Draco Historial - Dragons in D&D!

[the Jester]

In the same way that I have no idea how I could properly use an adventure or adventure path, I have no idea what use I could get out of a scripted Skill Challenge. I know some people are able to do it (and do it well - [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] to name two I know of that are so inclined and adept) but I can't imagine how I could make it work. A single conflict is such a malleable, organic thing, prone to such a vexing myriad of prospective outcomes, that I don't know of what use it would be for me to even attempt to organize/map half of the potential outcomes, let alone all of them. I can understand, now and again, being prepared with a small, guiding list of pithy, prospective complications and fallout. But, much of the time, the conflict will evolve dramatically from the scene opener even before the rising action gets underway. It will be rather difficult to predict, with consistent precision, where things might go and you must always take care that you don't artificially constrain player choice such that All Roads Lead to Rome.

This is exactly right! Skill challenges are tricky because they should be highly unconstrained, but doing the prep for one is inherently constraining. They're generally best when they arise from pc action rather than from dm planning; others can be more site-based (e.g. a skill challenge to get an elevator room to work only happens in the elevator room). One other thing I've found is that short and sweet makes a better skill challenge 90% of the time.

[/tangent]

 

[I'm A Banana]

In my GMing experience (which admittedly is very low prep, very high improv - which I'm adept at), it just seems cost prohibitive to spend a lot of time on prep for abstract, noncombat conflict resolution. Things will go where they are going to go and you're more likely to not see it coming than you are to have predicted it.

As such, if a MM gave me a hard SC (let alone one for each individual legendary/mythical monster) that they thought I could actually run in one of my game sessions, they will have wasted an extraordinary amount of page count and effort and charged me for it.

Skill challenges are tricky because they should be highly unconstrained, but doing the prep for one is inherently constraining. They're generally best when they arise from pc action rather than from dm planning; others can be more site-based (e.g. a skill challenge to get an elevator room to work only happens in the elevator room).

This gets a little more into the weeds on the particular strengths and weaknesses of SC's, so it's a bit beyond my central issue of support.

But my reaction to this is to say, okay, maybe codified SC's aren't the precisely right tool here. It was said that this might be how 4e handles "blue dragon wears down the party in a desert" thing that I want out of the game, but if it's too open ended and abstract to handle that in a book form, what mechanics might? How might the game say to anyone who opens the MM to the Blue Dragon entry, "Here is how to run a typical 'find the lair' challenge with regards to a blue dragon." 2e/3e had (fairly uninspiring) rules for starvation and thirst in the wilderness and some magical spells that kind of interacted with them. 4e has the survival rules, too, though it's lighter on the "things that interact with it" element (barring a few rituals/practices).

The conflict resolution here is clear: when the party wants to track down the blue dragon's lair, they have to do X (endure this hazard, withstand this many days, track with this difficulty, etc). This parallels that when the party wants to kill the blue dragon, they have to do Y (endure these attacks, hit this AC, deal this much damage, etc.). If not SC's, how might this be done?

I'm more than open to solving that problem, and that'd be going one better than "here's some rituals that the blue dragon might know," so I'd certainly be excited to see something along those lines in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

If not SC's, how might this be done?

I think there is general agreement that a skill challenge is the right mechanic. I think the subject of discussion is whether it is good or bad that the MM include a particular skill challenge "script".

This was the point of my remark upthread about mechanical "levels": combat encounters have three (general guidelines/templates; monster stat blocks; encounter set-up with map and suggested tactics); skill challenges have only two (guidelines + skill DCs; particular set-up incuding notes on possible avenues of adjudication depending on player choices).

From my point of view, I don't really want the MM to contain sample encounters with maps and suggested tactics (that's what modules, delve books etc are for). And for similar reasons I don't feel the absence of a blue dragon skill challenge "script". Knowing the level of a blue dragon, and the DCs-by-difficulty for that level, plus the general rules for skill challenges (N-before-3, primary vs secondary checks, etc), I know all I need to know to adjudicate a blue dragon skill challenge were I so minded. (Though personally I'm not so minded - as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] knows, terrain-challenge skill challenges aren't really my thing and I'm not that good at adjudicating them.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think there is general agreement that a skill challenge is the right mechanic. I think the subject of discussion is whether it is good or bad that the MM include a particular skill challenge "script".

So there's a few things I've said could fill this need I have for at least the same level of support that 2e/3e provided for the way I use my dragons in play. I think SCs would be nice. Just a few rituals would be adequate (if not particularly exciting). Some other mechanic might be even better.

If the issue is what kind of game element to use to support this use of the dragon, I'm open to figuring out what might fit best in an MM while meeting my needs. If SC's aren't appropriate to an MM, I'm eager to find something that is that also meets my needs (which means that if SC's can't go in an MM, SC's cannot meet my needs).

What I'm not willing to accept is that support for this use of the dragon is not something the MM should be providing at all. That's a non-starter with me, because that's what the presentation of the dragon must include for me to feel like I can use the thing. It's a prerequisite. It's something it provided me with for a decade. Any presentation of the dragon that doesn't include that support is going to fail to meet my needs (as the 4e presentation of the dragons does).

Knowing the level of a blue dragon, and the DCs-by-difficulty for that level, plus the general rules for skill challenges (N-before-3, primary vs secondary checks, etc), I know all I need to know to adjudicate a blue dragon skill challenge were I so minded.

And knowing the level of your party, the attack, damage, and defense values of a creature of that level, plus rules for building a monster, you know all you need to make a blue dragon combat stat block. Why is the MM an appropriate place for combat stats but not the appropriate place for actually encountering the creature?

 

[Derren]

I think there is general agreement that a skill challenge is the right mechanic. I think the subject of discussion is whether it is good or bad that the MM include a particular skill challenge "script".

No.

Knowing the level of a blue dragon, and the DCs-by-difficulty for that level, plus the general rules for skill challenges (N-before-3, primary vs secondary checks, etc), I know all I need to know to adjudicate a blue dragon skill challenge were I so minded. (Though personally I'm not so minded - as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] knows, terrain-challenge skill challenges aren't really my thing and I'm not that good at adjudicating them.)

And what when the party, before stepping a single foot into the desert, thinks "Blue dragons live there, lets ask our dragon experts what tricks blue dragons can do and prepare for them". What are you gonna tell them? There is no official list of powers blue dragons have for non combat. Do you create your skill challenge now even though the PCs are not even near the blue dragon and might never be?
It would be much simpler if there would be an entry telling you what a blue dragon can do besides throwing lightning. Then you can tell the PCs, through the dragon expert, that blue dragons can create and even destroy water and conjure large scale illusions. The party then can use those informations to prepare. Or not.

 

[pemerton]

No.

When I referred to "general agreement", I meant "among KM's 4e-playing interlocutors". But even in your case, you haven't set out any reason why a skill challenge isn't the appropriate approach within a 4e context. All you've done is reiterate your personal dislike of the skill challenge mechanic in general.

If SC's aren't appropriate to an MM, I'm eager to find something that is that also meets my needs

<snip>

And knowing the level of your party, the attack, damage, and defense values of a creature of that level, plus rules for building a monster, you know all you need to make a blue dragon combat stat block. Why is the MM an appropriate place for combat stats but not the appropriate place for actually encountering the creature?

Either you're missing my point about 3 vs 2 levels, or you very strongly disagree with it but aren't saying so explicitly. I'm curious as to which (and don't mind which - disagreement is obviously permissible and welcome!).

In 4e you can't run a good combat without a stat block - the resolution of combat is mechanically fine-grained in a way that the resolution of skill challenges (for better or worse) is not. Hence the need to go from the DMG templates to actual stat blocks. And you can deliver the stat block without delivering a fully-developed encounter.

With a skill challenge, the only mechanical step prior to a "script" is the framework of N before 3 plus difficulties-by-level (the clearest versions of both are set out in the Essentials rulebooks). So in a sense you can't do anything to go beyond that framework without doing everything; whereas that's not so for a combat stat block.

Now all of that said, what you can do to support a skill challenge in the MM which is at something like the same level as a stat block, but is not mechanical, is provide story elements that would provide the fictional framing for a skill challenge. I've personally always found the 4e MMs good for this, but I know that I'm in a minority in that respect.

And what when the party, before stepping a single foot into the desert, thinks "Blue dragons live there, lets ask our dragon experts what tricks blue dragons can do and prepare for them". What are you gonna tell them? There is no official list of powers blue dragons have for non combat.

Well, I would start by reading the MM entry. Here are some highlights (edited by me, from 4e MM pp 74-75, 77):

Chromatic dragons . . . are generally evil, greedy, and predatory . . . Heirs of Io’s hubris, chromatic dragons prefer to work and fight alone. . . However, many dragons’ lairs are surrounded by the dragon’s minions, servants, or worshipers. . .

Blue dragons . . . can be found anywhere but prefer to lair in coastal caves, attacking and plundering ships that sail too close. . . A blue dragon takes to air immediately if it is not already flying. . . Until it is forced to land, a blue dragon is content to remain airborne . . .

Blue dragons often forge uneasy alliances with sahuagin and storm giants, demanding treasure for the protection they provide. Dragonborn are often drawn to blue dragon mounts.

A character knows the following information with a successful Nature check.

DC 15: Although highly adaptable, blue dragons often lair in coastal caves with entrances that aren’t easily accessible by land.

DC 20: Blue dragons prefer to attack at range. A blue dragon’s breath weapon is an arc of lightning that leaps from one target to another. It can also disgorge a ball of lightning that explodes on impact.

DC 20: Chromatic dragons bask in the adulation of lesser creatures, but soon grow weary of praise and worship - unless it is accompanied by gifts of precious metals, gems, and magic items.

DC 25: Chromatic dragons prefer ancient ruins, deep dungeons, and remote wilderness areas for their lairs. Each dragon type tends to inhabit certain climates and terrains: . . . blues prefer coastal regions​

So I already have some information there for my players (although there is some confusion over whether information about the preferred terrain of blue dragons is DC 15 or DC 25). And I have some more information to provide, depending on my fancy: "Beware the likely sahuagin allies" or "Look out for storm giants". There's also an obvious theme of weather, especially thunder and lightning, control: "Beware of storms that will wash you up onto the rocks!", or "It'll splinter your ship's mast with a bolt of lightning".

For me, at least, the lack of an official list of powers isn't a problem. There's a clear theme to the dragon's design and flavour text, and I can come up with lots of ideas around that, as just indicated. If someone extrapolates that design and flavour text in a different direction, that's not a problem for me.

Do you create your skill challenge now even though the PCs are not even near the blue dragon and might never be?

This relates back to the details of my conversation with KM. I don't need to "create" a skill challenge now. A skill challenge - unlike combat (even in 4e) - is primarily narrative-driven. So all I need is some story elements, like the dragon's fondness for plundering ships (found in the MM) plus its ability to summon and control storms (derived by me pretty easily from the MM info about it's preference for aerial combat and its use of lightning and thunder). If the PCs then sail their ship to the dragon's lair, I start my skill challenge with the storm raging and the seas churning and telling them that their boat is going to sink unless they do something about it.

It would be much simpler if there would be an entry telling you what a blue dragon can do besides throwing lightning. Then you can tell the PCs, through the dragon expert, that blue dragons can create and even destroy water and conjure large scale illusions. The party then can use those informations to prepare. Or not.

That doesn't seem any different to me having the PCs learn that the dragon works with sahuagin and giants, and can control weather and summon storms. If the complaint is that I can't make up the stuff that a blue dragon might do, and need to be told . . . well, maybe. Personally I've never had any trouble making that stuff up if I want/need it.

What a combat stat block gives me is a level of mechanical intricacy that I probably couldn't come up with myself. A skill challenge doesn't need that. It just needs broad-brush story elements.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Either you're missing my point about 3 vs 2 levels, or you very strongly disagree with it but aren't saying so explicitly. I'm curious as to which (and don't mind which - disagreement is obviously permissible and welcome!).

More missing it -- didn't quite understand what you were getting at or why it was a key distinction. Looks like you gave some info here!

In 4e you can't run a good combat without a stat block - the resolution of combat is mechanically fine-grained in a way that the resolution of skill challenges (for better or worse) is not. Hence the need to go from the DMG templates to actual stat blocks. And you can deliver the stat block without delivering a fully-developed encounter.

My experience suggests otherwise. What about combat-as-skill-challenge or Page 42, or 4elements?

It makes sense that some people would prefer to have a stat block instead of using those tools, but "can't" seems over-stated. And on that same point, wouldn't it make sense that some people would prefer to have a codified mechanism for running the blue-dragon-leads-you-through-a-desert conflict, and that the broad rules for SCs aren't enough?

With a skill challenge, the only mechanical step prior to a "script" is the framework of N before 3 plus difficulties-by-level (the clearest versions of both are set out in the Essentials rulebooks). So in a sense you can't do anything to go beyond that framework without doing everything; whereas that's not so for a combat stat block.

That seems like a vote in favor for a different system than the SC for resolving this conflict, then. If the SC can't capture a specific challenge without being the whole hog, the SC isn't adequate to address my needs.

Now all of that said, what you can do to support a skill challenge in the MM which is at something like the same level as a stat block, but is not mechanical, is provide story elements that would provide the fictional framing for a skill challenge. I've personally always found the 4e MMs good for this, but I know that I'm in a minority in that respect.

Pure story material? That's inadequate for my needs. If 5e does that, I'll be disappointed. 2e and 3e gave me some (admittedly lackluster) mechanics to use. I want at LEAST that much. I'd prefer more!

 

[pemerton]

wouldn't it make sense that some people would prefer to have a codified mechanism for running the blue-dragon-leads-you-through-a-desert conflict, and that the broad rules for SCs aren't enough?

<snip>

If the SC can't capture a specific challenge without being the whole hog, the SC isn't adequate to address my needs.

<snip>

Pure story material? That's inadequate for my needs.

I haven't really got a sense, yet, of how 5e intends non-combat aspects of adventuring to be resolved. (I've read the exploration rules, and got something of a B/X vibe, but haven't really tried to work it through in thought and definitely haven't tried to work it through in play.)

My guess is you'll probably end up with something less narratively based than a skill challenge, though, which - from what you're saying here - looks like it might be closer to what you're looking for. (I think it will almost certainly be closer to what [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] is looking for, but I think I have a better handle on his desires, style-wise, than on yours.)

 

[Manbearcat]

When I referred to "general agreement", I meant "among KM's 4e-playing interlocutors". But even in your case, you haven't set out any reason why a skill challenge isn't the appropriate approach within a 4e context. All you've done is reiterate your personal dislike of the skill challenge mechanic in general.

That's about the score of it. I'm trying to figure out what [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] is thinking upon with

That seems like a vote in favor for a different system than the SC for resolving this conflict, then. If the SC can't capture a specific challenge without being the whole hog, the SC isn't adequate to address my needs.

and

Pure story material? That's inadequate for my needs. If 5e does that, I'll be disappointed. 2e and 3e gave me some (admittedly lackluster) mechanics to use. I want at LEAST that much. I'd prefer more!

It seems that the first bit is a testimonial against a generalized conflict resolution system/framework that is expected to be the load-bearing mechanics which move play along (I think I've seen you voice your displeasure there before)? Is that correct?

And perhaps the second bit is advocating for story material that interfaces specifically with a granular task resolution system (eg with objective Spellcraft DCs to discern the nature of illusions)?

The way I see it, there are a few ways to handle the "Perilous Journey Through the Blue Dragon's Desert Domain."

1a) A granular task resolution system. This system attempts to hard-code setting components, marrying narrative fluff and objective DCs. The GM might make a few rolls with contests but generally, the objective DCs are his mechanical pushback. Win conditions are malleable (GM ruling). The GM is expected to make a lot of rulings along the way, from singular tasks to what seems (another ruling but this one based on the GM's model of the phenomenon and setting elements at work) fair to legitimately stipulate the "win condition" for either the PCs or the dragon. The degree and type (and whether they are bound by it when framing future conflicts) is generally left to (yet another) GM ruling/inclination. 2e AD&D's approach and some approaches to 3.x are good examples of this.

1b) Like the above except there is much more codified in the way of potential adversity. You're talking about adherence to a pre-established % chance of random encounters rolled every <time interval> for <specified locale> and/or hex exploration protocol. Old school D&D and some approaches to 3.x are good examples of this.

2a) A focused conflict resolution system set out to specifically capture the action and fallout of a specific trope. You've got a basic resolution system (eg; roll 2d6 + wis vs a DC system of tiered outcomes/fallout), pre-ordained roles for the PCs to assume (such as Scout) which prescribe fictional positioning (perform reconnaissance ahead of the group) and their expectant impact (attempt to have the group avoid trouble) and mechanical deployment (roll + wis). The basic resolution scheme guides complications, fallout and ultimate resolution. An example of this might be Dungeon World's "Undertake a Perilous Journey". The pushback by the GM is only in the way of evolved fictional positioning. He does not deploy dice. He frames the situation and he makes moves against the PCs by proxy of escalating/re-framing the conflict through the fictional positioning evolution that he is responsible for, until the conflict resolution system dictates a win/loss condition and whatever fallout/proceeds stems from that.

2b) A variation of the focused conflict resolution outlined above is when the GM is taking an active role in the mechanical resolution of the conflict to be resolved. He is actively deploying dice and making strategic/tactical decisions with his available dice based on genre logic, fictional positioning, and probably what is fun and/or best escalates the stakes/conflict. Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits" is an example of this.

3a) A generalized conflict resolution system that sets out to capture a myriad of genre tropes and the fallout/proceeds of the resolved conflict. The resolution system is meant to be malleable in that it allows for varying stakes/tropes established at the outset (which are to be resolved) and, within those stakes/tropes, varying PC roles/responsibilities at the outset of the conflict and possibly still varying as the conflict progresses toward denouement and the fictional positioning evolves until the relevant question at the heart of the conflict (Will the PC's find the medicine man in Evermurk Swamp?) is answered. Similar to 2a, the pushback by the GM is primarily in the way of evolved fictional positioning. He does not deploy dice but he does set DCs in accord with the system's guidelines while simultaneously considering for other interests (fictional positioning, what is fun and tension-inducing; eg, I want this required hard DC to be toward the end to make them sweat). He frames the situation and he makes moves against the PCs by proxy of escalating/re-framing the conflict through the fictional positioning evolution that he is responsible for, until the conflict resolution system dictates a win/loss condition and whatever fallout/proceeds stems from that. 4e "Skill Challenges" are a good example of this.

3b) A variation of the generic conflict resolution system outlined above is akin to the change from 2a to 2b. The GM is taking an active role in the mechanical resolution of the conflict to be resolved. He is actively deploying dice and making strategic/tactical decisions with his available dice based on genre logic, fictional positioning, and probably what is fun and/or best escalates the stakes/conflict. The more risks the PCs take, the more they escalate the conflict (both fictional positioning and mechanically). This is because those risks the PCs take systemically feed back (by way of the mechanics of the resolution system) into greater threats, inevitable complications, upped stakes, and an attendant higher chance that something precious will be at risk, compromised, or outright lost. The conflict resolution system naturally heaps on the tension this way. Dogs in the Vineyard and MHRP are good examples of this.


KM, it seems that you're not a fan of 3a or 3b. Maybe you're inclined toward 2a or 2b, not sure. However, my guess is when you talk about "gave me some mechanics", you're referring to 1b; tools for hexmap exploration; random encounter tables, travel time stats and attrition of supplies, how "getting lost" works and what are the consequences/fallout are. Is that correct?

 

[Derren]

This relates back to the details of my conversation with KM. I don't need to "create" a skill challenge now. A skill challenge - unlike combat (even in 4e) - is primarily narrative-driven. So all I need is some story elements, like the dragon's fondness for plundering ships (found in the MM) plus its ability to summon and control storms (derived by me pretty easily from the MM info about it's preference for aerial combat and its use of lightning and thunder). If the PCs then sail their ship to the dragon's lair, I start my skill challenge with the storm raging and the seas churning and telling them that their boat is going to sink unless they do something about it.

And here is the problem. Leaving out out of combat powers forces you to run that part as a narrative, or leaves you with a lot of work to do to fill all the holes. You seem to content to run out of combat events purely as narrative with skill challenges, throw some level scaled DCs at your PCs, let them win or lose some small resources, maybe even fail forward, and continue till it comes to combat. But some people want it to be more.

In my eyes, Out of Combat event are as important as In Combat events and they can kill as much as combat. And how can you adjudicate that in a fair way when you have to make up everything (unless you do that before the PCs even set out)? How can the PCs, with help from their knowledge checks, prepare for the dragon when even the DM does not know what the dragon can do out of combat? When you take what happens out of combat as seriously as you take combat itself then preparation for the out of combat things the dragon can throw at you are as important as bringing resist electricity potions against the lightning breath.

I ask you this, would you allow your Skill Challenge to TPK the party? Even without a single round of combat happening? And if yes, how would you rule when and how they die? Make it up on the spot? And would you make the skill challenge unwinnable in the case the PCs go in unprepared and in a bad way?