Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
So all the talk about D&D becoming like an MMO is wrong? But it must be true, I read it on the internet!Andur said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Any New Info on Skill Encounters?
- Thread starter hbarsquared
- Start date
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
Derren said:
I think it's unrealistic from your point of view, but from my point view it's a great development, because it means the PC's drive the story, no one else.
It means that the PC's are in charge of what happens to them - if they choose to use their good skills in creative ways to overcome the challenges set to them they'll have a good chance of suceeding, whether the DM has prepared for it or not.
It's the same with Healing Surges and other new mechanics - in each case the mechanic places the PC's at the centre of the story, not the world. I think it's a great move, and will strongly aid a more flexible and faster paced story.
Instead of having to plan each challenge to let the PC's shine in it, you can simply throw stuff at the PC's and let them deal with it.
An example in 3.5e:
"How are you going to get the information you need on the location of the hidden Temple?"
"Um...we ask the rogue to use his Gather Information and the Cleric casts a Divination."
Only two characters are involved. It's very unlikely the Fighter (or melee character) is going to have any applicable skills, or good enough ranks in them for it to matter.
In 4e:
"How are you going to get the information you need on the location of the hidden Temple?"
"Cleric asks at the Temple, Fighter uses Diplomacy at the Watch House, Rogue walks the streets looking for suspicious characters, and the Wizard hits the library for clues!"
Several characters are involved, all with a decent level of skill in what they're trying to do, and if a couple roll badly other characters can pick up the slack.
I like how it engages the players to be active participants in the collective storytelling.
I think that anything that actively engages the players is a positive thing. Combat is a very actively engaging portion of the game and I think that is why some people focus on combat (myself included) so much more than other parts of the game. The uncertainty of what can be done or even how to progress is a stumbling block for those who are not very immersive role players. These skill resolution guidelines give a clean and quick guide of how to handle conflicts that can be incredibly complex, while still retaining the active participation of everyone at the table.
Recalling the social skill structure that the wotc folks had hinted at, it looks like this is going to be it. They had mentioned that you could go purely roll oriented, role play before the roll, role play after and based on the roll, or like in any game ignore any roll and go with pure role play. This type of skill resolution systems lends itself to that very well.
I think that anything that actively engages the players is a positive thing. Combat is a very actively engaging portion of the game and I think that is why some people focus on combat (myself included) so much more than other parts of the game. The uncertainty of what can be done or even how to progress is a stumbling block for those who are not very immersive role players. These skill resolution guidelines give a clean and quick guide of how to handle conflicts that can be incredibly complex, while still retaining the active participation of everyone at the table.
Recalling the social skill structure that the wotc folks had hinted at, it looks like this is going to be it. They had mentioned that you could go purely roll oriented, role play before the roll, role play after and based on the roll, or like in any game ignore any roll and go with pure role play. This type of skill resolution systems lends itself to that very well.
cdrcjsn said:
I'm a bit supprised that D&D wants to take this way, but you're right. There are several games like that. Inspectres even builds whole "jobs" (~ adventures) that way: Get 14 successes and you solved the case.
Some games are even more extreme than what has been described here. That is, you can make a Diplomacy check on an empty street:
Player1: I roll Diplomacy. Hard. *rolls* 32. *IC* To the left comrades!
Player2: We need to go right.
Player1: You would be right, of course, but I called in a few favors two hours ago. Someone's waiting there.
I don't expect D&D to go so far, though.
This approach in general usually needs less GM authority. Any roll that makes remote sense can be applied. To me as a GM that is less work and more entertainment as the players have to think up all the hard stuff.
I generally like the skill check system. I have some reservations about the easy/normal/hard checks and how they affect your future checks, but generally I like it.
It's not purely simulationist, but it admits that some parts of any system aren't going to be well modeled. So for the example of tipping over a cart of apples, it admits that in any system, there's no more than a vague mechanic that models the effects of tipped apples on human-sized pursuers. So you just call it a success and move on. Trying to break everything down into separate, precisely modeled skill checks runs into Zeno's paradox. If you try to precisely define and model everything, there's no limit on where you can stop. At some level or another, it's all an abstraction, and the system admits it.
And it's no more a case of the players changing reality than everything else in the game. If the players go somewhere that's not on the map, or is just an abstract street shape on the map, then they are changing reality, as the DM describes the new location. The difference in this system is that the DM takes the results of the player's skill check into account rather than just making things up by himself. It's something new to wrap your head around, and if you don't like it, you don't like it. But it's not fundamentally different than the way things work in all RPGs ever.
It's not purely simulationist, but it admits that some parts of any system aren't going to be well modeled. So for the example of tipping over a cart of apples, it admits that in any system, there's no more than a vague mechanic that models the effects of tipped apples on human-sized pursuers. So you just call it a success and move on. Trying to break everything down into separate, precisely modeled skill checks runs into Zeno's paradox. If you try to precisely define and model everything, there's no limit on where you can stop. At some level or another, it's all an abstraction, and the system admits it.
And it's no more a case of the players changing reality than everything else in the game. If the players go somewhere that's not on the map, or is just an abstract street shape on the map, then they are changing reality, as the DM describes the new location. The difference in this system is that the DM takes the results of the player's skill check into account rather than just making things up by himself. It's something new to wrap your head around, and if you don't like it, you don't like it. But it's not fundamentally different than the way things work in all RPGs ever.
My only difficulty is envisioning what an easy, medium, and hard version of certain tasks looks like, and how to encompass failure. There may be rules for this, but I don't know them, and I'm not sure exactly what they'd be.
Lets say we have a wall. The fighter wants to climb the wall. Tell me if or where I go wrong.
If he says "easy," and succeeds, he clambers over the wall noisily, clumsily and slowly, but he makes it.
If he says "easy" and he fails, he can't climb the wall this round.
If he says "medium" and succeeds, he gets over the wall.
If he says "medium" and fails, what? If he fails by less than 5, should he get to climb the wall as if he had succeeded at the "easy" task? If he fails by more than 5, does he fail as if he failed at the "easy" task?
If he says "hard" and succeeds, he climbs over the wall with skill and panache.
If he says "hard" and fails, what? If he would have succeeded at a lower level, does he succeed anyways? Or is it considered that his attempts at skill and panache made him screw the whole thing up, and he can't climb the wall at all?
What if the wall isn't an easy wall to climb? Am I expected to set a minimum DC?
I assume there has to be some degree of objective skill DCs still in the system, or else there'd be no point in having skills increase as you go up in level. If everything was just 11/15/19 adjusted by level at the same rate your skill level adjusted, there'd be no point in adjusting either.
So... I like the "x success/ y failure" system. I also like letting characters choose a higher DC to accomplish a task with particular style. I just don't get the wager system quite so easily, nor do I understand how DCs are set. I can envision tasks where it works well (Diplomacy- the difficulty you choose could be relative to what you're trying to negotiate out of the person), but I can also envision tasks where it does not because objective reality doesn't permit "easy" or for that matter "hard" versions of the task.
Lets say we have a wall. The fighter wants to climb the wall. Tell me if or where I go wrong.
If he says "easy," and succeeds, he clambers over the wall noisily, clumsily and slowly, but he makes it.
If he says "easy" and he fails, he can't climb the wall this round.
If he says "medium" and succeeds, he gets over the wall.
If he says "medium" and fails, what? If he fails by less than 5, should he get to climb the wall as if he had succeeded at the "easy" task? If he fails by more than 5, does he fail as if he failed at the "easy" task?
If he says "hard" and succeeds, he climbs over the wall with skill and panache.
If he says "hard" and fails, what? If he would have succeeded at a lower level, does he succeed anyways? Or is it considered that his attempts at skill and panache made him screw the whole thing up, and he can't climb the wall at all?
What if the wall isn't an easy wall to climb? Am I expected to set a minimum DC?
I assume there has to be some degree of objective skill DCs still in the system, or else there'd be no point in having skills increase as you go up in level. If everything was just 11/15/19 adjusted by level at the same rate your skill level adjusted, there'd be no point in adjusting either.
So... I like the "x success/ y failure" system. I also like letting characters choose a higher DC to accomplish a task with particular style. I just don't get the wager system quite so easily, nor do I understand how DCs are set. I can envision tasks where it works well (Diplomacy- the difficulty you choose could be relative to what you're trying to negotiate out of the person), but I can also envision tasks where it does not because objective reality doesn't permit "easy" or for that matter "hard" versions of the task.
Multiple people said:
Imo when the most sensible things to do is to houserule a rule, then this rule is a failure. So saying "You can houserule it to make sense" doesn't really proof that this is a good rule.
And this can't be done with the 3E skill system or any other skill system where you don't have to give +2 bonuses for hard skill challenges and have a predetermined number of skill checks independent from the actual situation? Why exactly do you need them?
Last edited:
glass
(he, him)
None of us have actually seen the rule*, but if the it works how we think it works, deciding which skill checks are appropriate and which are not is excplicitly the role of the DM. It is not a houserule to adjudicate things the RAW explicitly call on you to adjudicate!Derren said:
Reality never changes in response to skill check. It might become defined where previously it was undefined. If you, as a DM, always have reality defined then that use will not be applicable.Derren said:
glass.
(*Apart from those as have and can't talk about it)
From my reading, the main problem with the idea was presentation.
In Derren's example, the idea that a PC ran down an alley and it was a dead-end. He rolled streetwise check, succeeded, and suddenly knew of a hidden escape route through that alley. Even if that is what happened in the Sembia run (I don't recall seeing this example, specifically), I don't think this is how most DMs would run it or how 4E would handle it.
I do recall someone saying they made a streetwise check and recalled an old sewer system they could use to duck out of the city. This doesn't mean they found it that round and ducked down it. It could just mean that they had another option...the front gate which would be gaurded and require more effort to get through or the sewer, which was closer and easier.
Now were I running something like this, that check wouldn't count into their successes unless the players decided to head to the sewer. And now their route through the city would be different, with different options and obstacles than if they were heading to the front gate.
The skill check does not necessarily change reality. One of my players can't simply declare he's tipping over a merchant's cart and roll a strength check to do so if there is no cart there to tip. Yeah, the +2 bonus after succeeding a difficult DC check doesn't always follow logic, but that isn't new to 4e...3e had them in the form of circumstance bonuses/penalties that were dolled out at the DM's whim...no other guideline than that! Guess what? These are at a DM's whim, too!
In the case of the cart, I would say if the person succeeded a hard DC, they not only tipped the cart over, but sent it spewing it's contents all over the place, making it harder for the guards to dodge by it or jump over it: count the squares around the cart as difficult terrain.
None of this is an example in how 4e handles things differently than 3e, it's all in how the DM decides to play the action, and can happen both ways in both editions. I wouldn't have a PC get a +2 on a diplomacy check after the hard climb check, but it might have been a hard climb check because it was up a particularly high wall from which a couple members of the local thieves guide were hanging out, watching the action, and waiting for a moment to take advantage (perhaps after the guards were gone round the corner, they'd start 'helping' the merchant pick up the spilled goods!).
In this case, however, the Rogues wouldn't just appear because the hard check was made. I'd have planned for them to be there when I designed the encounter, and would allow for a free check to try to get them to help. Failure does not count against you (they aren't ging to alert the guards to your presence!), but a success would help you.
But again, this entire Escape scenario was meant to be a quick and easy module, set up as an example of the difference in skill-use and encounter-design philosophy from 3e to 4e. It was meant to be relatively simple to learn for both players and DMs. I think the whole basis is to show a skill-based encounter (which were not highlighted in 3e at all) not a combat-based encounter. Combat-based encouters have a time limit though - there are only so often players can hit and miss before combat ends one way or the other.
A skill-based encounter could go on for hours unless an artificial end-point is placed on it, such as 6 success or 4 fails. The players could run around in circles, dodging guards the enitre way, making the police force look like fools and never leave the city.
As a DM, I can deal with my players doing that (fairly or unfairly as I see fit). I can set the DCs however I want. At a convention, the game needs to support some sort of automatic ending so that the DM has a way of fairly ending the scenario (it's in his rules to end it at X time).
The 6/4 (Craw Wurm!) set-up in Escape from Sembia was very gamist because the situation (it being played at a convention), not the edition, demands it. Whether this is a standard rule in 4e, just a suggestion for new DMs, or not even in the books at all, we won't know until the books are out of WotC confirms this.
In Derren's example, the idea that a PC ran down an alley and it was a dead-end. He rolled streetwise check, succeeded, and suddenly knew of a hidden escape route through that alley. Even if that is what happened in the Sembia run (I don't recall seeing this example, specifically), I don't think this is how most DMs would run it or how 4E would handle it.
I do recall someone saying they made a streetwise check and recalled an old sewer system they could use to duck out of the city. This doesn't mean they found it that round and ducked down it. It could just mean that they had another option...the front gate which would be gaurded and require more effort to get through or the sewer, which was closer and easier.
Now were I running something like this, that check wouldn't count into their successes unless the players decided to head to the sewer. And now their route through the city would be different, with different options and obstacles than if they were heading to the front gate.
The skill check does not necessarily change reality. One of my players can't simply declare he's tipping over a merchant's cart and roll a strength check to do so if there is no cart there to tip. Yeah, the +2 bonus after succeeding a difficult DC check doesn't always follow logic, but that isn't new to 4e...3e had them in the form of circumstance bonuses/penalties that were dolled out at the DM's whim...no other guideline than that! Guess what? These are at a DM's whim, too!
In the case of the cart, I would say if the person succeeded a hard DC, they not only tipped the cart over, but sent it spewing it's contents all over the place, making it harder for the guards to dodge by it or jump over it: count the squares around the cart as difficult terrain.
None of this is an example in how 4e handles things differently than 3e, it's all in how the DM decides to play the action, and can happen both ways in both editions. I wouldn't have a PC get a +2 on a diplomacy check after the hard climb check, but it might have been a hard climb check because it was up a particularly high wall from which a couple members of the local thieves guide were hanging out, watching the action, and waiting for a moment to take advantage (perhaps after the guards were gone round the corner, they'd start 'helping' the merchant pick up the spilled goods!).
In this case, however, the Rogues wouldn't just appear because the hard check was made. I'd have planned for them to be there when I designed the encounter, and would allow for a free check to try to get them to help. Failure does not count against you (they aren't ging to alert the guards to your presence!), but a success would help you.
But again, this entire Escape scenario was meant to be a quick and easy module, set up as an example of the difference in skill-use and encounter-design philosophy from 3e to 4e. It was meant to be relatively simple to learn for both players and DMs. I think the whole basis is to show a skill-based encounter (which were not highlighted in 3e at all) not a combat-based encounter. Combat-based encouters have a time limit though - there are only so often players can hit and miss before combat ends one way or the other.
A skill-based encounter could go on for hours unless an artificial end-point is placed on it, such as 6 success or 4 fails. The players could run around in circles, dodging guards the enitre way, making the police force look like fools and never leave the city.
As a DM, I can deal with my players doing that (fairly or unfairly as I see fit). I can set the DCs however I want. At a convention, the game needs to support some sort of automatic ending so that the DM has a way of fairly ending the scenario (it's in his rules to end it at X time).
The 6/4 (Craw Wurm!) set-up in Escape from Sembia was very gamist because the situation (it being played at a convention), not the edition, demands it. Whether this is a standard rule in 4e, just a suggestion for new DMs, or not even in the books at all, we won't know until the books are out of WotC confirms this.
LostSoul
Adventurer
Derren said:
Helpful Player: How about this?
The Cleric sees hidden signs in the street, and follows them. He meets up with the Fighter along the way, and with the advice from the watch captain we know where to narrow our search. We see the Rogue kicking back on a street corner, and he tells us of the sneaky guy. I recognize his garb as belonging to the Temple.
Then the Wizard shows up with a map. We check it out, and one building stands out to us: it must be the Temple!
Maybe next time we should resolve our rolls in succession, so each one builds off the other. What do you think, DM?
DM: Shut up and play. Don't try to bring logic into this!
Derren said:
Those rolls determine if the PCs find the Temple or not. The skills they use determine how. The DM can say some rolls do not count, of course; I personally find that really annoying, blocking behaviour.
