Any New Info on Skill Encounters?

[Derren]

I

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.

Except that you still don't have rules for that. Your examples are like "make a strength check to turn the cart full of apples over". What this actually does is still not documented in the rules. The only thing turning over a cart of apples in 4E does is that it counts as successful skill check. Turn over 6 carts full of apple and you escaped the guard, even if you are still in the market place standing maybe 40 ft. away from them.
4E doesn't allow the PCs to be more creative in 3E. Everything they can do in 4E they could also do in 3E. It only allows the PCs to make more unnecessary/nonsense things because they don't have to reach an actual goal anymore but just to win a fixed amount of checks.

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.

You can affect the story without rewriting in game reality, especially when they come up with a good explanation and have a good roll. The only difference is that in 3E the explanation must make sense in teh context of the game world while in 4E the game world reshapes itself according to the explanation.

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.

Yes, they are not very different. And that is the problem. There was no real reason to add more gamist (anti simulationist) elements to skill checks as everything which you can do in 4E you can already do in 3E without having mechanical restrictions.

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).

 

[vagabundo]

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".




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 agree with you.

Maybe there was a magical accident with a ritual in the sewers that collapsed the wall at the dead-end, now there is a hole to jump to potential freedom. The DMs maps just arnt up-to-date, but the streetwise character heard it in the tavern last night.

Destroying that dead-end creates so many endless possibilities, Derren, cannot you see it? Get rid of that dead end!!

Except that you still don't have rules for that. Your examples are like "make a strength check to turn the cart full of apples over". What this actually does is still not documented in the rules. The only thing turning over a cart of apples in 4E does is that it counts as successful skill check. Turn over 6 carts full of apple and you escaped the guard, even if you are still in the market place standing maybe 40 ft. away from them.
4E doesn't allow the PCs to be more creative in 3E. Everything they can do in 4E they could also do in 3E. It only allows the PCs to make more unnecessary/nonsense things because they don't have to reach an actual goal anymore but just to win a fixed amount of checks.

That example is a players abusing the system and metagaming. That is what the DM is there for. I might not allow the same trick twice. How many apple carts are there around anyway. Chances are your only going to run into one or two anyway.

 

[LostSoul]

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?"

Hey Derren;

I think I get where you're coming from, and it's cool that you know these mechanics are probably not for you. Let me tell you why I like them.

First of all, when you have a system like this it adds some focus on the actions in the game. One roll often feels "too small", you know? For some climactic encounters, you want to make a couple of rolls, spend more "screen time" on the conflict.

Now, you don't need to make rolls - you could resolve the conflict freeform. I like rolling the dice because they are impartial, do a better job of reflecting character ability than I can, they add tension because we don't know how the dice are going to roll out, and they often generate surprising results!

Another thing I like about rolling dice, at least in the way I do it, is that it creates a turning point. The die roll will resolve the conflict - or at least this little part of it, if we're making a bunch of rolls. Each die roll needs to mean something: success (or moving towards the player's goal) or failure (or moving away from the goal).

Okay, moving on:

We have our conflict in the game reality. The PCs want to escape from Sembia, and it's not going to be easy. We know we're going to roll some dice. Now we get creative and into the game. The player looks over his sheet, considers the situation, and tries to think of ways he can use his best skills to solve his PC's problems. This is great, because it allows the player to really get creative solving the problem - using player skill - but we're still using the character's abilities to determine success.

Now the player tries to use a skill: "I want to use Diplomacy to talk a princess into smuggling me out of Sembia." The DM considers the situation, and doesn't think this applies - he's in an alley right now, with guards hot on his tail! He doesn't have the time to sit down for tea. The DM is still the guy with the authority to say what the game world is like. It's good, I think, to have that authority rest in one person.

So the player changes his action: "Okay, I am going to make a Climb check so that I can climb into a princess' garden." I like this because as DM, I don't have the entire city statted up - I don't want to have to turn to page whatever to see if a princess lives there, and if one does, would she be in the garden, and if so, what her reaction would be to having a guy drop in on her? All of that we can resolve with the Climb check.

Resolution can look like this:

• If the roll is successful, the PC leaves the guards behind, the princess is there, and the PC can Diplomatize her.
• If it's a failure, she's not there, and the guards gain a little ground.
• If it's an easy failure, she's not there, but a mean old crone is. She triggers an Alarm whistle and the guards zero in on the PC.
• If it's an easy success, the princess is there. (assuming that easy successes don't add to the total successes you need)
• If it's a hard success, the princess is there, and she's got a big case of "bad-boy" syndrome. She sees the PC as a great way to get back at her daddy.
• If it's a hard failure - probably the same thing as the normal failure.

Look at what we've done here, in terms of game-play. In the big success/big failure cases, we've just made the game a lot more interesting. We've introduced an NPC. The old crone, you could decide later on, might be someone powerful that the PCs need some help from. The bad-boy loving princess is a huge source of conflict and adventure!

Okay. Now let's say we've resolved all our rolls for this extended conflict. The PC has either failed to escape unseen or succeeded. But, because it's not a binary condition, we can interpret the resolution in surprising new ways that can increase tension in the game! Look at how the extended conflict resolved in the example of play from above. It leads directly to another encounter. This is great because we see that the actions the PCs took had consequences. Nothing adds to a vibrant gaming experience like that!

So, because of the things I've mentioned here, that's why it looks like I'm going to like this system.

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.

If I was running this 4e game, I'd say: "Look, there's a dead-end here on the map. You can't get through here."

Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"

DM: "No, sorry, there isn't one."*

Player: "Hmm... okay, I'll make a Climb check to get out. Crap, it's not as good as Streetwise. Oh well; shouldn't have boxed myself into this corner! At least I get the +2 bonus from that previous successful check."

DM: "Yeah - that +2 is from you being so quick that you have extra time to climb the wall."


* - I can see the DM saying that there isn't a secret door being a problem, though. Maybe you could handle it like this:

Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"

DM: "Sure." DM knows that there isn't a secret door, but success will mean that he gets a +2 because he doesn't spend any time looking (or he finds something to aid his next roll), while failure means a -2 because he wastes too much time.

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.

You don't have to change game reality based on the rolls, though - except for the reality that the PCs have either succeded or failed. The thing that might be bothering you is that these rolls resolve success, instead of the DM. Is that the case?

 

[Derren]

Destroying that dead-end creates so many endless possibilities, Derren, cannot you see it? Get rid of that dead end!!
.

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.

 

[Derren]

Hey Derren;

I think I get where you're coming from, and it's cool that you know these mechanics are probably not for you. Let me tell you why I like them.

First of all, when you have a system like this it adds some focus on the actions in the game. One roll often feels "too small", you know? For some climactic encounters, you want to make a couple of rolls, spend more "screen time" on the conflict.

Now, you don't need to make rolls - you could resolve the conflict freeform. I like rolling the dice because they are impartial, do a better job of reflecting character ability than I can, they add tension because we don't know how the dice are going to roll out, and they often generate surprising results!

Another thing I like about rolling dice, at least in the way I do it, is that it creates a turning point. The die roll will resolve the conflict - or at least this little part of it, if we're making a bunch of rolls. Each die roll needs to mean something: success (or moving towards the player's goal) or failure (or moving away from the goal).

Okay, moving on:

We have our conflict in the game reality. The PCs want to escape from Sembia, and it's not going to be easy. We know we're going to roll some dice. Now we get creative and into the game. The player looks over his sheet, considers the situation, and tries to think of ways he can use his best skills to solve his PC's problems. This is great, because it allows the player to really get creative solving the problem - using player skill - but we're still using the character's abilities to determine success.

Now the player tries to use a skill: "I want to use Diplomacy to talk a princess into smuggling me out of Sembia." The DM considers the situation, and doesn't think this applies - he's in an alley right now, with guards hot on his tail! He doesn't have the time to sit down for tea. The DM is still the guy with the authority to say what the game world is like. It's good, I think, to have that authority rest in one person.

So the player changes his action: "Okay, I am going to make a Climb check so that I can climb into a princess' garden." I like this because as DM, I don't have the entire city statted up - I don't want to have to turn to page whatever to see if a princess lives there, and if one does, would she be in the garden, and if so, what her reaction would be to having a guy drop in on her? All of that we can resolve with the Climb check.

And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system and a "free form" goal instead of a 6 wins and you are out of the city mechanic.
I am unaware of any 3E rule which says that you can only do one skill check in an entire adventure (or scene if you want to use such terminology).

 

[hong]

And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system.

Oh dear.

 

[vagabundo]

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.

Your world is in a state of quantum flux until a character turns that corner. You have vague outlines but the successful roll of the player has changed a dead-end into something else. Something with many more story possibilities.

This is what I see in 4e, more tools to create more stories.

 

[LostSoul]

And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system and a "free form" goal instead of a 6 wins and you are out of the city mechanic.
I am unaware of any 3E rule which says that you can only do one skill check in an entire adventure (or scene if you want to use such terminology).

3e skill checks resolve tasks, not conflict or intent.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Thanks, I actually finally see where you're coming from. I disagree with it, of course, but I do understand why you dislike 4e. 4e does change the basis of how the players interact with the game. In previous editions, players controlled their characters alone. In 4e, players have the ability to change the scene around the character by the use of various abilities. While I'm excited by the narrative possibilities this creates, I can sympathize with how this could affect a dedicated simulationist's immersion in his character.

 

[cwhs01]

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.

This may be because 4e is less of a computergame than 3e? (better add a smiley to that i guess )



anyways i think i understand your viewpoint now. i'll explain, but please remember this is just me speculating and describing what i think your stance is. Sorry if i missed your point.
you prefer for the world (in the hypothetical perfect game) to be perfectly described and players to react to it. 4e attempts this to a lesser degree than 3e. Now the players can alter the story/setting/reality with apropriate explanations and rolls, instead of only reacting.

me. i like it the 4e way.