NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6243440" data-attributes="member: 27570">You're looking at how the scenario resolved, not how the scenario was set up. The only fixed thing in the scenario with the chamberlain was that he was reluctant. The why didn't exist. There was no "why" prior to the die being rolled by Thurgon. Once the roll was made and Thurgon failed his diplomacy with the chamberlain a reason for the failed roll now needed to be created. Why did Thurgon fail to persuade the chamberlain to get an audience with the king? In the context of an heroic game, we might assume that the failure wasn't a result of Thurgon, but rather some other force behind the chamberlain (much like the king was control by Saruman in Lord of the Rings. It wasn't Gandolf's failure at Diplomacy so much as Saruman's control that prevented the success.) I think that may be a difference between 3x and 4e where successes or failure in 3x is a result of player failure and success or failure in 4e is a result of the circumstances. In 3x you failed to jump the pit because you're not good at jumping as opposed to 4e where you failed to jump the pit because the pit was too big or the floor to slippery. This also might be a play-style thing rather than an edition thing. I've certainly always viewed the failure as a result of the character. Now though, I'm thinking that it might be more interesting to look at the circumstances instead. Here's another way to look the scene. We establish that the chamberlain is going to be reluctant as opposed to more open to diplomacy. We establish a hard DC (in 3x we might give him a circumstance bonus to raise the DC). We now have a chamberlain that requires a more difficult chance of being persuaded using diplomacy alone. The reasons for his reluctance are irrelevant at this stage (although background was established that the city was currently at war and something to do with a dragon, so that can't be changed as a result of any rolling).  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] failed his Diplomacy check versus the hard DC. Now we need a reason for the failure. In this case, the chamberlain was being manipulated by someone or something, what was doing it or how it was being done still aren't relevant yet because no further dice to investigate have been rolled. Once the players start rolling more dice to investigate, more answers are created based on failure or success, just as if Thurgon had succeeded on his Diplomacy, the scene would have changed to reflect that success. Maybe the Chamberlain wasn't being control but instead being blackmailed and now was more willing to confront the circumstances since the PCs gave him courage (I think  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s previous running of the scene showed how this might be played out). Keep in mind that this isn't my preferred method. I don't like relying that much on die rolls, nor do I like my stories to have that much free-form. But what it does do, that I like to some extent, is remove the one-and-done method of 3x skills. Whether it's better than other systems at doing that I don't know, but as far as what I'd like to see happen, it's probably closer than the 3x model which I find tends to shut down the scene, rather than open it up. In much the same way that a single crit hit will kill the big bad or a S0D spell can end the fight before combat even begins. If anyone wants I can post my overall thoughts of the PBP game from a non-4e player, in regards to the theme of the thread (caster/non-caster balance). In my PF games (and prior in my 3x games), all challenges can be solved using one of two or more skills. There is never a situation where just one skill is the only option.A player might use Diplomacy or Knowledge: Nobility when negotiating with the Chamberlain. They might also use Knowledge: Nature instead of survival for tracking a creature through the woods. They also might use Jump instead of Climb to scale the wall or perhaps Knowledge: Engineering. The point being, there always more than one way to skin a cat. Also, as I've mentioned previously, look at the different actions as pluses or minuses to the initial diplomacy check, rather than different ways to negotiate. Perhaps the chamberlain is a fan of dancing and by doing so you add a bonus to your diplomacy check. In 4e instead of the plus or minus, it's number of successes before failures.</blockquote>

Verification