Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[Spatula]

Hmm, he wrote "check", but I think he wanted to say modifier.

If he did, he was wrong.

Which is probably a bit too high, but I think a total modifier of +20 is doable at 3rd level. (I think it's something like 6 ranks, +4 charisma, +4 synergy, +3 circlet of persuasion. That brings you to +17.

Well, if you want to throw in mid-level magic items onto a 2nd level character, I'm sure I can pump the 4e Diplomacy bonus higher, too... But to be pedantic your example has some mistakes and is missing some bonuses. 5 ranks max, +4 cha, +4 bluff/SM synergy, +2 half-elf, +3 skill focus = +18; the 4e example is +15 or +17 depending on what Skill Focus gives in 4e. One main difference is that while getting a ridiculously high bonus with Diplomacy is pretty easy in 3e, thanks to skill synergies, you can get +14-16 with any skill in 4e by 2nd level.

EDIT: just noticed you said 3rd level; not sure why we started moving the goalposts.

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+.

...when you get to the upper levels, sure. The gulf still exists in 4e: ability modifier, training, skill focus, racial aura bonuses, item bonuses, etc. It's not as high, but it's still a huge difference, especially at lower levels where it's easy to front-load bonuses for ridiculously high skill bonuses.

 

[Kordeth]

You may have just nailed it. I would have the success of player's actions determine the effect of those actions on the guard, but unless they take advantage of those actions and continue to move out of the city or to some other safe place, then no number of successful rolls will get them out. They can dodge guards all day long, but until they leave the city...they haven't left!

I've been playing with the same group for over ten years now. They know my style pretty well. And I think if they managed to get out of the city without playing it all the way through, they'd sit there going, "WTF? How are we in the clear? Aren't the guards still chacing us?"

I think it's safe to assume the skill challenge rules will not be designed such that six skill checks magically defeat any challenge. I daresay the structure of designing a skill challenge probably involves the step of "set a goal" somewhere in the process, probably as the very first step. Obviously, actions which do not move the players toward that goal aren't going to help with the skill challenge.

 

[jaer]

The only thing the new system might give you if you are using a more specific simulation of the escape are some rules for under what circumstances somebody escapes or gets caught. Often it's hard to adjudicate what the consequences really are for going down a dead end or other problems. Having successes and failures that add up gives a way to actually determine how close or far the players are from being caught by the guards. Your only other option is to somehow try to calculate the movement rates and positions of all the guards, or making completely arbitrary decisions about weither the players get caught when they run into the deadend or not.

The system, if nothing else, does inspire different ways to do things. I will take what I feel comfortable integrating and drop the rest.

If those things were already decided, then you don't need any way to decide them. Therefore, the idea about using a skillcheck top decide them becomes irrelevant. You might still use it to decide about pitchforks in hay or non-major NPCs, or you might not. From everything we have heard so far it is a very flexible system so you are still good either way. Still not seeing the problem.


glass.

No problem at all. Perhaps my "agree with Derren" statement was a little to non-specific. I see where he is coming from, and it is from a similar DM style that I take: Know where everything is and who everyone is before had so that surprised don't come up. I have determined where everything is, so you are right, I don't need a die roll to tell me if there is or isn't something there.

This is where Derren and I differ: I don't have a problem with 4e supporting a different skill style than mine, especially because I can see how this style would work for other people. I am still all for 4e, and my comments here were a discussion about how this system doesn't mesh with my style and why. It was not meant to convince people that my way was best, and shame on WotC for not doing it my way.

How does he 'pick the alley first'. There is no basis for him to make that decision.

I had stated that, were I designing and running an escape scenario like this, the players would have a map of their general surroundings. If they knew the city (it was their home base), they would be able to see the whole map. If not (fairly new arrivals) it would be covered and they would only generally know where the front gate was. But they would have a detailed picture of what they could see.

Even if they didn't have a map to say "this alley," it happens easy enough.

PC: I want to duck down an alley way and hide.
DM: There is only one you can get to this round with your movement. The others are farther away than you can move.
PC: Okay, then I duck down the one I can reach.

Even if the PCs don't have a map and are reliant upon my description, I do have a map and I know what they can and can't get to based on that map. They can pick a dead end alley on my map without me ever needing to to show them where they are on a map, so long as I know where they are.

 

[jaer]

As long as we all understand exactly where we differ, and why, and that there are multiple valid playstyles, there's not a whole lot left to say.
Thanks for disagreeing with me with style and thought, jaer.

--Penn

I think we do and that they are! Any time! I enjoy a good discussion.

Honestly, this thread has put the free-form DMing in a better light for me, and helped me understand the concepts of it better, so thanks to all of you who have made this a pleasent little discussion!

 

[TwinBahamut]

Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn towards "compare the relative merits of jaer's system and the 4E system", I guess I might as well make another comment...

Sorry jaer, but I would never want to use your system. I don't even hold it as an ideal I would pursue if I had enough time to pull it off. I like thinking on my feet, and I hate providing so much detail as knowing every road in a whole town. I much prefer the more freeform, improvisational interpretation of 4E's skill rules, where players can help define things by their choices.

That said, I think you indirectly quoted me at one point, and in doing so you misunderstood my point.

You said something like "if you succeed at a diplomacy check, the guard is corrupt, but he is not corrupt if you fail the check", and mentioned the honest guard captain. This seems based on one of my examples, but is not an accurate interpretation of them.

In my example, the guard encountered by the PC is determined before the check, not after. In my case, it would be determined by which kind of difficulty the PC wanted for the check. In some other case, it might be determined by random chance. Either way, the guard captain is probably going to be a character who was designed by the DM beforehand. and will continue to exist afterwards. Once the situation is set up, the Diplomacy check is resolved like a normal one, with the player trying to influence a predefined character. I guess I should use an example...

DM: Alright, your easy, untrained Streetwise check just failed, so you get totally lost and stuck in an alley. You hear guards coming up behind you quickly.
Player: Well, I will try to negotiate with the first guard who comes up, and explain to him how their king is the real villain and is deceiving them (the truth).
DM: Alright, Diplomacy then. Another Easy check?
Player: No way, I'll go for a Hard.
DM: Alright then... A guard rushes by to check the alley you are in, and spots you. Amazingly enough, it turns out to be the captain of the guard himself.
Player: You mean that loyal paladin who was standing behind the king during the fake trial? Err... I explain to him about how all the evidence used in that trial was faked by the king's wizard. *rolls a natural twenty*
DM: Well, he looks confused and conflicted. Other guards run up as you hide in the alley, asking him if he has seen you. He hesitantly says that he hasn't seen anything, and leads them away. You can take this chance to escape and meet up with your friends.

This is the kind of situation I would like. I actually really like the idea of the level of challenge being transparent and decided by the player, simply because it makes things somewhat more tactical, and would make it easier for me to decide how to set up situations. Also, I hate mapping, so I would run this kind of thing with just general places, with the layout being indistinct and controlled by narrative necessity rather than predetermined ideas of my own.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I had stated that, were I designing and running an escape scenario like this, the players would have a map of their general surroundings. If they knew the city (it was their home base), they would be able to see the whole map. If not (fairly new arrivals) it would be covered and they would only generally know where the front gate was. But they would have a detailed picture of what they could see.

Even if they didn't have a map to say "this alley," it happens easy enough.

PC: I want to duck down an alley way and hide.
DM: There is only one you can get to this round with your movement. The others are farther away than you can move.
PC: Okay, then I duck down the one I can reach.

I think your use of "this round with your movement" is telling.

One of the differences between a skill-based encounter and a combat encounter is that a skill-based encounter doesn't necessarily have to be tracked round-by-round and in terms of tactical movement. Tactical movement is just an abstraction, as proven by the diagonals thing, and it's easy to abstract it even more.

One skill check could represent a full minute of running from the guards instead of a single round. Even if a character didn't know the city, they might still ask to use Streetwise for their general knowledge and gut instinct on how urban areas are laid out to make it easier to get a lead on the guards or find a fence they can climb over fast. (Probably at a higher DC for not knowing the area, of course.)

 

[jaer]

Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn towards "compare the relative merits of jaer's system and the 4E system", I guess I might as well make another comment...

Sorry jaer, but I would never want to use your system. I don't even hold it as an ideal I would pursue if I had enough time to pull it off. I like thinking on my feet, and I hate providing so much detail as knowing every road in a whole town. I much prefer the more freeform, improvisational interpretation of 4E's skill rules, where players can help define things by their choices.

No problem! I would never suggest my way was best. Only that it is mine. I feel that the maps and the planning helps me be organized, which I typically am not. By doing as much prep work a head of time, it helps me stay on track and keep a handle of the situation. Not that I don't let my players do whatever they like...I do! And I don't shut them down for being creative: I do my best to reward it.

But I feel most comfortable when I can fully see and understand the surrounds.

That said, I think you indirectly quoted me at one point, and in doing so you misunderstood my point.

You said something like "if you succeed at a diplomacy check, the guard is corrupt, but he is not corrupt if you fail the check", and mentioned the honest guard captain. This seems based on one of my examples, but is not an accurate interpretation of them.

I was refering to this. I did not misunderstand, but my example got twisted in the writing and came out all wrong. I knew you meant the player determined the corruption of the guard by picking the DC, which is a concept I have an equally hard time wrapping my head around, to be honest.

In my example, the guard encountered by the PC is determined before the check, not after. In my case, it would be determined by which kind of difficulty the PC wanted for the check. In some other case, it might be determined by random chance. Either way, the guard captain is probably going to be a character who was designed by the DM beforehand. and will continue to exist afterwards. Once the situation is set up, the Diplomacy check is resolved like a normal one, with the player trying to influence a predefined character. I guess I should use an example...

DM: Alright, your easy, untrained Streetwise check just failed, so you get totally lost and stuck in an alley. You hear guards coming up behind you quickly.
Player: Well, I will try to negotiate with the first guard who comes up, and explain to him how their king is the real villain and is deceiving them (the truth).
DM: Alright, Diplomacy then. Another Easy check?
Player: No way, I'll go for a Hard.
DM: Alright then... A guard rushes by to check the alley you are in, and spots you. Amazingly enough, it turns out to be the captain of the guard himself.
Player: You mean that loyal paladin who was standing behind the king during the fake trial? Err... I explain to him about how all the evidence used in that trial was faked by the king's wizard. *rolls a natural twenty*
DM: Well, he looks confused and conflicted. Other guards run up as you hide in the alley, asking him if he has seen you. He hesitantly says that he hasn't seen anything, and leads them away. You can take this chance to escape and meet up with your friends.

This is the kind of situation I would like. I actually really like the idea of the level of challenge being transparent and decided by the player, simply because it makes things somewhat more tactical, and would make it easier for me to decide how to set up situations. Also, I hate mapping, so I would run this kind of thing with just general places, with the layout being indistinct and controlled by narrative necessity rather than predetermined ideas of my own.

Again, my problem with this comes from the fact that, as I play it, The Jaer Style (TJS) (tm), I would know where the captain of the guard is and know who he was following. I couldn't just have him teleport to where this player is.

Also I have a difficult time with the idea of the player, in an alley, knowing the guard is coming, and saying "What level of challenge do you want to come around the corner at you?"

Or, in this situation. The player, instead of trying to negotiate, tries to hide.

DM: How much do you want to conceal yourself?
PC: Medium amount. <rolls low> Crap.
DM: The guard walks cautiously around the corner, shield raised high, fully expecting an ambush. He strolls in slowly, using his mace to prod the barrels you hid behind. He's spotted you, and shouts "Hey! Come out of there!"
PC: Okay...I'll negotiate.

As the DM, do I give him the choice of picking medium (normal guard) or easy (corrupt guard) or hard (the greatsword weilding paladin who was behind the king at the...wait a tick...this guy wa already discribed as a regular guard with a mace!)...well, can't be hard. So medium or easy? What if a few other people picked easy...how many corrupt guards are in this city?

When do I, as a DM, stop the players from deciding what level of DC they are rolling against? And how do I justify that to players? "Sorry, you can't pick an easy negotiation DC because two other people already did it, and there is no way there are that many shady guards in this city!"

 

[Insight]

When do I, as a DM, stop the players from deciding what level of DC they are rolling against? And how do I justify that to players? "Sorry, you can't pick an easy negotiation DC because two other people already did it, and there is no way there are that many shady guards in this city!"

That's too easy. Give the PCs x number of attempts. If they don't get a certain number of "victories" in those attempts, they fail the challenge. Then, the adventure moves along.

I think you guys are making this harder than it has to be.

 

[TwinBahamut]

No problem! I would never suggest my way was best. Only that it is mine. I feel that the maps and the planning helps me be organized, which I typically am not. By doing as much prep work a head of time, it helps me stay on track and keep a handle of the situation. Not that I don't let my players do whatever they like...I do! And I don't shut them down for being creative: I do my best to reward it.

But I feel most comfortable when I can fully see and understand the surrounds.

I can respect that.

I was refering to this. I did not misunderstand, but my example got twisted in the writing and came out all wrong. I knew you meant the player determined the corruption of the guard by picking the DC, which is a concept I have an equally hard time wrapping my head around, to be honest.

To be honest, I am still wrapping my head around that one as well. I like involving players in that way, and it seems to be one of the few ways to make the penalty for losing an easy challenge and the benefit for accomplishing a difficult challenge fair to the players (I dislike adjudicating that kind of thing based on my own whims, and I am not sure how to do it otherwise), but it does bring up some issues.

Again, my problem with this comes from the fact that, as I play it, The Jaer Style (TJS) (tm), I would know where the captain of the guard is and know who he was following. I couldn't just have him teleport to where this player is.

Well, this is where my own abstractions lead to a different result than your determinations. I would not know such a thing. In fact, I probably would not even know exactly where the PC is, how many guards are chasing him, or how far he is from the rest of the party. Instead, I would know a rough area of where things are likely to be, and anything which is not defined by a previous open decision on my part would have an even chance of being everywhere.

I guess you can say I prefer a Quantum approach compared to your Newtonian one. Rather than keeping track of every character's exact state, I would just keep track of potential states.

In other words, the guard captain did not teleport there. Instead, he had a certain probability of following any of the characters, and his position only matters once his position is already known by the players. Once that is established, he will not just randomly appear before any other PC unless he has a good reason to based on his last appearance, because he now has a determined place.

Also I have a difficult time with the idea of the player, in an alley, knowing the guard is coming, and saying "What level of challenge do you want to come around the corner at you?"

Or, in this situation. The player, instead of trying to negotiate, tries to hide.

DM: How much do you want to conceal yourself?
PC: Medium amount. <rolls low> Crap.
DM: The guard walks cautiously around the corner, shield raised high, fully expecting an ambush. He strolls in slowly, using his mace to prod the barrels you hid behind. He's spotted you, and shouts "Hey! Come out of there!"
PC: Okay...I'll negotiate.

As the DM, do I give him the choice of picking medium (normal guard) or easy (corrupt guard) or hard (the greatsword weilding paladin who was behind the king at the...wait a tick...this guy wa already discribed as a regular guard with a mace!)...well, can't be hard. So medium or easy? What if a few other people picked easy...how many corrupt guards are in this city?

When do I, as a DM, stop the players from deciding what level of DC they are rolling against? And how do I justify that to players? "Sorry, you can't pick an easy negotiation DC because two other people already did it, and there is no way there are that many shady guards in this city!"

Well, as I said above, I am still working this out and probably won't figure it out 100% until I own the 4E DMG and have run a game session or two, so I hope you will forgive me if my answers are a bit vague for now. But, I think the problem you are having with my example is that you are forgetting that any decision I make will be improvisational, not based on preparations. I would not lay out a list before starting of how various actions might work, I would just make them up on the fly.

Certainly, it doesn't make sense for someone I mentioned was a normal guard earlier turned out to magically be the guard captain. In that case, I would come up with a different reason why the roll might be difficult and potentially rewarding, and there would be no logical reason at all to restrict the PC's options. Similarly, just because one player had an easy time negotiating with a corrupt guard does not mean that any other "easy" guards will also be corrupt. Instead, other skill checks might be based on other factors I invent to be unique to each case. As such, a few of the problems you state above are not actually relevant.

Anyways, since D&D 4E is supposed to be a game about saying yes to players, I would not restrict a player from doing something at any point. Keeping things varied and interesting in the game is my job, after all, and it is better if I use my own creativity rather than restrict my player's. Well, I might make a rule that says you can't use the exact same skill twice in a row in the same skill encounter, but that would be just to keep things more interesting.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Just a quick thought these multi-stage skill-challenges would be wonderful for things like opening-locks, etc.

It can be like:

Easy: You do it but at a very intimate and longer-manner. Add a extra 2 rolls.
Medium: You do it at your regular speed and attention. No extra rolls.
Hard: You try to break the lock as fast as you can. Reduce 2 rolls, at failure the lock is broken and must be bashed down.

Just imagine that kind of system, during a fight-sequence where the rest of the party is fending off monsters each round while you try to pick the lock.