Excerpt: skill challenges

[LostSoul]

Here are my scattered thoughts:

1. This isn't the direction I thought they would go - this looks very gamist to me. If it works, I think it will be brilliant. I'm thinking it's a mechanical way to get what 1st edition had - with less fiat, but with the same creativity from players & DMs to solve challenges.

2. "Intimidate = fail" isn't railroading, in my opinion, it's fiat. Which is fine when it's handled in the way your group likes. This example of fiat seems to be to make the choices of skills the players use more important - they have to find the right one.

It's great that each DM can decide on his own. I doubt I'll have many pre-written auto-failures.

3. Coming up with cool results for failure is a skill that I have been learning recently. It looks like that training will be put to good use with the skill challenges.

In my opinion, failures (from bad to good) are:

• The adventure comes to a crashing end.
• The status quo - nothing changes.
• The situation is resolved in the expected way, and the conflict is slightly escalated.
• The situation is resolved in an unexpected way due to the input of the players, and the conflict is changed or escalated because of it.

 

[Keenath]

On the idea of Intimidate always failing, I don't really see the issue.

If the guy is convinced of his own power/importance and the PCs are trying to secure his assistance in a matter, intimidation certainly shouldn't work. Why WOULD it? He's gonna look at them and say, "You're asking ME for help, and now you're threatening my people with slavery and death..." Er... well, you get the idea. No matter how powerful the PCs are, some people are going to simply react badly to threats and intimidation, preferring to say, "Find, let's go!" than knuckle under.

There will always be situations where some of your skills aren't applicable even though they're related to some that are. Acrobatics won't help you get across a chasm; Insight won't help you notice a trap; and Diplomacy won't stop a rampaging demon. That intimidate fails doesn't mean the target doesn't believe you'll do it -- it just means he won't let that threat stop him.

 

[Lizard]

Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.

 

[Lacyon]

Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.

I always knew there was some good in you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.

I am afraid that you might have to give away your anti-4e grognard badge now. You can't just randomly go around and choose an aspect to like.
Either you're with 4E, or you're against it. There is no middle ground, and anyone trying to convince you otherwise is just trying to manipulate you.

 

[Voss]

Speaking as the resident anti-4e grognard, let me say I see nothing wrong with "Intimidation=Failure", esp. if this is not known to the PCs by fiat but must be inferred from the DM's roleplaying or proper skill use. Why? Because otherwise, the system becomes what I was afraid it would be -- a comic farce where everyone just finds their highest skill, no matter how irrelevant, and we have D&D Marx Brothers as each PC uses a ludicrous justification to roll on their highest skill and everyone "participates" in a ridiculous way. Instead, the system has interesting challenges, options, and tactics, which the players must deduce. It also looks easy to improvise, and for the DM to decide on the spur of the moment if a given skill can be used effectively or might open up new options. If it's combined with roleplaying, it provides a nice structure to challenges that otherwise can get frustrating.

It isn't really an either/or situation though. Most people won't have trouble with the concept that you can't use Endurance to 'out-wait' the duke into aiding you, or not being able to Bluff a boulder out of the mine shaft, but that doesn't justify taking social skills out of a social situation, because thats exactly when they're appropriate. Its akin to saying a greatsword can't hurt a given monster. Not swords, or slashing weapons, but just greatswords.


On a lighter note, I hate to break this to you, but you don't come across as an anti-4e grognard. Resident or not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It isn't really an either/or situation though. Most people won't have trouble with the concept that you can't use Endurance to 'out-wait' the duke into aiding you, or not being able to Bluff a boulder out of the mine shaft, but that doesn't justify taking social skills out of a social situation, because thats exactly when they're appropriate. Its akin to saying a greatsword can't hurt a given monster. Not swords, or slashing weapons, but just greatswords.


On a lighter note, I hate to break this to you, but you don't come across as an anti-4e grognard. Resident or not.

Actually, it's a lot more like saying a monster is immune to bludgeoning weapons, but can be hurt by slashing or piercing (not to mention magic). [Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate vs Piercing, Slashing, Magic, and Bludgeoning].

IMO, there's nothing wrong with giving an NPC, in a particular scenario, blanket immunity to a particular social skill. If it was the Oracle of Whatchamacallit (who can see through all deception) that the PCs are trying to convince it makes sense that Bluff automatically fails whereas Diplomacy, Insight and Intimidate all have a reasonable chance of success. It keeps social encounters interesting and varied, IMO.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I cannot believe this intimidate issue is still going.

OK, it is a social skill in a social encounter, so what? Why does that mean it has to be allowed? As so many people have pointed out, the goal if the encounter is to gain the trust of the noble, and you cannot effectively intimidate your way to trust. What if the goal is to get some NPC to fall in love with you? Can you use intimidate there? Sure, you could scare the crap out of the person to the point where they will do as you ask, but they will do it out of fear, not love. Same thing in this situation; you might be able to intimidate the noble into cooperating with you, but he will be doing so from fear, not from trust.

In my mind the best case scenario you could end up with is a situation where the adventure moves forward because you have the cooperation of the noble, but you do not gain experience for the encounter because you failed in the stated goal - gaining his trust. Oh, and I would fully expect that the intimidated noble would do his best to "forget" certain details that you would have learned if he trusted rather than feared you.

 

[Voss]

Actually, it's a lot more like saying a monster is immune to bludgeoning weapons, but can be hurt by slashing or piercing (not to mention magic). [Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate vs Piercing, Slashing, Magic, and Bludgeoning].

IMO, there's nothing wrong with giving an NPC, in a particular scenario, blanket immunity to a particular social skill. If it was the Oracle of Whatchamacallit (who can see through all deception) that the PCs are trying to convince it makes sense that Bluff automatically fails whereas Diplomacy, Insight and Intimidate all have a reasonable chance of success. It keeps social encounters interesting and varied, IMO.

Meh. For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing. I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games. Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.

 

[D'karr]

Meh. For me, its just a blind game of rock-paper-scissors taking the place of actual role-playing. I'm not comfortable with But Thou Must/ You Just Can't situations... its crappy in video games, but its inexcusable in PnP games. Its a lazy GM cheat to force players to adhere to the monograph in his head, rather than letting them enjoy themselves.

If a DM creates his own adventures and puts some combat encounters in it, that must count as a monograph in his head too. According to this logic.