Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[vagabundo]

My advice: Check your personal profile / Account and look for the key word "buddy list". That's not what you want to use, but there is a similar list with opposite intent. It works wonders... It doesn't protect you against quotes, though.

Ahem.

I actually like derrens posts mostly, even if I dont agree.

I wonder how much the system also supports DM influence on the allowed skills. But even if there is no explicit mentioning of it, it can definitely be used to create a more structured scene, if that's what the group/DM prefers.
Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)

So, you can use the same guidelines both for a "player-narrated" scenario and a "DM-narrated" scenario - or for a mix of both.

Hmm more prep work for me Still it would be a good idea, I might sketch out some stuff to help players who are having some trouble thinking of some good. Or a mix of both types, but I really want my players to become more involved in the world, so giving up a little of the power seem like a good compromise. I'll just have to be on my toes, I have one guy who would push things if I was not careful.

 

[Nymrohd]

Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.

So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.

There are a few things, but not many.
I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.
I also don't believe that 4E is automatically better than 3E just because it is new. Can I do such a chase scene in 3E with multiple ways to use skills etc? Yes I can and in 3E I don't have this silly 6 successes to win and dificulty levels for bonuses mechanic behind it which hurts the living feel of the world.

Derren may I ask, where exactly did you get that it has to be 6 successes? The system is modular to be X successes before Y losses and the specific example was a 6/4 encounter. Also the DM can disregard skill checks that are irrelevant to the contest in place (the quoted example even suggests that he suspected their DM did just so for certain checks).

3E provides no guidelines at its core in handling such an encounter neither does it provide a good way to estimate XP for said encounter, something that 4E likely does? Aren't we completely disregarding the utility of such a mechanic to the new DM which is easily the hardest commodity in roleplaying communities?

Also I have to ask, why exactly do you consider this a gamist mechanic? The DM can modulate the effect of the mechanic to his campaign style by making decisions on what makes a valid check or not. At the same time this mechanic feels far more like a tool that facilitates storytelling to me, since it promotes the player and DM to creating a sequence of scenes; it is a mechanic that basically helps build a scenario.

And I would very much like to know how you base your assumption that the system is created with the express purpose of facilitating static dungeon delves to the detriment of any other aspect. If anything, combat as revealed is far more dynamic in 4E making a scene with multiple encounters and active dungeon adversaries (the kind that rings alarms) far easier to run, and by moderating, if not removing the 15-minute adventure day, makes the incredulity of static dungeons less relevant.

 

[Derren]

Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)

Or you can simply have the layout of the city and let the players decide what to do, roll the appropriate checks and let the NPCs react accordingly. You know like in 3E. Or like in 4E without this "You made a hard skill check, you get a arbitrary +2 bonus" and "6 skill checks, you have won this scene" nonsense.

 

[Plane Sailing]

So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).

Imo improvement = 0.

Did you not read the quote, or did you not understand it? Either way you seem to have missed the point entirely here.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'gamist'. Do you have characters roll attack rolls and saves in 3e at the moment? Isn't the game quintessentially gamist? Back in OD&D with the complete absence of "skills", the game certainly revolved around the players just saying what the PCs wanted to do and the DM telling them whether they succeeded or not, but ever since non-weapon proficiencies were introduced...

Unearthed Arcana had some simple rules for 'complex skill checks' which were essentially otherwise missing from 3e - activities which required more than one skill check to determine success or failure. How was that more gamist than having a combat which requires more than one roll on each side to determine success or failure?

I'm afraid I don't quite get where you are coming from at the moment. Would it be possible to explain your preferred position a bit more?

Cheers

 

[LostSoul]

I'd have to see more of this system, but I think I really like it.

(Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).

Why indeed?

Maybe there's someone on the other side of the "hard" wall that is more inclined to listen to your story, someone who can help you out. That person's not on the other side of the "easy" wall.

Maybe it's a princess who's so impressed with your athletic prowess she swoons and helps you out. She doesn't think so much of you if you climb the "easy" wall.

Get creative - you should be able to come up with something interesting. And if you can't think how it might apply, then I'd imagine the DM has the ability to say, "That doesn't make sense to me; how about trying something else?"

 

[Derren]

I'm afraid I don't quite get where you are coming from at the moment. Would it be possible to explain your preferred position a bit more?

By gamist I mean that in 4E there is a mechanic behind this whole skill scene which says "after X skill checks the characters win/loose" no matter where in the game world the characters currently are. To flee from a city the goal isn't to somehow overcome the walls and shaking off any pursuers but to simply succeed in X number of skill checks.
Or that you are simply given a bonus just because you take the hard road and succeed for no real reason.

Of course the DM can decide that some skill checks do not count but then you can also throw out this 4E system completely and simply let the PC do what he wants. As long as he reaches his goal (being outside of the city) everything goals without artificial limits and arbitrary difficulty levels.
This sort of skill encounter is a good advice, but a mechanic for it is imo completely unnecessary.

Maybe there's someone on the other side of the "hard" wall that is more inclined to listen to your story, someone who can help you out. That person's not on the other side of the "easy" wall.

Maybe it's a princess who's so impressed with your athletic prowess she swoons and helps you out. She doesn't think so much of you if you climb the "easy" wall.

Why should there be a princess? And why should the princess value the opinion of the PC more because he climbed a hard wall instead of an easy wall?
Thats the core problem. With the 4E system the mechanics determine the (in game) reality. "You climbed a hard wall, so there is a princess on the other side" and not the more realistic approach where the situation in the in game reality determine the mechanics like "There is a princess on the other side of this hard to climb wall, do you want to climb it anyway?"

Or to use a other example
4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
"3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.

I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I actually like derrens posts mostly, even if I dont agree.



Hmm more prep work for me Still it would be a good idea, I might sketch out some stuff to help players who are having some trouble thinking of some good. Or a mix of both types, but I really want my players to become more involved in the world, so giving up a little of the power seem like a good compromise. I'll just have to be on my toes, I have one guy who would push things if I was not careful.

Remember that since you just introduced a non-combat encounter that requires creativity, roleplaying and rolling some dice, you can prepare one combat less, too.

 

[vagabundo]

Or to use a other example
4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
"3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.

I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.

Your example is not going to work exactly, but maybe the Streetwise check lets you know that there is a cart stored there most weekdays from a merchant next door and then an Acrobatics or Athletics check to allow the character to use that to vault over a wall or up to the roof.

You will have to be on your toes if you are going to merge this system with a highly detailed campaign where everything mapped out.

This sort of system should help toward great and dramatic stories in a way that 3e mechanics did not.

Remember that since you just introduced a non-combat encounter that requires creativity, roleplaying and rolling some dice, you can prepare one combat less, too.

True, in the example it might be fun to have a few mini-combats for the slower fighter types, shield bashes and the odd grab from a local wannabe-hero type.

Come to think of it I could probably get the guts of a session out of this one example without it getting boring. It has been hard for me previously to keep the excitement levels up for this sort of thing.

 

[Belphanior]

I await the final implementation of this system, but the principle seems sound. D&D has a long history of saying "no!" to players simply because it doesn't account for it in the rulesystem.

You're chased and overturn a cart of apples.
* Do the guards stumble, trip, and lose sight of you? Effectively negating an entire encounter with a single sentence? They can't be that incompetent.
* Maybe they have to make balance checks? What's the DC for apples on a marketplace? And do we really want to track each individual's full/half movement over squares of "difficult terrain" the entire time? That's even more mini oriented than 4E!
* Do we just ignore a cool grand and cinematic idea and say the game has no rules for apples and thus the guards ignore them?
* Or do I just pull something out of my ass based on nothing more than how my mood is? Is this even remotely fair? Don't I punish the people who can't think of cinematic stunts on the fly by doing this?

A system like this sounds like it encourages stunts and adjudicates them in a fair manner. Exceptionally good or bad ideas probably receive modifiers to the skill checks (just like every other skill check ever) but overall PCs can be daring and inventive. Roll Arcane to make a simple candle flare and belch out thick clouds of smoke. Roll Intimidate to startle some animals and set off a stampede. Roll Acrobatics to tumble through the street performers that walk on hot coals and juggle swords (wouldn't want to follow you through there!). At least players can attempt all this without being told "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. I don't have rules for that in my books."

Here's just hoping they don't take that concept and mess up the execution.

 

[cwhs01]

By gamist I mean that in 4E there is a mechanic behind this whole skill scene which says "after X skill checks the characters win/loose" no matter where in the game world the characters currently are.

How is this different from 3e?

3e dm says: make an apropriate skill/stat check. If succesful you may leave the city and pursuing guards behind.

4e dm says: make x succesful rolls before y losses. If you do, you have left the guards behind. after x succeses there are no more real obstacles to impede you, until the next encounter happens. You can leave the city

4e just gives rules allowing for more player influence and choice. Seemingly, as we haven't really seen the rules yet.

Or to use a other example
4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
"3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.

The 4e explanation may be more fun and cool (yep i used both of the nono words). continuing the pursuit through narrow alleyways and over rooftops is/may be more fun than "sorry my map says Dead End. roll init".

I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check.

And i like the idea that pc's can influence the story, if they come up with a good explanation and succeed with an apropriate roll. reality smeality. if it works to improve the dramatic cinematic action storytelling (tm), i'll aprove of it.

I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.

its actually not clear here (though i know your intent) what you think 3e does and what aproach 4e uses. probably because they aren't so different.