Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[Acid_crash]

And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.
In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".

From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem.

4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them.

4e is also much more realistic than the open and shut case of 3e... 3e, as designed, is a single die roll system. The core rules of the phb don't include rules for complex skill checks, and even if there are guidelines in the DMG, they are fuzzy at best and don't give much for xp rewards. 4e does.

4e system, as I've seen so far, for the way the complex skills work, makes the following situation more plausible --

We've all been in the situation where the group had to negotiate with somebody for some thing. In the 3e way, we have one person make a Diplomacy roll, the other make a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, and its done. Whoever rolls higher wins. But, in a long term negotiation, this kind of skill roll is highly unrealistic and unplausible. The rest of the group twiddles their thumbs while the speaker speaks and makes his one roll.

Now, with 4e, those other characters can do something. One can Intimidate, and if successful can add to the success count towards the group. Another can Bluff with someone else (let's pretend there are multiple people on both sides) not at the table, but if the bluff is successful it could cause a distraction with the negotiators, another point to the players side. You have the speaker himself talking, and let's say he fails a easy check. That negates the help the rest of the party has done for him.

This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like.

Either that, or you simply hate the idea of 4e so much that you will say anything to twist whatever else people are saying just to be a 4e hater... which is it?

 

[D'karr]

I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral. Can all these things be done in 3e? Absolutely. You could easily pick this mechanic up and insert it into 3e without any tweaking or very minor tweaking.

The advantage of 4e in this case is that this mechanic is completely explained in the CORE rules. With 3e, some of this came out as part of several books or modules like Red Hand of Doom, PHB2 and DMG2 and it is more difficult for a "new" DM to figure out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.

I think it's even game system neutral.
I could use the same system in Shadowrun, Warhammer, DSA or CoC. The only requirement is some kind of skill system. (From a game system perspective). Some games have more specific implementations, though (Torg uses a resolution system with cards, IIRC).

And you're absolutely right - the advantage of 4E over 3E (and many other games end editions) here is that it explains this system in the core rulebook. You don't have to come up with it on your own...

 

[Derren]

From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem.

Yes I do. The players should not add to the game world. That is the DMs job. What the players should do is to influence and act inside the game world but not change the game world in a metagame way. (Changing teh game world by in game action is fine, placing a princess into a certain place because the player rolled a skill check is not)

4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them.

All this can also be done in 3E and it isn't necessary to change the game world for this. Are you unable to understand this or do you have to resort to attacking my argument with "You don't want to let the players tell a story" accusations and now have to twist my words so that this attack fits?

When I play a thief I can too tell a story about him fleeing from guards without constantly changing the game world by making alleys and princesses appear everywhere where formally where non by a skill role and instead work with the city how it exists by definition of the DM.

This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like.

No, the proposed way in 4E is different than in 3E but as above posers said nothing prevents you from using this skill setup in 3E too. Except that in 3E the players have to think more about what they do as they are not automatically good at everything which means each has his strengths and weaknesses, and because the game world is not constantly changing to suit the PCs needs. Instead the PCs have to be more attentive in order to work with the game world, not constantly rewriting it.

The idea to use the skills this way is very good, but the execution is bad. It would have been good as a guideline, not as a rule.


You seem to want to imply that my way is a iron fisted railroading one, but that can't be more wrong. My idea of a skill encounter is a lot more freeform than this 4E system (except for the rewriting reality part) because the PCs have total freedom of what they want to do and are not constrained by having to succeed in X skill checks. When they find a way to get out of the city with no skill checks at all, fine. When they make a huge detour which takes a whole gaming session its also fine. In 4E this escape the city part is always limited by the amount of skills you have to roll before you fail or succeed.
This is a good system for people who only want a limited amount of interaction with the game world before going back to the dungeon or other adventure part or for people who don't want to think too much about what they actually do and instead only want to pull of some cool looking stunts but I am not one of those persons.

 

[hong]

Yes I do. The players should not add to the game world. That is the DMs job.

Ooh, Derren lays down the law. Respect his authoritay!

 

[1of3]

I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.

Hardly so. 4E characters' skills can differ by modifier and training, that's about nine points. In 3E you can easily have a difference of 30+.

 

[Kestrel]

I love the idea of this system. Application of it will take some rethinking on my part, which will be the hard part. Giving up authorial control to the players will be hard for a lot of DMs.

But in the end, I think it will make for a much more satisfying game...for the GM and the players.

 

[Nymrohd]

Derren you really need to understand that not all of us play in your game (and I think some of us are glad) and that people can play the game in vastly differing styles. It is cool that you don't like the way the system works but you really need to stop phrasing your opinion in such a dogmatic manner.

 

[glass]

Yes I do. The players should not add to the game world. That is the DMs job. What the players should do is to influence and act inside the game world but not change the game world in a metagame way.

So, do you know the exact location and details of every NPC, wall, secret door, sewer entrance in the entirety of you game world at all times?

Assuming you don't, you need some way of determining the answer when the PC asks 'is there a wall I can climb' or 'OK, I climbed over that wall, is there anyone on the other side worth talking to'. The rules apparently suggest the result of a skill check as one way of answering those questions. You seem to prefer other ways, but that is fine because those other ways will not have disappeared.

The idea to use the skills this way is very good, but the execution is bad. It would have been good as a guideline, not as a rule.

If you have seen these rules, why aren't you under an NDA? Since noone from WotC has turned up and asked you to stop, I'm assuming you have not in fact seen the new DMG.

I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.

Hardly so. 4E characters' skills can differ by modifier and training, that's about nine points. In 3E you can easily have a difference of 30+.

This is quite true, but since it does not in any way rebut what D'karr said, where does 'hardly so' come in?

Derren you really need to understand that not all of us play in your game (and I think some of us are glad) and that people can play the game in vastly differing styles. It is cool that you don't like the way the system works but you really need to stop phrasing your opinion in such a dogmatic manner.

It's not cool, because Derren doesn't know how the system works.


glass.

 

[Wormwood]

I love the idea of this system. Application of it will take some rethinking on my part, which will be the hard part. Giving up authorial control to the players will be hard for a lot of DMs.

But in the end, I think it will make for a much more satisfying game...for the GM and the players.

Correct on all points.

Adapting to this kind of play was a challenge to my group and myself. That said, I've been playing that way for a couple of years now, and I don't ever want to go back.