Challenge the Players, Not the Characters' Stats

[pemerton]

I guess what I'm not following is, in my example, why do you say the players aren't challenged? (" ..disliked by those who favour the 'challenge the players' approach")

<snip>

Is it because the players made their own success instead of figuring out what the DM wants them to do? While there is a time and place for puzzles that are basically 'guess what the DM is thinking,' too many can become very railroad very fast, IMHO.

I agree that you're challenging the players. That is why in my first post in this thread I identified this sort of thing as one of the ways in which a game can challenge the players, and in my later post I identified "fact introduction" as how I would use Diplomacy in the Moria gate encounter.

But by "challenge the players" approach I meant those who agree with the OP. As far as I can tell, by "challenging the players" they mean not the sort of thing you talk about, but rather a module like White Plume Mountain or The Tomb of Horrors, where (i) there is no overt metagame (whereas in your example of the players getting to make stuff up abouot the gameworld there is a various obvious metagame, as what the players are doing in no way corresponds to what their PCs are doing), and (ii) there are no action resolution mechanics like skill checks (a la Runequest, Rolemaster, Wilderness Survival Guide, 3E etc) or skill challenges (a la 4e, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth etc) - rather, the player describes what his/her PC is doing and the GM adjudicates it.

I agree with you that the sort of play I've just described can become very railroad very fast if the players and GM are not on the same page.

But equally, I have to acknowledge that a lot of posters on this forum don't seem to like the metagamey sort of play which allows players to make skill checks for fact introduction. They only want the skill check to reflect the PC actually doing something in the gameworld (or else, as with the OP, they don't want skill checks at all). And a recent thread on Saying Yes had a lot of outrage about the passage on p 28 of the 4e DMG, which involves a player engaging in fact introduction" with respect to the challenge suffered by, and reward received by, his PC (so slightly more extensive fact introduction than the sort you talked about).

The best actual-play examples of fact introduction in the context of 4e that I've seen on these boards are posted by Lost Soul. A recent one, which involves a skill check just like in your example, is here. But I think what he is describing here is exactly the sort of thing a lot of people seem not to like about 4e.

 

[Delta]

Just one example: no version of D&D has had full-fledged hit-location/critical rules of the Rolemaster/Runequest sort, which means that storytelling has always been required to determine what sort of injuries anyone suffers in combat, and (consequently) to describe what the healing of those injuries consists in.

See OD&D Supplement II: Blackmoor.

 

[justanobody]

I think this has been done to death. The PHB says that you, as a player, must "describe your actions and make checks" (p 259 LHS) and that "It's up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face" (p 179 RHS). That is in no way equivalent to saying that "the players need only beat the numbers". Apart from anything else, a player's description of his/her PC's action, and a player's thoughts about applicable skills, will help determine what the numbers are (per DMG pp 74-75).

Never even noticed that on page 259. Probably because you would expect the skill challenges information to be located in one place with the header Skill Challenges.

PC X: I use my diplomacy skill. ~rolls dice~

The whole point of adding the skill challenges system was not to encourage people to think there way through skill challenges, but to allow people who were not good at that something to do to get past them.

Again I don't think that was even needed. That is what you have other players for. I don't recall who stated it that way, but the "beat the numbers" system was created to allow shy or non-RPG heavy players to do thing they could not before.

 

[Hypersmurf]

PC X: I use my diplomacy skill.

DM Y: "All right. Describe your actions."

-Hyp.

 

[justanobody]

DM Y: "All right. Describe your actions."

-Hyp.

PC X: (In his best Charlie Brown adult voice) Wah-wah-wah-wah wah-wah-wah wah wah wah-wah.

Not every player will know how to even begin with diplomacy.

PC X: I talk them into/out of "it".

 

[pemerton]

The whole point of adding the skill challenges system was not to encourage people to think there way through skill challenges, but to allow people who were not good at that something to do to get past them.

I asked upthread what your evidence for this claim is. I'll ask again now - what is your evidence for this claim?

I think you are wrong. Skill challenges are included to give robust mechanical support for non-combat encounters of the sort found in RPGs like HeroWars, The Dying Earth, etc (roughly what one might call "contemporary" or "indie" RPGs). My evidence for this is (i) the skill challenge mechanics are very similar to the mechanics in these other games, (ii) the text I quoted upthread from the DMG on how to run a skill challenge resembles to a reasonable degree the rules text found in these other games, and (iii) the designers mentioned the influence of indie games on 4e design.

For players who don't like non-combat encounters, the solution is not skill challenges. The solution is not to include those encounters in one's game.

 

[pemerton]

See OD&D Supplement II: Blackmoor.

I stand corrected. But I think the jist of my reply to Howandwhy still stands.

 

[pemerton]

PC X: I talk them into/out of "it".

For the (obvious) reasons you gave upthread, this won't work if the challenge is to open the gate of Moria. At that point, the player is going to have to tell some sort of story along the lines that I suggested upthread (ie about someone they once interacted with, who taught them a list of magical passwords).

 

[justanobody]

For the (obvious) reasons you gave upthread, this won't work if the challenge is to open the gate of Moria. At that point, the player is going to have to tell some sort of story along the lines that I suggested upthread (ie about someone they once interacted with, who taught them a list of magical passwords).

No it definitely would not, but that was in regard to a more recent use of a diplomacy skill on an undefined challenge.

As for proof on the "beat the numbers" concept, that is proving longer to find as it has been near a year worth of stuff happened since the announcement, and I do not recall where it was. Possibly a podcast, that I currently cannot play. (Speaker fire, don't ask.)

I am still looking for that, but you are more than welcome to check the podcasts, while I scour the web for the text.

Maybe someone more organized with developer commentary will come across it before me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

PC X: I talk them into/out of "it".

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. You're no longer saying "I use Diplomacy"; now you're saying "I attempt to use Diplomacy in order to achieve this result in this fashion."

In similar fashion, consider a bottomless chasm in the middle of a dungeon.

DM: "How do you intend to cross?"
Player: "I use Athletics!"

This is not describing your actions; this is simply naming a skill.

"I use Athletics to try and jump over it!"
"I use Athletics to try and climb along the wall around it."
"It there anywhere I might attach a grappling hook, so I can use Athletics to swing over it on a rope?"

Now we have some - very basic, perhaps, but present nonetheless - descriptions of ways you are using your skill.

There's a difference between "I use Diplomacy!" and "I use Diplomacy to try and talk him into going along with our plan."

You don't necessarily have to stand on your chair and make an impassioned speech in a French accent. But you do, at the least, have to say what action you are undertaking, not just name a skill.

-Hyp.