Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[smerwin29]

I just remembered that the TORG game had a similar mechanic. At some point of high drama, the game play slowed down and the characters had to deal with a situation. I think they even had cards (drama deck?) that simulated unexpected obstacles or victories.

 

[vagabundo]

This sounds more like a DM decision then a edition decision. Anyone in 3e could have done the same thing: make a check, there is a secret passage. In 4e, the same thing could be taken away.

One thing about this encounter that needs to be taken into account was that it was designed to be run in a convention. It was designed to be run for multiple players by multiple DMS. Were I to run something similar, I'm sure I would do it very differently then it was at a convention because I would design it specifically for me to run, not so thay 20 people can read a couple sheets and DM the scene for random people.

I can see how this design idea can carry over into something like a Crushing Room trap; each round the wall moves in 5 feet. In 5 rounds, the PCs are flattened. A successful str check stops the wall from moving that round. There is a metal grate in the wall behind which the clockwork mechanisms are clicking away; the grate is too havy to lift, but there is a chain hanging from the ceiling attached to it through a pulley device of some kind. That might be enough to open the grate.

Someone made a perception check, so the athletic check to climb up the wall is better because the PC noticed a couple footholds in the wall leading toward the chain. A successful moderately difficult climb check would get the character just high enough to reach the chain (a low DC climb check would then require a low DC jump check...someone who wasn't as athletic could try two easy DCs vs 1 moderate DC check if they thought that would benefit them). The PC who is actually climbing decided to go a bit higher, aiming for the harder check. Having gotten as high as he did, PC was able to get a good grasp of the chain and is in a better position to pull it and hold it (+2 to his str check to pull the chain and open the grate).

With the grate open, the PC disabling the trap isn't squeezing his hands through a grate coated with mild contact poison anymore as he manipulates the mechanism, lowering the DC of the disable device and keeps the character from suffering poison damage. If the Disable device fails, the player can keep trying, so long as the chain holder can keep holding the chain and the wall doesn't advance all the way across the room.

I'm sure there are other skills characters could bring into play to get out of this trap that I haven't though of and planned for. I would need to be willing to listen to my player's ideas and decide what sort of affect, if any, they have in this situation. But I wouldn't simply add something becuase my PC decided to search for a secret door and succeed his check. If it's not there, it's not there.

Could this be done in 3e? Sure, there is no reason it couldn't. Use a skill, succeed, and go on to the next skill. But this was not the design philosophy of 3e. The philosophy there was that the trap sprung and it either hit or missed or the characters got a save against something. And then it was over.

The design philosophy in 4e is that things are much more complex and should require several rolls and more character involvment to 'defeat' a challenge. It's still in the DM's hands to create these challenges as they see fit.

[Thievery check=success]

I am inserting this into one of the 4e adventures.

 

[Thyrwyn]

But that is the point - you can lay out the framework for the encounter ahead of time - good ideas, bad ideas, rewards or penalties as appropriate . . . whatever. With pre-planned encounters, where the outcome is significantly relevent to the story reducing the success or failure of the entire scene to one failed die roll does everyone a dis-service. It is not fun.

Imagine if we did that for combat encounters:

Party: "We try to sneak up on the dragon. . ."
DM: "It's your funeral. . . roll against the fighter's sneak skill since his is the lowest."
Party: "13 - he fails."
DM: "The dragon eats you. Here are some character sheets, 28 pt buy, no Eladrin or Gnomes. . . "

 

[jaer]

[Thievery check=success]

I am inserting this into one of the 4e adventures.

Enjoy!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just remembered that the TORG game had a similar mechanic. At some point of high drama, the game play slowed down and the characters had to deal with a situation. I think they even had cards (drama deck?) that simulated unexpected obstacles or victories.

Yes, there was something like that in Torg, too. The Drama Deck did a lot of cool fascinating stuff in that game.
I think instead of acquiring a number of successes, you had to gather cards with "A, B and C", and you had to do it in the right order, and if you didn't succeed soon enough, you failed. But my memory is sketchy - I never owned a single rulebook of that game (my group played it extensively before I became a member, and afterwards, it was a rare situation). Torg had a lot of good "gamist" ideas...

 

[cwhs01]

I ran "Escape from Sembia" at DDXP, and while I cannot talk in great detail about skill challenges, I can say some things:

Cool. Some good comments from someone who actually knows what they are talking about is allways nice

and it seems that the skill check system is flexible enough to cater for both the simulationsists and the narativists. I guess we'll have to find some new thing about 4e to discuss...

 

[Derren]

Just ignoring everything which was introduced with 4E is not what I call flexible.

 

[Nymrohd]

Hehe well I don't care about those simulationist people I'm philosophically opposed to them anyway. But as for narrativism it cerrtainly seems like a great system to use. It almost feels like a storybook.

 

[Andur]

Derren, though I do appreciate your bending of reality to suit your own needs, you do need to remain within the realms of logic.

The difference here is that in 3E when the PCs want to flee the city the goal is to get outside the city. Depending on which way the PCs choose to follow and how good they are this can be resollved by more or less skill checks and maybe some combats. In 4E no matter what the PCs do they get out of the city after X checks, even if they are actually just running in circles (but do that very good)

I'm sorry who is the DM? Who decides if the skill checks are relevant or not? Not sure about you, but I don't DM like a scripted AI bot in a 'puter game.

The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.

So is a secret door there or not if the players fail on a search check? I mean, the secret door is not on the map, so no matter what there is no way the players can discover it, correct?

A dead end alley in which people have cut away the fence, dug under the wall, made a hole in and covered up with some empty boxes, none of those exist in the real world either. The PC's running down a street and can see the alleyways off to the sides, either one of them knows about the "little known" passage or they don't. Either way the maps are going to show it as a dead end.

You as the DM decide how many and what skill checks are to be made in order to accomplish the goal. If player's actions run counter to the goal, well then they simply don't succeed. (Make 4 running checks to get away, ok, I run around the fountain. You get caught as the guards don't pursue and you run straight into them)

What 4e seems to be doing is giving a system in which players can be fairly rewarded for accompishing tasks, whether that task is bashing skulls, rubbing elbows, or running minefields doesn't matter. The Dm decides how difficult it will be (thus what the reward will be) and the rules help outline ways the players can succeed or fail, notice outline, not map.

Common sense and Rule 0 go a long, long way in DMing...

 

[cwhs01]

Just ignoring everything which was introduced with 4E is not what I call flexible.

Go back and read smervin29's last post. He gave a handful of examples of how you could use the new skill system.
I might be reading you wrong, but are you implying it is a bad thing that the skill system can be used in various different ways? I get it if you want one solid system for handling skill checks that can/should never be deviated from. But i think the better system is one that is flexible (as implied in this report of the system in actual use).