Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
My feeling exactly. SCs take what should be a creative, imaginative, and interactive experience and turn it into a game of Yahtzee.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Exploration Rules You'd Like To See
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
My feeling exactly. SCs take what should be a creative, imaginative, and interactive experience and turn it into a game of Yahtzee.
I think they could definitely take a cue from some other games like dungeon world or burning wheel, so exploration isn't so much a binary yes you undo the lock or no you don't. It should be, yes you pick the lock, or yes you pick the lock, but you're so noisy it attracts attention. That's the way to make the exploration phase flow more organically, rather than have it a series of roadblocks where failed skill rolls lead to further party attrition. Successful and Failed skill checks should each lead to more adventure.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Yes. Just like most folks abhor combats that are "I swing. I hit. He swings. He misses, etc.", I don't want skill challenges (or roleplay challenges) to just be straight up dice roll fests. They should be as nuanced as combat - in that any die rolls are interspersed with and react with the fiction.
You shouldn't have to explicitly define in the challenge write-up what each skill will do in a skill challenge, just as you don't have to write up what each attack will do in a combat. There should be enough detail in the primary rules so you've got a good idea how skills and whatnot will play out. And no one single check should dominate or allow a single roll win (such as in a diplomacy skill challenge). There should also be degrees of success and failure. And finally, you want to encourage variety - not 13 rolls of the same skill to succeed.
The game should be able to handle a Skill Challenge write-up phrased something like this:
The characters, having just successfully robbed the mayor, must pass by a duo of guards near the city gate. The night is cold and the two guards (place stats here) hover near a barrel of fire in a large open area at the conflux of five major roads, but are rather lax in their watch. If attacked or they recognize the characters, they will sound an alarm that will bring more guards (and possibly bounty hunters [place stats here]) to the scene. The surrounding apartment tenements are approximately five stories each, and most of the windows have been drawn close to keep out the chill night air. There is practically no foot traffic, and what little does move about either hurriedly goes about its business to quickly return to its warm hearth or consists of vagabonds seeking to keep themselves warm.
hamstertamer
First Post
Actually it's not an old school thing. Thief skills have been around since OD&D.
In OD&D thieves had a percentage chance based on their level/race for Open Locks, Remove Traps, Pick Pocket, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise, Read magic Scrolls, & Climb.
Any system requires a few things to make it analogous to a combat encounter:
What are the characters attempting to accomplish? <-- this is typically defined in systems I've seen
What are the characters risking? <-- this is typically undefined, nothing, or the risk is the encounter devolves into a combat in systems I've seen
How difficult is the opposition? <-- this is typically handwaved or set to "appropriate for the party level" in systems I've seen
I think a good system would force the definition of all the above.
There's a room with an orc and a pie the characters want to go through.
The characters could:
1) Rush in and attempt to take out the orc. If they succeed, they have free access through the room and gain the pie. If others learn the orc was killed, they will respond with deadly force and not attempt to capture. It is a moderate risk endeavour. Failure risks death or capture by the orc. Run as a typical combat where the whole group gets surprise.
2) Attempt to sneak past the orc whilst he is focused on the pie. They risk combat starting with the group split and at a tactical disadvantage if they are detected. If they succeed, they may exit the room out the other corridor. It is a low risk endeavour. Failure results in the fight, above except the party takes penalties for being out of formation and focused on stealth not combat for the first round or two. Run as follows: the orc has a passive perception of 15 and 6 distraction points. Everyone who tries to pass the orc must roll a stealth check against the orc's perception - distraction points. Any stealth failure will cost a distraction point. A critical failure costs 1d6 distraction points. If the orc's distraction points hit zero, he looks up and notices the party stealthing by him. The character that got noticed will take the orc's first attack with a penalty of 4 on AC and the orc gets surprise. Attacking the orc while he is still distracted results in starting the fight as above except only the attacker gets surprise.
3) Attempt to talk their way past the orc. They risk alerting the orc to their presence and having it alert the rest of the complex. If they succeed, they may exit the room out the other corridor and reasonably expect to return unmolested. A terrific success will get them a portion of the pie. Failure results in a loud bellow that may attract other denizens of the area as the orc initiates combat, as above. Abyssmal failure will have the orc become enraged and gain combat bonuses as well. Run as follows: the orc will act unfriendly and starts with a friendliness score of -5. Initial approach requires a successul Diplomacy check (DC 12). Success indicates a parley may commence; failure generates -1 friendliness and he must to approached again. If the friendliness score drops below -9, the orc will bellow for aid and attack immediately; roll initiative normally. If the friendliness score drops below -14, the orc becomes enraged gaining a +2 to hit and damage. If the friendliness score rises above +4, the orc will allow free passage through the room. If the friendliness score rises past +9, the orc will give half the pie to his new friends. Each success grants one friendliness point; each failure subtracts one. Every 4 shifts in the score will see a notable change in the orc's demeanour. Attempts to intimidate, mock, or annoy the orc will generate an automatic failure. Any attempt to take or joke about taking the pie will result in 10 failures. Any bribe provides (bribe / pie's value) successes. Each minute of polite conversation counts as a success. Characters can continue collecting successes until they decide to move on.
Last edited:
Anyone play/check-out warhammer FRP 4ed? (Fantasy Flight Games Version).
They use a unique set of dice for task/combat resolution. No numbers, but hits, misses, boons, and banes. You build a dice pool based on ability used, ability score, training, stance, and luck then the DM adds dice to the pool based on difficulty, misfortune, active defenses, etc. then you roll the pool.
What is interesting is that you can get more misses than hits (a miss) but get more boons than banes (good results) and visa versa.
I think something along those lines would help. You don't need to eliminate the binary skill check (success or fail) but there should be another thing that is less digital/binary and more analog/sliding scale.
The analog/sliding result is what you look at for guidance in the narrative.
E.G.
Player: "I failed my dexterity check to sneak past the guard, but I did really well on the <analog scale>."
DM: "OK. The guard turns and looks at you as you kick a loose pebble, alerting him to your presence. You are still in the shadows and the guard is standing next to the burning brazier, light in his eyes. He says 'Made me jump Franco, you forget something?' The guard thinks you are someone named Franco. What do you do?"
Player: "I'll think I will Bluff. I am pretty good at it. I'll mutter 'yeah, good night' muffled with a cough and I wave at him as I walk awa, still in the shadows"
I like the WFRP dice so much I may use them for skill challenges. Its the sort of "revolutionary" idea D&D needs for its exploration pillar.
Perhaps a D&D version would be a simple "save" like 4th edition (beat a 10), but you add "points" to the point pool based on ability score, skill, situation, and the DM added penalties based on difficulty, defenses, etc. muych like the WFRP dice. You roll, and add the modifiers. <1 very bad, 1-5 bad, 6-10 inconvenient, 11-15 small advantage, 16-20 big advantage, >21 Awesomeness.
to take my dialogue above as an example, player adds a bonus for his dex, sneak skill, and the presence of shadows (along a wall, or at night eg). The DM subtracts the guards spot skill, his wis bonus, but adds a bonus due to the guard staring into the brazier to keep warm.
Dice are rolled and the player gets a 16, Big advantage. Despite the failed roll to sneak, DM give the player a chance to get away clean. In the example, he uses a bluff check.
If it was a 21, maybe the guard says "Hurry inside, they are waiting for you.". The PC was detected but the guard let him in anyway. seems like an effective success, but when the person whom the guard mistook the PC for shows up, the alarm will be raised.
If the result was a 12, perhaps the DM would have the guard shout, draw his sword, and threaten the PC (allowing the PC to turn and run) getting a good look at him (and putting the guard on alert for the rest of the night)
whereas a 7 might have the guard shout "halt" and interrogate the PC (more skill checks)
A 3 might lead to being arrested and interrogated
and less than a 1 might have the guard spin and hack the "assassin" , starting a combat.
All of the above was a failed skill check roll.
Similar things could be done on a successful check. The guard doesn't spot you, but the gate closes, another guard shows up, etc all the way to you succeed and you are able to move twice as fast, create a diversion, or spot the quarry you are after.
A simple version would be to make it binary as well (boon/bane) and rather than modifers to the roll, have advantage/disadvantage (but in this case, they are stackable so that 2 advantage plus 1 disadvantage = advantage)
So skill resolution results in
Succeed - Boon
Succeed - Bane
Fail - Boon
Fail - Bane
That may be enough "analog-like" smoothing to give a variety of results.
YMMV
They use a unique set of dice for task/combat resolution. No numbers, but hits, misses, boons, and banes. You build a dice pool based on ability used, ability score, training, stance, and luck then the DM adds dice to the pool based on difficulty, misfortune, active defenses, etc. then you roll the pool.
What is interesting is that you can get more misses than hits (a miss) but get more boons than banes (good results) and visa versa.
I think something along those lines would help. You don't need to eliminate the binary skill check (success or fail) but there should be another thing that is less digital/binary and more analog/sliding scale.
The analog/sliding result is what you look at for guidance in the narrative.
E.G.
Player: "I failed my dexterity check to sneak past the guard, but I did really well on the <analog scale>."
DM: "OK. The guard turns and looks at you as you kick a loose pebble, alerting him to your presence. You are still in the shadows and the guard is standing next to the burning brazier, light in his eyes. He says 'Made me jump Franco, you forget something?' The guard thinks you are someone named Franco. What do you do?"
Player: "I'll think I will Bluff. I am pretty good at it. I'll mutter 'yeah, good night' muffled with a cough and I wave at him as I walk awa, still in the shadows"
I like the WFRP dice so much I may use them for skill challenges. Its the sort of "revolutionary" idea D&D needs for its exploration pillar.
Perhaps a D&D version would be a simple "save" like 4th edition (beat a 10), but you add "points" to the point pool based on ability score, skill, situation, and the DM added penalties based on difficulty, defenses, etc. muych like the WFRP dice. You roll, and add the modifiers. <1 very bad, 1-5 bad, 6-10 inconvenient, 11-15 small advantage, 16-20 big advantage, >21 Awesomeness.
to take my dialogue above as an example, player adds a bonus for his dex, sneak skill, and the presence of shadows (along a wall, or at night eg). The DM subtracts the guards spot skill, his wis bonus, but adds a bonus due to the guard staring into the brazier to keep warm.
Dice are rolled and the player gets a 16, Big advantage. Despite the failed roll to sneak, DM give the player a chance to get away clean. In the example, he uses a bluff check.
If it was a 21, maybe the guard says "Hurry inside, they are waiting for you.". The PC was detected but the guard let him in anyway. seems like an effective success, but when the person whom the guard mistook the PC for shows up, the alarm will be raised.
If the result was a 12, perhaps the DM would have the guard shout, draw his sword, and threaten the PC (allowing the PC to turn and run) getting a good look at him (and putting the guard on alert for the rest of the night)
whereas a 7 might have the guard shout "halt" and interrogate the PC (more skill checks)
A 3 might lead to being arrested and interrogated
and less than a 1 might have the guard spin and hack the "assassin" , starting a combat.
All of the above was a failed skill check roll.
Similar things could be done on a successful check. The guard doesn't spot you, but the gate closes, another guard shows up, etc all the way to you succeed and you are able to move twice as fast, create a diversion, or spot the quarry you are after.
A simple version would be to make it binary as well (boon/bane) and rather than modifers to the roll, have advantage/disadvantage (but in this case, they are stackable so that 2 advantage plus 1 disadvantage = advantage)
So skill resolution results in
Succeed - Boon
Succeed - Bane
Fail - Boon
Fail - Bane
That may be enough "analog-like" smoothing to give a variety of results.
YMMV
There are so many good ideas here that my head is gonna kersplode. I think the key is distilling these ideas into a single ruleset that can be applied in multiple situations. It's easy to come up with an example that works for your rules system. It's hard to write a ruleset that someone else can understand and use for a plethora of circumstances. I wish I had some revolutionary ideas of my own, but I don't. I will, however, keep an eye on this thread and mine it for ideas, lol.
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION]
You know, I wrote up a dice less set of rules for Tales of the Caliphate Nights that did exactly what you say: provide four possible outcomes: yes, yes but..., no, no but...
The GM narrated the "yes but..." while the player narrated the "no but..." The few times I ran it, the rules worked like a charm. I think it's an idea you see in several indie games though, including Warhammer FRP4.
You know, I wrote up a dice less set of rules for Tales of the Caliphate Nights that did exactly what you say: provide four possible outcomes: yes, yes but..., no, no but...
The GM narrated the "yes but..." while the player narrated the "no but..." The few times I ran it, the rules worked like a charm. I think it's an idea you see in several indie games though, including Warhammer FRP4.
Li Shenron
Legend
These are interesting ideas.
I think it would be even better if those multiple rolls should be done sequentially, and there is benefit/penalty applied to each step.
In some cases it should be fairly easy, like climbing a tower may be broken down in 3 checks, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the tower.
But I really think that these are TOO complicated to been laid out in details in the DMG. Your examples, while very good, to me also show that it would take a lot of space in the book to write them all and still they will cover a tiny fraction of the cases (a little bit like if the DMG wanted to present rules for dozens of possible combat sequences).
But a bunch of examples of these will be essential!
Then it should be up to the DM. Perhaps in my case the tower-climbing belongs to an infiltration scenario therefore failures should include alerting the guards, not be limited to falling down, while in someone else's case it belongs to a battle scenario and include being shot with arrows.
Finally, one thing we should really keep in mind is that not all skill challenges are done by the whole group. There is nothing wrong with a sneak scene where only the Rogue gets past the guard to steal the keys or open the gate, while the others wait or find someone else to do. But in this case I strongly recommend the DM not to put all the costs of failure on that one PC's shoulders... or at least take precautions!! If the Rogue has to walk a narrow ledge over a pit of lava to reach the handle that lowers the bridge for everybody, failure should not mean immediate death (otherwise why should the Rogue sacrifice himself?) but perhaps a failed Balance check should then trigger a second check to regain it and another failure triggers a Dex check to grab hold, before finally falling down, and in the meantime the rest of the PC could get a check too to help somehow.
Quickleaf
Legend
Back from Halloween party, and I tried taking some of the ideas here and incorporating them into the "skill challlenge" I'd originally worked up on the previous page: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pa...ration-rules-youd-like-see-2.html#post6039777.
I know "skill challenge" can be a dirty word for some. What I'm doing does use that basic structure, but it heartily stretches it. You really could erase the word "skill" and just call it a "challenge" since it's intended to be so open-ended in the approach the players could take. They could use skills, they could use spells, they they could use caving tricks they learned spelunking in college...
The big thing is the calamity table, making failure *really* matter. However, I'm not wholly satisfied with what 3 failures (i.e. failing the challenge) mean at this point - traps and monsters effectively re-setting. I'd like to give 3 fails more teeth.
So, whatcha think?
I know "skill challenge" can be a dirty word for some. What I'm doing does use that basic structure, but it heartily stretches it. You really could erase the word "skill" and just call it a "challenge" since it's intended to be so open-ended in the approach the players could take. They could use skills, they could use spells, they they could use caving tricks they learned spelunking in college...
The big thing is the calamity table, making failure *really* matter. However, I'm not wholly satisfied with what 3 failures (i.e. failing the challenge) mean at this point - traps and monsters effectively re-setting. I'd like to give 3 fails more teeth.
So, whatcha think?
Similar Threads
