Legends & Lore: Skills

[UngainlyTitan]

Yes this is what it was. I could have just said, ok I'll assume you're taking 20 and just tell them what they find but this is exactly the same (except with a +10 bonus) as passive perception



Taking 20 effectively does the same. So if I place a trap on the roof with a DC of their Search score+20 or their Perception score+10 in 4e, the results are the same.

So essentially it was either just assume taking 20 all the time (which is what you seem to be doing), or force them to announce where they're searching. Either way seems stupid to me. I can tell you I far prefer that PC's are less "Ok, I search the ceiling. Nothing? Ok, I search under the bed, then in the desk, then under the desk, then around the painting, then behind the painting." or they could say "I'm taking 20 seraching the whole room" Maybe I'm different, but to me that is not adding anything as you should likely have just say "you enter the bedroom of the BBEG, you find the enchanted X under his bed" and just move on. The whole "searching" for me was always more of a PITA than anything. Again, my perspective if obviously my own, I prefer my players to find the rewards I plan, rather than hide them away in some obscure nook that they'll likely miss. I would rather just keep the game moving and focus on the story, or the character development or combat over that aspect of the game. I'm not a "gotcha" DM so I've never sprung those kind of traps on PC's.

I would agree with you and it was even more of a PITA when they mistook something they have been told and start taking out the crowbars and knocking holes in the walls, floors and ceiling.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

...you should likely have just say "you enter the bedroom of the BBEG, you find the enchanted X under his bed" and just move on. The whole "searching" for me was always more of a PITA than anything...

Curse you, now you've got me mulling what would be a fun passive search mechanic, when it may be that there ain't no such animal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So what are you envisioning? The players tell the GM what argument they are trying to make, then they roll the dice, and then they role-play out making the argument? That seems strange to me. It's also a little weird having PCs tell me which places they want to look, then roll the dice, and then describe how they looked around.

Or is that not what you had in mind?

I was envisioning something more like what Abdul listed. But it is true, that if the DM is not aware of the decision points, and the conceptual differences between narration from previous results versus build up to next decision point, then it could get pretty clunky.

But it is hard to say that flatly, because "role-play out making the argument," could be several different conceptual things, depending upon what the participants were doing.

For us, it works fairly naturally, because I don't have set decision points in mind. That might be part of what is making this seem strange. For example, I'm not setting up the scene with something like, "You need a DC 25 Diplomacy check to get the duke to fund your trip." (Or a skill challenge, or any other such option.) If you've already got that set as a goal, and then you want roleplaying to be a major factor in the talks with the duke, then what gets said in that conversation is the whole point of the scene.

Rather, I'm reacting to the scene as it is being roleplayed, recognizing that a decision point is being reached, setting the DC appropriately (much as Abdul discussed), calling for a roll (or rolls), and then allowing the players to narrate the result appropriately. Note that the "roleplaying" leading up the decision point can be in character conversation with the duke (in 1st or 3rd person), but it can also be characterization, plans, asides, and so forth. If you are familiar with "Say Yes, or Roll the Dice" it is something analogous that I did long before I heard that thought. It might be described as, "Say Yes until you Roll the Dice."

It is not unlike the tense prelude of some combats. The antagonists size up each other. There is some posturing. Some comments are made. Advantage in positioning is sought. People look for ways out. But eventually you reach that decision point where someone backs off, or you roll initiative.

It is true that I might strongly suspect, or even know from player comments, that they intend to ask the duke for backing. I might already be mulling DCs. But that is still different from a preset check. If in the midst of the preliminary roleplaying, another decision point is reached first, we'll be rolling and narrating from that result. This may even rule out the diplomacy check.

 

[Colmarr]

2. I as DM, effectively know what my PC's perception scores are... so really I might as well either right auto-find... or not auto-find next to the "hidden" things as opposed to assigning a DC.

The real issue here is one of frequency, not of certainty.

Certainty of outcome has existed in D&D with skills for an awfully long time. Specifically, since the lowest a PC can roll is 1 and a 1 is not an automatic failure on skill checks (since at least 3rd edition), the minimum outcome is 1 + skill modifier. Any DC equal to or below that number is auto-success.*

Similarly, the highest a PC can roll is 20, so any DC above 20 + skill modifier is auto-failure.*

As such, passive perception is only problematic because it is set at 10 + skill modifier and is thus likely to be relevant much more often than either of the above.

My personal view on it is that this is no different to any other aspect of DMing. You either tailor to your party or you don't.

* The new Aid Another rules mess with this somewhat, but the variables only increase by +2/-1 per additional PC.

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the (many) pitfalls of the skill challenge system is that puts skills in a very limited box. It says, "PCs can use Diplomacy to convince the duke that this is a bad idea for one success." They can't turn the entire scene into a diplomatic scene because... um, because the skill challenge isn't written that way.

<snip>

Once, I was playing in a campaign with an otherwise very good DM. I was playing a Genasi Swordmage with a very strong lightning and storms theme. We encountered a trap that was basically massive static charges flinging from one rock to the next. We had to figure out how to disarm it so we could safely rest in the area.

I asked the DM if, being an elemental being of lightning, I could use Endurance to try to simply absorb the shock. "No," he told me.

"Okay," I said, "can I use Arcana to try and nullify the energy?"

"No," he told me.

And then the halfling monk said, "I use Thievery," and he rolled a 16, and the DM said, "You succeed."

I don't see this as an objection to skill challenges. I see it as evidence that, at least in this domain, the GM in question was not very good.

The rulebooks are fairly clear. From the PHB p 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…​

From the DMG pp 73-75:

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...

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 …​

The GM, in adjudicating the skill challenge as you describe, was not following these guidelines, which make it clear that the GM's (or module author's) description of the skill challenge is merely a type of preliminary guide to how the challenge might unfold - your GM was himself not thinking about the challenge in depth, nor thinking about how the skill checks are grounded in actions that make sense given the situation.

This system does have the advantage of narrative coherence, although it directs the player's skill into narrating actions consistent with the dice. I like this sort of approach for when there is no in-game detail for the players to analyze.

<snip>

In contrast, when the PCs are trying to persuade a fully developed NPC, that character's motivations, loyalties are quirks are things that the players actually have information about. Reducing interaction with that character to a die roll seems like it loses a great opportunity. Instead, I want the players to think about what sorts of arguments that NPC would find persuasive, and I want to provide major adjustments (or auto-successes) to reflect that player consideration of the game world.

To me, what you're describing here is one sort of difference between when a single skill check is appropriate to resolve a situation, and when a skill challenge is appropriate. (A bit like the difference in HeroQuest between simple and extended contests.) In the latter case, just rolling and then narrating to fit the roll isn't enough - as the guidelines in the PHB and DMG indicate, the player has to describe in advance of the roll what it is that his/her PC is attempting. Without this the GM can't adjudicate consequences, which then leads to the sort of silliness that Kinneus is complaining about.

There is nothing prohibited in roll first with setting the scene, being clever, etc. The players are free to eke out as much advantage as they can, using whatever information they have, up to the limits of what the table will tolerate.

<snip>

Then they roll. Then they narrate the result.

<snip>

The method depends on the DM having a clear understanding of the differences between roleplaying that happens leading up to a mechanical decision point, versus the narration that may follow that decision point. And of course, in smooth play, the narration seems to bleed into the roleplaying for the next decision point.

Which is why "roll first, roleplay after" is correct, but probably a bit of a sloppy way of putting it.

This makes sense, although I think the general tenor of the rulebooks is that it is the GM rather than the player who has principal responsbility for narrating the result (but obviously having due regard to the player's prior roleplaying).

even when roleplay for advantage (or mere color or otherwise) is tightly mixed in with roleplay via narration, they are still separate activities in my mind.

I agree - which I think is reflected in the implicit distribution of responsibility in the 4e rules (players have primary responsibility for the former, GMs for the latter).

One weakness in the published examples of skill challenges (which is not present in the skill challenge rules themselves) is that they don't sufficiently distinguish these two things - so that in suggesting to the GM how s/he might narrate a result given a certain prior player roleplaying decision, they are taken by some as also licensing the GM to dictate those prior roleplaying decisions. Dismabiguating this in the examples would, I believe, have saved WotC a lot of grief with respect to skill challenges.

I don't have set decision points in mind.

<snip>

Rather, I'm reacting to the scene as it is being roleplayed, recognizing that a decision point is being reached, setting the DC appropriately (much as Abdul discussed), calling for a roll (or rolls), and then allowing the players to narrate the result appropriately.

<snip>

It is true that I might strongly suspect, or even know from player comments, that they intend to ask the duke for backing. I might already be mulling DCs. But that is still different from a preset check. If in the midst of the preliminary roleplaying, another decision point is reached first, we'll be rolling and narrating from that result. This may even rule out the diplomacy check.

This also makes sense to me, and is how I believe skill challenges are best conceived of given the published guidelines - and again, the decisions points canvassed in the published examples on ly make sense if treet as preliminary mullings of the sort you describe.

The one point where I would depart from what you describe is in who gets to narrate the result. You say that it is the player. But at least sometimes this, in effect, puts the player in charge of setting up the next decision point - which is to say, makes the player responsible for setting up the adveristy for his/her PC - and for reasons given in this blog to which LostSoul has linked in the past, I don't think that works very well.

That's not to say the GM should be a dick about it. And if the GM, in narrating results, presents the PC (as opposed to the broader situation) in a light to which the player objects, then I think there has to be scope for negotiation and player input. (Eg, and referring back to AbdulAlhazrad's example, it is one thing for the GM to decide that the duke's advisor recognises the lie because more familiar with the details than the PC anticipated, but another thing for the GM to decide that the lie fails because the PC is so nervous that s/he spills wine all over the duke's shoes - a GM who wants to go with the second option should have the player on board implicitly if not explicitly, I think.)

 

[delericho]

Interestingly, he focuses on the tension between providing a consistent mechanical system for resolving actions and requiring the player to describe (or roleplay) what the character does. It's the difference between "I search" and "I look under the bed... then under the desk... then in the drawers..."

The problem with the former is that it's dull. The problem with the latter is that it takes considerably longer, and it penalises the player who happens to omit the one area that actually has something hidden ("ah, but you didn't look behind the pictures"...).

Also, if you allow players to bypass the roll by specifying actions in detail, you allow them to "roleplay around" the mechanics. This effectively penalises the less-charismatic player who isn't equipped to do this, allowing the savvy player to avoid investing in Search/Diplomacy/whatever skills.

It's really difficult to find the happy medium.

Mearls point that better ability with skills should 'unlock' more powerful uses is a good one, although this doesn't actually require any great changes to the rules - if we simply set DC 30 (or whatever) as "the limit of real-world human ability", then DCs higher than that can be used for such appropriately-impossible skills. Indeed, the 3e Epic Level Handbook did this very thing (although it was widely derided for doing so).

In general, my preferences for skills are as follows:

1) I prefer the "skill ranks" model of 3e to the Trained/Untrained binary switch of 4e. Though the modifications Pathfinder makes are even better.

2) I would do away with trained-only skills (from the 3e model). Although Mearls says these were based on logic, that logic tended to be quite thin in places. Better just to let everyone try anything, and sweep concerns about versimilitude under the carpet of "it's a fantasy game".

3) I would "fix the math" in this area, to get skill bonuses into parity with the various attack bonuses. This will then allow people to roll Skill vs Defence, which still appears somewhat troublesome in 4e. (Though it was worse in Star Wars Saga Edition, especially with the Use the Force skill...)

4) Expand and enhance the Skill Challenge systems. Conceptually, these may be the single best thing about 4e. However, in terms of execution, they leave quite a lot to be desired, especially as used in the various prepublished adventures.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The one point where I would depart from what you describe is in who gets to narrate the result. You say that it is the player. But at least sometimes this, in effect, puts the player in charge of setting up the next decision point - which is to say, makes the player responsible for setting up the adveristy for his/her PC - and for reasons given in this blog to which LostSoul has linked in the past, I don't think that works very well.

I'm saying the player because that is the default at our table, but it really isn't central to my point, and could just as easily be the DM. Or for that matter, it could be another player. What we go with in actual play is that the person who seems to have the "hot hand" in narration for the particular moment is allowed to run with it, agency be damned. Note that this cuts both ways. I roll for some kind of monster check, out in the open same as with every other roll. A player may jump in and describe what happened, if they have a good idea.

OTOH, I keep a very firm hand on the decision points. The key here is that narration is fluid. The same fluidness that allows any player to take over narration, even mid-sentence, allows me to take it back when a decision point is approached.

It helps that the goal of our narration is to entertain the table, rather to gain any particular advantage. No one is out to screw over a character, any character--but we don't hesitate to do so if that is where the narration takes us. Likewise, we don't hesitate to give a character an advantage, if that is what comes out of the narration. It is almost a separate reward cycle: Entertain table, get appreciation of peers, keep groove going that causes everyone to want to entertain table. (Reduce anyone to speechlessness or rolling on the floor, get an action point, automatic.)

This is not improvization style narration, either. If a player narrates something that is counter to my notes for the situation, or that I had decided and acted upon earlier in the scene, then I'll stop, let them know that won't work, and someone will run with this new information.

This is getting rather far afield from the original topic, but I think it should be somewhat apparent why the 4E skill system works fairly well for us in this regard.

 

[Greg K]

In general, my preferences for skills are as follows:

1) I prefer the "skill ranks" model of 3e to the Trained/Untrained binary switch of 4e. Though the modifications Pathfinder makes are even better.

me too.

2) I would do away with trained-only skills (from the 3e model). Although Mearls says these were based on logic, that logic tended to be quite thin in places. Better just to let everyone try anything, and sweep concerns about versimilitude under the carpet of "it's a fantasy game".

I disagree with sweeping it under the carpet, because its a fantasy game, but I think Sean K Reynolds made some arguments in his Fewer Absolutes part 2 that many skills in 3e can be done untrained. The DCs just need to be increased for many untrained attempts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm kind of on board with both of mearls's ideas here. Heck, I've been advocating the need for Noncombat Powers since probably 2009.

You could even design them exactly like normal powers! The "attack" line is just replaced with the "Skill" line, and instead of vs. a defense, it's vs. a DC.

It solves so many issues with 4e's current noncombat system to give a player something they can just lay down and say, "This happens."

Ideally, it would be paired with a slightly different resolution system, but I suppose it could be useful in a Skill Challenge as they are, netting an auto-success of some sort.

The idea of autosuccess isn't bad, but I get the impression it's a little too binary for RAW. Make the RAW just the "DM's Best Friend" bonus of +2-+10, and let individual DMs decide if they want autosuccess.

I do think 4e skills need to take a serious look at what their actual purpose in gameplay is, in addition to all this. They fall into Exploration, Investigation, and Interaction camps pretty easily, so I don't see why 4e noncomabt challenges don't take advantage of that to have those types of challenges.

Oh, and while I'm at it: Perception is way too important to just belong to the skill system. It's involved in...friggin' everything.

 

[KidSnide]

Interestingly, he focuses on the tension between providing a consistent mechanical system for resolving actions and requiring the player to describe (or roleplay) what the character does. It's the difference between "I search" and "I look under the bed... then under the desk... then in the drawers..."

The problem with the former is that it's dull. The problem with the latter is that it takes considerably longer, and it penalises the player who happens to omit the one area that actually has something hidden ("ah, but you didn't look behind the pictures"...).

For situation where the focus of the action isn't on searching, I think the right thing to do is to just "say yes" and give the PCs the treasure from the monsters they just killed.

When the situation is focusing on searching for clues or exploration, I adopt a skill challenge approach where - on each search roll - the player gets a search roll and a chance to guess where the clues are. Each place they look, I tell them about the clue they find. If they ultimately succeed in the skill challenge, I tell them the other clues at the location. If they ultimately fail, they only get the clues they were able to find in the meanwhile.

Notably, this works best in a real mystery game where there are a large collection of clues to be gathered from an individual scene.

Also, if you allow players to bypass the roll by specifying actions in detail, you allow them to "roleplay around" the mechanics. This effectively penalises the less-charismatic player who isn't equipped to do this, allowing the savvy player to avoid investing in Search/Diplomacy/whatever skills.

I think the objective is to allow the players to apply their own skills to the game, while also providing a roll for their character's skills to also be relevant. Yes, a more clever or observant player will be better at using their character's skills, but that's no different than a more tactically minded player being more effective in combat. Personally, I wouldn't want to play in a RPG where player skill at role-playing, problem solving or tactics wasn't relevant to the outcome of the game.

-KS