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

[Mallus]

Are you making a face at the notion of agreeable player/DM communication, the notion the new rules might facilitate it, or the notion that the new rules might not work for people who can't agree to be agreeable?

 

[Celebrim]

Once again, you're arguing semantics.

You keep saying this. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.

The rules very clearly state the level of traps and associated experience point rewards for them. The rules give very detailed instructions for calculating the CR of monsters and groups of monsters, and how to gauge how difficult an encounter will be for the party. Those are rules, and the 3.5 rules covering this stuff are terrible.

Yes, this is all true. But it really doesn't have anything to do with encounter design. If it did, we could turn everyone into great adventure writers merely by fixing the CR rules so that they were fair and balanced.

The difference between rules and guidelines is fairly straightfoward. I can take the rules for resolving combat, transform them into C++ and produce a program that correctly arbitrates any situation that those rules cover. It will know whether something draws an AoO. It will be able to calculate the attack bonus and line of sight. I can do this because they are rules and hense, determinisitic.

But I can't turn the guidelines for encounter design into C++ and produce a program that consistantly turns out interesting encounters. It won't know where to put traps. It won't know in which situations a particular monster is most interesting. It won't know anything about synergies between two monsters. It won't know anything about novel architecture or novel tactical problems. This is because the guidelines - even the expected 4e ones - are not deterministic. They are just guidelines.

We do not have nor would I want rules on how to design encounters. I don't want my hands tied as a DM by a bunch of arbitrary rules. I've been designing adventures for 25 years. I don't need my hands held. Random tables are fine and have thier place, but even they are just guidelines.

Also, you seem to feel like just because you call a rule a guideline you win the argument.

No, but I do feel you just don't get it.

The point is that 4e is going to provide much better support for the GM in handling complex encounters, both combat and social. Call that "support" a guideline, call it a rule, I don't care. It's something 4e will do better than 3.5. The fact it exists at all means it's better than 3.5.

Until you care about the semantics, I can't begin to discuss with you the subtleties of that. Since you don't care, and since I began my interest in this thread by praising the developers of 4e for focusing on how to build good encounters and adventures,

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Mine may not have been great, but I was forced to extend yours, and was limited by the source material.

You certainly were not forced to do anything.

Look, you've staked out a logical position which is quite simply indefensible.

I'm quite certain you don't know what my position is, much less whether its defensible or not.

It's exactly as if someone defended checkers as a good role-playing game, because the rules didn't explicitly prevent imagining the pieces had different personalities. That's not exactly a winning premise.

That is certainly not an analogy anyone forced you to make. It is most certainly not an appropriate analogy, much less an 'exact' one.

 

[pemerton]

Celebrim, thanks for the reply.

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

<snip>

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.

It wouldn't have to be competitive. What I'd actually envisaged was a game of strong party cohesion working towards a common goal, and as party members die in the pursuit of that goal, their "mojo" accretes to the surviving PCs.

But it could be competitive also, I agree. That's why I think that Ron Edwards is right when he suggests that a number of systems are able to provide dual support for both narrativist and gamist play (as long as everyone's on the same page as to what they're doing at the table - if not, the experience might be a bit jarring for some of the participants).

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.

Narrativist play, of course, can also involve the pleasures of skillful play. It's just that the point of mechanical mastery - that is, the real-world goal at which it is directed - is slightly different.

Nevertheless, I take your point.

 

[Celebrim]

Mallus: My point was that people with dysfunctional gaming behavior would likely to continue to exhibit dysfunctional gaming behavior under any system. (KotDT has plenty laughs on the theme no matter the system, the games play out exactly the same.)

So, I'm confused by the notion that the new rules will make people who can't agree to be agreeable somehow agreeable.

I'm also confused by how you'd establish a claim like "the new system...shows a poor player or DM to be what he is." What does that mean? And if it means what I think it means, this seems to be pretty system invariant too.

 

[LostSoul]

You mean that they aren't already?

Isn't the situation, "A guard is coming, what do you do?"

<snip>

Don't we already have to use skills when they are applicable to the situation?

No, not unless 3.5 says I can't use Decipher Script in that situation. Or a Jump check just to see how high I can jump straight up.

4e is different because your skill checks - if they are going to be considered applicable to resolving the skill challenge - need to be relevant to the situation. You'll probably still be able to make a meaningless roll, or take no action, but now that has mechanical consequences (considered as a failure towards resolving the skill challenge, I bet).

Why do I think this will lead to more description in play? Because now you have to convince the DM that the skill is relevant to the situation. That's not something you had to do before. Now, it seems like it's required.

 

[Just Another User]

Well, to use your "cut the rope" example, my answer would be, when did he cut the rope? If he cut the rope after the six successes, then the trap does not get triggered, for whatever reason - maybe the 6 successes disarmed the trap, maybe the trap was a dud. Since they've defeated the challenge, then anything (within reason) they do after that will not result in a bad situation.

I think here is where we agree to disagree, if I understand your point you say that, for example, the trap is or isn't a dud depending on how well the PCs rolls. That kind of play just don't ring with me. A PC don't find what he is searching only because he rolled high on his search check if it was never there in the first place The world don't change depending how the pcs rolls, at most it could change depending on how the GM roll, and even that should be done with moderation.
I just hope that how you described it is just the way you'd play it and not the default mode supported by 4e.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm also confused by how you'd establish a claim like "the new system...shows a poor player or DM to be what he is." What does that mean? And if it means what I think it means, this seems to be pretty system invariant too.

A system that's more straightforward with regards to what the players want is going to be more transparent. People who don't play well with others are going to be seen more easily in such a system compared to one where baroque rules and unclear guidelines for resolving success or failure of conflicts are the norm.

If I'm being a jerk in a system like Prime Time Adventures, everyone's going to see it right away.

 

[catsclaw]

You keep saying this. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.

I think the only difference between a guideline and a rule is how strictly it needs to be followed. You think the difference is whether it can be followed deterministically or not. That is, literally, a semantic difference.

What did you think it meant?

The difference between rules and guidelines is fairly straightfoward. I can take the rules for resolving combat, transform them into C++ and produce a program that correctly arbitrates any situation that those rules cover ... But I can't turn the guidelines for encounter design into C++ and produce a program that consistantly turns out interesting encounters.

Interestingly, your distinction is simply wrong. There are many rules which can't be followed deterministically. The Balance rules say a lightly slippery surface adds +2 to the DC, and a severely slippery surface adds +5 to the DC. That's clearly a rule, but coding it into a computer would be difficult, because it requires a judgment call as to how slippery a given surface is.

Likewise, I certainly can turn the guidelines for encounter design into a deterministic program, as Nethack and other roguelikes succinctly prove. You're making a distinction without a difference.

I'm quite certain you don't know what my position is, much less whether its defensible or not.

Oh, really?

I think a better question would be, "Can you show me a rule from official sources which would prevent you from doing a series of skill checks to resolve an encounter?"

Everything that isn't forbidden, is permitted.


Besides, I never play by the RAW anyway. Especially when they suck.

All I'm saying is that 4e's skill system isn't a necessary change for designing 4e style encounters. You can't prove to me otherwise, because I've been playing like this since first (before we even had an explicit unified skill system).

I resent the whole 'in 3e you couldn't have X...', when I've had 'X' since 1st edition. Telling me how great 4e is for allowing me to do something I already can do is like trying to sell me a new blender when my old one works fine.

I stand by my characterization. None of the previous editions had explicit rules for covering complex skill checks. 4e will. That's a clear change from earlier editions.

 

[Celebrim]

No, not unless 3.5 says I can't use Decipher Script in that situation. Or a Jump check just to see how high I can jump straight up.

4e is different because your skill checks - if they are going to be considered applicable to resolving the skill challenge - need to be relevant to the situation.

I'm still bit understanding you. And unlike some other cases, where I actually understand what was said just not why it was said, this is an honest case of not understanding you.

In 3e if the skill check is to be considered applicable to resolving the skill challenge, it needs to be relevant to the situation. In 3e, the player can respond to the arrival of the gaurd with, "I use my Decipher Script to read the words on the uniform. I have a 25.", and such a proposition isn't necessarily relevant to the problem of the guard showing up in the way that the other examples I gave are. So how is 3e different that 4e in this regard?

You'll probably still be able to make a meaningless roll, or take no action, but now that has mechanical consequences (considered as a failure towards resolving the skill challenge, I bet).

Again, gaurd shows up. You do something meaningless. Does the guard now get a turn? Is this different in 4e?

Why do I think this will lead to more description in play? Because now you have to convince the DM that the skill is relevant to the situation. That's not something you had to do before.

It isn't? So before, when the guard showed up and the proposition was, "I use my Decipher Script", the DM was obligated to consider the action relevant to resolving the challenge?

 

[hong]

Yessense.

Claiming that the only meaningful way to provide challenge in an RPG is by PC death is indeed nonsense. You were expecting something else?