The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Ariosto]

This is pretty traditional stuff, I think.

Not in the tradition of role-playing games with which I have been very well acquainted, starting with Original D&D and including the majority of commercially published ones until (I think) sometime in the 1990s.

Of course, people who have never known anything but stuff like the crap that TSR and White Wolf and others started to shovel out in the late '80s, the "illusionism" and "thespianism" and yadda yadda -- people who take that as normative and simply "the way it's done" -- can impose that on any game they please.

It's not as if 2e AD&D or Vampire had some new kind of "mechanics" for that "playstyle".

Hell, I used to do that baloney in the early '80s while playing Gin Rummy with a girlfriend. Guess I should have padded the explanation to a few thousand pages and sold it. (Actually, I did develop over a number of years something quite like Robin Laws's Hero Wars rules set. Then I dropped it, partly for reasons that became clear all over after I bought HW.)

 

[Ariosto]

It's all just a question of using multiple skill checks to get to one overall result.

No, it's not. It's the "4e skill challenge".

Suppose you had a group of people playing Traveller.

Then we would not be using "4e skill challenges".

They are in a scout ship and have to try to intercept a fuel tanker rigged to explode when it reaches the a mining station in the asteroid belt.

Says who?

The players start trying to do what they think will help the situation.

And either it does or it does not. That depends on
(A) the situation
and
(B) what they are doing
and
(C) usually a chance factor to represent the myriad imponderables that Von Clausewitz called "friction".

What it does not depend upon is the arbitrary structure of a "4e skill challenge".

If I light a wood fire, then there is a fire. If you pour on enough water, then the result is dead ashes; too little, and the result is still hot embers. In the latter case, the addition of tinder may get the fire going again.

See? There are causes and effects, not "X successes before 3 failures". Choose a cause of failure -- such as pouring kerosene instead of water when you want to put out the fire -- and you get failure. Choose a cause of sooner success -- such as applying Aquaeus Fire Fighting Foam -- and you get success sooner.

 

[Ariosto]

This feature of skill challenges is not very different from the fact that no matter how creative my PC's plan in the arena, I must hit the monster a certain number of times to eliminate its hit points.

That's not any rules set I want to play!

I like games in which it generally takes fewer bursts from a Sten gun, or fewer droppings of half-tonne boulders, or fewer falls onto poisoned Punji stakes, or fewer trip-wired grenades, than punches with a cestus (which tends in turn to beat a bare fist, which usually is better than a limp noodle).

I like causes and effects that have some passably reasonable connection.

I also like role-playing games that don't consist of being stuck in an arena and having to fight a monster to the death or "lose the scenario".

When I want a wargame, I've got a number that are much, much more to my taste than 4e.

This is consistent with the notion that the main function of XP in 4e is to generate a change in PC level over time regardless of what exactly the PC's are doing in the gameworld.

There's another thing I don't need, or want, or find in the least appealing. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the commitment of resources necessary for character improvement -- from physical training to skill training to wealth and position -- in Traveller.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's the structure of an "arbitrary" skill challenge I am going to include in my game.

Create a Magic Item.
0. Acquire sufficient resources. This means an amount of ritual components (the specific type related to the item to be created) that have a value equal to a random monetary treasure parcel of the item's desired level, and the base item - a sword, suit of armour, deck of playing cards, etc.

1. Imbue the components with magic. You take the components and mix them together while releasing magical energies into them. This step determines the abilities the item will have; this depends on your available spells, your level, and the desired level of the item. Acid Arrow could be used to create a sword that spits or coats itself in acid, for example.
Failure at this step can result in unintended abilities or simply the expenditure of the components. If the latter happens, the process must be repeated.
This step takes two days.

2. Imbue the item with the now-magical components. You bind the components to the item, infusing the item with magical energy.
Failure at this step can result in explosions, malfunctions, unintended abilities, etc. There will be a table for this. If the components or item is lost or destroyed, the process must begin again from the start.
This step also takes two days.

3. Seal the magic in the item. This makes the item permanent; failure might mean that the magic is lost after a single use, or perhaps the magic seeps out into other items and areas, causing all sorts of hassles. When a one-shot magic item is desired, this step can be skipped.
This step takes two days.

4. Engage in a battle of wills with the item. You either keep the item from forming goals and desires of its own or you shape those goals and desires to your own wishes. Failure means that the item is cursed; there's a table for that. If you don't care if the item is cursed or not, this step can be skipped.
This step takes one day.

Of course, if you have access to a wish or other factors that aid in creation of magic items, you may be able to bypass one or more steps.

 

[Superking]

"That is the main thing about this "cool" powers, that they are prebuilt tactics that are supposed to help people tell a story with fancy cinematic maneuvers, but for others, it constrains them TO those specific maneuvers."


The players can choose which powers their PC would like to use though... They are free to describe them however they wish. So it is a matter of choosing which effects best describe what they want to do. To me this can open the door for signature moves and all sorts of creativity.

I guess for others they may feel this limits their options.

In my group combats often came to simple roll to hit and do x damage. So I would welcome anything that adds color or complexity to the battle.

 

[Ariosto]

Social interactions in 1e and 2e, for example, had very little mechanical resolution beyond some very basic Charisma checks. If you wanted to bluff the guard, you had to talk to your DM and your DM determined by fiat (mostly) whether the guard believed you or not.

I'm not seeing that. A while ago, someone claimed that a particular 3e skill (I think it was Diplomacy) was effectively an at-will Charm Person. I looked it up in the rule books, and I saw nothing to that effect.

The method in its essentials is just the same: You attempt something, and the DM sets a probability. Only, now the difference between your Diplomacy number and someone else's may make a difference in the probabilities.

The table in OD&D uses a 2d6 curve with only 1/36 chance of either of the most extreme results. AD&D specifies 1d100 (but uses it as 1d20). The 3e approach uses 1d20.

I think the AD&D DMG has a lot more modifiers listed than the 3.5 PHB and DMG, but I guess I could have missed some tables.

 

[shadzar]

I'm not seeing that. A while ago, someone claimed that a particular 3e skill (I think it was Diplomacy) was effectively an at-will Charm Person. I looked it up in the rule books, and I saw nothing to that effect.

The method in its essentials is just the same: You attempt something, and the DM sets a probability. Only, now the difference between your Diplomacy number and someone else's may make a difference in the probabilities.

The table in OD&D uses a 2d6 curve with only 1/36 chance of either of the most extreme results. AD&D specifies 1d100 (but uses it as 1d20). The 3e approach uses 1d20.

I think the AD&D DMG has a lot more modifiers listed than the 3.5 PHB and DMG, but I guess I could have missed some tables.

Reaction Adjustment indicates the penalty or bonus due to the character because of Charisma when dealing with nonplayer characters and intelligent creatures.

There is your entire "diplomacy" mechanic in AD&D. It offers penalty or bonus to attempt, roll your Charisma check, and add the modifier.

Roll d20, add modifier, consult CHA stat on your character sheet to see if you passed or failed.

As streamlined as you can get.

 

[Ariosto]

Here's the structure of an "arbitrary" skill challenge I am going to include in my game.

Well, it's only a "skill challenge" if enough bad rolls at the yard sale to get money to get ritual components mean that -- even if you eventually get the components, and imbue the components with magic, and imbue the item with the now-magical components, and seal the magic in the item -- a single bad roll in the battle of wills with the item means you screwed that up. Because, obviously, it made all the difference when you got less than Overstreet for the complete Batman: Year One you looted from the Robot's Dungeon.

 

[BryonD]

The players can choose which powers their PC would like to use though... They are free to describe them however they wish. So it is a matter of choosing which effects best describe what they want to do. To me this can open the door for signature moves and all sorts of creativity.

Certainly there is a ton of freedom on the creation end. But once you get into play, you have what you picked.

I guess for others they may feel this limits their options.

Limits? I don't see that. It in no way limits options, it just limits the quality of the mechanical simulation of many options. You can choose from the same infinite universe under either system. But when the mechanics lead, the further the choice falls from the mechanical expectation, the less quality the result has. Of course you can avoid that by being careful to choose options that fit. But now we are to the difference between having your options limited and having the mechanics bias the options.

In my group combats often came to simple roll to hit and do x damage. So I would welcome anything that adds color or complexity to the battle.

And, as so often happens, we get to the root of it. To coin a phrase, "there's your problem".

If your group can't get past this, then the cruch of pop quiz gaming probably *IS* better for you. But, by your own words, without that you just went to simple roll to hit and do x damage. You are not comparing what CAN be to what 4E is, you are just comparing next to nothing to 4E.

Trust me, if you can bring the color and compexity without the mechanics leading you, the value goes to the next level.

 

[Ariosto]

There is your entire "diplomacy" mechanic in AD&D. It offers penalty or bonus to attempt, roll your Charisma check, and add the modifier.

Roll d20, add modifier, consult CHA stat on your character sheet to see if you passed or failed.

As streamlined as you can get.

Maybe you're thinking of 2e.

1st DMG, p. 63:

Reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and applicable loyalty adjustment as if the creature were a henchman of the character speaking.

The table of Loyalty Base Modifiers has 66 possible values, in 10 categories, if I have not erred in counting. These have largely to do with prior behavior toward the creature in question.

Moreover, modified results of 25 or less include "or morale check if appropriate". That introduces more tables of modifiers and results.

At the end of the day, in any of those games, it is still up to the DM to interpret the subjective quality of response and combine it with the particulars of PC proposition and NPC interests to determine the details of appropriate resultant behavior.

In 1st ed. AD&D, it is made plain that no amount of dice-rolling is going to accomplish certain things even with one's own most loyal henchmen (including some given special attention because players are likely to try to "game the system" in certain ways).