Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4079460" data-attributes="member: 3192">In the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220109" target="_blank">interview</a> Friday with Scott Rouse and Andy Collins I noticed they dropped a big hint on what the new 4e non-combat rules might entail.  Below is the direct quote from moderator Xath's interview with them:Alternity's Complex Skill Check System uses a similar mechanic to the one put out in 3e's Unearthed Arcana.  Originally, Alternity's allowed for skills checks of higher difficulty by requiring cumulative rolls.  For a complex check, one kept rolling a skill check until they failed or reached the number of cumulative successes needed.  I like to think this might have been added for all skill checks where continued success could raise or lower the degree of success.  Failure could work the same way presumably, but it wasn't spelled out explicitly.  The term "Complexity" referred to the number of successes required by the GM for the task at hand.  Levels of one, two, and three are given with examples. Additionally, both positive and negative modifiers could alter the final die result.  I believe the assumption was these modifiers remained the same for every roll throughout the attempt and did not differ for individual rolls, but later Alternity books may have added more variability.UA's version of complex rolls is a bit more, well.. complex. It was added to the OGL a few years ago.(<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm" target="_blank">link</a>) It also uses multiple rolls for complicated skill checks.  Like Alternity, it also mentions how they can be used to build tension as successes accrue.  UA's version involves three variables: the number of successes required (typically 3), the difficulty of the target number, and the number of times one can roll before the attempt fails (standard 3).  In this case one failure doesn't mean the entire attempt fails.  The linked site explains the method in depth including roll modifiers changing individual rolls and not just skill attempts.  Plenty of other twists on this method could be home-ruled too like a max number of rolls for certain kinds of attempts or alternate skills checks interrupting the complex rolls when one of its' rolls consequentially changes the situation in game before the attempt is finished.If you graph out successes and failures based on these two variables instead of the normal one variable simple roll (not including the die roll itself of course), you'd see complexity essentially tilts a direct 1:1 relationship.  In other words, you would not achieve the the same result if you simply increased the target number on  a simple check.  High complexity can lower the chances of success for even those skill users with very high bonuses.  The bonuses still help and make complex checks with low target numbers still very likely, but as the difficulty level increases success is drops off quickly when greater complexity is added (i.e. more successes are required).  Require enough consecutive successes (Alternity) or total successes (UA) and any skill level will eventually face difficulty with even the simplest of repeated tasks.  This relationship means complex, multi-layered tasks can be assessed differently than difficult tasks and IMO that's pretty cool.Now, before I continue I do want to get one thing off my chest.  I am one of those guys who just doesn't like social systems in the roleplay.  I prefer no skills at all actually and a simple attitude adjustment roll for social situations, without differentiation, has gone a long way for me.  I would certainly make exceptions for different character concepts, but I'd prefer no classes to have implicit advantages over others in this area.  4e's siloing off of non-combat rolls sounds like it will attempting to insure just this.  In my own case, I'd make changing that division strictly a group decision.  However, neither would I want a referee attempting to judge when I or another player was acting in an intimidating manner, bluffing, insinuating, messaging non-nonverbally, aiming to be diplomatic, or any of a hundred other ill-defined social behaviors it is better and far more fun to portray than categorize.  I much prefer letting the nuances arise out of seemingly simple play and coming from the players' imaginations.  For this reason I prefer play without social skills, but I must admit I do believe there are some types of non-combat methods worth pursuing.  And I wanted to get that out of the way before showcasing some interesting ways social combat may work based on Mr. Collins' quote.First, the Alternity/UA's Complex Skill Check system is very similar to many new indie games' single die roll systems (i.e. ORE: one roll engine, FATE, etc.) and even some old games of the same (i.e. FUDGE).  Fortunately, it holds one distinct advantage over these others.  It doesn't require the same roll to be made for every roll in the game.  Potentially, it doesn't even require it for a single task at hand. If for no other reason the ability to differentiate the "feel" of the game, something I place great importance upon, though I prefer the mechanics 'opaque' to players, is an absolute must if players are to respect the reality of the visualized world.  Okay, that may be over doing it for some folks, but if you've ever played a game where every roll was the shaped to the task at hand, then you understand how monotonous other games can appear.  The key is, while some dice engine, one roll systems may have even up to five variables accounted for in a single roll, the Alternity/UA system allows groups of different checks all within the same task. Just as Andy Collins points out in the quote, the whole group can join in at certain times as needed and roll a die adding to the endeavor's overall success.  If they have a string of failures, they are irrevocably halted in that particular course.  If they can get lucky continuously or at least enough given the opportunities available, then the individual or team achieves success.  Again, all without presupposing the types of rolls required within the mechanic.Secondly, there is one alluring element for folks like me who prefer to "play out" social situations with actual RP and that is structured planning and preparation.  Whether it be individual or group consensus, laying out the series of rolls needed in a long Complex Skill Check automatically begins players' thinking of what steps must be involved in reaching their goal.  In fact, that's what I think most of the game is anyways, one big goal setting game.  Teamwork and team building.One of the house rules I added to my old 3e game was similar to this.  I made Forgery into Forgery & Racketeering.  It included doing all those despicable things underworld intelligent crime includes.  And because this was something I'd prefer not roleplayed unless really desired, it made sense to simply offer UA's complex check system to cover the plan made by the player to "get a little money on the side".  Protection rackets, enforcement, and all that.  Stuff I thought was better left out of play.  If the player simply wanted to "pick-pocket the town" for the evening as they could with Sleight of Hand, now they could with a longer, mroe drawn out skill.  Anyways, I never really managed to try it out.  Who takes Forgery anyways, right?  But I must admit I didn't see the promise it could hold for groups who wanted to actually formalize 4e social encounters.  There are just guesses, but I think these two elements may be in the final game. Flexibility in what rolls are needed, yet structuring roleplay so groups work together and individuals think ahead?  That is a tough act to follow.  Me? I'm still not going to use it.  But it is good to hear hints of where they are going.  That's it for my ramble.</blockquote>

Verification