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

[Benimoto]

Sure. Not really my point.

Diplomacy Check

Success = 'King forgives you.'
Failure = 'King orders you imprisoned.'

Wouldn't want it to happen often, but it should be a valid situation. The point is not that you died instantly upon failing the diplomacy check, but that failing it in that situation was 'utter failure' and afterwards you had no good options.

I didn't listen the podcast, but it seems like the point was that the player's fate should be decided more by the actual decisions they make than the result of their skill challenges The skill challenge shouldn't decide whether the player accomplish something, period, but instead whether they manage to succeed without some undesirable consequence.

I think it's more of a caution to the DM to avoid creating what are essentially dead ends in in his adventure design by requiring players to succeed on a skill challenge to keep playing the campaign. Combats can end in a TPK, but in most circumstances "win or TPK" are not the only two ways out of a combat. Players can run, negotiate a surrender, withdraw, achieve a Pyhrric victory or end up with a number of results that are different from complete victory or TPK. There are a greater amount of die rolls in a combat, and when you consider a greater number of die rolls, you end up with a more consistent distribution of results. The skill challenge system, in contrast, is set up for only two results, overall success or overall failure. There is a relative lack of tactical options, and a relatively low number of die rolls in the skill challenge system. Thus, there is typically a much higher chance of overall failure than there is in combat.

It seems like these are more just suggestions for adventure design than concrete rules for the game. So of course it's still going to be possible for the DM to ask for a skill challenge where if you fail, you're all imprisoned and the game's over. I just think that given the greater randomness and fewer options in a skill challenge, it's somewhat equivalent to including a corridor in the dungeon that has a 25% chance of killing the entire party "rocks fall, you die" style.

On a separate note, the main difference between the 4e skill challenge and the 3e skill system is that the 4e skill challenge system is designed to decide the results of an entire encounter, while the 3e system is designed to model the success or failure of a single task. There was previously no explicit guidance on how many tasks make up an encounter. Now there is.

 

[Celebrim]

Based on your logic, when you play Monopoly you should agree that the loser has to sell their house to the winner for $1. Because that chance makes the game fun!

Leaving aside the fact that there have historically been alot more gamblers in the world than RPGers, and that 'gaming' outside of the nerd community involves blackjack tables and slot machines, and so it might in fact in many people's opinion make the game more fun - the above does not in fact follow logically from what I said. There is nothing I said from which it logically follows that some out of game penalty is necessary to make a game interesting.

When you play Monopoly, you know you have lost because you've gone bankrupt. That's as harsh of any game penalty as can be applied in the context of the game of Monopoly. A less severe lose condition occurs all the time in monopoly (you have to pay a debt). Monopoly is a horribly designed game that stands out both as the prime example of how not to design a game, AND how little good game design has to do with commercial success. Nothingtheless, as boring as Monopoly is, it would be even more boring and pointless if no one could ever go bankrupt.

There are a lot of "lose" conditions less severe than a TPK, just as most people feel the risk of losing at Monopoly is enough of a disincentive without risking your house on top of it.

I'll let you ponder the complete lack of logic in that statement.

 

[Celebrim]

I think it's more of a caution to the DM to avoid creating what are essentially dead ends in in his adventure design by requiring players to succeed on a skill challenge to keep playing the campaign.

If that is so, I agree, though I'd say that there are much better ways to explain it.

Published horror/detective adventures tend to be filled with these sorts of 'gotchas'. A typical scenario involves the players going to some location where they must succeed in a skill check to find the hidden peice of evidence that is the only possible clue as to where to go next to find the next hidden clue. No alternate paths are provided, there is simply binary pass/fail.

It renders the skill 'challenge' rather pointless, in that the DM has potentially designed the equivalent of a campaign ending TPK over say a 'knowledge' or 'search' skill check. He never really wants the check to fail, and if it does, then either it is the most anticlimatic way to end an adventure possible or else he must arrange for the challenge to be pointless because the information will be provided anyway.

If we are discussing whether a skill challenge should be linear, then I'm on the side of non-linear. But just because I'm on the side 'non-linear' - in fact precisely because I'm on the side of non-linear - doesn't mean that I think that no paths should lead to dead ends.

Combats can end in a TPK, but in most circumstances "win or TPK" are not the only two ways out of a combat.

No, but the point is, as soon as a player can die, then you are creating the possiblity 'all players die'.

It seems like these are more just suggestions for adventure design than concrete rules for the game.

I would hope so.

On a separate note, the main difference between the 4e skill challenge and the 3e skill system is that the 4e skill challenge system is designed to decide the results of an entire encounter, while the 3e system is designed to model the success or failure of a single task. There was previously no explicit guidance on how many tasks make up an encounter. Now there is.

Let's hope they give good advice.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

At first I didn't like the sounds of these combined skill challenges but I'm coming around to them. I mostly like that they get more players involved and are fed on creativity.

So what happens if you make a skill check that obviously matches the challenge but are still below the number of successes? For example, in the great example Harr gave, what if the Samurai went first and told the Rogue about the corpse-filled booby traps (one success out of four necessary successes) and then the Rogue used whatever 4th Ed. equivalent to Disable Device to disarm the trap (two successes out of four necessary successes)? Do you throw in extra checks to pad the victory, ala making them use Atheletics to climb to the branch to cut it down and then another Atheletics to catch it without setting it off, so when the Rogue goes to Disable Device he'll make the 4th necessary success?

(And as a side note I agree 100% with Celebrim, there needs to be the possibility of failure or else it will be a very boring game.)

 

[catsclaw]

There is nothing I said from which it logically follows that some out of game penalty is necessary to make a game interesting.

In a certain sense, all penalties are out-of-game penalties. You try to win at Monopoly not because there's some real sanction that will hit you if you lose, but because you'll feel bad, in the real world, for losing. If I design a game and the rules say "After an hour has passed, whoever has reached the right-most edge of the board has achieved outcome K, and everyone who avoided reaching the right-most edge has achieved outcome J." you're not going to have any incentive to achieve either outcome. If I call it "win" and "lose", you suddenly do. That's not because anything changed in the game.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that a TPK is a ridiculously severe penalty, since it virtually necessitates throwing away all the characters and likely the campaign--which is an out-of-game penalty if anything is. If that level of risk was necessary to keep my interest, I'd definitely bring it up with a psychologist.

I'll let you ponder the complete lack of logic in that statement.

Let me make it simpler for you.

In Dungeons and Dragons, you could lose by getting knocked out and having your sword stolen. Or you can lose by having your head bitten off, your body dissolved in a dragon's acid breath, the remnants scattered to the four winds, and the GM saying "You're dead and you can't be raised, so don't bother coming back until we're finished with this campaign".

In Monopoly, you can lose by going bankrupt and saying "Darn!" Or you can lose by going bankrupt in the game, and then fulfilling your end of a bet by selling your house for $1.

See? You can have a range of penalties. It doesn't have to be the most severe penalty you can think of to make you try and avoid it.

 

[Celebrim]

In a certain sense, all penalties are out-of-game penalties.

Well, yes, in a certain sense, that's true. In a certain sense, Obi Wan Kenobi wasn't lying when he said Darth Vader murdered Luke's father, but in any common ordinary sense of the word what he said wasn't true. There is a real qualitative difference between losing your imaginary in game house, and losing your real house and I shouldn't think that I'd have to explain that. Obviously if I believe that the possibility of player character death is necessary to make the game interesting, it doesn't follow that I believe that the possibility of player death is necessary to make the game interesting. Exciting, sure, but I don't feel the need to put up real stakes like that to enjoy a game. The game stakes are enough.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that a TPK is a ridiculously severe penalty, since it virtually necessitates throwing away all the characters and likely the campaign--which is an out-of-game penalty if anything is.

So you are saying that the need to start a game over is qualitatively the same as gambling your own house or your own life?

Moreover, my point, which you have missed, is that indeed a TPK is a ridiculously severe penalty. However, as much as noone wants to see a TPK, the possibility of a TPK is introduced as soon as we allow character 'death' (where character 'death' means you can no longer play as that character without intervention by another player).

If that level of risk was necessary to keep my interest, I'd definitely bring it up with a psychologist.

That level of risk is available in Monopoly. You can be put out of the game, be unable to continue to play, and the game goes on without you. I don't think people who play Monopoly are mentally ill, but thanks for the typical claim that not only am I wrong but that there must be something 'wrong' with me if I don't agree with you.

A game where you can't actually suffer character death, is equivalent to a game of monopoly where no one can actually go bankrupt. A game where you can suffer character death is not equivalent to one where you are betting your real house.

Please, keep digging yourself into a logical hole.

 

[catsclaw]

So you are saying that the need to start a game over is qualitatively the same as gambling your own house or your own life?

I'm saying both are real penalties, in the real world, for things that happen in a game. The difference is a matter of degree. Your insistence that they're completely unrelated things is bizarre, like someone arguing there's no comparison between a gorilla and King Kong because one is 300 feet tall.

However, as much as noone wants to see a TPK, the possibility of a TPK is introduced as soon as we allow character 'death' (where character 'death' means you can no longer play as that character without intervention by another player).

No, it's not. Since there's a judge, who has ultimate control over the world, there's only a risk of TPK if the judge lets it happen. I know plenty of judges who, faced with the possibility of a TPK, will go out of their way to avoid it. Especially if it was something they screwed up (like throwing a too tough monster at the party) rather than something the party screwed up.

A game where you can't actually suffer character death, is equivalent to a game of monopoly where no one can actually go bankrupt. A game where you can suffer character death is not equivalent to one where you are betting your real house.

We're not talking about character death. We're talking about campaign death, in the form of a TPK. If you can't see the difference between those two things, well, I've no idea how to make that any clearer.

Please, keep digging yourself into a logical hole.

Just because you can't follow an argument doesn't make it illogical. Just like being insulted because someone implied you were insane doesn't actually mean you're sane.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to make my psychotherapy appointment.

 

[Nebulous]

All this happens in the space of 20 minutes, with everybody on the edge of their seats and engaged in what's going on, noone wandering off to do something else, no boredom, no 'huh?' moments, no 'dead air', and ends up really satisfying and fun for them and me. Now, is doing this possible without any challenge system? Sure why, not. If you can do it, that's great. Would it have been possible for us to pull off this well without the system? I know myself and my players well enough to say not in a million years So that's why the system is great for me.

I commend you on that example Harr, it was very interesting, whether or not 4e actually works like that. My concern is that it seems to put A LOT of pressure on you, at a moment's notice, to come up with credible reasons/solutions to each and every thing the PC's decide to do. For an experienced DM coming up with stuff on the fly is just par for the course (it's also one of the most rewarding aspects of roleplaying), but for NEW DMs trying to do that: that's tough, and i would be intimidated.

 

[Nytmare]

So what happens if you make a skill check that obviously matches the challenge but are still below the number of successes?

I think that this might be one of the dangers in making a complex skill encounter out of a something covered by a simple skill check, but this doesn't necessarily have to fall into that trap.

The rogue might know that it's trapped, but to be able to use his mad disabling skillz it might mean that he either has to get up to the body or get the body down to him. Furthermore you don't have to boil the excahnge down to a "I use skill X, what happens?" thing. You know it's a trap, and you get up the tree and get the body down safely, but now how do you disarm it? Do you try to carefully open it up and get rid of the poison? Do you stand back and fill it full of arrows? What are the pass/fail consequences of your decision?

Further furthermore, the setup is that you have a body in a tree, but the trap can be secondary to the entire encounter. Like it was mentioned before, the encounter might become "deal with the emotionally distraught dryad", or maybe "discover the clue on the corpse", or "don't upset the restless spirit of the dead guy".

One thing I've learned from my own style of DMing is that asking my players about what they think, and then following their basically common-sense leads and hunches, leads us to WAY more interesting plot twists and interesting narrative structures than expecting them to follow only my own hints and trails of clues.

 

[LostSoul]

Because that is what makes a game interesting.

Every time I play a game, I want to win. I'm a fierce competitor. I believe I ought to win every game of 'Settlers of Cataan' I play. I believe I ought to win every game of 'Bloodbowl' I play. I play to win. I never want to lose.

That makes sense. Saying something "should never happen" is different from saying that you're willing to risk it happening for the excitement.

So you think campaign-ending TPKs should happen sometimes.