Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[LostSoul]

As for secret doors and princesses, it feels as though those ideas are being singled out because they're at least on that edge of abusive, if not standing firmly on the other side. If more mundane versions of those escape routes were being suggested and used, I think that it would be less mind jarring for people (aside from Derren).

I think that was my example. It's the sort of thing I would allow if I were the DM in that particular game.

That's important: I'm saying (assuming) that it's the DM who gets to decide these things, and if he doesn't like it, then he can rule "No, that skill doesn't apply." I imagine each group will work out for themselves how situations like that will shake out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

- In 4e, it seems as though the guidelines for using skills allow for a player who has run down a dead end alley to use the streetwise skill. Success means he found a way out; failure means he did not.

- By my style, I know before the character even runs down that alley if there is another way out or not. A streetwise check would have revealed that info to him had he made the check before he ran down the alley, and it will reveal the same info if he is in the alley. A failure means he does not know. A success means he does know if there is or isn't.

I see!

The thing with 4e skill checks is that it appears to be directly relevant to the goal. Someone remembering that the alleyway is a dead-end halfway down the alleyway isn't going to gain anything from that knowledge that helps them escape the city. In 4e it might be more abstract. Presumably, you have secret passages out of the city, and, also presumably, a Streetwise check can allow a character to know about them. So assuming those are true, he can make it out of the city with a Streetwise check. Exactly which alleyway he uses is up to the DM, not up to the player, because the player doesn't actually know (but his character does). He doesn't run down that dead-end corridoor.

How would that differ from the way you do it?

 

[Andur]

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

Only if the DM is a complete idiot.

 

[Ximenes088]

If I know I am planning an Escape from Sembia scene, then yes, yes I do. Infact, I know every stopped apple cart and every horse-pulled apple cart, the route it is taking, and how fast it is moving so I know where it is every round.

I would even have a good idea of which merchants in the market square were selling what type of things, so that if the fighter knocked over the third stall on the left, I know if it is jewelery spewed all over the ground acting as caltrops or cooked meat all over the place, possibly enticing some of the 1d6+1 stray dogs in the area to come over and eat in 1d4 rounds.

...

I know if the captain of the guards is loyal and honest.

Depending on the situation, I either have each guard made up and know which is which and what they are doing and their motives (that is unlikely). Or I have general knowledge of the make-up of the policing force (20% corrupt, most wear scale armor and use maces).

I would need to have two things to entertain such a technique for my own games. First, I would need to have a great deal of time to create all the details of something even so straightforward as a chase scene. Second, I would need to have a great deal of faith in my ability to anticipate the likely actions of my players. Personally, I'm a little short on both time and confidence. Techniques like this are exactly why 4e is billing itself as being vastly easier to DM than the painful morass that is 3e DMing.

As a DM, I have a lot of work already. I'm *delighted* at the prospect of offloading as much as possible onto the players, particularly when it's done in such a way that their game satisfaction is likely to be enhanced. Instead of obliging them to feel like they've "solved the puzzle" by picking the correct combination of skills to unravel a situation, they're forced to think about how they can use what they have to make happen what they want to happen. It's true that it implicitly encourages PCs to play to their skill strengths when possible, but it doesn't make it the only sane option- which 3.x does. And more consequentially, I like PCs being encouraged to play off their shticks. Sneako McNotseen, the Stealthiest Man in Cormyr, *should* be using stealth to accomplish outre feats, even if doing so is harder than it would be for someone specialized in the more predictable skill for a situation.

 

[jaer]

I see!

The thing with 4e skill checks is that it appears to be directly relevant to the goal. Someone remembering that the alleyway is a dead-end halfway down the alleyway isn't going to gain anything from that knowledge that helps them escape the city. In 4e it might be more abstract. Presumably, you have secret passages out of the city, and, also presumably, a Streetwise check can allow a character to know about them. So assuming those are true, he can make it out of the city with a Streetwise check. Exactly which alleyway he uses is up to the DM, not up to the player, because the player doesn't actually know (but his character does). He doesn't run down that dead-end corridoor.

How would that differ from the way you do it?

I, as the DM, decided which alley has the way out, not which one the player runs down. Even the dice don't determine which alley the player runs down. Only the player makes that decision.

If the players were in the market place in a game I was running, and they needed to flee from the guards, I would give them a map of that they can see in the marketplace, show them where they are, and then show them where the guards are coming from.

If a player says, "I'm ducking down this alley and hiding," and points to the nearest alley, that is what he does and that is where he goes. I know there is no way out; I also know the next alley down does have a way out through a sewer grate.

The guards see the character head down that alley, but can't see him when they peer into the allet. The leaders says "You three stay here and guard this entrance. He has to be here somewhere, and I don't want him getting out." And goes off with the rest.

The player, still hidden, says, "Crap. I'm stuck. Is there anyway out of this alley?" I make him make a streetwise check and due to the success of it, reveal that, no there is no way out of this alley, but the next one down did have a sewer grate you probably could have squeezed through.

The player (and thus his character) did not think about what he should do before he did it, and headed down a dead end. When he finally did have a moment's pause to think, he realized his error. And error he could have prevented with an earlier streetwise check.

He had already ducked down the wrong allet, so saying that a streetwise check allows him to find a sewer grate there to escape through either (a) changes the reality of where the sewer grate is or (b) alters the reality of what the player said he did on his turn.

To me, that is the same as a wizard attacking a fire resistant creature with a fire spell, then making his knowledge check about the resistance, and saying either "you made your skill check so it doesn't have fire resist" (alrtering the reality of the creature) or (b) "oh that skill check means you actually used a cold spell. Roll damage." (altering the reality of what the player did on their turn).

 

[LostSoul]

Hey jaer;

Your example sounds just like how I would play it. I'm not sure how you would resolve one thing, though:

The player, still hidden, says, "Crap. I'm stuck. Is there anyway out of this alley?" I make him make a streetwise check and due to the success of it, reveal that, no there is no way out of this alley, but the next one down did have a sewer grate you probably could have squeezed through.

Let's say that we are using the x successes before y failures system. The other characters have generated 5 out of the 6 successes needed. This roll is a success, and therefore they've got all the successes that they need.

How would you resolve the encounter?

Personally, I'd say that he slips past the guards in the alley and makes it into the sewer grate.

edit: I'd give the Streetwise roll a penalty, because he's in a pretty bad situation, and what he wants to accomplish is going to be hard.

 

[jaer]

I would need to have two things to entertain such a technique for my own games. First, I would need to have a great deal of time to create all the details of something even so straightforward as a chase scene. Second, I would need to have a great deal of faith in my ability to anticipate the likely actions of my players. Personally, I'm a little short on both time and confidence. Techniques like this are exactly why 4e is billing itself as being vastly easier to DM than the painful morass that is 3e DMing.

It does take a great deal of time for me to create a scene like this. That is two maps: one for me with everything marked on it in great detail and one for my players which has much less detail and little bits being filled in as they go.

I do, however, know my players very well. I know what skills they have and which they are likely to use and how. I can easily compenstate for anything I did not predict. But that is fairly easy anway, and even if I was with a group I did not know, I would have most of my bases covered and a general idea of how the rest would go.

As a DM, I have a lot of work already. I'm *delighted* at the prospect of offloading as much as possible onto the players, particularly when it's done in such a way that their game satisfaction is likely to be enhanced. Instead of obliging them to feel like they've "solved the puzzle" by picking the correct combination of skills to unravel a situation, they're forced to think about how they can use what they have to make happen what they want to happen. It's true that it implicitly encourages PCs to play to their skill strengths when possible, but it doesn't make it the only sane option- which 3.x does. And more consequentially, I like PCs being encouraged to play off their shticks. Sneako McNotseen, the Stealthiest Man in Cormyr, *should* be using stealth to accomplish outre feats, even if doing so is harder than it would be for someone specialized in the more predictable skill for a situation.

I can see that, if you are comfortable with this sort of free-form, build-as-you-go style, this does give some great guidlines on how to successfully handle that. I am not someone who feels comfortable going freestyle. I keep in mind putting in things that play off of a character's shtick, and I definitely do not prevent players from doing whatever they decide to do.

But when it comes to environment, I like having it well-defined.

 

[Belphanior]

Man, why do some people think that players are completely re-writing the game world on the fly?

This is not how it works:
Player: "I roll Perception for secret doors. Success! This must mean I found one!"

This is how it actually works:
Player: "I roll Perception for secret doors."
DM: "In the middle of a chase on the high street? Whatever, roll."
Player: "Natural 20!"
DM: "Great. You keenly notice that there aren't any secret doors in the front of people's houses. You do manage to spot this so quickly that you don't waste time doing it and keep on running, so no loss was chalked up to your score."
Player: "But do I get a success now?"
DM: "Not all skill checks aid to achieving your goal. And besides, I'm the one who keeps track of your results in secret. Anyway, the map says the street you're on will reach a crossroads now. There's guards there manning a quickly improvised blockade of carts and barrels. What do you do now?"
Player: "I roll to spot secret doors I mean an ordinary open door so I can run into someone's house and out the back."
DM: "Much better. Roll."

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the system in full yet, all this is based on all verified information available.

 

[Seule]

I, as the DM, decided which alley has the way out, not which one the player runs down. Even the dice don't determine which alley the player runs down. Only the player makes that decision.

If the players were in the market place in a game I was running, and they needed to flee from the guards, I would give them a map of that they can see in the marketplace, show them where they are, and then show them where the guards are coming from.

If a player says, "I'm ducking down this alley and hiding," and points to the nearest alley, that is what he does and that is where he goes. I know there is no way out; I also know the next alley down does have a way out through a sewer grate.

In the situation you describe, the Streetwise check comes before you pick an alley, to decide which one to run down. If you get a success you pick the right one, if you fail you pick a less useful one. If you fail and easy check you pick the deadend, and if you succeed a hard check you pick the right one and know esactly where to run to get the best footing, or something. Once you are in the deadend alley you are already past streetwise checks and into athletics for climbing, or stealth to hide, or the like.

--Penn

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see, I see...

The player (and thus his character) did not think about what he should do before he did it, and headed down a dead end. When he finally did have a moment's pause to think, he realized his error. And error he could have prevented with an earlier streetwise check.

See, for me, that doesn't gel with the role I'm playing.

If my character has 20 ranks in Streetwise (or whatever), he's going to know things that I, as a player, do not. He's going to know which alleyways lead out of the city, and if he's jumping down allyways trying to get out of the city, he'll only rarely make a dumb descision like that. I, as a player, might make that descision a lot, so if I make a dumb descision that my character wouldn't make, I'd hope my DM would call it out.

I think that's more similar to what these 4e skill checks are doing. The player doesn't point to an ally to run down, the player declares "I'm running out of the city!" The DM asks "How?" The player says "I use Streetwise to try to find an alley that leads out of the city." If the check succeeds, he does, if it doesn't, maybe he finds himself down a dead-end.

Thus, the player doesn't make that descision, the character does.

To me, that is the same as a wizard attacking a fire resistant creature with a fire spell, then making his knowledge check about the resistance, and saying either "you made your skill check so it doesn't have fire resist" (alrtering the reality of the creature) or (b) "oh that skill check means you actually used a cold spell. Roll damage." (altering the reality of what the player did on their turn).

Y'know, if the great archmage targeted a fire elemental with a fireball, I, as the DM, would pause the action and say: "Now, as a great archmage, you do know that fire isn't the most effective against a fire creature. Do you still want to do this?"

Maybe I'm too forgiving of a DM, I generally advise players if they're behaving out of character, which includes making dumb choices their characters probably wouldn't make. I'm a fan of the skill system because it makes it easier for players to stay in-character, announcing their goals and how their character gets there without having to nominate specific courses of action that their characters may know would be dumb.

I can see how it wouldn't gel with the way you do skills, though.