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

[pemerton]

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.

That depends entirely on the real-world point of playing the game. If the game is semi-adversarial (players trying to overcome the challenges the GM puts in front of them) then what you say is true. But if the point is something different, then what may matter is not so much the overcoming of the challenge, but what story is told (jointly by players and GM) to explain the way in which the challenge is overcome.

If the latter were true, then the puzzle could be highly relevant even though the method of solution (ie the story told) is irrelevant to the narrow question of whether or not it gets solves.

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.

That's a big call to make about all of roleplaying. What is the puzzle in a classic game of RQ, for example? The point of that game is to explore the world of Glorantha, not to solve a puzzle.

I'll happily concede, of course, that in typical D&D play the PCs spend most of their on-screen time overcoming challenges - and this could be loosely paraphrased as "solving puzzles". But it does not at all follow that the point of play in the real world, for the players, is to overcome these challenges. It may be that the ingame resolution of these situations serves quite a different creative or expressive or other aesthetic purpose for the players of the game.

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."

That's not necessarily a bad thing - it depends on what the real-world point of playing the game is. If it is not semi-adversarial players vs GM's scenario, but is rather for the players to participate in shaping a particular sort of gameworld (eg because that will express some thematic point of interest to the players and GM) then what will matter is not that I use my PC's best skill every time, but the narrative that I (together with the GM) shape to explain the relevance and use of that skill.

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'.

Again, if it is up to the player to explain a particular skill's appropriateness, then (in non-adversarial play) the interest will not so much be in which skill is used, but in what sort of story the player tells that makes the use of a particular skill plausible within the ingame situation.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure I'm primarily claiming strengths for 3e. I don't see this as a binary, 'either you must think 4e is God's gift to gaming and 3e sucks' or else 'you must think that 3e is the one true edition and that 4e is a pile of crap'. I don't feel that I have to compare 4e or 3e to anything when criticizing them. I was plenty critical of 3e's diplomacy rules before I had anything to compare them to based simply on the observed results and extrapolating out the worst case. I'd likewise be critical of the 4e skill system (or at least as much of it as I've seen) even without 3e. Unlike the developers, I don't feel the need to trash 3e in order to praise 4e, nor do I feel the need to praise 3e in order to express my displeasure with the chosen direction of 4e. I can trash or praise quite independently./snip

I guess I just haven't seen the Dev's doing a whole lot of 3e bashing. The 3e rules were not set up to do what they are doing in 4e. Yes, you could kitbash something together that looks like 4e out of 3e, but, that's different. I have close to a hundred or so modules lying around - between Dungeon and various other sources - and it's extremely rare to see anything like what they are talking about here. The two examples that were brought up from the AP's are about the closest you see, and even there, it's not the same. Much less codified for one thing.

I suppose it all comes down to reader filters.

 

[Goobermunch]

Guys,

some grist for your thought mills.

Holding Monopoly up as anything other than excerable game design is a bad idea. Monopoly utterly fails as a fun game. It is entirely random and utterly devoid of strategy.

/threadjack

--G

 

[Celebrim]

I assume I should read "PC" in place of "player".

Yes. Although, the claim is true in either case.

This claim is not actually true.

Ok, that I'll grant you. Let's just say that the claim is true of virtually all published RPGs. I had recognized the corner case, decided the technicality wasn't worth explaining and figured I could deal with it if anyone mentioned it. I'll do so now.

To draw on the Monopoly example, the fact that it is possible for one player to go bankrupt in the game does not entail that it is possible for everyone in the game to go bankrupt - because the last player still solvent wins.

It is similarly possible to conceive of RPG rules that allocate certain metagame resources to the players of the surviving PCs when a party member dies, and once a single player has sufficiently many such resources his or her PC cannot die (what the in-game explanation for this might be would depend upon the in-game effect of spending the metagame resources).

Congradulations, you just created a competitive RPG. Last player left alive 'wins'.

Now of course, this isn't strictly true either. Not being able to die isn't the same as being invincible. You could still be thrown in a donjon for all eternity, left tied to a rock for an eagle to pick your liver out, or whatever. But if you'll recall, I was earlier putting 'death' in quotation marks for exactly this reason. In monopoly, you don't actually die in the fluff, but being put out of the game via bankruptsy is the same mechanically as death. I defined 'game death' to be, any situation where you could not continue to play as that character without intervention from another player.

If the last player left alive is actually immune from 'game death', then he 'wins'. The game is now over in a way that RPGs usually aren't.

Accepting that part of the point of playing Monopoly is to win...

Which is how RPG's differ from Monopoly.

I have played games of Monopoly which are not so competitive, however (it is, rather, to fill in an otherwise boring afternoon) and in those cases various devices are used to keep the bankrupt in the game (eg gifts and/or loans from other players, or from the bank).

Or in other words, you invented cooperative Monopoly. (I can scarsely think of anything more boring.) Gifting other players with loans is the mechanical equivalent of 'raise dead' (or at least 'cure critical wounds').

A game in which PCs can't die might be more equivalent to these non-competitve versions of Monopoly. Given the (non-competitive) point of a fair bit of RPGing, such a game might make a fair bit of sense.

Agreed. And I didn't say that a purely cooperative non-competitive RPG wouldn't make sense. I said that a purely cooperative non-competitive RPG would bore me. I can understand some people want to play RPGs where they can't actually die, but I'm just not one of them and don't want to see D&D go in that direction. Quite a few narrativist games move strongly in this direction, such that the only real possibility of player death is voluntary and that's fine for those games. But they aren't inherently superior to the experience of D&D. I think D&D goes sour when it turns into the DM vs. the Players, but so long as everyone maintains thier good gamesmanship I love the tactical, puzzle solving, skillful play aspect of D&D.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

That depends entirely on the real-world point of playing the game. If the game is semi-adversarial (players trying to overcome the challenges the GM puts in front of them) then what you say is true. But if the point is something different, then what may matter is not so much the overcoming of the challenge, but what story is told (jointly by players and GM) to explain the way in which the challenge is overcome.

If the latter were true, then the puzzle could be highly relevant even though the method of solution (ie the story told) is irrelevant to the narrow question of whether or not it gets solves.

But you don't really need strict rules for that. Certainly not 400+ pages of rules in three books. Co-operative story-telling is no better or worse than any other style, but if that is the goal of D&D, it will fail miserably. Head over to the Forge and check out the co-operative style games they have. Typically, 32 pages or less. Minimalist rules and dice.

How would you define 'ten orcs' as something other than 'a challenge to overcome'? I will grant, spells and steel aren't the only way to interact with this situation. However, according to the stated design goals, they aren't there to much other purpose. That is simply how the ruleset is laid out. If that is 'semi-adversarial', then the rules encourage that.

That's a big call to make about all of roleplaying. What is the puzzle in a classic game of RQ, for example? The point of that game is to explore the world of Glorantha, not to solve a puzzle.

I am not intimately familiar with RuneQuest, but you would describe a typical session as simply wandering about the countryside recording details?

I'll happily concede, of course, that in typical D&D play the PCs spend most of their on-screen time overcoming challenges - and this could be loosely paraphrased as "solving puzzles". But it does not at all follow that the point of play in the real world, for the players, is to overcome these challenges. It may be that the ingame resolution of these situations serves quite a different creative or expressive or other aesthetic purpose for the players of the game.

Certainly, for some players. But that is moving away from the realm of 'game' and into the realm of 'anthology'. As I mentioned above, if a particular group is looking to tell a rousing story of great deeds and daring, no edition of D&D really supports that well.

That's not necessarily a bad thing - it depends on what the real-world point of playing the game is. If it is not semi-adversarial players vs GM's scenario, but is rather for the players to participate in shaping a particular sort of gameworld (eg because that will express some thematic point of interest to the players and GM) then what will matter is not that I use my PC's best skill every time, but the narrative that I (together with the GM) shape to explain the relevance and use of that skill.

But again, this moves away from 'playing a game' into 'telling a story'. To be clear, I am not against any such style of play. But I think you will have an uphill battle showing that the new edition has more than superficial support for that style.

Again, if it is up to the player to explain a particular skill's appropriateness, then (in non-adversarial play) the interest will not so much be in which skill is used, but in what sort of story the player tells that makes the use of a particular skill plausible within the ingame situation.

Using an applicable skill for a task is not 'adversarial'. Nor is it 'semi-adversarial'. It is more accurately 'using the rules as they are intended', which is to help adjudicate situations expected to commonly occur. Secondarily, the rules are in place to assist the referee in setting up situations in which the players interact with the game and associated milieu via their avatars or 'tokens'.

Primarily, this means that my Rogue will know that climbing a slippery wall will have a -10 penalty at my table, and if I play a Rogue at someone else's table, that same slippery wall will have that same -10 penalty. If the penalty is greater, non-existant, or is a +10 instead, I will have to re-adjust my expectations of how things work. Essentially, I will have to learn a new game that is similar to the one I know. It may sound some degree of adversarial when the DM says "The lock has a DC of 75". In fact, what it tells me is that this lock is exceptionally hard to pick, or the DM doesn't want people in there. If I decide to try picking that lock, I know how to calculate my odds based on the skills and equipment my Rogue possesses. But that lock will be the same challenge for any Rogue, and will be the same challenge across any table. The very opposite of 'adversarial'.

On the other hand, if everyone has to demonstrate how their skill is applicable to the task at hand, that will not only increase handle time, it turns into a legalistic system, where the player(s) and the DM are deciding the appropriateness of a skill, while the other players determine the validity of the points. Even if the DM simply allows most attempts of any particular skill, the other players (jury) are simply building up a body of 'precedent' while the 'defence' (DM) accepts most deals offered by the 'prosecution' (player).

Western legal traditions are anything but 'non-adversarial'.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Well, to be fair, they've said that on many occasions. I'm not sure why some people get so testy when something is pointed out as "4E now allows you to do this...!" with the old complaint "but you could do this before!"

Not entirely. The very point of stating "You can do X!" is to imply that you couldn't before. The positive assertion is implying the negation of a previous condition.

Very few people are EVER saying that you COULDN'T do it before, even when it sounds like they are. They are really trying to say that the rules support that type of play to an extent that it hasn't before. But it would be really, really LONG to have to say that every time.

This strays perilously close to the No True Scotsman argument. If they are saying "You can do this now!" they are implying that you couldn't before. For broad statements, it is easily seen as false: "You can use swords now!" "4e uses dice!". Clearly, these statements are nonsense because they are of a form that implies negation of a previous situation, but that situation didn't exist. However, "Your Wizard can use a sword now!" or "4e uses a social skill resolution system!" are a bit trickier, as the previous condition may not be commonly known, or well known to a particular reader. It still reads as a negation of "Your Wizard couldn't use swords before now". Except that it takes a bit of digging to discover that your Wizard could use a sword in previous editions without penalty, if you applied the rules for that situation (in 3.x you can take a feat, in 2e you could take a kit).

In other words, if they are saying you couldn't do something before, it is best to take them at their word and seek clarification. Assuming they meant something else can lead to problems. In other words, typically, the best response to "You can do X now!" is usually "You could always do X" and see where things go. It may be an honest lack of knowledge, it may be willful misrepresentation, or anything between. In almost all cases, however, it is best to correct the statement in order to have a clearer idea of the argument and the topic at hand.

It's like the people who seem to think that one should always start a sentence "In my opinion..."

Of course it's MY opinion, I'M the one saying it.

Fitz

Well, that's your opinion.

In most ways, this is definitely the best way to read the Intarwebs. On the other hand, it can be tricky at times to separate someone spouting off with an 'expert' defining a point. Especially when it is difficult to verify any particular person's credentials to speak authouritatively on a particular topic.

 

[LostSoul]

On the other hand, if everyone has to demonstrate how their skill is applicable to the task at hand, that will not only increase handle time, it turns into a legalistic system...

Having played games that do this sort of thing, I think this is a feature.

 

[Benimoto]

In other words, if they are saying you couldn't do something before, it is best to take them at their word and seek clarification. Assuming they meant something else can lead to problems. In other words, typically, the best response to "You can do X now!" is usually "You could always do X" and see where things go.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that. Plus, it's important to note that this is a whole forum devoted to 4e. People in about half a dozen threads have made this kind of argument before, saying that the designers saying "you can do X now" is disingenuous, only to have the designers themselves often clarify, as Fitz did, that their real meaning is that X is now supported fully in the rules where it wasn't before. At some point, hopefully people will catch on that this is a form of shorthand.

To some degree it's important to realize that these statements come, at the source, from professional designers and writers. So often what they mean when they say "you can do X now" is more like "I can put X in a module and not have it rejected by my editors or criticized by rules-lawyering players."

I run a lot of Living Greyhawk games at conventions, and I've seen about half a dozen attempts to make some sort of skill challenge into an encounter with an actual EL, since in Living Greyhawk, that's the only way you can earn XP. Running these scenes, I'd say that at least 50% of the time, I'd have some player say "well that's not the way the DMG says a chase scene is supposed to be run," or "well the rules say that my web spell should bypass this entire encounter." So, from that perspective, I'm happy to see this new system. I've seen a need for some sort of official system that grants XP for noncombat, nontrap skill challenges, and that's exactly what this is. There wasn't such a system in the 3.x RAW before, and now there is.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that. Plus, it's important to note that this is a whole forum devoted to 4e. People in about half a dozen threads have made this kind of argument before, saying that the designers saying "you can do X now" is disingenuous, only to have the designers themselves often clarify, as Fitz did, that their real meaning is that X is now supported fully in the rules where it wasn't before. At some point, hopefully people will catch on that this is a form of shorthand.

a) It's impossible to keep people from misunderstanding you. But, the more you express yourself in shorthand that implicitly requires your audience to already be on the same page you are on, the more likely it is people will misunderstand you.
b) Many of the things that designers have said are now fully supported by the rules are not in fact actually rules issues. For example, the notion of a trap as part of an encounter is not something that is a rule issue, but an encounter design issue. The notion of an encounter space being larger than a single room isn't an issue of rules, but one of encounter design. As such, the notion that these are supported by the rules when they aren't in fact rules issues is itself ridiculous so the clarification gets you no where.
c) Many times when designers have claimed some thing is now fully supported by the rules, the cited evidence has been very unconvincing to me. Plus I've seen alot of claims by fans that 4e will be 'rules light', 'streamlined', 'more flexible', 'faster', 'less preperation time', 'more narrativist', 'more character focused', 'roleplay enabling', 'player enabling', and pretty much anyattribute that someone can project in thier imagination on the new edition, and so far none of those claims seem to be rooted in much more than hope. There have been similar claims made by the developers, and I'm not the only one that feels the primary evidence presented by the developers has been some variation on "3e old and busted, 4e new hotness". Given the developers have spent more time on what 3e supposedly couldn't do than they have on what 4e actually can do (especially until recently), I think my pointing out the 3e often can do the thing its claimed not to do is perfectly fair.

To some degree it's important to realize that these statements come, at the source, from So often what they mean when they say "you can do X now" is more like "I can put X in a module and not have it rejected by my editors or criticized by rules-lawyering players."

I could show examples of exception based designed not just in published modules, but in published modules by WotC. If they now want to tell me that in 4e we have permission to break the rules occassionally as DMs, that's like telling me that thier new blender makes milk shakes. Swell. It's a blender right? Of course it makes milk shakes.

I run a lot of Living Greyhawk games at conventions, and I've seen about half a dozen attempts to make some sort of skill challenge into an encounter with an actual EL, since in Living Greyhawk, that's the only way you can earn XP. Running these scenes, I'd say that at least 50% of the time, I'd have some player say "well that's not the way the DMG says a chase scene is supposed to be run," or "well the rules say that my web spell should bypass this entire encounter." So, from that perspective, I'm happy to see this new system.

Oh @#!$@$ @#%@#$@ !#@$@, this is exactly the sort of ludicrous claim that I'm talking about. I hate to break this to you, but having a new rules set won't stop rules lawyers at your table from being pricks. Nor is it going to stop DMs from saying "No" when they could say "Yes". These aren't rule issues. They are gamesmanship issues. Rules can't fix what isn't broken in them. The new skill challenge 'system' is a rules laywers paradice. Some people are already claiming its new more legalistic approach is a feature not a bug. Sheesh.

I've seen a need for some sort of official system that grants XP for noncombat, nontrap skill challenges, and that's exactly what this is. There wasn't such a system in the 3.x RAW before, and now there is.

True, there were no guidelines for the size of story awards or non-skill challenges. Color me very skeptical that any guidelines for doing such are going to be useful as anything but very rough estimations, or that useful at all outside of the narrow constraints of a tournament environment.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh @#!$@$ @#%@#$@ !#@$@, this is exactly the sort of ludicrous claim that I'm talking about. I hate to break this to you, but having a new rules set won't stop rules lawyers at your table from being pricks. Nor is it going to stop DMs from saying "No" when they could say "Yes". These aren't rule issues. They are gamesmanship issues. Rules can't fix what isn't broken in them. The new skill challenge 'system' is a rules laywers paradice. Some people are already claiming its new more legalistic approach is a feature not a bug. Sheesh.

Most of these newfangled thingies are part of the Dungeon Masters Guide.
The DMG is more then just a set of rules. It contains advice, guidelines and rules. As such, it can very well change "gamesmanship", as you call it. If the DMG recommends the DM "say yes" and then gives advice on how to say "yes", this means it can make your gamesmanship better. True, it is only a hope, people can ignore any advice giving to them, but if you're just not that great as a DM and are willing to improve, such advice is gold.

The DMG 3E did not contain a lot of information on:
- How to assign XP for non-combat encounter
- How to resolve a complex scene with skills
- How to run encounters across rooms, with many opponents.
- How to handle improvised combat maneuvers.

You could do it before, and it's not like the 3E DMG implied that this was impossible (in fact, sometimes it implied that you could do it). But it didn't give you any hard advice how to do it. If the DMG 4E does contain advice on any of this, it means 4E will support it - as in actively support it, not the mora" support of "if you really want to try, it's your game, sounds nice, but I won't give you anything concrete to work with. You're a smart guy, you will figure it out for yourself."

I am not saying that the DMG 3E didn't contain a ton of useful advice. But there are still things it could have explained better, and there are things that can be added to it.
And if these things are added, I find it appropriate to say that 4E will support this things, where previous editions did not. Or, put in other ways: In 4E, the game will allow you to do this stuff. In 3E, it was only yourself that allowed you to this stuff.

Maybe I am overly optimistic and reading the actual 4E DMG, I might get disappointed, but my optimisms is based on what was told to us.