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

[Storm-Bringer]

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.

Absolutely, with a certain amount of DM input of course. Passing six skill challenges easily doesn't mean the player gets to declare themselves Ruler of the Known Universe and demand tithing from the other players.

Encouraging negotiation and collaboration is definitely a step forward, but I think this may weaken the ability of the DM to put their foot down and declare something is just inappropriate. History checks have been used rather frequently in the examples. How does one determine if it is applicable or not? It is far too broad to cover most instances. Would even a fairly accomplished sage be expected to know something at every occasion that a History check would come up? The burial habits of the Orc G'lkt clan, architectural styles of the ancient Sea Elves, likely locations of planar jumpstones... Even if the DC is Hard or more, the odds of someone knowing something about all of these disparate topics is approximately zero. Evey History check would be a major retcon.

"Yeah, I studied the Mountain Dwarves pretty extensively. I think I read they used to use a portal out here in the plains at one time..."

"Oh, yeah, we were talking about the structure of Sea Elf temples the other day during sword practice"

"The diamond was resting on a treatise about Orcish Culture, which was open to a page about their religious ceremonies..."

The way skills are presented makes any concrete knowledge impossible. All knowledge of any topic is wholly contained within the character, it's just a matter of accessing the bits that apply right now.

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.

To expand on what I mentioned earlier, not necessarily. Either the DM has a solution to the puzzle that works and the players have to discover it, or they get to use whatever seems appropriate, in which case the solution the DM came up with was wasted effort. Additionally, when applied to traps, the DM will have to have a knowledge of engineering/physics/chemistry surpassing the players.

Player: "But, that isn't possible! The specific heat of a low carbon iron alloy is..."
DM: <sigh>

There is a happy medium between "Spring loaded spear in wall trapfinding" and "Skill", I am not sure the new edition falls close enough to that medium. Where that medium falls, of course, is open to reasonable debate, as well as if the new skill rolls are close to that.

 

[Mallus]

Encouraging negotiation and collaboration is definitely a step forward, but I think this may weaken the ability of the DM to put their foot down and declare something is just inappropriate.

Is it your experience that DM authority derives from the rules? My experience is that DM authority is conferred by the players, it's a product of trust. I don't see how the new system -- I'm hesitant to even call it a system, it's more like a rough guideline from placing the old skill checks in a new context-- would change that.

History checks have been used rather frequently in the examples. How does one determine if it is applicable or not?

A DM makes a judgment call?

Would even a fairly accomplished sage be expected to know something at every occasion that a History check would come up? The burial habits of the Orc G'lkt clan, architectural styles of the ancient Sea Elves, likely locations of planar jumpstones... Even if the DC is Hard or more, the odds of someone knowing something about all of these disparate topics is approximately zero. Evey History check would be a major retcon.

Why are you making this so difficult? No-one demands that kind of rigorous continuity. If the proposed skill usage sounds absurd to you, say no, if it's interesting, run with it, and if it's borderline, give the player the benefit of the doubt and see how the action develops.

The way skills are presented makes any concrete knowledge impossible.

No, it makes concrete knowledge of things that have no real importance in the ongoing campaign unimportant. There's a difference.

Either the DM has a solution to the puzzle that works and the players have to discover it, or they get to use whatever seems appropriate, in which case the solution the DM came up with was wasted effort.

I'm not going to hold it against my players if they find a better solution to a puzzle/challenge than the one I thought up. In fact, I welcome it when that happens. I'm a generous soul. Besides, I think the act of negotiating the solution to a problem has vastly more entertainment potential than me design interesting challenges and all their possible solutions beforehand.

(not to mention it's much easier)

Additionally, when applied to traps, the DM will have to have a knowledge of engineering/physics/chemistry surpassing the players.

This part is just nonsense. A DM doesn't need an encyclopedic knowledge of... well, everything, they need players willing to give them enough authority to run the game (which occasionally means letting go of whatever real-world expertise they possess).

 

[Storm-Bringer]

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

Of course they are. The whole experience is one big puzzle. The DM sets ten Orcs in front of you. Using your resources and the game rules, how do you 'solve' it? You are standing at the entrance to the dungeon. How do you 'solve' it?

All of role-playing is a contest of puzzles and solutions. Not all solutions are optimal, but there shouldn't be only a single solution for most puzzles. Some puzzles do need a more or less rigid set of circumstances to complete. A blanket statement advising that players can negotiate what skills are appropriate isn't useful in all circumstances.

 

[Mallus]

A blanket statement advising that players can negotiate what skills are appropriate isn't useful in all circumstances.

It's useful in most. What more do you want?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

A DM makes a judgment call?

How is that different than what is done now?

 

[Mallus]

How is that different than what is done now?

The new system encourages participation by the entire group, not only the person running the character with the most relevant skill.

It's also different in that the stakes are explicitly set. Succeed at enough different skill checks and the the desired result occurs.

Were you asking if DM judgment calls are the same? Yes, they are.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

It's useful in most. What more do you want?

Your conclusion is not supported by any premises.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

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.

I'm actually looking at it more similarly to how you do than I'm getting across. I was trying to point out that Just Another User's comment that the trap stops working when six successful checks were made was true, so that shouldn't be discounted. If you're interpreting skill challenges the way I think you and I are, it's not an issue that there is a six successful check mark to hit. But our acceptance of that limit doesn't make Just Another User's statement less true.

 

[Mallus]

Your conclusion is not supported by any premises.

Well, your point wasn't supported by much argumentation, so what do you want?

Anyhow, I posted you a post with some questions/points for further discussion. Address them if you like. The biggie is "Where does a DM's narrative authority come from?" Once we establish that we can talk about if the 4e skill system promises to erode it.

 

[Lacyon]

All of role-playing is a contest of puzzles and solutions. Not all solutions are optimal, but there shouldn't be only a single solution for most puzzles. Some puzzles do need a more or less rigid set of circumstances to complete. A blanket statement advising that players can negotiate what skills are appropriate isn't useful in all circumstances.

The 'optimal' solution in every case according to the rules appears to be "convince the DM to allow you to roll your highest skill every time."

Since, in most games, we can discount the possibility of that happening, the real optimal solution is to find the best possible intersection between 'skills my character is good at' and 'skills that are (or may be) appropriate to the situation at hand'.

There's nothing we've seen that prevents you from making that second set more or less rigid as appropriate.