Alternatives to map-and-key

[soviet]

I am honestly completely mystified here. If 'hunt' is your best skill, then why would the existence or absence of a Skill Challenge change the fact that it would be most advantageous to roll with that Skill? I'm not trying to be contrary here, I am honestly 100% totally unable to see how this would be.

Yeah.

'I try to impress the zookeeper by telling him some animal facts I learned from my Hunt skill'

'I try to sneak up to the guards using my Hunt skill to anticipate broken twigs and dry leaves'

'I try to seduce the princess by showing her the pelts of the many beasts I hunted with my Hunt skill'

 

[The Firebird]

I am honestly completely mystified here. If 'hunt' is your best skill, then why would the existence or absence of a Skill Challenge change the fact that it would be most advantageous to roll with that Skill? I'm not trying to be contrary here, I am honestly 100% totally unable to see how this would be.

But players don’t do that without a progress clock?

Because the skill challenge structure has flattened the task from, as an example, "get past the compounds outer defenses" to "get 3 successes".

In the first case, I don't have the skill challenge structure, so I worry--will Hunt make a lot of noise? Will it draw more guards? Do the guards have eyes on each other such that one going down will create an alarm? Maybe there is a nice way to sneak in?

In the second case, I say "Hmm, 3 successes needed. My Hunt is good. Hey GM, Hunting that guard is relevant right? Let's use that to get a success". On a success, I suspect the fiction of the world will be established such that my action was beneficial--none of the above concerns matter.

 

[soviet]

Right--and the skill challenge mechanic is broken (for certain preferences) because it decouples resolution from the fiction.

No it doesn't? Unless what you really mean here is 'the GM's exclusive discretion over the fiction'.

Regarding your example: the combat sequence being slow to resolve even when the outcome is obvious is a failing of the game system. Imo. The others are just questions of when to call for a check. If the DM already has called for a check, then typically there aren't new action declarations.

Compare the skill challenge--if the DM has called for a skill challenge, then their ability to adapt to new action declarations is limited by the already imposed structure of the skill challenge. They can break the structure at any point--but then what was the point of the structure?

What's the point of any dice rolls when the GM can fudge? What's the point of any non-SC skill rolls when the GM isn't obliged to honour any particular result?

These are fundamental questions in D&D that you accept one answer for in non-SC play but not in SC-play.

 

[The Firebird]

What's the point of any dice rolls when the GM can fudge? What's the point of any non-SC skill rolls when the GM isn't obliged to honour any particular result?

These are fundamental questions in D&D that you accept one answer for in non-SC play but not in SC-play.

Is your assumption that I am ok with the DM fudging whenever they want for whatever reason?

 

[soviet]

Because the skill challenge structure has flattened the task from, as an example, "get past the compounds outer defenses" to "get 3 successes".

In the first case, I don't have the skill challenge structure, so I worry--will Hunt make a lot of noise? Will it draw more guards? Do the guards have eyes on each other such that one going down will create an alarm? Maybe there is a nice way to sneak in?

In the second case, I say "Hmm, 3 successes needed. My Hunt is good. Hey GM, Hunting that guard is relevant right? Let's use that to get a success". On a success, I suspect the fiction of the world will be established such that my action was beneficial--none of the above concerns matter.

But this is you choosing to adopt a shallower, degenerate mode of play in response to the added structure. Nothing about SCs forces you to not consider these other factors.

'Doctor it hurts when I hit myself'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not what I said.


In my experience, in games with skill challenges or progress clocks, I'm making decisions for my PC based on what I think will fill the clock the fastest. The game becomes "how do I convince the GM Hunt is relevant" rather than "how would my character overcome this obstacle".


The original claim here was:


Recently, players in my game chose to head to a keep deep in the woods, which was from Sailors on the Starless Sea (DCC). The keep has a gatehouse (guarded) and you can also get in via a rubble pile from a broken section of wall around back. The notes say that when the gatehouse guards are alerted, they ring a bell and flee to a nearby tower. It describes how the tower is fortified against entry from the ground level, the way you would attack if you went through the gate or the rubble.

My players elected instead to climb the wall. This let them assault the tower simultaneously from the ground and upper level, flanking the defenders. Because the module doesn't expect this (it is a more difficult option), there is no information about how the defenders respond--does their morale break more easily? How do their tactics change? It required improvisation compared to the written notes and was surprising after my read through. It caused the module to develop differently than a straight reading would suggest.

What means of success do you think are disallowed based on the notes?

I don't know that I have any position on this. I can imagine how a scenario of that type might be structured as an SC, if that's what we're talking about. But, I don't think the notes are a problem, necessarily. They probably do put some limits on the universe of possible GM options that might exist in a Low Myth kind of game like Dungeon World. But again, I think this is all revolving more around differences between, say, your 'notes' (a map and key sort of arrangement, possibly supplemented with other mechanics) and something like the zero myth kind of techniques used in Dungeon World, or some people's 4e play. In that style of play, where the fiction develops as things are engaged, and the GM is bound to describe it in a way that conforms to an agenda, lots of possibilities might arise that 'notes' don't cover. Like maybe the commander of this place has some sort of relationship to a PC, or the garrison isn't all entirely of one mind, etc.

 

[The Firebird]

But this is you choosing to adopt a shallower, degenerate mode of play in response to the added structure. Nothing about SCs forces you to not consider these other factors.

That's true, I could pretend to make choices based on what is most beneficial in the fiction while knowing that mechanically I am making the odds worse. I find that disconnect hard to manage and I would prefer mechanics that don't require it.

 

[soviet]

That's true, I could pretend to make choices based on what is most beneficial in the fiction while knowing that mechanically I am making the odds worse. I find that disconnect hard to manage and I would prefer mechanics that don't require it.

But don't you do this in regular play all the time? You try to persuade the sweet old lady even though intimidate is your higher score? You try to intimidate the orc warlord even though the paladin nearby has a better intimidate check?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because the skill challenge structure has flattened the task from, as an example, "get past the compounds outer defenses" to "get 3 successes".

In the first case, I don't have the skill challenge structure, so I worry--will Hunt make a lot of noise? Will it draw more guards? Do the guards have eyes on each other such that one going down will create an alarm? Maybe there is a nice way to sneak in?

In the second case, I say "Hmm, 3 successes needed. My Hunt is good. Hey GM, Hunting that guard is relevant right? Let's use that to get a success". On a success, I suspect the fiction of the world will be established such that my action was beneficial--none of the above concerns matter.

See, I don't understand this supposed 'flattening'. Lets say the SC you are suggesting is one that we ran for some characters. I would call it a CL1 SC, probably, as it is just some fairly small part of a bigger operation, so I don't want to focus on it too much, it will take 4-6 checks to pass. Now, in a non-SC kind of a scenario, what would this kind of thing entail? It would presumably require climbing, probably stealth, and perhaps perception. I could see Dungeoneering as well, considering it more of a general knowledge of construction and such. So, either way, the PCs approach the outer defenses, looking out for guards (Perception), then sneak up to the wall (Stealth), and then climb it (Athletics in 4e). That's 3 checks right there, with 3 different skills. Maybe at this point Dungeoneering gets invoked to determine the fastest way down, like do we go left or right to find a stairway/ladder/whatever? We're at 4 checks now, so if the PCs have succeeded in all of them, the GM basically says "hey, you did it, you climb down uneventfully and find yourselves in the shadows." Alternatively guard dogs are sniffing around and the PCs picked the wrong way to go to find the stairs, so they have to clout a soldier before he raises an alarm, and manage his dog (Nature).

How hard was that? Does that appear forced in any way? Where are the perverse incentives you find so damning? At what point would a player have an opportunity to spam whatever, Arcana, or Insight, etc.? (any of the other unmentioned skills, the list is almost identical to 5e). At each juncture the players understood what the stakes were, both in fictional and mechanical terms, and acted in a logical fashion. 99.9% of SCs are like this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's true, I could pretend to make choices based on what is most beneficial in the fiction while knowing that mechanically I am making the odds worse. I find that disconnect hard to manage and I would prefer mechanics that don't require it.

But look at my sneak past the defenses response, above. Where are the choices? I mean, yes, the players could choose very differently and try a whole different approach. They could cast a ritual that gives them all flying (it is a bit high level, but even a mid-level wizard might achieve this if he's talented enough). Now we have employed Arcana, and presumably Stealth is still needed, but not climbing skills. Perhaps perception is now required to find a good landing spot for the spectral flying horses the ritual summons.

Note however: the consequences of failure may be VERY different in this approach! The PCs simply fly away, having botched their approach and alerted the guards. In the more straightforward scenario, failure probably means getting tossed in a cell. So, materially different outcomes, ability to use a (presumably) stronger skill for at least one check, etc. I'm happy!

But don't you do this in regular play all the time? You try to persuade the sweet old lady even though intimidate is your higher score? You try to intimidate the orc warlord even though the paladin nearby has a better intimidate check?

Exactly! Any sane player, and any sane character, are going to do what they're good at!