We used those, for combat situations, during the middle of a fight or if we walked into a hostile encounter, but never out of combat, since those rules are listed in the "combat" section of the book.
Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
We used those, for combat situations, during the middle of a fight or if we walked into a hostile encounter, but never out of combat, since those rules are listed in the "combat" section of the book.
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug!
DM: Okay, your Str is 16 and you easily crush the mug, give me a Cha check.
Player: Cha?
DM: Yep, your will versus his, but add a +2 for that mug trick.
Player: Okay, I score an 18!
DM: He shivers noticeably and then looks away.
**Fixed it for you
I've got no issue with that, other than it doesn't address the issue of why Cha. At least if it's a skill, it's a rule rather than an arbitrary decision. If it doesn't need a rule, then it probably doesn't need a roll.
Quickleaf
Legend
In my friend's B-series sandbox for 4e, I play a low-Wisdom knight. One time I tried to sneak past several meditating/chanting evil monks. Knowing I would most likely fail the check (and I did gloriously), I made soft chanting noises and pretended to walk past as if I belonged. The DM said one of the paulders on my plate armor clipped the wall with a loud bang.
But at least I got the other heavily armored untrained in Stealth PC, our party's ardent, to attempt to sneak with me.
The moral of the story is: It's more fun if you don't always go for the most advantageous skill/ability.
pauljathome
First Post
Cute.
And with a group where the GM and group are in sync you're largely right. But we've all seen the following :
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, roll your ummmm, let's say Cha
Player: Cha?
DM: Yeah, You're putting on a show, that's personality
Player: But I'm flexing my muscles, acting all scary tough
GM: No, its definitely Cha. Nice try though
Player: Rolled a 12. -2 because Cha is my dump stat. 10
GM: Nope, you failed
Or:
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, roll your ummmm, lets say Cha
Player: No, I use my Int (I know how to crush mugs), Wis (I see where the mug is broken), Con .....
GM: Okay.
Ie, with a particularly persuasive player then EVERYTHING can be solved with a single stat.
3rd edition, for better or worse, made this far less unlikely. The rules were clear cut for a much greater range of activities (obviously not all)
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
I roll a 12 on my intimidate. +6 for an 18
Either:
GM: Ok, you intimidate him
or
GM: +6? How the heck do you get a +6 when Cha is your dump stat?
Player: I took the feat that lets me use Str.
GM: Righto then.
Mouseferatu
Hero
A) You can solve a lot of that by just making sure the guidelines to the DM are clear and concise, and by addressing this sort of thing.
B) Something I've learned over the past decade: No set of rules can mitigate bad DMing or bad playing, and trying to write a set of rules that does so will only end up restricting good play. Far better to give the DM and players all the tools and advice they need to become good DMs/players, and write the rules assuming most of them will get it.
No. I'm wondering whether this new system will make as big a difference to action resolution practices as is being suggested.
Correct.
This relates back to something I wondered about on the first page in response to Lanefan - is the player allowed takebacks once the GM explains what sort of check is required?
There are dimensions here both of verisimilitude/role "inhabitation" - a player can legitimately claim that his/her PC would have some sort of understanding of the situation and his/her ability to deal with it - and also of gameplay fairness - the player of a cleric may start down a course of action hoping to exploit high WIS, and feel a bit shafted when the GM adjudicates it as an INT situation instead.
I would expect many groups to drift this approach to something like: "If I do that, will it be an INT or WIS check?", and look for confirmation from the GM before locking in.
I think this is very true. Although that baggage is different from group to group.
My feeling is that there are two things missing from what Rule of 3 describes (which is not to say that they are necessarily missing from the new rules):
* guidelines to the GM on how action resolution is to depend on what (in the fiction) the PC is trying to do;
* a wider distribution of stakes for action, so that players have some sort of reason not always to regret missing out on rolling their best stat.
Burning Wheel provides one example of an approach to action resolution system which is similar to what is described (player explains PC's action, GM stipulates what has to be rolled, player then rolls). But it is clear on these two further points:
* a player must declare both task (what the PC is doing) and intent (what s/he is hoping to achieve) - the GM's stipulation of what sort of check is made focuses on task, but the GM's adjudication of consequences for success/faiure is based on intent, and so until both are on the table, action resolution can't proceed;
* there are very elaborate guidelines for the GM's adjudication of failed checks (and the way that failure is to focus more on intent than on task) which help ensure that the consequences, for the players, of failing checks are not as severe as they often are in D&D (where the stakes are very often life vs death), and there are also PC advancement rules which make hopeless or near-hopeless checks a necessary element of advancement.
I don't think that D&Dnext will do very much to change the stakes of D&D, but at least on the first point, it would be good if extra steps are taken to change not just the nature of checks, but the way that fictional positioning feeds directly into GM adjudication.
If anyone is running skill challenges like that, it would be a pretty good illustration of [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s points about people not playing by the rules.
As per both the 4e PHB and the 4e DMG, in a skill challenge the GM describes the situation, the player engages via his/her PC, the GM calls for an appropriate check (and their is clearly room for negotiation between player and GM at this point), the check is then made, and the GM then adjudicates the consequences and explains the new situation - rinse and repeat until the scene resolves as per the N successes before 3 failures rule.
In this example, the GM has not followed those procedures, because after the player asks "Does he start talking" the GM has not described the situation for the player of the rogue to engage with.
pauljathome
First Post
I think that this position is extreme.
It is true that no set of rules can help really bad GMing
It is also true that a really good GM can overcome almost any set of rules
However, I'd strongly contend that a good set of rules can help a poor to reasonably good GM and a bad set can harm a poor to reasonably good GM.
And, lets face it, almost all GMs are poor to reasonably good and neither wonderful nor awful.
skotothalamos
formerly roadtoad
In my games it's gone more like:
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, make an intimidate check
Player: Can I use Athletics? I'm flexing my muscles, acting all scary tough.
DM: Fine, make an Athletics check to try and assist your own Intimidate check.
I agree. I don't think posts along the lines of "I'm a wonderful DM and this never happens in my game!" really address the issue. For those wonderful outliers, congratulations and all - but what we're getting at are general tendencies which many of us have seen all too often, and how a change in rules structure might affect those tendencies.
Those wonderful GMs with perfect players don't need to worry about the rules system. Us mortals do, though.
Similar Threads
