Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[FireLance]

After thinking about it for a good long time, I'm going to give this system a reluctant thumbs up. Reluctant because I've always worked with the model of the PCs as actors in a world previously detailed by the DM, and it's hard to give up a mindset and habits that are nearly twenty-five years old (yes, I've been gaming that long ).

However, I'm giving it the thumbs up for one specific reason. This interactivity - the ability of the PCs to find creative solutions to problems which may not have occured to the DM, and the ability of the DM to make changes to the game world on the fly in response to what the PCs do, or even depending on whether the PCs succeed or fail - is one thing that computers are not yet able to do, and it is thus going to be one critical factor in distinguishing a role-playing game with a human DM from one run by a computer.

As a DM, I could have always decided beforehand which specific skills would enable a PC to overcome a challenge if he successfully made a skill check (at DCs which could vary depending on the skill), or that if he managed to climb into a specific tower, he will encounter an NPC who will be able to help him. All the above system does is to encourage a shift in the time of making these decisions from before the game to during the game. It is a more freeform and interactive system, and in some ways, it may even be a better one.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I like the system (as we understand it so far). One of my great revelations as a GM came from a system called Theatrics which was the first time I had seen this shared authorial power. It basically said that if the payers introduce something to the scene that was reasonable and appropriate, so be it:

If the fight was taking place in a stables and the fighter says "I grab the pitchfork that was stuck in the pile of hay" that was allowed, even if the GM hadn't 'put' a pitchfork there. If the Rogue says "I hide behind the feed barrel" so be it, even if the GM had not mentioned a feed barrel. . .

If the suggested action was scene-changing, the GM could require that the player spend a "plot-point" (a finite resource in the game) to enable the action.

Basically, the rule was intended to eliminate the need for the players to interupt the game-play with situational questions. Actually, the rule stated that if the player asked, the answer was automatically "No." It encouraged me to say "yes" to the players when I was running other systems, because I realized that there is rarely a reason to say no.

This system seems to do the same thing, with skill checks answering the question for you. The DM can always say no (see the Athletics check to convince the Council), or rule that it is unlikely ("you want to find a secret door in an alley? that will be a hard challenge - it is not impossible, but it would be unusual. . ."). Maybe they could spend an Action Point to . . .

 

[jaer]

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?

Here is one place I agree with Derren. I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time. I do need to think on my feet. If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits. I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.

No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear. No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go. The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.

The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit. No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.

That's how I DM. I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds. My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.

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.

I totally agree. There is nothing in 4e that prevents me from deciding for myself what it there; and no rule in the PHB is going to determine that. If the players do the unexpected (and they always manage to at some point), I would use this to help guide the sudden, unplanned encounter. It's a decent guideline.

Under the goblin invasion social encounter, I would have the council minorly mapped out (who could be allies and who could be enemies) and I would have the major proponent of the goblin advancement's background set. Whether he had profitted from goblin invasions before would be known to me before hand...no Heraldry check can turn up information that I don't know. They can make the check...failure means they don't know, success means they do know. Failure does not mean he didn't and success does not mean he did (again, it sounds like 4e's skills are designed to go by this distinction, and is another point Derren disagrees with).

However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks. If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy. It all came down to the one roll, however.

Seeing the skills in 4e, I would probably change this approach to the following. The characters would be given time to make their case (X rounds). There would be certain skills they could use to to do so. Every failure would be a -1, every success a +1. If they every get to 5 or -5, argument is over, having made their point as best they could, or completely flubbed it. At this point, words will do nothing more. At the end of X rounds, how they effected the council will be determined by their score.

Depending on the situation, the other lord might then need to make his own case (using his own skills) in an attempt to beat the player's score to determine who won the arguement and swayed the council more.

So even though my I use the "Players play in the world that I created" DM philosophy much like Derren does, it seems, I don't see that 4e prevents me from playing that way at all, and it inspires new ways of thinking and achieving that environment in order to keep all players involved.

 

[Cadfan]

That's how I DM. I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds. My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.

Don't think of it as the players creating the setting. Think of it as you ad libbing a detail you previously did not think up, with heavy deference to whether the player rolled well.

If I, as a DM, don't know whether there's a whoozit nearby because I hadn't detailed that information in advance, and my player has a whoozit detecting skill, I'm more likely to say "yeah, there's a whoozit" if he rolls very high on his whoozit detection check. If he rolls low, I say "no, there's no whoozit." That could mean that there was a whoozit and he didn't find it, but since I don't know whether there's a whoozit or not since I didn't decide yet, it remains a Schroedinger's Whoozit for the time being.

 

[Mallus]

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

A lot of people consider this negotiable. Personally, I've had tremendous success giving more narrative authority to my players --and yes, I run D&D, not some new-fangled indie RPG.

 

[Archmage]

Here is one place I agree with Derren. I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time. I do need to think on my feet. If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits. I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.

No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear.

People are hanging on this one thing like this is what has to happen. Any changes made to the environment are still the DM's decision. Sure, you didn't originally map an alley there, but maybe there is one? Or a crack in a wall the PC can duck into. Or they spot something they can use to climb up to a 2nd floor window. Or whatever makes sense in the context of the encounter. People are clinging to this "PC creates a secret door argument" far too tightly - that's just a decision one DM made in one specific scenario.

No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an

You design where each apple cart in your towns is? Really? The apple cart example seems like a perfect usage for this system, because it's a random element that's easily added.

honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go. The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.

But it's OK if the DM rolls a die to make him corrupt? That makes absolutely no sense. If you're allowing a random chance for random guard #347 to be corrupt, why does it make a difference if the die roll is the DM assigning an arbitrary percentage or a PC making a skill check against a DC set by the DM? Again, this seems like a great usage of the system.

The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit. No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.

And if they stand around in the town square they get caught. Obviously they have to be actively trying to get away - this skill system is just a way to help adjudicate if they succeed or not. I am currently running a Ptolus campaign - there is no way I could reasonably expect the player of the rogue to know the streets a fraction as well as her character would. In a chase with guards then, why would it be fair to ask her to choose which way her character runs? If she succeeds on checks, she eventually winds up near a handy sewer grate or even escapes cleanly. If she fails, the guards are on her heels and possibly catch her.

That's how I DM. I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds. My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.

And your players can't be reasonably expected to know your world as well as you do, regardless if their character would or not. We are not discussing a skill called "create secret door" here. The DM decides what skill the character is checking against, and the DM decides what the result of the check means. I don't see players creating anything.

I totally agree. There is nothing in 4e that prevents me from deciding for myself what it there; and no rule in the PHB is going to determine that. If the players do the unexpected (and they always manage to at some point), I would use this to help guide the sudden, unplanned encounter. It's a decent guideline.

That's exactly the point.

Under the goblin invasion social encounter, I would have the council minorly mapped out (who could be allies and who could be enemies) and I would have the major proponent of the goblin advancement's background set. Whether he had profitted from goblin invasions before would be known to me before hand...no Heraldry check can turn up information that I don't know.

So it turns up something else. Again, what the check means is the DM's decision.

They can make the check...failure means they don't know, success means they do know. Failure does not mean he didn't and success does not mean he did (again, it sounds like 4e's skills are designed to go by this distinction, and is another point Derren disagrees with).

That's what the DM decided in that particular instance - you would have likely decided something different.

However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks. If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy. It all came down to the one roll, however.[/quote]
I think breaking it down into multiple rolls encourages more roleplaying of the encounter. They get the negotiations to a certain point and make a check, which if they succeed at guides the tone of the next set of negotiations, etc. "The councilman seems to be considering your points with a newfound respect" or "As you speak the disdain is clear on the councilman's face."

Seeing the skills in 4e, I would probably change this approach to the following. The characters would be given time to make their case (X rounds). There would be certain skills they could use to to do so. Every failure would be a -1, every success a +1. If they every get to 5 or -5, argument is over, having made their point as best they could, or completely flubbed it. At this point, words will do nothing more. At the end of X rounds, how they effected the council will be determined by their score.

Any particular reason to boil it down to one check? There are some goals that it makes sense for, but it seems to me something like a negotiation lends itself to "X successes before Y failures" multiple check solution.

Depending on the situation, the other lord might then need to make his own case (using his own skills) in an attempt to beat the player's score to determine who won the arguement and swayed the council more.

I can definitely see opposed checks as part of the sequence that the PCs have to succeed at.

So even though my I use the "Players play in the world that I created" DM philosophy much like Derren does, it seems, I don't see that 4e prevents me from playing that way at all, and it inspires new ways of thinking and achieving that environment in order to keep all players involved.

While I still fail to see where these rules oppose said philosophy, I agree with your conclusion here.

 

[jaer]

Don't think of it as the players creating the setting. Think of it as you ad libbing a detail you previously did not think up, with heavy deference to whether the player rolled well.

If I, as a DM, don't know whether there's a whoozit nearby because I hadn't detailed that information in advance, and my player has a whoozit detecting skill, I'm more likely to say "yeah, there's a whoozit" if he rolls very high on his whoozit detection check. If he rolls low, I say "no, there's no whoozit." That could mean that there was a whoozit and he didn't find it, but since I don't know whether there's a whoozit or not since I didn't decide yet, it remains a Schroedinger's Whoozit for the time being.

If something comes up that I had not thought of, I do ad lib it. The thing is, more than likely, I know if there is a whoozit nearby or not before hand.

Every dungeon and area I create has an ecology. If there is a carrion crawler, I know what it is eating and how it get's it's food. If there is an elemental or golem, I know why it is there even if it doesn't make sense for it to be there.

When my players find something out of the ordinary and their immediate thought is "Why is THAT there?" they can try to rationalize out why something is there because there is a reason.

So if I think my players are going to be fighting in a stable, I know where the buckets, hay, pitchforks, shovels, wheel-barrows, and horses are. If I don't expect them to be there and they manage to get into a fight in the stables anyway, I ad lib it.

But a disarmed fighter in my group doesn't say "I pick up the pitch fork and use it." He askes me if there is a pitchfork, I tell him to make a spot roll, and I roll randomly on what I think the chances are of the pitchfork being left stuck in the hay next to the fighter or on the wall ten feet behind him, and that roll is influenced by whether the owner of the stable is chaotic (like to leave stuff around and not likely to discipline stablehands who do the same) or lawful (anal about placement of tools). If he succeeds the spot check, I reveal to him where the pitchfork is based on the random roll.

Nothing that fighter can do, other than pick up the and move the pitchfork himself, changes where the pitchfork is after it has been determined either by me before the game or by random roll during the game.

Once I read the guidelines in the 4e book, maybe I'll try it another way and see how that goes...

 

[Andur]

jaer, I think you are accomplishing the same thing as archmage, just in a more calculated matter.

For example, in the famer's stable, I don't care how high or how many successed are rolled, a +5 Holy Avenger is not going to "appear" in the haystack. Looking for a pitchfork or shovel on the otherhand would result in, high chance there would be one (in my mind 100%) and then just a matter of finding it.

The world is not the game, the people playing are the game. That's the way I approach it. And the story is never more important than the characters...

 

[LostSoul]

Here is one place I agree with Derren. I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time. I do need to think on my feet. If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits. I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.

No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear. No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go. The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.

The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit. No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.

That's how I DM. I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds. My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.

I don't think the system will allow players to create setting details on successful checks unless the DM allows it.

I do think a number of successful rolls will mean the PCs get their goal, no matter what. If you're still in the town square and you've made all your rolls, you've succeeded and you get out of town.

You don't have to do that, of couse; but then the system isn't "roll x successes before y failures to achieve your goal." It is "roll some dice for show, and have your PCs do what the DM thinks is the correct solution." That's fine, if you like it, but a totally different system.

 

[Derren]

For example, in the famer's stable, I don't care how high or how many successed are rolled, a +5 Holy Avenger is not going to "appear" in the haystack.

Except that with 4E you will now have a clue where you would find a +5 Holy Avenger.