D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[bert1000]

From my own experience and what I've gathered here, entering a Skill Challenge isn't something that the players have control over. It's imposed by the DM, in response to the PCs trying to accomplish a task, where the DM wants to make things complicated. The DM decides that this task carries a certain amount of narrative weight, so the PCs will need to overcome X number of level-appropriate challenges in order for the outcome to be suitably dramatic.

As was explained to me above, the DM might decide that 6 successes are necessary, and then starts allocating those among the various sub-tasks that come up. You need to gather raw materials for that boat? The DM decides to spend a challenge on that in order to invoke uncertainty here; it can be a medium DC or a hard DC, but whatever the DM decides to spend, it will eat up the designated amount of drama budget and reduce the number of further complications might arise.

Declaring a Skill Challenge is a purely antagonistic move by the DM, against the players, via Rule of Drama.

At least, that's what I get out of this conversation.

Well, I think again it's about the upfront work.

If you're using SCs in your game, I would assume your group enjoys dramatic tension in scenes, actually wants to encourage this, and has decided that SC are a helpful tool to this end.

Whether to use a SC or not is often trigger by the DM but I would think the player's should agree it's the right time to use one. And the player's should be looking forward to SCs as well --- after all they should be a fun part of the game as well a resolution tool.

If your group is not in this mindset, why are you using SC? If you approach the concept with this antagonistic mindset, anti-conflict mindset, etc. then of course SC are going to be a bad experience. Don't use them. It's not really the fault of the structure though.

SC do not have to be an antagonistic move -- they can be a solidly collaborative move if the group is on the same page.

 

[bert1000]

Yeah, I keep hearing about 'Galaxy of Intrigue', but I've never actually come across a copy to give it a look. Many people said it was a better presentation than 4e, but I just don't know the details.

In any case, I think I'm fundamentally a lazy DM and I prefer KISS. I'd make a map if I thought it was the best way, and I don't see 4e's SC system as being an attempt to even say that WITHIN 4e it is the last word. The examples in DMG2 in particular were in some cases fairly significant hacks of the basic system. What Mearls has written about it was definitely along the lines of 'hack on this a whole bunch whenever you feel like it'. There were just some issues of framing they never quite addressed very well.

'Galaxy of Intrigue' is the best official presentation of SC by far, and also has the best officially published real-play example of a SC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, I ran into 3 types of stumbling block with the 5e skill system:

1) was the overlap between tool proficiencies and skills where it is entirely unstated whether Performance allows you to play an instrument or if you actually need a tool proficiency to do that.

Given the way Proficiency bonuses don't stack, it would seem one or the other would be all you need.

2) The problem with skills that were entirely abstract and thus never map to any concrete action, such as Investigation.

Maybe just not the best choice of label. In 3.5, the difference between Search and Spot wasn't too obscure. In 5e Perception and Investigation are both much broader terms.

If 5e hadn't added back the skill-attribute link (Investigation is INT, Perception is WIS), one or the other might have been superfluous. As it stands, the basic resolution formula (player described action, DM decides success/failure/roll) calls for DM interpretation and ruling in every check, so if how a proficiency is applied is vague, it's just going to be resolved as part of the expected DM ruling.

3) The problem of lack of a knowledge. There is a tool proficiency for Thieves Tools, but no skill called 'Thievery' to inform the player of what they might actually KNOW about the subject or be able to do which doesn't involve tools (there is Stealth and Sleight of Hand which covers some specific things).

Isn't there a streetwise, too? Also, isn't it just the opposite of the Performance/Instrument Tool Proficiency issue you brought up first? A skill and a tool overlap, that's bad. A tool doesn't have a skill that overlaps, that's also bad?

None of these were issues in 4e's skill system.

4e didn't have anything like tool proficiencies or non-adventuring skills, so variations on (3) could be an issue, in reverse.

5e also, by having tool proficiencies as an open ended list and giving them considerable weight and not clarifying their relationship to knowledge, creates a sort of long-list skill system that implies general incompetency, which is a 3e-ism I am not super fond of.

I have to agree there. Open-ended skill lists can create a lot of incompetency. As long as no one thinks to write down a 'tool proficiency: rope,' though, everyone gets to use ropes...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've only tried it twice at conventions. Once it was so modded by the GM that I didn't get a feel for it. The second time I got a clearer picture, and, while I expect 'one of the most balanced systems out there' is just an ardent fan's forgivable exaggeration, I didn't, as I said, see the kind of deep class imbalance that endorsement for 'versimilitude' or 'not being dissociative' or "modeling 'grounded human' capacity," would usually imply. Though, I could quite easily have missed it - it seems like a very GM-dependent kind of game, as rules-lite systems tend to be.

Anyway, congrats on finding a system you like - and people willing to play/run it - enjoy.

It certainly has a cadre of fans that seem to really like it. I've never read it or played myself either. I got the impression it was sort of not too distant in basic agenda from maybe 3e, just quite a bit simpler and of course with substantially different mechanics. That doesn't say a lot. If I was really shopping around for an FRPG I'd probably look at it more closely. However, one might well consider the Strike! game, which is also pretty lightweight and seems to be generally similar in some respects. Its a lot more informed by 4e, but I think it is aimed at a similar sort of niche, people that like one of the D&D editions but want a smaller game with more customization.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Given the way Proficiency bonuses don't stack, it would seem one or the other would be all you need.

But which one do you need to PERFORM, its not at all clear what the tool proficiency does for you, its just messy. There were a lot of questions about this kind of thing.

Maybe just not the best choice of label. In 3.5, the difference between Search and Spot wasn't too obscure. In 5e Perception and Investigation are both much broader terms.

If 5e hadn't added back the skill-attribute link (Investigation is INT, Perception is WIS), one or the other might have been superfluous. As it stands, the basic resolution formula (player described action, DM decides success/failure/roll) calls for DM interpretation and ruling in every check, so if how a proficiency is applied is vague, it's just going to be resolved as part of the expected DM ruling.

There's nothing really vague about it, the problem is there's simply never something a PC ever does which warrants an Investigation check. You look at things (Perception), you talk to people (various social skills), you reason (RAW INT), and that's about it. I played my high Investigation character for 6 months and I did make a couple of rolls using it 'just because', but it never felt like there was any justification for it, and that was while we were investigating a murder! Maybe its a nit, but that skill shouldn't exist, its worthless and confusing.

Isn't there a streetwise, too? Also, isn't it just the opposite of the Performance/Instrument Tool Proficiency issue you brought up first? A skill and a tool overlap, that's bad. A tool doesn't have a skill that overlaps, that's also bad?

I don't want overlap, I just think it would be better to have just been called 'Thievery', or maybe some list of narrower skills, but that would be more clear and useful.

4e didn't have anything like tool proficiencies or non-adventuring skills, so variations on (3) could be an issue, in reverse.

Tools were just included in skills. If you had a relevant skill that could use a tool, you were proficient with that tool. It only actually came up with Thieves Tools. You could have a background element that might give you a 'skill like' kind of knowledge of something, but again its more than 'tool proficiency', you were a blacksmith you know all about blacksmithing. Yes, you can use the tools, you can also do other related things, at least the background rules assert that this should be considered during play.

Its not like 5e's skill system is totally borked (at least not in terms we've discussed, there are other issues, but this isn't a 5e critique thread). It just isn't clearly thought out. I get what they were going for with the tools thing, but it was an awkward mechanic at best.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I disagree, every character is a protagonist, at the very least they've got their own little part of the story. Maybe they're a bit player but they have a story. The rules of drama always apply to any story.

I guess that's fine for 4E, since they've codified that into the buy-in. If you don't agree with this point, then you wouldn't be playing this edition of this game.

That's another positive aspect of 4E, then - It's so incredibly blatant with its premise, and what it's about, that nobody should be entering into the game under false pretenses.

I mean, except for people who took the game solely at its name, and thought it would enable the same types of games that they enjoyed with 2E or 3E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But which one do you need to PERFORM, its not at all clear what the tool proficiency does for you, its just messy. There were a lot of questions about this kind of thing.

Neither. You just describe how you perform, and the DM either says "You suck at it," "the crowd likes you," or "roll CHA."

If you have a tool proficiency or the perform skill, you get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll.

Yeah, it's a little vague and messy and there would be questions if you were trying to figure out how it'd likely go ahead of time, but 5e puts DM rulings into every resolution by default, so the need for the DM to make those rulings and resolve those questions doesn't add an extra step to the process. The process is just always reliant DM intervention, so it doesn't disrupt the expected flow of the game.

There's nothing really vague about it, the problem is there's simply never something a PC ever does which warrants an Investigation check. You look at things (Perception), you talk to people (various social skills), you reason (RAW INT), and that's about it. I played my high Investigation character for 6 months and I did make a couple of rolls using it 'just because', but it never felt like there was any justification for it, and that was while we were investigating a murder! Maybe its a nit, but that skill shouldn't exist, its worthless and confusing.

It's up to the DM to decide which skill applies when. Really, you should just be thankful your DM tossed you some checks now and then, rather than leaving your investigator out of the investigation, entirely. ;P

I don't want overlap, I just think it would be better to have just been called 'Thievery', or maybe some list of narrower skills, but that would be more clear and useful.

As a DM, you could rule that tool proficiency includes knowledge of the context of the tool use, so, a Blacksmith doesn't juts know how to pound iron, he also knows about the market for iron & iron goods, but what people want from their horseshoes, what miners go through to get iron, etc. You'd probably want to use the option where you can apply any skill or proficiency to any stat. So, DEX + thieves' tools to disarm a trap, INT + thieves' tools to know about trap-makers or thieves' guild membership or whatever.

You could have a background element that might give you a 'skill like' kind of knowledge of something, but again its more than 'tool proficiency', you were a blacksmith you know all about blacksmithing. Yes, you can use the tools, you can also do other related things, at least the background rules assert that this should be considered during play.

Sure, but that's all as vague, hand-wavy, and DM-needs-to-rule as 5e.

Its not like 5e's skill system is totally borked (at least not in terms we've discussed, there are other issues, but this isn't a 5e critique thread). It just isn't clearly thought out. I get what they were going for with the tools thing, but it was an awkward mechanic at best.

5e's 'rulings not rules' design philosophy leaves the designers a lot of license to just leave things unsaid, giving the DM wiggle room to rule how he wants on just about everything. It's not quite the same thing as having no rules at all - but, by the same token, it's never worse than having no rules at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess that's fine for 4E, since they've codified that into the buy-in. If you don't agree with this point, then you wouldn't be playing this edition of this game.

That's another positive aspect of 4E, then - It's so incredibly blatant with its premise, and what it's about, that nobody should be entering into the game under false pretenses.

I mean, except for people who took the game solely at its name, and thought it would enable the same types of games that they enjoyed with 2E or 3E.

Yeah, I don't mean to sound like I'm being mule-headed or something, but there's no difference in this respect between 4e and any other RPG. The PCs have SOME SORT of agenda, otherwise they wouldn't do anything. Heck, even IRL everyone has some sort of agenda at any given moment. The nature of life is that we need to accomplish things in order to live and reach our other higher aspirations. Its just the nature of the beast.

Every character is a protagonist, and every time they attempt to accomplish something they are struggling against some sort of antagonism and there's a dramatic tension. It might be no more than finding something to eat and struggling against the total indifference of the universe, but its still a struggle and entire novels have been written on nothing more than that.

You may not be grasping the nature of the beast, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, and those RPG developers who ignore it can only really produce good games in a hit-and-miss fashion since managing drama is the single fundamental functional component of RP. This is fundamentally why earlier games WERE so hit-and-miss, and only later, starting in the 1990's when people began to really address story in the game explicitly did that improve. Nowadays the really proficient designers are quite adept at this stuff, and even many OSR games have subtly incorporated elements to help build and manage story.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Its the same as every other encounter or challenge in a game. The DM doesn't HAVE to present any challenges at all, he could just say "Ok, you wander in the dungeon for 5 hours and pick up the following loot..." or whatever. Doubt it would be a popular game. Given that the DM IS going to make things challenging, then its only a question of HOW, and is it going to be dramatic or what.

Random encounters?

I mean, random encounters reflect the fact that dangerous areas full of dangerous creatures are a part of the world. They're an avenue by which the PCs may be challenged without the DM just deciding that it is the case. You can also have set encounters which are placed in the act of world-building, rather than story-building.

It's the difference between the PCs being attacked by a dragon because they wander into its cave, or the PCs being attacked by a dragon because the DM wants them to be - because it would be fun or exciting or whatever.

Any non-combat activity can be resolved with either basic skill checks, or with a Skill Challenge. You can either follow step by step, and the DM can call for checks where they make sense (and not call for checks, where none would be required/allowed), or the DM can decide to resolve it as a Skill Challenge with a budget of medium and hard checks. If the DM decides to make it a Skill Challenge, then it's driven by some ulterior motive - to make the story more dramatic, or whatever.

Which I guess is fine, if the players buy into the idea that it's the job of the DM to make things more dramatic and exciting than they would otherwise be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Neither. You just describe how you perform, and the DM either says "You suck at it," "the crowd likes you," or "roll CHA."

If you have a tool proficiency or the perform skill, you get to add your proficiency bonus to the roll.

Yeah, it's a little vague and messy and there would be questions if you were trying to figure out how it'd likely go ahead of time, but 5e puts DM rulings into every resolution by default, so the need for the DM to make those rulings and resolve those questions doesn't add an extra step to the process. The process is just always reliant DM intervention, so it doesn't disrupt the expected flow of the game.

As a DM, you could rule that tool proficiency includes knowledge of the context of the tool use, so, a Blacksmith doesn't juts know how to pound iron, he also knows about the market for iron & iron goods, but what people want from their horseshoes, what miners go through to get iron, etc. You'd probably want to use the option where you can apply any skill or proficiency to any stat. So, DEX + thieves' tools to disarm a trap, INT + thieves' tools to know about trap-makers or thieves' guild membership or whatever.

Sure, but that's all as vague, hand-wavy, and DM-needs-to-rule as 5e.

No, not really. I'm a blacksmith, I know about those things. Its of course SOME question of judgment when I should get a background bonus, but there's judgment involved in most skill checks as well, SOME basic judgment has to be made. The point is its clear I have knowledge and 'skill' associated with this thing, whereas its not in 5e.

5e's 'rulings not rules' design philosophy leaves the designers a lot of license to just leave things unsaid, giving the DM wiggle room to rule how he wants on just about everything. It's not quite the same thing as having no rules at all - but, by the same token, it's never worse than having no rules at all.

Yeah, I don't want to get into a discussion about 5e, but everything you've said here totally turns me off. I want nothing to do with that, and I think the whole 'philosophy' is bunkum. If I have to make up my own rules, then by god I'm not paying someone else to give me permission to do it, I've got an entire RPG of my own worth of 'rulings', I don't need Mike Mearls' suggestions and excuses.