Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jaer" data-source="post: 4091118" data-attributes="member: 57861">Here is one place I agree with Derren.  I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time.  I do need to think on my feet.  If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits.  I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear.  No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go.  The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit.  No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.That's how I DM.  I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds.  My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.I totally agree.  There is nothing in 4e that prevents me from deciding for myself what it there; and no rule in the PHB is going to determine that.  If the players do the unexpected (and they always manage to at some point), I would use this to help guide the sudden, unplanned encounter.  It's a decent guideline.Under the goblin invasion social encounter, I would have the council minorly mapped out (who could be allies and who could be enemies) and I would have the major proponent of the goblin advancement's background set.  Whether he had profitted from goblin invasions before would be known to me before hand...no Heraldry check can turn up information that I don't know.  They can make the check...failure means they don't know, success means they do know.  Failure does not mean he didn't and success does not mean he did (again, it sounds like 4e's skills are designed to go by this distinction, and is another point Derren disagrees with).However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks.  If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy.  It all came down to the one roll, however.Seeing the skills in 4e, I would probably change this approach to the following. The characters would be given time to make their case (X rounds).  There would be certain skills they could use to to do so.  Every failure would be a -1, every success a +1.  If they every get to 5 or -5, argument is over, having made their point as best they could, or completely flubbed it.  At this point, words will do nothing more.  At the end of X rounds, how they effected the council will be determined by their score.Depending on the situation, the other lord might then need to make his own case (using his own skills) in an attempt to beat the player's score to determine who won the arguement and swayed the council more.So even though my I use the "Players play in the world that I created" DM philosophy much like Derren does, it seems, I don't see that 4e prevents me from playing that way at all, and it inspires new ways of thinking and achieving that environment in order to keep all players involved.</blockquote>

Verification