Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual play: my first "social only" session
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5650389" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Adding to my reply to you above - another thing that a skill challenge does is precisely to establish success/failure states.</p><p></p><p>So in my session, events have unfolded to a point where (i) one last roll is needed, and (ii) within the fiction, Derrik is nearly boiling over as a villain with a glib tongue sits nexts to him and taunts him, but (iii) that villain is also becoming frustrated as he still hasn't learned the secrets that he hopes to (because the drow, the paladin and the wizard keep turning the conversation away at the crucial point), and he also may just have been outed to the Baron, meaning that (iv) it is eminently <em>feasible</em> that Derrik may be able to goad him into attacking. What the <em>final </em>die roll does is give Derrik's player a chance to settle that issue one way or another, without being reliant on how the GM plays the NPC. What the prior die rolls do is establish a smaller series of similar events, with "sub-stakes" - "Do we get the Baron off the topic of gelatinous cubes, and back onto the topic of his family history and the apprentice wizard who became his grandmother?" - that gradually unfold the fiction towards (what turns out to be) the climax.</p><p></p><p>I see it as a mechanism for <em>reducing</em> the GM's control over the unfolding plot, while preserving, and perhaps even enhancing, the GM's control over the framing of the scene. (I know that what I'm saying here is a bit controversial, because it tends to imply that the "method acting" GMing approach is really "mother may I" railroading. I'm not meaning to generate such a strong implication. But after many years of playing with "method acting" GMing, I am enjoying taking a different approach that more clearly circumscribes and delineates the GM's role.)</p><p></p><p>I find this tricky too. I don't think the 4e rulebooks address it at all. HeroWars does (and better, I think, than its revised version known as HeroQuest), in the context of its extended contest rules (which resemble skill challenges in many ways, although the GM also rolls), but with more focus on combat challenges than social challenges.</p><p></p><p>I think the key is to describe the unfolding situation in a way that both (i) exhibits a clear evolution, but (ii) also allows for divergence in the direction of either success or failure. Of course it's easier to state this general principle than to implement it! But part of what helps implementation is a readiness to metagame - in the sense of relaxing with the "method acting"/ingame causation, and focusing more on the story dynamic. In my session, when the last roll has to be made, I make it clear what the stakes are - testing them simply for plausibility within the fiction as it has played out so far - and then let the die roll be made. So we've already worked out how success or failure will result from that roll: if Derrik's player succeeds, Paldemar will attack; if he fails, not. (The picking up of his staff and walking out was my embellishment of the agreed-upon stakes.)</p><p></p><p>I've found that when I've been less clear on exactly what the stakes are in a social challenge, both in my own mind and in framing the challenge with the players, then interpreting the pass/fail outcome has been harder. (In a physical challenge I haven't found the same issue, because I think the stakes in these sorts of challenge are much more obvious, and the description of the PC's progress towards them is more straightforward. It's the NPC dynamic in social challenges that makes them harder to run, I think.)</p><p></p><p>The session itself was somewhere short of 4 hours, but probably not much short (I wasn't watching the clock). We started actual play a bit late, because the PCs had gained a level after the last session and we were still doing some bookwork associated with that, plus the standard "my new power is this, what's yours?" comparisons that take place after levelling.</p><p></p><p>The other factor in our sessions is that, as quid quo pro for leaving my partner on her own on a Sunday afternoon, I take our two young kids to hang out with me at the session. Which, depending on who else has brought along their kids, whose place we're at etc, can mean more or less time spent taking "parenting breaks".</p><p></p><p>So we're probably talking about three hours of actual play, roughly half/half on each of the two episodes I've described.</p><p></p><p>I suspect that play with my group may be on the slow side by typical standards - they like to think a lot, toss ideas back and forth, etc, and I run a campaign with a fairly rich backstory that they are trying to work out and make sense of. But it's not glacial - they're levelling about once every three or four sessions, using standard 4e XP awards.</p><p></p><p>As for number of dice rolled, I'm reconstructing that not by remembering the actual die rolls, but by thinking through how I adjudicated it. There was one Intimidate check for the cultist, plus some Arcana and History checks - maybe 2 or 3 checks for each of the arcanists. Let's say 5 or so checks in the first episode.</p><p></p><p>In the dinner, there was a group Diplomacy check upon meeting the Baron, that preceded the skill challenge. And at one other point there was a group check for something - Insight, maybe? - I can't remember now. That's 10 rolls (including rolls made by someone else for the missing player).</p><p></p><p>I made two die rolls - a Bluff check for Paldemar/Golthar at one point (I know skill challenges don't use dice for the opposition, but this was outside the context of the skill challenge - I can't remember now exactly what it was for!), and an initiative roll at the end of the session. And the players made their initiative rolls. So that's another 7 rolls there. </p><p></p><p>Then there's the skill challenge itself - 12 successes, 2 failures, plus 2 or 3 secondary checks - let's say 17 rolls there. The PC whose player was missing didn't participate in the skill challenge at all - it's one thing to roll his initiative or contribution to a group check in his absence, but there didn't seem any point trying to drag an "unplayed" PC into a social challenge.</p><p></p><p>I make that a total of 40 rolls for the session - maybe a bit less or a bit more. All d20s, of course.</p><p></p><p>What I liked about the session was that every die roll mattered. I've been reading the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner lately, and it has lots of advice on when to call for checks and when to either "just say yes" (or, perhaps, no), or to let the results of a previous check stand ("let it ride"). This helped me with my session. There were at least a couple of occasions, for example, where the players knew something, but it wasn't clear whether their PCs did (eg Derrik's player is swearing loudly, but do the PCs notice that Derrik is frustrated?) - the players reached for their dice, but I said there was no need for a check, because nothing of dramatic importance was at stake - it was clearly good for the game that the PCs be able to act on knowledge of Derrik's frustration, for example, and so I didn't require any Insight checks.</p><p></p><p>After GMing mostly Rolemaster for many years - which is very skill roll intensive if played in its default style - I feel that, by combing the 4e mechanics with the advice from games like HeroWars/Quest and BW, I'm finding a nice balance between no checks - which, like I replied to S'mon, I feel defaults to excessive GM force - and check mongering. Roll the dice, but only when it counts!</p><p></p><p>(Of course, 4e combat is a whole other kettle of fish! 4e's very confused in that way, but for some reason that's something I like about it!)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5650389, member: 42582"] Adding to my reply to you above - another thing that a skill challenge does is precisely to establish success/failure states. So in my session, events have unfolded to a point where (i) one last roll is needed, and (ii) within the fiction, Derrik is nearly boiling over as a villain with a glib tongue sits nexts to him and taunts him, but (iii) that villain is also becoming frustrated as he still hasn't learned the secrets that he hopes to (because the drow, the paladin and the wizard keep turning the conversation away at the crucial point), and he also may just have been outed to the Baron, meaning that (iv) it is eminently [I]feasible[/I] that Derrik may be able to goad him into attacking. What the [I]final [/I]die roll does is give Derrik's player a chance to settle that issue one way or another, without being reliant on how the GM plays the NPC. What the prior die rolls do is establish a smaller series of similar events, with "sub-stakes" - "Do we get the Baron off the topic of gelatinous cubes, and back onto the topic of his family history and the apprentice wizard who became his grandmother?" - that gradually unfold the fiction towards (what turns out to be) the climax. I see it as a mechanism for [I]reducing[/I] the GM's control over the unfolding plot, while preserving, and perhaps even enhancing, the GM's control over the framing of the scene. (I know that what I'm saying here is a bit controversial, because it tends to imply that the "method acting" GMing approach is really "mother may I" railroading. I'm not meaning to generate such a strong implication. But after many years of playing with "method acting" GMing, I am enjoying taking a different approach that more clearly circumscribes and delineates the GM's role.) I find this tricky too. I don't think the 4e rulebooks address it at all. HeroWars does (and better, I think, than its revised version known as HeroQuest), in the context of its extended contest rules (which resemble skill challenges in many ways, although the GM also rolls), but with more focus on combat challenges than social challenges. I think the key is to describe the unfolding situation in a way that both (i) exhibits a clear evolution, but (ii) also allows for divergence in the direction of either success or failure. Of course it's easier to state this general principle than to implement it! But part of what helps implementation is a readiness to metagame - in the sense of relaxing with the "method acting"/ingame causation, and focusing more on the story dynamic. In my session, when the last roll has to be made, I make it clear what the stakes are - testing them simply for plausibility within the fiction as it has played out so far - and then let the die roll be made. So we've already worked out how success or failure will result from that roll: if Derrik's player succeeds, Paldemar will attack; if he fails, not. (The picking up of his staff and walking out was my embellishment of the agreed-upon stakes.) I've found that when I've been less clear on exactly what the stakes are in a social challenge, both in my own mind and in framing the challenge with the players, then interpreting the pass/fail outcome has been harder. (In a physical challenge I haven't found the same issue, because I think the stakes in these sorts of challenge are much more obvious, and the description of the PC's progress towards them is more straightforward. It's the NPC dynamic in social challenges that makes them harder to run, I think.) The session itself was somewhere short of 4 hours, but probably not much short (I wasn't watching the clock). We started actual play a bit late, because the PCs had gained a level after the last session and we were still doing some bookwork associated with that, plus the standard "my new power is this, what's yours?" comparisons that take place after levelling. The other factor in our sessions is that, as quid quo pro for leaving my partner on her own on a Sunday afternoon, I take our two young kids to hang out with me at the session. Which, depending on who else has brought along their kids, whose place we're at etc, can mean more or less time spent taking "parenting breaks". So we're probably talking about three hours of actual play, roughly half/half on each of the two episodes I've described. I suspect that play with my group may be on the slow side by typical standards - they like to think a lot, toss ideas back and forth, etc, and I run a campaign with a fairly rich backstory that they are trying to work out and make sense of. But it's not glacial - they're levelling about once every three or four sessions, using standard 4e XP awards. As for number of dice rolled, I'm reconstructing that not by remembering the actual die rolls, but by thinking through how I adjudicated it. There was one Intimidate check for the cultist, plus some Arcana and History checks - maybe 2 or 3 checks for each of the arcanists. Let's say 5 or so checks in the first episode. In the dinner, there was a group Diplomacy check upon meeting the Baron, that preceded the skill challenge. And at one other point there was a group check for something - Insight, maybe? - I can't remember now. That's 10 rolls (including rolls made by someone else for the missing player). I made two die rolls - a Bluff check for Paldemar/Golthar at one point (I know skill challenges don't use dice for the opposition, but this was outside the context of the skill challenge - I can't remember now exactly what it was for!), and an initiative roll at the end of the session. And the players made their initiative rolls. So that's another 7 rolls there. Then there's the skill challenge itself - 12 successes, 2 failures, plus 2 or 3 secondary checks - let's say 17 rolls there. The PC whose player was missing didn't participate in the skill challenge at all - it's one thing to roll his initiative or contribution to a group check in his absence, but there didn't seem any point trying to drag an "unplayed" PC into a social challenge. I make that a total of 40 rolls for the session - maybe a bit less or a bit more. All d20s, of course. What I liked about the session was that every die roll mattered. I've been reading the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner lately, and it has lots of advice on when to call for checks and when to either "just say yes" (or, perhaps, no), or to let the results of a previous check stand ("let it ride"). This helped me with my session. There were at least a couple of occasions, for example, where the players knew something, but it wasn't clear whether their PCs did (eg Derrik's player is swearing loudly, but do the PCs notice that Derrik is frustrated?) - the players reached for their dice, but I said there was no need for a check, because nothing of dramatic importance was at stake - it was clearly good for the game that the PCs be able to act on knowledge of Derrik's frustration, for example, and so I didn't require any Insight checks. After GMing mostly Rolemaster for many years - which is very skill roll intensive if played in its default style - I feel that, by combing the 4e mechanics with the advice from games like HeroWars/Quest and BW, I'm finding a nice balance between no checks - which, like I replied to S'mon, I feel defaults to excessive GM force - and check mongering. Roll the dice, but only when it counts! (Of course, 4e combat is a whole other kettle of fish! 4e's very confused in that way, but for some reason that's something I like about it!) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual play: my first "social only" session
Top