Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Imaro]

It looks like that original exchange - that you can fail by succeeding at your rolls - got lost in the mix. You did not suggest that "a character’s success today could come back with a negative repercussion at a later date"; you suggested that their success today would come back with a negative repercussion today (because you succeeded you don't get to see the king).

Okay this is slightly tangential... but I think related to the quoted exchange... But can't you fail by succeeding in 4e? I mean there's a skill challenge example where you can succeed at your intimidation roll against the king (or baron or duke or something) and it impacts the challenge negatively... or am I missing something (honestly asking since I'm not sure I'm following the exchange and you are one of the posters I tend to take at face value when it comes to discussion).

 

[LostSoul]

Okay this is slightly tangential... but I think related to the quoted exchange... But can't you fail by succeeding in 4e? I mean there's a skill challenge example where you can succeed at your intimidation roll against the king (or baron or duke or something) and it impacts the challenge negatively... or am I missing something (honestly asking since I'm not sure I'm following the exchange and you are one of the posters I tend to take at face value when it comes to discussion).

I guess it depends on how you're running 4E! I'll propose three ways: 1. 4E "by the book"; 2. My game of 4E; and 3. A general "Indie" style.

1. In regular 4E (which confuses me!) I think that you can fail by using your Intimidation skill in the incorrect circumstances. I'm not sure if you'd forgo the roll - your PC misspoke, so you just rack up the failure - or if you'd still roll but count the result as a failure either way. I think you could succeed with your intimidation - the NPC may be intimidated, but it wouldn't get you what you wanted - closer to success on the skill challenge.

2. When I run 4E (or more correctly, my hack of 4E) I tend to run it like I run my 3E game. A little background on my techniques: I only call for a roll when what the player had his or her PC say triggered an internal conflict within the NPC. I recognize this internal conflict when I, as DM, don't instantly know how the NPC would respond.

I think we'd also have to define what success and failure means here. There are two variables: is the NPC intimidated, and thus I as DM have to play the NPC as being intimidated (in order to maintain consistency of the game world); and do you get what you want (not just an intimidated NPC, but a specific concession from the NPC)?

In my game I don't concern myself much with the latter - we roll to resolve actions, not intent. (This is one of the reasons I don't consider these games to be "Indie": I'm more concerned with player skill.) The NPC may be intimidated but respond by flight; but you wanted them to hand over some gold (or whatever your demands were). In that way, you could fail by succeeding.

The only time that wouldn't be true is if that last success overcame the NPC's obstinacy - the final success in the social skill challenge - or, in 3E, if the Intimidate roll adjusted the NPC's attitude to Friendly or Helpful (I guess, maybe not all the time).

3. I don't run "Indie" 4E, but I do run other "Indie" games. In Burning Empires, you are explicitly rolling to resolve the PC's explicit intent (as stated by the player). In this case, you get your intent when you succeed at the test. (Whether or not that intent helps you in the future is another matter.) I'd imagine that 4E would be run in a similar style.

So to sum up: 1. Yes. 2. Almost all of the time. 3. No.

 

[sheadunne]

Okay this is slightly tangential... but I think related to the quoted exchange... But can't you fail by succeeding in 4e? I mean there's a skill challenge example where you can succeed at your intimidation roll against the king (or baron or duke or something) and it impacts the challenge negatively... or am I missing something (honestly asking since I'm not sure I'm following the exchange and you are one of the posters I tend to take at face value when it comes to discussion).

That's a good question.

I hadn't thought about it that way, particular since I don't play 4e. Technically there is some of that since you can fail on one part of a skill challenge but then succeed overall. I think then it comes down to player goals? I suppose it would be possible to get to see the king but he'd be damn pissed at you as a result of failing some of the skill challenges for instance?

Now you got me wondering as well . . .

 

[N'raac]

This is an aspect of the skill challenges I've noted - I'm trying to Intimidate someone into becoming a long-term ally, for example. Not every skill is suitable for every situation.

 

[Campbell]

This is an aspect of the skill challenges I've noted - I'm trying to Intimidate someone into becoming a long-term ally, for example. Not every skill is suitable for every situation.

This is where genre credibility enters into it for me. It is up to the player to establish fictional positioning that makes sense given the situation. Threatening someone with immediate violence would not generally work in most social situations, but I take a more lateral view with Intimidate. I would allow a player to use intimidate to impress upon their target how strong they are, how large their army is, how extensive their network of spies is, etc. Intimidate is about presenting your power in a forceful way. It can include, but is not limited to 'offers you can't refuse'.

Speaking generally though, you will not always be able to use your best skills in every skill challenge. This is okay. You won't always have the best group composition for every fight you face either. That is also OK. The important thing is that you have meaningful choices to make and a nontrivial opportunity to affect the fiction.

That's where I stand.

 

[pemerton]

can't you fail by succeeding in 4e? I mean there's a skill challenge example where you can succeed at your intimidation roll against the king (or baron or duke or something) and it impacts the challenge negatively

I guess it depends on how you're running 4E!

<snip>

In regular 4E (which confuses me!) I think that you can fail by using your Intimidation skill in the incorrect circumstances. I'm not sure if you'd forgo the roll - your PC misspoke, so you just rack up the failure - or if you'd still roll but count the result as a failure either way.

I discussed this example extensively somewhere upthread.

I think you could succeed with your intimidation - the NPC may be intimidated, but it wouldn't get you what you wanted - closer to success on the skill challenge.

I don't think this is right per default 4e. If the check has been framed within the context of the skill challenge as a primary check; and if it succeeds; then I think the rules mandate that the players get closer to success in the skill challenge.

The Intimidate example isn't an example of intimidatig the NPC but not getting closer to overall success. I think it is best understood as a case of GM's secret backstory shaping the ficitonal positioning - that is, the GM knows something about the duke that the players don't (namely, that he cannot be inimidated), and takes this into account when adjudicating the intimidate attempt.

I think this is on the limit of acceptability for "indie" play. Part of what puts it on the boundary rather than outside it is that the players have the possibility of discovering this backstory wihtin the context of the scene and without having to attempt Intimidate, namely, via a successful Insight check.

Something the DMG doesn't canvass with this example, but probably should, is ways that the PCs might change the fictional positioning such that Intimidate would become possible - for instance, not just by threatening the Duke, but by drawing his attention to some external threat so overwhelming that he can't but feel the force of it.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeons and Dragons' spells traditionally require a more rigid structure than social interactions.

<snip>

One tangent that occurs to me is that the fighter hiring a wizard is at its core a social interaction and thus demands greater DM involvement in adjudicating than the fighter swinging a sword.

The key verbs here are "require" and "demand". There is nothing inherent about combat, casting or social interaction that mandates more or less tight resolution mechanics.

It is true that D&D, traditionally, has approached them differently: spells default to player fiat, combat to dice rolls, and social to GM fiat (perhaps informed by a reaction roll). But there is nothing inherent to these modes of interaction that mandates this.

This is where genre credibility enters into it for me. It is up to the player to establish fictional positioning that makes sense given the situation.

<snip>

Speaking generally though, you will not always be able to use your best skills in every skill challenge. This is okay. You won't always have the best group composition for every fight you face either. That is also OK. The important thing is that you have meaningful choices to make and a nontrivial opportunity to affect the fiction.

Well put.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think this is right per default 4e. If the check has been framed within the context of the skill challenge as a primary check; and if it succeeds; then I think the rules mandate that the players get closer to success in the skill challenge.

The Intimidate example isn't an example of intimidatig the NPC but not getting closer to overall success. I think it is best understood as a case of GM's secret backstory shaping the ficitonal positioning - that is, the GM knows something about the duke that the players don't (namely, that he cannot be inimidated), and takes this into account when adjudicating the intimidate attempt.

I agree. I think that if you've got Intimidate as a primary skill (or even secondary) in the skill challenge, and you succeed on the check, then it'll get you closer to success in that skill challenge.

I'm not sure how clear 4E is on the resolution of a single check during a skill challenge. Can that single Intimidate check success can introduce a complication or generally make things more troublesome for the PCs?

However, if Intimidate is not a skill indicated for use by the skill challenge, or if the use of Intimidate indicates an automatic failure, I think you could still have the player roll the check, succeed by overcoming the DC, but rack up a failure. I'm not sure what the procedure is, though - do you roll or not? (Does that matter?)

 

[Imaro]

I discussed this example extensively somewhere upthread.

Yes you did but you didn't answer this question (at least to my satisfaction) in that discussion.

I don't think this is right per default 4e. If the check has been framed within the context of the skill challenge as a primary check; and if it succeeds; then I think the rules mandate that the players get closer to success in the skill challenge.

How do the PC's know what check has or hasn't been framed in the context of the skill challenge... or are you saying that the DM should tell the PC's what skills are primary, secondary, etc.? If not in 4e is this customary in indie play?

The Intimidate example isn't an example of intimidatig the NPC but not getting closer to overall success. I think it is best understood as a case of GM's secret backstory shaping the ficitonal positioning - that is, the GM knows something about the duke that the players don't (namely, that he cannot be inimidated), and takes this into account when adjudicating the intimidate attempt.

Emphasis mine: No one is disputing whether the situation is or isn't due to "GM's secret backstory" (This is why I said your earlier discussion didn't really address this)... However don't actions still map to fiction in "indie" play? so doesn't there have to be fiction around the intimidation check against the king and thus I have a hard time understanding why this isn't an example of the PC trying to intimidate the king as a fictional positioning step towards winning the SC?

I think this is on the limit of acceptability for "indie" play. Part of what puts it on the boundary rather than outside it is that the players have the possibility of discovering this backstory wihtin the context of the scene and without having to attempt Intimidate, namely, via a successful Insight check.

Something the DMG doesn't canvass with this example, but probably should, is ways that the PCs might change the fictional positioning such that Intimidate would become possible - for instance, not just by threatening the Duke, but by drawing his attention to some external threat so overwhelming that he can't but feel the force of it.

Wait so is this or is this not an example of the PC's trying to intimidate the duke... because now you are saying that it should be possible to change the fictional positioning such that Intimidate would become possible... but earlier you said this is not an example of trying to intimidate the duke.

 

[Imaro]

However, if Intimidate is not a skill indicated for use by the skill challenge, or if the use of Intimidate indicates an automatic failure, I think you could still have the player roll the check, succeed by overcoming the DC, but rack up a failure. I'm not sure what the procedure is, though - do you roll or not? (Does that matter?)

The example in the book has the player rolling the skill before being told it is a failure... how else do you keep the fact that the Insight check reveals this a secret (which is also strongly implied if not outright stated in the example)

Also of note is that this is not the only example of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's "GM secret backstory" in the 4e's DMG SC examples. There is also a SC example called "The Dead Witness" in the 4e DMG... where the Religion skill can only be used if the players first make a successful Insight check, otherwise the skill is unavailable for use, which seems especially odd given the nature of the skill challenge (Getting a corpse to answer questions after invoking the speak with dead ritual. This is something I would think creative players could definitely come up with numerous uses for religion for in these circumstances).

What makes this example especially weird given the claims of 4e's indie philosophy is that this SC takes place after a player has used the "Speak with the Dead" ritual... but my understanding on indie play says this type of SC shouldn't happen, if the player spent the resources (necessary cost, religion roll and casting of ritual) he shouldn't also be further forced to "negotiate" with the dead (ie DM's NPC) he cast the ritual on in order to get answers to his questions... the rules of the ritual clearly state how many questions should be answered depending on the religion roll for the ritual... and yet here is an example of 4e promoting the DM determining the outcome isn't this exactly the "type of "DM force" [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] are arguing about and an example of what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] call de-protagonization of the PC who cast it?