Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[Trance-Zg]

I remember one anecdote with our gaming group whit this theme. It was remembered as "the 24 incident"

Friend wanted to intimidate an NPC and w/o saying anything went on with intimidate roll and got a 24. When the DM asked him what do you say to him, he looked confused for a sec then looked at his d20 and his Intimidate bonus and said "24". We had a good laugh and for few sessions when we wanted to intimidate NPC we just roleplayed that we come to them and yell from the top of our lungs "Twentyyyyy FOAAAAAR!!"

On more serious note: I think that the PC MUST! say what he's character is saying to the NPC and then roll the intimidate/diplomacy check and DM grants a bonus/penalty to the roll depending on what has been said.

Any one can say: I will kill you if you don't give me the money, but it will be more convinsable from Tony Soprano than the street thug.

 

[MortalPlague]

Even uncharismatic folk can often learn how to be diplomatic, they may not be quite as good, but that doesn't mean they can't ever be.

Perhaps in 5th Edition, the player can say "I use logic to show the Duke my reasoning is sound" and be allowed to roll Intelligence? One of the pleasant side-effects of taking away skills is that it opens up more broad ways to approach common tasks. You could use Dexterity to scramble up a tree rather than using Strength. You could use Strength to disable a trap by holding it open long enough to smash the mechanism.

The other thing I really like with stats is that they don't increase over time very quickly. Which means we won't see artificially inflated DCs, and 20th level characters who can leap small mountains. It makes things a little more believable, while still permitting PCs to improve as they level up.

 

[Hautamaki]

According to Rodney Thompson, D&Dnext will use the following basic approach to action resolution:

As an example, let's say that the heroes are in a tavern trying to get information out of a member of the Thieves' Guild. The smooth-talking rogue says that he wants to deceive the thief into thinking that she is a member of the same guild to earn his confidence. Alternatively, the brawny fighter wants to crush a pewter mug in his hand to intimidate the thief into talking. If we have done a good job of educating the DM, then the DM simply sets an appropriate DC for success and calls for a Charisma check (from the rogue) or a Strength check (from the fighter). Rather than call on some kind of subsystem, we simply educate the DM on the best way to set a DC, and the best way to choose which ability to use for an ability check. That also has the advantage of allowing the player to simply say what his or her character does, then having the DM respond with the kind of check to be made, meaning that players are always talking about their actions in terms of what their characters do.​

Now maybe I'm missing something, but I don't entirely see how this is going to produce results radically different from 4e. To be more precise: I can see how reducing the skill list to a stat list simplifies things. But I don't see how it is meant to work wonders for fictional positioning.

In this system, a player cannot have his PC make an action resolution role without explaining what it is that s/he is doing: crushing the mug, lying about guild membership, etc. The same thing is true in 4e - a player must explain what his/her PC is doing, and a skill check or (less often) an ability check is then made.

In 4e, players typically attempt to have their PCs engage the situation in ways which maximise their chances of success (eg by looking for ways to use their best skill bonuses). In the D&Dnext system, presumably the same will be true - the player of the high CHA, low STR rogue, for example, is going to avoid describing his/her PC trying to crush too many mugs, for fear of looking like an idiot.

What am I missing?

I've only read the first page of replies so far, but has anyone mentioned that the key difference between using a 'skill' and an 'ability' in D&D is that skills are something that is meant to be learned and improved upon with every level up, while abilities are much more hard-coded into the character and do not regularly improve with every level.

In practice, the question you have to ask yourself is: Ought a 10th level rogue to be about a 10x better liar than a 1st level rogue? Ought a 10th level fighter to be about a 10x better climber or swimmer than a 1st level fighter?


The answer I have come up with for myself is to drastically pare down the skills selection into things that I believe an adventurer would likely improve upon in the course of adventuring (thus removing most craft and knowledge skills), and also into sets of things that are obviously related (for example bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, etc, are all lumped together into a 'social skills' category, while all acrobatics, jump, climb, swim, balance, etc, are all lumped together into an 'athletics skills' category); and then to change the skills advancement into a curve. To get the first rank in a skill only costs 1 point; to get the second rank costs 2 points (so 1 for first rank plus 2 for second rank = 3 points total) and so on. Adventurers begin with 6 skill points at first level and gain 3 per level after that. At first, they'll acquire skills quickly, but that will soon level off around 3rd or 4th level as they have to start making hard choices about whether to specialize or generalize; and either way the difference between a 5th and a 10th level character is not nearly as dramatic as that between a 1st and 5th level.

 

[pemerton]

has anyone mentioned that the key difference between using a 'skill' and an 'ability' in D&D is that skills are something that is meant to be learned and improved upon with every level up, while abilities are much more hard-coded into the character and do not regularly improve with every level.

[MENTION=19265]Connorsrpg[/MENTION] made a point about flattening maths in post #8. I think someone else has mentioned it since, too.

It's a reasonable point (although more of a departure from 3E than 4e, where the gap between the skilled and unskilled doesn't grow at quite the same rate).

 

[Sunseeker]

Perhaps in 5th Edition, the player can say "I use logic to show the Duke my reasoning is sound" and be allowed to roll Intelligence? One of the pleasant side-effects of taking away skills is that it opens up more broad ways to approach common tasks. You could use Dexterity to scramble up a tree rather than using Strength. You could use Strength to disable a trap by holding it open long enough to smash the mechanism.

The other thing I really like with stats is that they don't increase over time very quickly. Which means we won't see artificially inflated DCs, and 20th level characters who can leap small mountains. It makes things a little more believable, while still permitting PCs to improve as they level up.

Maybe, but I still think there's a subtle deliniation between skills and raw ability that skills help define.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On more serious note: I think that the PC MUST! say what he's character is saying to the NPC and then roll the intimidate/diplomacy check and DM grants a bonus/penalty to the roll depending on what has been said.

That's the traditional approach in most games when trying to "encourage RP." You sell your RP to the DM, if he buys it, you get a bonus to the roll.

Aside from the 'gaming the DM aspect,' which is inevitable regardless of system, the thing I dislike about it is that it leads to big story/RP disconnects.

Player 1 RPs a diplomacy check. His character is supposed to be pretty good at diplomacy, and he makes a very compelling case, eloquently and appropriately in-character. Then rolls, with his '+2 for good RP,' and the die comes up 1.

Player 2 comes up, having not really been paying much attention and says something vaguely inappropriate to try to convince the same NPC. DM chucks the book at him with a -5 penalty. Natural 20.


If the RP is so immersive that the character's ability shouldn't matter, why even have the die roll? If we're trying to RP the character's abilities, why not wait until after the the die roll to see how well you do, then RP the results - at least you'll never get a huge disconnect like that.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've only read the first page of replies so far, but has anyone mentioned that the key difference between using a 'skill' and an 'ability' in D&D is that skills are something that is meant to be learned and improved upon with every level up, while abilities are much more hard-coded into the character and do not regularly improve with every level.

In practice, the question you have to ask yourself is: Ought a 10th level rogue to be about a 10x better liar than a 1st level rogue? Ought a 10th level fighter to be about a 10x better climber or swimmer than a 1st level fighter?

Actually, I'm hoping that skill "advancement" is drastically reduced or goes away entirely. FWIW, I'm fine with levels primarily indicating combat ability, and the rest being relatively statics. I'm not sure why a first level character should be an idiot at negotiation or acrobatics while a 10th level character is somehow better than Picard or Comeneci.

 

[Dausuul]

That's the traditional approach in most games when trying to "encourage RP." You sell your RP to the DM, if he buys it, you get a bonus to the roll.

Aside from the 'gaming the DM aspect,' which is inevitable regardless of system, the thing I dislike about it is that it leads to big story/RP disconnects.

Player 1 RPs a diplomacy check. His character is supposed to be pretty good at diplomacy, and he makes a very compelling case, eloquently and appropriately in-character. Then rolls, with his '+2 for good RP,' and the die comes up 1.

Player 2 comes up, having not really been paying much attention and says something vaguely inappropriate to try to convince the same NPC. DM chucks the book at him with a -5 penalty. Natural 20.

If the RP is so immersive that the character's ability shouldn't matter, why even have the die roll? If we're trying to RP the character's abilities, why not wait until after the the die roll to see how well you do, then RP the results - at least you'll never get a huge disconnect like that.

I think that you shouldn't get a modifier to the roll depending on the quality of your RP. Instead, your RP should determine the stakes--the result of success versus failure. If you make an eloquent and compelling case, then success means you get full cooperation and failure means you still get limited assistance. If you say something inappropriate, success means the NPC is amused and gives you a minor assist for making her laugh, while failure means you get chucked in a dungeon or start a fight.

 

[howandwhy99]

While I like this system I don't care for it being the only system for conversing with NPCs or exploring the environment. I like what Monte said a few months back about how a player could simply state they are looking under the bed to find the hidden pea without rolling some search or skill check. Similarly, I like it if the players can actually ask the question they want answered from an NPC and potentially get a relevant response without the need for rolling reaction or skill checks.

I'm not adverse to die rolling, but I think it depends upon how the players play that leads to whether any roll is needed or not. Simplifying the game with a die roll can speed it up greatly. However I prefer letting players engage to the depth they desire to keep from stopping short enjoyable exploration, discussions, combat, etc. This is not that certain actions must necessarily have the player desired result. I only mean rolling dice needn't to be treated like so called resolution mechanics. They could instead be expressions of the game world.

 

[LostSoul]

Aside from the 'gaming the DM aspect,' which is inevitable regardless of system, the thing I dislike about it is that it leads to big story/RP disconnects.

Player 1 RPs a diplomacy check. His character is supposed to be pretty good at diplomacy, and he makes a very compelling case, eloquently and appropriately in-character. Then rolls, with his '+2 for good RP,' and the die comes up 1.

Player 2 comes up, having not really been paying much attention and says something vaguely inappropriate to try to convince the same NPC. DM chucks the book at him with a -5 penalty. Natural 20.


If the RP is so immersive that the character's ability shouldn't matter, why even have the die roll? If we're trying to RP the character's abilities, why not wait until after the the die roll to see how well you do, then RP the results - at least you'll never get a huge disconnect like that.

Here's how I deal with it:

I'm the DM, role-playing the NPC. If the player has his PC say something that the PC agrees with, then there is no need for a roll. (Likewise: if the player has the PC say something the NPC doesn't agree with.)

If there is the need for a roll - if, as DM, I don't know how the NPC will react - then I handle it like Dausuul mentions: the roll resolves the reaction of the NPC to what the PC actually said, not something like "His attitude is now Friendly."

For example:

[sblock]You want to lure a city council member to a bar so you can kidnap him. You have your PC say, "Let's go for a drink."

1. The council member is a lush. As DM I think, yeah, he'll go. No need for a roll.

2. The council member is a hard-working teetotaller who despises drinking and is very busy at the moment. As DM I think, no, he won't go. No need for a roll.

3. The council member is just a regular guy, who likes a drink but has some work to do. As DM I have no idea what he'd do. I call for a roll to determine if the NPC is going to go have a drink.

I use graded success levels, so it might turn out like this:
Total Failure: The NPC turns down the PC's request and is suspicious.
Marginal Failure: The NPC turns down the PC's request.
Marginal Success: The NPC agrees to go.
Total Success: The NPC agrees to go right away and pay for the PC's drinks.

Modifiers might come into play; you might get a bonus if you offer to pay for the NPC's drinks.[/sblock]