D&D 4E 4e skill system -dont get it.

[LostSoul]

Just Another User does make a good point.

No, he doesn't. He is saying that a skill challenge can be resolved without making any sense in-game, and this is a failing of the rules. He's flat-out wrong.

It's up to each group to provide a decent description of the action.

If the DM doesn't like the description provided for the use of a skill, he shouldn't allow it to be used.
If the DM doesn't think success would progress the group towards their goal, he shouldn't allow it to be used.

And even if the skill challenge is resolved suddenly - what's to stop the DM from describing the rest of the action as success?

And in addition to the DM needing to come up with a credible solution, there's also the added need for creativity as a player.

The DM is not the one who comes up with a solution. All he has to do is present a problem. The players have to get creative, use their skills, and all the DM has to do is ask himself, "Does this make sense?" If it makes sense, he allows the skill check and applies the results.

This does ask for more creativity from the players. But: requiring creativity is not a bad thing in a RPG.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Moving away from how your scenario actually played out, Just Another User does make a good point. If I'm understanding the system as far as we know, you can succeed at disabling the trap without using Disable Device (to use the parlance of our times). Which does give an abstractness to combined skill challenges since the seemingly obvious skill doesn't necessarily need to be used. But I think you're right, if the GM explains how the trap was disabled without using Disable Device (in your case the ranger wrapping it tightly with rope) there is a narrative description of how it was disabled and from there it comes down to whether you like the success vs. failure system or not.

But aren't you moving away too far from the scenario? The guidelines certainly don't imply that you just roll skill checks until you get the necessary amount of successes or failures.
You'll have to do a bit better then that, if you're in for the whole Roleplaying Game Experience.

That's like saying the rules of D&D don't allow for people roleplaying, since all the rules as written tell you which die to roll, and the only responsibility of the DM is to pick monsters worth the appropriate XP and throw them at the PCs. The books (probably) don't even contain tables on how to build your own dungeon map, so theoretically, the world could be a infinite featureless plane where monsters "packages" are distributed randomly so that each package is worth the XP appropriate for the party level, and the party moves between encounters in a way to ensure that they level up appropriately.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

No, he doesn't. He is saying that a skill challenge can be resolved without making any sense in-game, and this is a failing of the rules. He's flat-out wrong.

It's up to each group to provide a decent description of the action.

If the DM doesn't like the description provided for the use of a skill, he shouldn't allow it to be used.
If the DM doesn't think success would progress the group towards their goal, he shouldn't allow it to be used.

In other words, even with dice involved, the DM will still be railroading the session?

That really is what that reads like. It boils down to guessing what the DM wants them to do by throwing every skill they have at the wall until one of them sticks. In adventure video games, that is called a 'pixel hunt', where you are wandering all over the screen (or map) looking for that switch you missed.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

No, he doesn't. He is saying that a skill challenge can be resolved without making any sense in-game, and this is a failing of the rules. He's flat-out wrong.

It's up to each group to provide a decent description of the action.

If the DM doesn't like the description provided for the use of a skill, he shouldn't allow it to be used.
If the DM doesn't think success would progress the group towards their goal, he shouldn't allow it to be used.

Maybe I misinterpreted what he was trying to say and/or don't fully understand the new skill rules. As I understand it, as long as you make a set amount of successful, related checks before you make a set amount of failed, related checks, you solve the encounter. And I thought Just Another User was pointing out that you can solve that encounter without actually succeeding on an "I am using skill X to disarm this trap" check to disable the trap. If those two points are correct, I think Just Another User does make a good point. Because while this new skill system will be great in involving the whole party and fostering creativity, it has a mechanical convention and method of adjudicating skill roll that one has to accept for this way of running skill checks to be acceptable (at least to me, that is). I'm fine with having a X related skill successes combined with a good description disarm the trap instead of a single Disable Device check. But I think players and DMs will have to be okay with it as well if they're going to like this new skill system.

The DM is not the one who comes up with a solution. All he has to do is present a problem. The players have to get creative, use their skills, and all the DM has to do is ask himself, "Does this make sense?" If it makes sense, he allows the skill check and applies the results.

True, the players have to come up with how they're using their skills in regards to the situation but like Nebulous said the DM will have to develop the fallout from their success or failure. In Harr's example I liked how a curious dryad came to see what was going on in the tree from a Nature check. But that's something that as a DM I don't think I would have considered and in 3.5 would have been less apt to need to consider because the most I would have likely dealt with would be a Disable Device roll to see if they disarm the trap or not. So while I'm sold on this new skill system because it instigates creativity, I think it's going to increase the pressure of being creative for both PCs and DMs.

This does ask for more creativity from the players. But: requiring creativity is not a bad thing in a RPG.

And is quite certainly an excellent thing, in my eyes.

 

[Mallus]

It boils down to guessing what the DM wants them to do by throwing every skill they have at the wall until one of them sticks.

Yes, assuming the DM is a prick.

In adventure video games, that is called a 'pixel hunt', where you are wandering all over the screen (or map) looking for that switch you missed.

This is because, using anthropomorphic language, computers are pricks.

 

[LostSoul]

In other words, even with dice involved, the DM will still be railroading the session?

Yeah, looks that way. I, too, would rather the player was the one who could initiate skill challenges and declare what success means. Oh well.

That really is what that reads like. It boils down to guessing what the DM wants them to do by throwing every skill they have at the wall until one of them sticks. In adventure video games, that is called a 'pixel hunt', where you are wandering all over the screen (or map) looking for that switch you missed.

DMs will still be able to mess up perfectly good games by being dicks, yeah. They didn't get that power taken away from them.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

But aren't you moving away too far from the scenario? The guidelines certainly don't imply that you just roll skill checks until you get the necessary amount of successes or failures.
You'll have to do a bit better then that, if you're in for the whole Roleplaying Game Experience.

I thought you roll skill checks with an intent that applies to the situation and if you get to the success target before the failure target you succeed. So if you need 6 successes and succeed on your Notice to inspect the body, History to see if bodies were strung up like that in the past, Athletics to climb the tree to get closer to the body, all the way to 6 successes, you automatically pass any other skill checks related to disabling the trap.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Yes, assuming the DM is a prick.

This is because, using anthropomorphic language, computers are pricks.

Not necessarily.

Part of crafting a puzzle is having the solution in mind. Crosswords can be solved by fitting in whatever words you want, but then you just have a grid with a few blacked out squares. Not much point in having clues.

So, either we have a solution the DM is looking for (pixel hunt), or the DM sets up some 'puzzle', and the method of solving it is irrelevant. Which rather makes the puzzle irrelevant. I think the 'yes you can' design ideal is a good plan, but it can easily lead to its own set of problems.

Not all puzzles should have a single path to the solution, certainly. Doubly so for RPGs. In this case, even the middle ground between 'only the skills the DM wants' and 'all and sundry skills will work' is not precisely tenable. If it only enforces negotiation between the players and the DM as to what skills should apply, that is a good step, but adding dice doesn't really change that. As they say, role-playing happens outside of the rules anyway, and I don't see how this will greatly enhance that, although it could give DMs some additional advice on how to spice things up, if written well,

 

[LostSoul]

I thought you roll skill checks with an intent that applies to the situation and if you get to the success target before the failure target you succeed. So if you need 6 successes and succeed on your Notice to inspect the body, History to see if bodies were strung up like that in the past, Athletics to climb the tree to get closer to the body, all the way to 6 successes, you automatically pass any other skill checks related to disabling the trap.

The way I see it is that you've done so much work already, "disabling" the trap is no big deal - you don't even need to make a check for it.

I think the problem is that you are looking at what the dice & skill checks do in a different way.

You're seeing this: If you don't use Disable Device, the trap isn't disabled. You can't disable a trap without using Disable Device.

I'm seeing this: The dice have shown that the skill challenged has been resolved. Let's describe how that happens in a way that makes sense for us.

From my viewpoint, once the skill challenged has been resolved I can simply describe someone using Disable Device to disable the trap - and they don't have to roll for it.

 

[LostSoul]

So, either we have a solution the DM is looking for (pixel hunt), or the DM sets up some 'puzzle', and the method of solving it is irrelevant. Which rather makes the puzzle irrelevant.

These aren't puzzles, though. There's nothing to be solved.