[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[MrMyth]

A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions. RPGs have been like this since the 70s.

Certainly. Ariosto seemed to be claiming that this paradigm had changed in 4E - that the approach it recommended was to instead design an encounter, describe it to the players, and then tell them exactly what they must do.

I simply hunted down some quotes to demonstrate that this wasn't the case, and D&D worked the same as always - as you mention, the DM describes the scene, the players say what they want to do, and the DM figures out what happens from there.

 

[Mallus]

False.

With the actual examples of contemporary play I have seen.

Fair enough. But what makes you confident these examples define contemporary play? Why are your bad experiences (and the bad experiences you've read about) somehow more representative than my good experiences (and the positive ones I've read about)?

It's like you're holding selection bias up as a virtue.

That you are an exception does not nullify the rule.

Well, I'd like to think my group is the exception, that we can turn dross into gold, that we're exceptionally smart, creative, and, hell, let's go all-in and say charming and handsome, too. It would certainly be ego-satisfying.

But it's more likely that we're not so special, that 4e play runs a wide gamut, much like play using the editions which preceded it, that plenty of other gamers run intelligent, creative, and challenging games with 4e.

I mean, there's a lot of evidence of good 4e play here in ENWorld, too. Unless you automatically discount it because it disproves the conclusion you're aiming for.

There have been, literally, hundreds of threads on this topic.
Pretending you have not personally participated in them does not make them go away.

I'm not pretending anything, Bryon. I know full well that I'm repeating myself, asking the same questions I've asked before, participating in the same debates, etc. So sue me If you'd like to sit this round out, no worries.

I think it's always worth asking questions like "what kind of mechanical support for role-playing do you prefer/require?" and "what does role-playing mean to you?". Sure, the responses often run the gamut from the repetitive to the contentious (and repetitive!), but there's usually some real insight into our hobby to be found in such, ahem, classic and long-running debates.

This bears no connection to anything in my 4e game, or anything that I recall reading in DMG, DMG2 or DM's kit book.

Mine, either. Our 4e campaign is a fine blend of problem-solving and fictional world-exploring (and, umm, fantasy-themed absurdist satire and grid-based tactical wargaming).

Maybe we're just especially smart and creative people?

It does resemble some 2nd ed AD&D railroads I played through.

What Ariosto's description of 4e encounter design sounds like to me is the puzzle room design found in many of the classic AD&D modules. Set up a dungeon 'room', decide on the proper solution or solutions to overcome/bypass it, then list as many solutions that won't work --usually magic spells/items-- to force the players into the designers 'approved' solution path.

 

[pemerton]

A DM tells the players what their PCs perceive, allows them to act, then describes the consequences of their actions. RPGs have been like this since the 70s.

Agreed. Where I see skill challenges as differing is only in the imposition of a structure which (i) sets caps on difficulty that are level-governed, and (ii) sets a limit on the number of successes or failures required to actually wrap the situation up and bring the conflict within it to a resolution.

The effects on play of this structure, however, are (in my view) quite far reaching. As a result of (i), the game takes on a bit less of a simulationist and a bit more of a "narrate the world to fit the mechanics" feel (like some indie games eg HeroQuest). As a result of (ii), the GM has to be able to narrate the results of the unfolding skill checks so that resolution in one fashion or another emerges smoothly out of a finite and fixed number of such narrations. (Again, this resembles some indie games eg HeroQuest).

In my own GMing experience, I have found (i) quite straightforward and even in some ways liberating (it makes a big change from Rolemaster, which I use to GM before 4e). On the other hand, I continue to find (ii) a challenge. It very much improves my own handling of encounter pacing, but it has put pressure on me to improve my skills in narrating the outcomes of players' action resolution attempts, keeping the action moving while not shutting the door to a resoultion that might be just one or two skill checks away.

I run a 4e game myself and I really struggle with skill challenges. I suspect Neon really gets them, and I just don't. Then again, maybe I just need to read more of the guidance on the subject.

Not every would agree with this advice, but I have found two sources of guidance invaluable: rulebooks for indie games with similar mechanical systems (especially HeroQuest and Burning Wheel); and essays and posts on The Forge that talk about some of the basic techniques of non-simulationist play. Without both of these, I doubt that I could have worked out simply by reading the DMG and DMG2 how to successfully set up and run a skill challenge, because these D&D books don't identify and discuss the consequences I've identified above of adopting the skill challenge structure.

 

[Argyle King]

I like the concept of skill challenges. I'm just not thrilled with how they are implemented and how they play out.

The main issue I had with them was the DCs. Before I decided to sit and re-write the table of DCs, I often ran into an issue where skill challenges were often somewhat pointless. It was at times literally impossible for a challenge to be failed... at that point, I don't see the reason to even have the challenge. I'm not out to kill the PCs unfairly, and I know that the point of the game is to keep moving forward; however, if there's no chance at all for failure, I don't see the point of doing the skill challenge.

The second thing which tends to bug me is how sometimes -from the player side of the table- it can feel like a skill challenge is a completely seperate game. Sometimes it feels as though my character is broken into several parts; what parts I'm allowed to use depend upon which 'game' I'm playing: combat, skill challenge, or other.

I do use skill challenges, but -for me- when I GM now, the way they work is different enough from the source material to almost be something else behind the curtain. Like a few other things in the game, they do work as is, but it took some experience with the game and making modifications to it to end up with something which worked in a way which was more satisfying to me.

All that being said, I will repeat that I like the idea of skill challenges. I've incorporated the concept into some of the other games I play when I run those other systems. I'm just not always satisfied with how the concept works out as written in 4E.

 

[pemerton]

I like the concept of skill challenges. I'm just not thrilled with how they are implemented and how they play out.

The main issue I had with them was the DCs. Before I decided to sit and re-write the table of DCs, I often ran into an issue where skill challenges were often somewhat pointless. It was at times literally impossible for a challenge to be failed... at that point, I don't see the reason to even have the challenge.

LostSoul dealt with this upthread:

It's about getting unexpected results. Using the structured skill challenges has led to unexpected results in my game.

A quick example: one PC was trying to convince some guards to turn against their master; they didn't particularly like their master (a vain, self-obsessed necromancer; that was determined by DM fiat) and they had a good opinion of the PC (determined by the reaction roll). The PC's modifier to his rolls was so high he couldn't fail (as long as he was able to apply specific skills), but I decided to follow the rules and play out the challenge.

It led to something interesting. The guards ended up asking for and getting some concessions from the PC. Without that structure I would, as DM, have gone with the "expected" result - the guards agree to the PC's demands because he's such an awe-inspiring figure.

The second thing which tends to bug me is how sometimes -from the player side of the table- it can feel like a skill challenge is a completely seperate game. Sometimes it feels as though my character is broken into several parts; what parts I'm allowed to use depend upon which 'game' I'm playing: combat, skill challenge, or other.

This bothers me as a GM also. DMG2 has some guidelines on using encounter and daily powers in skill challenges, and rituals also, but more detail would help (eg what level of ritual is equivalent to what sort of skill check - DMG2 just suggets an automatic success, but this can't be right when the ritual is level 1 and the skill challenge level 10).

 

[francisca]

Today's kids are too jaded with video games and CGI (or ruined, depending upon who you ask). Their imaginations have been filled with garbage imagery from Barney and Sponge Bob to Grand Theft Auto and Avatar. They don't want to "make stuff up" because they don't have to - they can just plug in and turn on. Why pull out a piece of paper and write--with a pencil of all things, as if this was the 20th century--your character down? Aren't the stats supposed to be on the screen? And where's my first-person weapon? Why can't I see it in front of me? All I see is a bunch of over-or-under-weight 30+ year olds sitting around a table laughing and eating snacks and talking about stuff that I can't see or attack with my mouse.

I can only assume you don't have kids. Mine are incredibly creative.

They write and illustrate their own stories, build amazing stuff with legos, construct all kinds of stuff from paper, cardboard, tape, and glue, and love playing tabletop D&D and miniatures.

And lest you think I've shielded them form the evils of TV and videogames, think again. We have a Wii, they play games on the PC (Zork is one of them, right along side Lego Star Wars), the 2 older boys have Nintendo DS handhelds as well. They laugh their cans off at Spongebob and Fineous and Ferb (Adventure Time has been banned, however).

Hell, the older two even play football and basketball (jocks, perish the thought....) And they love to read. Even the 4 year old has told the wife and I that we need to teach him how so he can read "Harry Potter and the Dungeon Dragons books".

They don't seem to be atypical, either. Their friends are much the same, many even having "gamer dads" like me.

But go right ahead and keep selling them short.

 

[Corinth]

Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure?

 

[Argyle King]

Getting back to Colville's bold point, made way back: If killing monsters is a solved problem, then what else is there to do that young players would find fun and engaging in addition to killing monsters and getting treasure?

I imagine that would depend upon the individual player in question. Though, some other ideas may include (but are not limited to): being lord of a castle, leading an army, exploring wilderness, ruling over a tract of land, engaging in a murder mystery, political intrigue, playing the part of monsters trying to prevent 'good' heroes from taking their treasure, sailing the high seas, and much more.

 

[fumetti]

So it's not about "making excuses" to use skills. A player has to explain what his/her PC is doing to resolve the challenge.

This gets to the heart of what I've been talking about.

If the DM sets up a skill challenge, then it's a predetermined encounter that the party must get past. It is not organic. It is not chosen by the players, or the effect of players' choices. This restricts the "sandbox" nature of RPGs. It in effect becomes yet another tunnel-vision game.

Player choices should affect the resolution of a skill challenge

I guess I'm saying that it's best if player choices should effect the existence of a skill challenge.

I'm in favor of a game story where most skill challenges and encounters occur as a response to unpredictable player actions. 4E seems structured the other way around.

But of course, I might be wrong.

 

[fumetti]

Stop right there. You've been playing Encounters. Something designed specifically to be drop-in lowest common denominator game runnable by a random DM with no experience.

The 4E core rulebooks, as well as the Essential paperbacks thus far, read as if they are specifically designed for the Encounters program and not a traditional long-term campaign.

Otherwise, there would be less emphasis on elaborate combat encounters and more on noncombat experiences. Anyone whose first DnD experience is 4E -- and they don't have DnD veterans around to explain things -- is going to see DnD as a combat strategy game with summarized "filler" inbetween the encounters.

Absolutely, a veteran player can use 4E as a great complex long-term campaign with oodles of noncombat events. But that player will be drawing from past products and past experiences to carry it out--NOT from the 4E material itself.