Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[The Little Raven]

Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.

No, it doesn't. It indicates that the players made proposals for actions based on character capabilities and the DM let them give it a shot. Just like every other previous edition of D&D, where someone would come up with something that isn't clearly delineated by any exact rule, and the DM says "Yeah, okay. Give me a roll."

Maybe that kind of DM-player relationship and leniency is foreign to you, but it's pretty common to most of the rest of us. A DM can allow things, if he thinks they'll work, or he can just say "No." The fact that one DM in one situation at one convention said yes indicates nothing about anyone dictating anything. That's just a fantasy you've concocted for whatever reason to construe a guy allowing players to be creative with methods of escape as some kind of negative aspect of 4th Edition because you're clearly bent on not liking it at all costs.

 

[jaer]

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.

My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill." And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).

The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that. One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards. My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards? In certain cities, that may be fine. Others, however, that makes little sense.

It's logical justification for such things that make PCs being able to pick easy, medium, or hard difficult for me to grasp as a concept and to play out and describe as a DM.

I suppose it is just as likely that the easy diplomacy check could represent the character stopping his running and turning and talking to the guard. It allows him to be heard better and shows a certain amount of trust and he is no longer running. The guard however, catches up so if the gamble fails, he's right there. The harder DC could represent the PC booking at full speed, yelling back whatever he can. He's not making a a strong argument and is more concerned about getting away, but if he says something that strikes a cord with the guard, the guard falters in the running and the PC increases his lead.

I have always been a fan of one roll with multiple DCs for varying results. There would be easy, medium, and hard, but since the PCs weren't shooting for one, they could get any of them. The PCs trying to get an audience with a local lord. They roll one check and if they hit DC 15, they would get an appointment in a week or so. DC 25, it would be a couple days. DC 30, and it's "wait here, we'll see if he's free right now for you."

This new system seems as thought the PCs would pick which one they wanted, and if they tried for the harder, "right now" check and failed...it is a failed check on all accounts. Obviously as the DM I can say that it was high enough to get them an appointment within a couple days and not have it be a total failure, but I am curious to see what the skill section says about this. Previously I rewarded skill checks that were extremely greater than the DC. This system might be limiting that since, if someone picked an east DC and someone else picked a hard one, and they both end up rolling natural 20s and getting the same results, the fact that one was a harder DC should sway the action more than the amount the roll beat the DC (if that made any sense).

 

[Insight]

My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill." And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).

The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that. One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards. My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards? In certain cities, that may be fine. Others, however, that makes little sense.

It's logical justification for such things that make PCs being able to pick easy, medium, or hard difficult for me to grasp as a concept and to play out and describe as a DM.

I suppose it is just as likely that the easy diplomacy check could represent the character stopping his running and turning and talking to the guard. It allows him to be heard better and shows a certain amount of trust and he is no longer running. The guard however, catches up so if the gamble fails, he's right there. The harder DC could represent the PC booking at full speed, yelling back whatever he can. He's not making a a strong argument and is more concerned about getting away, but if he says something that strikes a cord with the guard, the guard falters in the running and the PC increases his lead.

I have always been a fan of one roll with multiple DCs for varying results. There would be easy, medium, and hard, but since the PCs weren't shooting for one, they could get any of them. The PCs trying to get an audience with a local lord. They roll one check and if they hit DC 15, they would get an appointment in a week or so. DC 25, it would be a couple days. DC 30, and it's "wait here, we'll see if he's free right now for you."

This new system seems as thought the PCs would pick which one they wanted, and if they tried for the harder, "right now" check and failed...it is a failed check on all accounts. Obviously as the DM I can say that it was high enough to get them an appointment within a couple days and not have it be a total failure, but I am curious to see what the skill section says about this. Previously I rewarded skill checks that were extremely greater than the DC. This system might be limiting that since, if someone picked an east DC and someone else picked a hard one, and they both end up rolling natural 20s and getting the same results, the fact that one was a harder DC should sway the action more than the amount the roll beat the DC (if that made any sense).

I guess I can see where there's some margin for error based on what little we know now. That's no reason, however, to assume that there isn't something in the system that prevents players from always taking the easy way out. We have to speculate at this point, because we haven't seen the final product.

 

[FireLance]

Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.

I take it you haven't seen The Sound Of Music?

As I mentioned, the only difference I see between the DM deciding ahead of time that the PC cleric will be able to get help from his religious contacts to escape the city, and deciding that he will be able to do so based on a suggestion from the cleric's player is that one happens before the game and one happens during the game.

But probably the adventure was written (or the DMs instructed) so that the players succeed no matter what they do to keep the adventure on track and to show of all the "cool" moves.

You mean that the DM is still in charge and that the PCs can only succeed with his tacit agreement? What a remarkable thing.

 

[TwinBahamut]

My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill." And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).

The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that. One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards. My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards? In certain cities, that may be fine. Others, however, that makes little sense.

It's logical justification for such things that make PCs being able to pick easy, medium, or hard difficult for me to grasp as a concept and to play out and describe as a DM.

I suppose it is just as likely that the easy diplomacy check could represent the character stopping his running and turning and talking to the guard. It allows him to be heard better and shows a certain amount of trust and he is no longer running. The guard however, catches up so if the gamble fails, he's right there. The harder DC could represent the PC booking at full speed, yelling back whatever he can. He's not making a a strong argument and is more concerned about getting away, but if he says something that strikes a cord with the guard, the guard falters in the running and the PC increases his lead.

Well, if you don't like my approach of having players decide reality, maybe you can think of it another way. The difficulty of a diplomacy check is based on what kind of demands the PC is making upon the person he is negotiating with. An easy check means the player is not asking for as much, or might offer a lot more than he otherwise needs to. A hard check means he is asking a lot from the person he is negotiating with and offering little, and is thus taking a gamble in hope of a bigger payoff.

I have always been a fan of one roll with multiple DCs for varying results. There would be easy, medium, and hard, but since the PCs weren't shooting for one, they could get any of them. The PCs trying to get an audience with a local lord. They roll one check and if they hit DC 15, they would get an appointment in a week or so. DC 25, it would be a couple days. DC 30, and it's "wait here, we'll see if he's free right now for you."

This new system seems as thought the PCs would pick which one they wanted, and if they tried for the harder, "right now" check and failed...it is a failed check on all accounts. Obviously as the DM I can say that it was high enough to get them an appointment within a couple days and not have it be a total failure, but I am curious to see what the skill section says about this. Previously I rewarded skill checks that were extremely greater than the DC. This system might be limiting that since, if someone picked an east DC and someone else picked a hard one, and they both end up rolling natural 20s and getting the same results, the fact that one was a harder DC should sway the action more than the amount the roll beat the DC (if that made any sense).

Well, I really do like the idea of asking a player making a trade-off, rather than just rewarding high rolls and punishing low rolls, so I won't agree with you here. A player can try to take an easy road at a risk, or can try to go for a bonus with a higher chance of failure. It requires the player to make meaningful choices even in a basic skill check, rather than leaving everything up to a lucky or unlucky roll.

 

[dotreptile]

I ran a playtest/preview adventure last night that contained a skill challenge. Here's how it worked:

The party was in a small village that had seen a rash of nighttime kidnappings in the past few weeks. They were asked to guard the city for a night. I made guarding the city a skill challenge.

The players were pretty creative in their ideas. One PC used his Thievery ability to check the locks on the buildings where potential kidnap victims would be sleeping, while another used his Nature ability to set some traps (similar to what one would do when camping) to help alert him if someone tried to sneak by. His critical success in this (he attempted a difficult check and succeeded) allowed him an additional check, Streetwise, to place the traps in likely locations, for another success. Other characters made Perception or Stealth checks, and one even used Diplomacy to convince a few of the townfolk to help keep watch.

When I wrote up my notes on the adventure, I put down some skill usage ideas in case my players got stuck and needed help coming up with uses for their skills. None of them needed help. They succeeded in the skill challenge and were able to get the drop on the kidnappers, for a significant advantage in the combat (they took out the leader before he even acted). If they'd failed the challenge, they would have been surprised by the kidnappers.

It seemed to work really well, and I'll definitely be using these types of encounters again.

 

[Nightson]

Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.

No, it means that players can say what they want to do, DMs decide whether it's allowable or not, and then the player gets to make a check to actually carry it out. This isn't some newfangled 4th edition use of skills it's the way that the game already works for just about everybody. The only difference with 4th edition is it's trying to present newer DMs and players with the specific framework to accomplish it.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know if this has found it's way through the news report, so I figured I would post a relevant portion to this thread with the full link:

http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/03/01/dd-xp-random-crunchy-bits/

RPGA GM: Skill Challenges. It was summed up as before you make a skill check, you pick if you want low, medium, or high difficulty. The higher the roll needed, the greater the reward if you pull it off. In the game, the same mechanic was used to use Streetwise to navigate a city, negotiate with a merchant, and move stealthily through the streets. Another example given to me by another player was in a bazaar they were able to combine a Thievery check with the Wizard casting Mage Hand to bring a tent down while they grabbed some stuff.

 

[pemerton]

On the issue of players changing the gameworld: I think that this is the deliberate intent of 4e design. It fits with what is said in W&M about the design logic of PoL. It continues the trend of 3E - first we had player mechanical empowerment (via systematic and elaborate rules for character build and action resolution) and now we are seeing player narrative epowerment (via fortune-in-the-middle mechanics that allow players to determine those ingame elements that explain their PCs successes or failures).

This also gives the lie to the notion that the game is becoming more video-gamey - player narrative empowerment is one of the major respects in which a tabletop RPG can differ from a computer game.

 

[Nytmare]

My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill." And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).

The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that. One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards. My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards? In certain cities, that may be fine. Others, however, that makes little sense.

I'm interpreting this a little differently.

I'm imagining the the choice between "easy, medium, and hard" is a little less concrete. A character can look for something to climb over, and can press for the appropriate advantage between jumping someone's fence, climbing to the roof of a low building, or scaling the glass towers of the Wizard's School; but they wouldn't get to decide to do the hard thing and insist that they get the easy roll.

Likewise, if someone wants to use their diplomacy to bribe the guards, the ease of that check would depend on the likelihood of there being bribable guards. In the crime ridden, shady back corners of a corrupt metropolis, sure it might be an easy check, but in the hallowed streets of a city full of paladins, it could very well be impossible.