is like turning Burning Wheel combat into an elaborate game of paper/scissors/stone, or Dogs in the Vineyard into pure dice rolling.

Actually, there's one way I often change the rules for skill challenges. I normally unlock new skills on a failure rather than a success. For instance a failed check on a stealthy skill challenge can unlock bluff or nature to convince the guard that he heard a stray animal rather than e.g. a successful use of insight to unlock history as presented in the rules + examples. But that's only a minor issue.

But it doesn't work like that. The rules dictate that you roll the dice. You take your turn. You move that many spaces in a clockwise direction. The "fiction" you're creating has NO IMPACT on the game and the rules and vice versa.

Except if you pay attention to the rules and example skill challenges, they do. At a crude level, some skills can be used to unlock other skills because of how they are used. And the way they are used to do this is by roleplaying - i.e. by the fiction. So the fiction does have impact on the game and rules. And the rules have impact on the fiction; there's a partial failure mechanic. You fail some rolls within the challenge and that impacts on the fiction - what is happening in the challenge changes because that roll was just failed. Fail a stealth roll as part of a skill challenge and something gets noticed. Fail a diplomacy roll and someone puts their foot in it. To claim that's not the mechanics impacting the fluff is ... interesting. (This doesn't mean that the explanations aren't both poor and confusing. But that's a minor issue).

So, Skill Challenges when actually used as indicated do precisely what you say they don't. They aren't e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century, or Burning Wheel. And are poorly explained. And certainly not as far as the Forge would go. But the claims you are presenting here are demonstrably incorrect about skill challenges.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I keep a handy set of quotes from the DMG and PHB to pull out whenever the suggestion is made that, by the rules as written, the fiction is irrelevent to a skill challenge:

From the PHB (pp 179, 259):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.
​

From the DMG (pp 72–75):

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

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...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

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 too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.
​

To me, these passages make it pretty clear that the fiction is crucial

Could someone hit pmerton with experience points for me for actually having the PHB and DMG quotes please?

As someone else said upthread, this is an improvised Close Blast 1, push 1. Given that it's strictly better than bull rush, it need some type of penalty associated with it. I don't agree with the suggestion that it provoke an opportunity attack, as close attacks in general don't do this. Following the example on p 42, the need for a successful prior STR or Athletics or Acrobatics or even Thievery check would seem the way to go.

That might well work better, thank you I always like seeing my ideas polished (I might well add nature to the mix of skills allowed if the player argues it for animal psychology).

 

[P1NBACK]

And I've already asked you to explain how "disassociated mechanics" aren't something that plagued every single edition of D&D there has ever been. And most RPGs right from the get go. By your definition, most pre-Forge RPGs weren't.

Can you give me an example of a disassociated mechanic from say, OD&D?

Of course not. In chess you take an army rather than a single role. Cleudo would be a better example here. Or for that matter, using Jenga for the mechanics of a RPG. I dread to think what would happen if anyone tried that.

Using Jenga in Dread is more akin to rolling dice, not the actual mechanic being associated with the fiction. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by disassociation.

You seem to be familiar with Dogs in the Vineyard. I'd suggest reading Vincent's blog on clouds and arrows. When those real world cues, like dice and minis, have no bearing on the fiction we're imagining, that's disassociated. Or, as Justin Alexander put it, "When the characters' relationship to the game world is stripped away, they are no longer roles to be played. They have become nothing more than mechanical artifacts that are manipulated with other mechanical artifacts. "

The dice in Dogs in the Vineyard have a direct association with the fiction. When I push forward two dice to "raise", what I say matters. If I say, "I shoot him in the face" and you have to See, Block or Dodge that, you have to describe HOW you did that directly in relationship to what I said. If I had said, "I trip him with my polearm..." you're retaliation can't be "I duck" like it could be in 4E.

Most seem to simply be emphasising different aspects of the fiction from you. The Homeric Grappler being able to grab a swarm rather than the person struggling.

I'll make a quote from Mike Mearls, "Then you get back to this thing which you first saw in 3rd, where everyone in the party can fly, everyone in the party can teleport, skill checks become irrelevant because everyone has the Climb feat, everyone has slippers of spider climbing, things like that. It turns the game into almost a superhero game. Which is fine, if that's your style, but it's not necessarily the default."

Superhero games are not necessarily the default in D&D. I've said many times in this post that it's important to clarify what style of game we're playing. If we're doing Dragonball Z, sure it might make sense to grapple a gargantuan swarm of humanoids... If we're doing classic Tolkien fantasy, maybe not so much.

I do not have to re-write skill challenges as written (as long as I use the errata'd versions). All the examples of skill challenges in the book have the skill challenges actually tied to the fluff. And when done so, they work very well. Breaking them away from the fluff and turning them into dice rolling excercises is like turning Burning Wheel combat into an elaborate game of paper/scissors/stone, or Dogs in the Vineyard into pure dice rolling.

Like I said above, Dogs in the Vineyard can never be a dice rolling exercise. You have to say how you raise in that game. It's very important to the conflict resolution mechanics.

Actually, there's one way I often change the rules for skill challenges. I normally unlock new skills on a failure rather than a success. For instance a failed check on a stealthy skill challenge can unlock bluff or nature to convince the guard that he heard a stray animal rather than e.g. a successful use of insight to unlock history as presented in the rules + examples. But that's only a minor issue.

I've changed the rules for skill challenges too. And, I'm not saying by default the skill challenges can't work. I'm saying I believe many of the complaints about skill challenges stem from this idea that the mechanics of rolling the dice are what matters and not the fiction, specifically from things said in this thread. There are literally people in this thread who have said, "I roll Nature" or "I roll Arcana" or "I roll Diplomacy" is acceptable in a skill challenge. How is a DM supposed to respond to those statements in a skill challenge?

"You approach the duke, and you can tell he's quite displeased with you interrupting his court this morning with the matter of the kobolds. What do you do?"

"I make a Diplomacy check."

"Uh.... Ok..."

Like LostSoul pointed out above, even the rules seem to imply that you need to do something fictionally for a skill check to kick in. This is what I'm advocating.

So, Skill Challenges when actually used as indicated do precisely what you say they don't. They aren't e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century, or Burning Wheel. And are poorly explained. And certainly not as far as the Forge would go. But the claims you are presenting here are demonstrably incorrect about skill challenges.

I'm presenting these claims directly in response to people who have said themselves that "I roll skill check" is acceptable means of description. You're missing out on like 10 pages of conversation that directly ties to my post.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Can you give me an example of a disassociated mechanic from say, OD&D?

Hit points/healing. Standing around on the battlemap. In both these cases, 4e has taken disassociated mechanics and reassociated them.

Using Jenga in Dread is more akin to rolling dice, not the actual mechanic being associated with the fiction. I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by disassociation.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that if you run skill challenges as presented they aren't disassociated. And if you run them as dice rolling excercises then you can do the same in Dogs in the Vineyard. It's just 4e will have its combat left, which will still be playable. But Dogs won't have anything left.

You seem to be familiar with Dogs in the Vineyard. I'd suggest reading Vincent's blog on clouds and arrows.

Nice recommendation, thanks.

When those real world cues, like dice and minis, have no bearing on the fiction we're imagining, that's disassociated.

If minis have no bearing on the fiction we are imagining, then We Are Doing It Wrong. Because the minis show at a glance the physical proximity we have to each other, allow far more specified (as opposed to unspecified) complexity in the setup and to be clearly and unambiguously be visualising the same situation and elements. Which of course feeds into the fiction we are imagining.

Or, as Justin Alexander put it, "When the characters' relationship to the game world is stripped away, they are no longer roles to be played. They have become nothing more than mechanical artifacts that are manipulated with other mechanical artifacts. "

Yes. This, however, has no resemblance to the 4e I know. 4e is much more integrated into the immediate physical game world than most other RPGs.

In 4e I find myself interacting with the terrain (and hence an integral part of the game world) far more than in any other edition of D&D. Or GURPS. Or... This is because with all the push and forced movement I bring camp fires into play as hot things by forcing people into them rather than have them just there. It matters whether a camp fire that was burning earlier in the night was doused or was left to burn down to embers.

If in 4e I am on a 5 foot wide bridge without handropes and am trying to make it to the far side past someone else, I expect us to try to throw each other off almost as a matter of course. If playing 3e I'd be impressed to see a bull rush (not that it would help unless the bridge wasn't straight) or gust of wind. And so the actual terrain would mostly be there for backdrop. In 3e if we know it's there, it doesn't matter whether something is a pit trap, an area with poisoned spikes sticking out of it, or anything else. It's just a hazard square that everyone is going to avoid. In 4e fights get centred around such things. And it absolutely matters which one the combatants are trying to drive each other into.

If anything I'd call DiTV more disassociated than 4e here. In 4e I use the pre-existing world as represented by the battlemat and minis (i.e. the fiction) to gain the benefit (i.e. the mechanical benefits) and the effect of what I do then flows into the fiction which then justifies the mechanics. In DiTV we jump straight to the mechanics being justified by the fiction. Rather than the fiction first feeding into the mechanics and then being justified by the fiction.

The dice in Dogs in the Vineyard have a direct association with the fiction. When I push forward two dice to "raise", what I say matters. If I say, "I shoot him in the face" and you have to See, Block or Dodge that, you have to describe HOW you did that directly in relationship to what I said. If I had said, "I trip him with my polearm..." you're retaliation can't be "I duck" like it could be in 4E.

That's stylistic. First, I'd be very unhappy with someone who said "I shoot him in the face". Or "I trip him." (At least until the dice are rolled.) Pure godmoding. I can't react without cancelling your action to some extent. Second, if you tried to duck a leg sweep and I was DMing I'd just ask if you were sure about that (and if you were I'd give a 2 point penalty). If you tried to duck a polearm in Dogs in the Vineyard I'd again ask if you were sure about that. And throw an additional "free" d4 onto the attack roll.

But there's nothing inherent in Dogs preventing non-sensical counters. Just the play expectations which you don't seem to be forcing onto 4e but do onto DiTV. Special pleading all the way.

I'll make a quote from Mike Mearls, "Then you get back to this thing which you first saw in 3rd, where everyone in the party can fly, everyone in the party can teleport, skill checks become irrelevant because everyone has the Climb feat, everyone has slippers of spider climbing, things like that. It turns the game into almost a superhero game. Which is fine, if that's your style, but it's not necessarily the default."

That is utterly irrelevant. Very few characters have grab powers other than the basic grab attack. And anyone who tries to use the core grab attack on the swarm deserves their darwin award (grappling a swarm is not normally wise). The only Homeric Grapplers are the Brawler Fighters. It's pulp, not supers here.

Superhero games are not necessarily the default in D&D. I've said many times in this post that it's important to clarify what style of game we're playing. If we're doing Dragonball Z, sure it might make sense to grapple a gargantuan swarm of humanoids... If we're doing classic Tolkien fantasy, maybe not so much.

I'm not aware that Tolkein ever had a gargantuan swarm of humanoids. And certainly didn't have a grappler. But think, for instance, of the Death of Smaug for using your big trick wherever you can.

Like I said above, Dogs in the Vineyard can never be a dice rolling exercise. You have to say how you raise in that game. It's very important to the conflict resolution mechanics.

See the PHB and DMG extracts. The core difference here is that there's still a lot left of D&D if you reduce the skill challenges to dice rolling excercises. There's nothing left of Dogs in the Vineyard so no one would play it that way.

I've changed the rules for skill challenges too. And, I'm not saying by default the skill challenges can't work. I'm saying I believe many of the complaints about skill challenges stem from this idea that the mechanics of rolling the dice are what matters and not the fiction, specifically from things said in this thread. There are literally people in this thread who have said, "I roll Nature" or "I roll Arcana" or "I roll Diplomacy" is acceptable in a skill challenge. How is a DM supposed to respond to those statements in a skill challenge?

There are times when "I roll nature" is fine. Monster knowledge. As a DM, my answer is always "What are you doing?" Same as it would be in DiTV. "I roll spirit + guns". "Yes, but what are you doing?"

"You approach the duke, and you can tell he's quite displeased with you interrupting his court this morning with the matter of the kobolds. What do you do?"

"I make a Diplomacy check."

"Uh.... Ok..."

Me as DM. "What do you say?"

Like LostSoul pointed out above, even the rules seem to imply that you need to do something fictionally for a skill check to kick in. This is what I'm advocating.

Advocating that that's (a) the way I find most fun and (b) is the method indicated by the rule books is fine. Claiming that people don't do this despite it being coded into the rules makes the rules disassociated is a completely different matter.

I'm presenting these claims directly in response to people who have said themselves that "I roll skill check" is acceptable means of description. You're missing out on like 10 pages of conversation that directly ties to my post.

Sometimes it is. "I roll perception. What do I see?" is absolutely fine (I'd have used passives there, myself). As is "I roll history/nature/dungeoneering. What do I know about that?"

However, some people wish to take this further. I've been in a group that did so. That they do isn't part of 4e; it's actually against the rules as written (see quotes above). But 4e is a big enough and rich enough game that you can play it multiple ways and have a fun game. Not because the mechanics are, as you claim, disassociated. They are explicitely not. But because they can be unhooked and are still strong enough to stand up.