Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[mhacdebhandia]

I think maybe a lot of new schoolers approach games like computer programs, and they're the computer? You have a certain set of instructions and you have to follow them. If something is allowed then it's allowed; if something is not allowed then it's not allowed. If something is not addressed then you just ignore it... you could type the full text of Plato's Politeia into a chess program and chances are nothing would happen because the program is set up to move chess pieces on a virtual board, not consider whether justice is the highest virtue. Likewise they look at OD&D and see that there's no rules for tripping someone, so they assume that means you can't do it.

No, don't be ridiculous.

We look at OD&D and see that there are no rules for tripping someone, so we are aware that we'd have to ask the GM how to do it, and (in many cases) we're frustrated that the answer can be different each time, depending on how long it's been since the last time. We're also (in many cases) dissatisfied that the answer we're given is inconsistent with other "special actions". We're also (in many cases) not too happy with the possibility that the GM isn't skilled enough to give an answer which meshes well with the rest of the system, or which represents the specific maneuver we had in mind, or whatever else.

The preference for having rules that cover a broad variety of situations is not a preference for being told what we can do - it's a preference for the game having been designed to allow for consistent, appopriate mechanical simulation of what we might want to do.

Sure, with a good GM you don't need those consistent, appropriate rules provided to you, but why shouldn't the game help groups with less-gifted GMs out? Why should the game expect the GM to do that work at the table, instead of concentrating on the story elements of the game? People who favour an old school, "the GM makes a call and we go with it" approach moan about players not trusting their GMs, but the fact is that some GMs aren't skilled enough to provide consistent, appropriate mechanical patches on the fly, so why shouldn't the game help them out with rules and guidelines that do that work for them?

I mean, Fourth Edition does this really well. It has rules for a bunch of things, and then it has flexible guidelines for anything else you might want to do, scaled to various levels of play and various levels of difficulty. Those rules provide a consistent, appropriate-for-the-general-circumstances way to do something the rules don't cover, with enough built-in flexibility that the GM still has the ability to decide that it's actually quite hard to drop a flaming pot of oil on a hydra's head from your flying carpet.

 

[RFisher]

Here is another filtering question: You are chasing an airship, and a rope tied to and trailing the ship moves past you. You ask the GM to be allowed to grab the rope, as a kind of AOO, as it moves past you. Would you as GM allow that?

This brings up a different issue. I prefer to run combat in a more continuous rather than discrete manner. e.g. If both sides charge, they meet in the middle rather than the side with initiative covering the whole distance while the other side is frozen until their “turn”.

Likewise they look at OD&D and see that there's no rules for tripping someone, so they assume that means you can't do it.

Yeah, but that’s not really salient to the point I’d like to make. Tripping isn’t tactics. As I understand it. Somebody who has actually been to a military academy, enlighten me. If I take a class on tactics, are they going to teach me tripping? You don’t need a tripping rule—printed or ad hoc—for tactics.

Tactics is about holding positions, maneuvering, taking advantage of terrain, concentrating/coödinating your attacks, protecting your vulnerabilities, reconaissance, flanking, &c. You can do all that stuff with the classic D&D rules without any ad hoc or house rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here is a filtering question: Playing 3E or 4E, if a player with a movement of 30' (or 6 squares) asked to stretch that to 35' (or 7 squares), would you allow it, say, with a -2 to actions until the beginning of their next turn, or would you simply disallow it?

I understand that the game is about saying yes, but I hazard that few would allow this modification.

I've had a couple of GMs grant a +2 Awesome Bonus to speed for creative use of a grappling hook

Since you didn't address my primary concern in post #142 ...

I addressed mine, which you thoughtfully quoted above - that assuming player knowledge <-> character knowledge falls down in all manner of situations.

-Hyp.

 

[pemerton]

This is why I said through the PCs. PCs are a contract you make with the rest of the group that connect you with a standard that is crucial for the roleplaying game.

This is one way of RPGing. But look at what Christopher Adams (mhacdebhandia) is posting in this thread - there are other ways of playing RPGs in which the PC is not the player's vehicle, but rather the player's tool. And in that sort of RPGing it is very common to connect with the other players independently of one's PC (ie the play is comparatively metagame heavy).

 

[pemerton]

Not to pick on The Little Raven, but I think the fact that people keep referring to page 42 kind of high-lights the problem. My 4E DMG has 221 pages. Which means that page 42 is outnumbered 220:1.

Now quantity isn't everything. But it ain't nothin' neither. We've got 220 pages of "rules for stuff" and 1 page of "ignore all that crap; do what's fun." Feels like an afterthought to me, not a design principle.

Page 42 doesn't say "ignore all that crap." So the problem you describe doesn't arise in quite the way you present it.

 

[pemerton]

That is great for the DM as it is the DMG they would most often read. How about the players and something from the PHB?

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

Basically comparing some die roll to a table is all you need to do and succeed the correct number of times for these challenges. That is just challenging random chance and the character stats.

As others have posted, it looks like you're just ignoring the bit where it says "It's up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face."

But it offers nothing to do that. It only offers ways to roll the dice to succeed. A DM could give a lengthy detailed account of what is seen and heard int he area for some skill challenge, and the players need only roll the dice to pass it all with no real effort.

Well, the player would have to go to the effort of thinking of a way his/her PC can use his/her skills to meet the challenge.

That is for people in the know correct, but those just picking up the book are offered little to go on otherwise. The only thing that is really required is to pick the correct skill, and roll to see if you fail or succeed.

Well, the GM is given all the info in the DMG. The players, who presumably are posed the challenge by the GM, will be given all the scene-setting and narrative support required. They will then "pick the correct skill" (as you put it) by thinking of a way his/her PC can use his/her skills to meet the challenge. This looks like roleplaying to me, and it also looks like a challenge to the player.

Again that little passage tells you nothing but to know which skill to use when, and not how, or how in depth you need to. the bare minimum for a skill challenge is to make a few die rolls for the skill checks.

The passage says that you have to thinking of a way your PC can use his/her skills to meet the challenge. That is part of the bare minimum. Your statement of the bare minimum therefore seems to be too truncated.

Are you trying to deny that a skill challenge can be overcome and passed by JUST making the required number of successful skill checks?

Yes. The skill checks have to be using appropriate skills. This is a roleplaying issue.

When posed with a problem like the door to Moria would you use your Diplomacy to pass it? Would you use your Acrobatics? Would you use Arcana?

The simplest way to use the skills to meet the challenges you face is to use the correct one for the skill check.

But which of Diplomacy, Acrobatics or Arcana is the correct skill? You (the player) tell me (another player, or the GM).

Using Diplomacy: "Remember that time we were visiting the Wizards' Guild in Greyhawk? And I was buttering up that Burglomancer specialist? She told me a heap of old magical passwords - I try them all." The player rolls Diplomacy (probably at a hard DC - it's a pretty far-fetched story!) to see if this is true.

Using Acrobatics: "As the Watcher in the Water writhes about with its tentacles, I dodge at the last minute so it smashes into the door and breaks it." That might be a hard DC as well.

Using Arcana: "I speak a spell of opening". Medium DC. Or "I speak a spell of recall, to remember all the passwords and riddles I've learned over the years". That's more interesting and more clever- let's say a Medium DC with a +2 circumstance modifier.

Why present it if some don't find challenges of a non-combat nature fun? It just seems like an attempt to give everything an option to roll dice to solve when someone can't do it their self as the player.

If some don't find non-combat challenges fun, they shouldn't play a game with skill challenges. Skill challenges are a mechanic for those who do find non-combat challenges fun. They are very obviously influenced by the conflict-resolution mechanics of games like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, etc. The DMG makes it abundantly clear (as my earlier post indicated) that this is how they are to be played. No part of either the PHB or the DMG text generates any contrary implication.

In fact the DMG says to skip stuff that you don't enjoy. So if you don't enjoy non-combat challenges, don't inlcude skill challenges in your game.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, the GM is given all the info in the DMG. The players, who presumably are posed the challenge by the GM, will be given all the scene-setting and narrative support required. They will then "pick the correct skill" (as you put it) by thinking of a way his/her PC can use his/her skills to meet the challenge. This looks like roleplaying to me, and it also looks like a challenge to the player.

Actually, the Skill Challenge system is a hybrid of storytelling and game-playing with no role-playing whatsoever. You might act a little in between, but there is no role-playing going on here. Instead, this method is a game where one results in having to narrate their game choice selection to fit with the GM's story. As it is impossible to tell stories or to narrate while role-playing (or GMing for that matter), players stop playing when using this system.

To illustrate, in the Skill Challenge game you choose any one of your skill "choices" and narrate what that choice means in the "story" the [strike]DM[/strike] Storyteller is jointly telling with you. It takes skill to come up with those stories, but the actual success or failure has nothing to do with your story, but it does have to do with your choice. The choice options are pre-determined by the Storyteller to have greater or lesser potential of success and the overall success (# of total success/failures needed) has absolutely nothing to do with the story at all. It's just judged "tougher" or "weaker" by the Storyteller based on how it difficult he wants the challenge to be. This of course has nothing to do with role-playing or role-playing games either, but that's perfectly fine. There is nothing wrongbadfun with that. Please merely understand that folks who like role-playing will not like it when such a thing is called "role-playing" so innaccurately.

In an RPG with skills, one can open a door without a skill check by turning the knob, hack it down with some attack rolls, make several diplomacy checks to convince voices on the other side to open the door, or even roll to disbelieve the door is there at all. All these myriad of methods involve different amounts of potential checks, target number difficulties, successes, or failures as the role-players are being tested by a real world with real people and objects - not telling a story where the results need only be thematically interesting.

Yes. The skill checks have to be using appropriate skills. This is a roleplaying issue.

In a game like this I think you mean it's a realism issue, not a role-playing one.

But which of Diplomacy, Acrobatics or Arcana is the correct skill? You (the player) tell me (another player, or the GM).

Using Diplomacy: "Remember that time we were visiting the Wizards' Guild in Greyhawk? And I was buttering up that Burglomancer specialist? She told me a heap of old magical passwords - I try them all." The player rolls Diplomacy (probably at a hard DC - it's a pretty far-fetched story!) to see if this is true.

Using Acrobatics: "As the Watcher in the Water writhes about with its tentacles, I dodge at the last minute so it smashes into the door and breaks it." That might be a hard DC as well.

Using Arcana: "I speak a spell of opening". Medium DC. Or "I speak a spell of recall, to remember all the passwords and riddles I've learned over the years". That's more interesting and more clever- let's say a Medium DC with a +2 circumstance modifier.

All 3 of these are wonderful examples of narration for folks playing storytelling games. Again, in a RPG not a one of these examples would be acceptable.

If some don't find non-combat challenges fun, they shouldn't play a game with skill challenges. Skill challenges are a mechanic for those who do find non-combat challenges fun. They are very obviously influenced by the conflict-resolution mechanics of games like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, etc. The DMG makes it abundantly clear (as my earlier post indicated) that this is how they are to be played. No part of either the PHB or the DMG text generates any contrary implication.

The 4E DMG is clear in its related design, it's just the design is one confusing storytelling games with RPGs. For an RPG, it is an ill fit. Bad design. The works you mention that it is supposedly derivative of are games which mix both RPG gaming with Storytelling. I would gather quite unknowingly. I think Justanobody wants to play an RPG that has RPG elements and is arguing for such. Saying Storytelling game elements are enough to satisfy him won't work.

In fact the DMG says to skip stuff that you don't enjoy. So if you don't enjoy non-combat challenges, don't inlcude skill challenges in your game.

Again, telling someone who enjoys D&D to not have anything but combat encounters if they don't like to play a storytelling game is disingenuous. As I mentioned above, there are countless ways to role-play characters outside of combat, if you are using a RPG system. Using the skill system without the misguided design of the "Skill Challenges" system would be a far better answer for any wanting to play the game as an RPG.

 

[Fenes]

Here is a filtering question: Playing 3E or 4E, if a player with a movement of 30' (or 6 squares) asked to stretch that to 35' (or 7 squares), would you allow it, say, with a -2 to actions until the beginning of their next turn, or would you simply disallow it?

I don't really use a battlemap, so in my case this would either be a yes, or a sort of check, or a "no" if I deem it too far.

Here is another filtering question: You are chasing an airship, and a rope tied to and trailing the ship moves past you. You ask the GM to be allowed to grab the rope, as a kind of AOO, as it moves past you. Would you as GM allow that?

Yes, of course. Reflex save, or AoO, whatever seems appropriate.

 

[Mallus]

As it is impossible to tell stories or to narrate while role-playing (or GMing for that matter), players stop playing when using this system.

Huh?

Everything the DM says that describes the fictional setting, characters in that fictional setting, and there actions qualify as narration. What definition of narration are you using?

Related to that, how are people adopting fictional personae and maneuvering them though scenes in a fictional setting not, well, generating fiction ie telling stories?

This of course has nothing to do with role-playing or role-playing games either, but that's perfectly fine.

Can you give an example of how a Skill Challenge, or more generic skill usage could qualify as role-playing, under your you definition of RP.

Please merely understand that folks who like role-playing will not like it when such a thing is called "role-playing" so inaccurately.

I love role-playing, but I honestly have no idea how you're defining the act, other than 'far more narrowly than I do'...

Can you give a quick definition?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Huh?

Everything the DM says that describes the fictional setting, characters in that fictional setting, and there actions qualify as narration. What definition of narration are you using?

I am not howandwhy but this is my interpretation of the difference:

As you say, whenever the DM is describing the fictional setting, characters in that setting and relating the perceivable effects of thier actions it is all narration.

Whenever the DM is interacting with the PC's from the perspective of an NPC or creature, that is roleplaying.

Related to that, how are people adopting fictional personae and maneuvering them though scenes in a fictional setting not, well, generating fiction ie telling stories?

Generating fiction and telling stories are related but not identical. If the DM and players roleplay throughout the session they are generating fiction. The end result of that roleplaying session may result in a story or at least a part of one.

Purely telling stories on the the other hand can be achieved by the DM and the players narrating thier actions. Using dice or other means of resolving these actions impacts the story that is being narrated. This also results in a story or a part of one.

In storytelling you are guiding your fictional persona through challenges and scenes.

In roleplaying you are reacting to stimuli and events as percieved by your fictional persona

Thats the major difference as I see it and neither one is wrongbadfun.