D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I find it quite possible to have a system that allows both for a single roll (when appropriate) and multiple rolls (also when appropriate).

I committed no fallacy- I didn't say it wasn't possible to have such a system. I'm just saying that I don't prefer it.

In addition, the system I use is nothing like the SC system in one important respect -- the targets are static, the GM need not have any mathematical chops, and the player chooses the intermediate target DCs.

Any mechanic that requires multiple rolls requires mathematical chops to balance. Not major chops, but some.

If you want to set a multiple skill roll challenge where the target is to let the party have a 50% chance of success on the overall task, you need to know the proper odds for setting each successive challenge. The math of P(1)*P(2)*P(3) = P(overall success) is simple, yes, but unless you've actually done some kind of stats, you're not going to know this is how you calculate the overall probability of success.

And building this math trap into a game designed for ages 13+ is not a good idea.

 

[Dannager]

Which misses the point of every instance this has occured in myth, legend and fiction.

Really?

In no instance of performance in any myth, legend, or fictional account has anyone ever had their ability to charm the audience, react to a change in pace, or intimidate their opponent prove the contest's deciding factor?

Really?

The key to the challenge isn't whether you know what to play. Its whether you play so well you can beat the Devil (or his champion).

And, as with any performance, there are performance skills like those listed for your edification in the skill challenge write-up you were presented with earlier that are critical to the success of nearly every case of evenly-matched participants in fiction of any sort.

The great stories are not about who was the better violinist; the great stories are about who was the better person.

I didn't call it incomplete, I said it failed. The supposed rebuttal missed the point of the challenge.

And we argue that you miss the point of the challenge.

 

[Dannager]

If you want to set a multiple skill roll challenge where the target is to let the party have a 50% chance of success on the overall task, you need to know the proper odds for setting each successive challenge. The math of P(1)*P(2)*P(3) = P(overall success) is simple, yes, but unless you've actually done some kind of stats, you're not going to know this is how you calculate the overall probability of success.

And building this math trap into a game designed for ages 13+ is not a good idea.

Out of curiosity, how much more difficult is the math behind ensuring that the party has a 50% chance of successfully completing the campaign from start to finish?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I committed no fallacy- I didn't say it wasn't possible to have such a system. I'm just saying that I don't prefer it.

Cool. I misunderstood your "unless you want performances or crafting broken down into note by note". Thank you for clarifying.

If you want to set a multiple skill roll challenge where the target is to let the party have a 50% chance of success on the overall task

1. That is no different than combat.

2. I don't "want to set a multiple skill roll challenge"; this is not 4e. I set the overall DC, based on an approximation of how difficult the desired end is, and then the players decide how to approach the problem, sometimes forearmed with this DC, and sometimes based on their own estimate of how hard it will be.

3. In actual play, it works quite well.


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

1. That is no different than combat.

Agreed. The key aspect of combat being that there is incremental feedback. If the feedback is good enough, only the designer needs to have a firm understanding of the underlying math. Heck, if the feedback is really good, it will even compensate for designer flaws in the math. This is part of why "save and die" cause so much trouble--no feedback between the initial roll and the final result.

 

[Herschel]

Your Bard and Bob's Warlock and Suzy's Warden are all musically inclined by background, while Marco's Paladin is not. All have been fully statted out with their trained and untrained skills.

At the crossroads, BBEG pops up with a challenge to win his Golden Bagpipes, all you have to do is beat him in a piping contest...you lose, your soul is his.

That's an easy one: bet the Warlock's soul, he's not using it anyway and if it's already pledged then it's a second mortgage.

Bagpipes is something that if my character played them I'd have it written in to his background and not worry about exact skills. That's too nit-picky for my tastes.

 

[billd91]

And we argue that you miss the point of the challenge.

If the point was to come up with as many semi-related skills as possible without actually including the meat the matter, then I think some of us have got it.

For what it's worth, I can see coming up with a skill challenge in which the performing PC works in those skills for additional benefits on the whole challenge. But relying on them alone feels like I'm nibbling around the real test - ability to perform.

Ultimately, it's easy enough to house rule and the most common house rule I've heard of for 4e is adding another trained skill or two for secondary skills the PC may be interested in from crafting, to performance, to other professions. The sad part is I have to house rule it in to make use of it and 4e's character assistance tools from printed character sheets to the Character Builders are among the least friendly tools to update based on house rules of all editions.

 

[Kannik]

I find this so interesting, because I see 4e as much more codified (the power system), shifting away from a more free-form DM fiat zone, which is how I perceive 3.5.

Perfect example of YMMV, that.

Indeed!

Here's a few ways how it occurs for me and my group:

A - DM stuff doesn't have to follow how PCs are built/put together. This is especially noticeable with NPCs and monster design. If you want a monster or PC to be able to do XYZ, then they can do XYZ, it doesn’t have to tap into the same/existing grapple ruleset, or ply of the same spells the PC have access to, or use someother existing mechanic. This then extends to traps, terrain, magical effects, etc. Much more DM freedom.

How this has shown up in play for us is that when weird thing W happens, the players react to weird thing W rather than wonder what mechanic was used, if it was used properly, if the DM is trying to screw them over by bending the mechanic, and what countermeasures they have against the mechanic (as opposed to responding to and/or countering the weird thing happening in front of them in the world).

B – Framework and guidelines on page 42 of the DMG that says “let them try it, even weird combat maneuvers, here’s some basics to adjudicate it.” Similarly, with the explicit rule design of exceptions overriding the baseline you can design anywhichwayweird things. DM fiat can abound here.

C – In a very 1e move, re-relegating non-encounter PC abilities to not being in the ruleset has allowed some groups and PCs much greater flexibility on their background abilities.* DM has to adjudicate this. Consolidation of skills has allowed characters to be more broadly skillful and thus do more rather than hitting skill point roadblocks.

* This is one change I’m not satisfied with; while I like that background abilities no longer vie for precious skill points with adventuring abilities, complete removal left a void to me. (Which is why I wrote a background skill/trades system for RPGnow)

D – A move towards effects-based power system is more implicit in allowing players to define what their powers are and how they work in the world. Also, making the character classes more about a power/combat shtick while dispensing of some of the other non-combat trappings can allow for more freedom of character concept. (I think they could have even gone farther with this, or at least been more explicit about it) (this one is less about DM fiat, more about RP)

E – Some of the more heavily DM-adjudicated spells have largely been turned into rituals, leading for an easier time to create more (without having to worry how they fit into a combat spell structure). Plus it's easy to make special rituals for special situations, or use only by the baddies.

So, overall, these changes have let the RP flow more freely with the system being in the background for most of our game time. As a DM I'm freer to come up with what I want, even on the fly, and have it work, work well and be accepted fictionally as well as mechanically.

Combat I'd say is mostly the same RP wise, a bit more here, a bit less there, albeit with much greater movement and tactics as the combat system permits greater fluidity and ability by certain roles.

With 1Ed and similar systems, it was binary: if you chose to be a musician, you were skilled enough to be notable. Everyone else was essentially a scrub or newb.

IIRC in 1e, until the Dungeoneer’s and Wilderness survival guides there were no secondary skills (or skills at all, for that matter), it was all up to your background and the DM playing off of that if they wanted to. Or if you were an Elf. Then you saw everything, perception be darned. (kidding! )

Anyway, as stated above I’m with you on this one, I consider the complete removal of non-adventuring skills/etc as a loss for the game.

Oh, it is performance. But I'd really rather not have the most important part of it be how high the player rolls on a d20 always using the same base number. I'd far rather a skill challenge using:

I like this a lot, and I find it a great example of a skill challenge to boot! I’d use something like this too, in conjunction with what’s in my trades skill system, for such an epic battle of the bands, coupled with (actually preceded by and interspersed with) RP from the players about the whole thing.

(Epic battle of the bands… an episode of Reboot comes to mind )

peace,

Kannik

 

[Kerranin]

I bet if you ran the challenge enthusiastically and in the manner suggested in that post, your players would think it's great.

I would have to agree here, it is about how you run the skill challenges. I know I am, at best, average when running them, but I've seen it done right and it works.

 

[Ryujin]

I didn't miss that.

However, if a skill doesn't exist in the game, a challenge to that game cannot be performed within the game's mechanics, end of story.

Your Bard and Bob's Warlock and Suzy's Warden are all musically inclined by background, while Marco's Paladin is not. All have been fully statted out with their trained and untrained skills.

At the crossroads, BBEG pops up with a challenge to win his Golden Bagpipes, all you have to do is beat him in a piping contest...you lose, your soul is his. Use of powers is vevoten- this is a test of skill, not mystical prowess. Who steps up?

By your caveat, Marco's Paladin is out. That's cool.

But the other PCs have no meaningful distinction between the others. By rule, there is no skill to reference, thus there is no distinction between trained or untrained. All it is is a battle of stat bonuses. Literally, no skill is involved.

And considering the amount of skill it ACTUALLY takes to play an instrument well- indeed, to be good at any artistic or craftsmanship type task- that's pretty lousy...mechanically AND narratively.

If skill training is to be a limited resource- and I think that it should- then editing non-combat RW skills out of the game and relegating them to a nebulous "if it's in your PC's background, he has it, if not he doesn't" type of rule, then you're giving away skill(oids) for free. They are no longer a limited resource. Or, more accurately, they are a resource limited only by a player's willingness to write up a background.

My PCs are all going to a well rounded art college, learning instruments, poetry, calligraphy, sculpting, painting and cooking- and will have gotten the money to do so by apprehending with the mason, tailor, Fletcher, weaponsmith and armorer- before taking up the mantle of Psion. Or Warlock. Or Ranger...

Not so. A 'skilless' skill challenge, in 4e, incorporates attribute bonus and level. By the mechanics of 4e, it works.

.... or you could just reference DMG page 42.

*EDIT* Oh, and I would rule that your character's background resulted in him spreading himself so thin, that he failed to learn anything but how to sweep effectively, in diverse locations