Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e: "Reads Bad, Plays Good"

[Imban]

Forked from: Disappointed in 4e

I'll have to disagree with you here. When I first got my 4e PHB I was utterly uninspired. I'd been, to that point, up and down about the idea of 4e but was trending toward "nah". My first read through (browse through really - that book simply doesn't lend itself to a "read") and I was about ready to put it on the shelf and not bother with it again.

However, I have a wide streak of efficiency running through me. I couldn't stand the idea of giving up on a game I hadn't actually played. My wife and daughter made characters and I ran them through a couple short adventures. To my surprise I found that the game seemed very similar to 3.x in a large number of ways. And the ways it didn't felt mostly like improvements.

I'll admit that there are some parts of the game that I'm still not fond of and I'm devising patches for them. But my opinion of 4e has become much better from playing it than from reading it.

I personally found that 4e played almost exactly how it read, with the exception of some mechanics that looked perfectly fine and turned out to be a bit "durhur" in play. (See: Orb Wizards and stunlock. With all of the whining various DM sources do about not stunlocking players, you'd think it'd be the same way with getting your solo monster stunlocked too.)

The exception was skill challenges. I never ran one or played in one, and a lot of them read awfully bad to me. Maybe they play good, maybe they don't, and that's what I'd like to ask you people.

Assuming it's not okay for me to just present the players with a list of skills they can roll, have them roll, and then narrate what happens based on the success or failure of the roll - in other words, I want players to be able to make choices on their own and be "roleplaying", not "directing", how the heck would I go about running half of these skill challenges?

Like, "Through the Thornwaste", the skill challenge from the beginning of Lost Mines of Karak. It has primary skills - Endurance, Nature, and Perception - that make sense and could all easily come naturally to the players... but Nature and Perception are also secondary skills, with identical DCs in the case of Nature and very similar descriptions in the case of Perception. There doesn't seem to be any way to run that without saying "These are the skills you can roll and in these ways."

So... what gives? Other than flat-out saying "You can roll Endurance as a group effort, Nature as a primary or secondary skill, or Perception as a primary or secondary skill, tell me what you're rolling...", do any of you have ideas as to how to run this? (Have any of you run it?)

 

[xechnao]

I think people miss a distinction here. They are confonding two different merits.
How well the game plays to have fun with friends and how well the game plays the effects of the specifc genre.
Lets call the first merit playability and the second one type. Some people may have different demands regarding type while other people not so much. Of course everyone wants playability and thus the newest edition of the industry leader this was a must. Now, regarding the clients more demanding on type, a more loose edition could suit them better because of the extra freedom of house ruling it may provide.

Then there are modern market profits (miniatures) that type may not lend itself very well to it. Type does not need you to consume anything beyond some time for study and social activity.

 

[delericho]

Oddly, although my opinion from the previews of 4e was strongly negative, I found it to be much better than I had feared on a read-through.

I still have strong misgivings about the game, but remain determined to give it a fair test when I finally run it in two weeks time.

 

[delericho]

Like, "Through the Thornwaste", the skill challenge from the beginning of Lost Mines of Karak. It has primary skills - Endurance, Nature, and Perception - that make sense and could all easily come naturally to the players... but Nature and Perception are also secondary skills, with identical DCs in the case of Nature and very similar descriptions in the case of Perception. There doesn't seem to be any way to run that without saying "These are the skills you can roll and in these ways."

So... what gives? Other than flat-out saying "You can roll Endurance as a group effort, Nature as a primary or secondary skill, or Perception as a primary or secondary skill, tell me what you're rolling...", do any of you have ideas as to how to run this? (Have any of you run it?)

I haven't run it, but my inclination would be to largely ignore the lists of primary and secondary skills, and instead have the players describe what they're attempting, determine the appropriate skill from that, and set an appropriate DC.

If some skills come naturally to players but others don't, what does it really matter? If everyone has fun, and the skill challenge feels satisfying to everyone, why worry about what's going on behind the curtain?

 

[jensun]

Use the primary and secondary skills as a guide. Ask the players what they are doing. Play out the scene.

If the players plan seems like it should work go down the "say yes" route.

If there is some doubt then get them to make their checks as you play through the scene until it is resolved.

 

[FireLance]

This is how I run skill challenges, from a previous thread on the subject:

Step One: Ensure that the players have an objective. This could be one that they came up with themselves, e.g. "We want to interrogate the hobgoblin", one that you hint at, e.g. "As you kill the last kobold, you hear a menacing growl. You realize that the bear that the kobolds had been keeping prisoner has escaped" (the PCs may either fight the bear or attempt a skill challenge to calm it down), or one that you state explicitly, e.g. "How will you persuade the Duke to agree to your proposal?"

Step Two: Ask each player what he wants his PC to do to help achieve the objective.

Step Three: Translate what the players say into a skill check, e.g. "I threaten the hobgoblin" could be an Intimidate check. "I speak soothingly to the bear" could be a Nature check. "I try to get a sense of the Duke's current mood" could be an Insight check.

Step Four: Decide whether what the player proposes to do will contribute towards the objective. If it seems reasonable, make it a Moderate skill check. If it seems unlikely or counter-productive, make it a Hard check or even an automatic failure. If it seems very effective, make it an Easy check or even an automatic success. For example, a Heal check to treat the bear's injuries might require a Moderate skill check. A cleric using healing word on the bear might be an automatic success, but making loud noises to scare the bear off might be a Hard Intimidate check or even an automatic failure.

Step Five: Have the players make their skill checks and narrate the results. If the check is successful, convey a sense of progress towards achieving the objective. If the check is unsuccessful, describe what setbacks have occured. If the skill challenge is not over, go back to Step Two.

 

[Rel]

Didn't realize this has been forked. My take on Skill Challenges is as follows:

I think that for a new GM or one who hasn't traditionally used much in the way of skills or their implementation, it forms a backbone for how to use them reasonably well. Personally I've been GMing for over 25 years now and much of that has been in systems that were intensely skill based (Rolemaster). I've pretty much got it down.

So the way I do it is much like FireLance does. I have the players determine a goal and tell me how they wish to go about accomplishing it. This gets assigned to the appropriate skills and success or failure is determined. The roleplaying follows the ebb and flow of how close (or far) they are getting from their goal and the outcome is determined when I feel it is appropriate.

Now I think it is fair to level a charge at me here, particularly in light of the post this thread was forked on, that says, "But Rel, how can you say that it plays better than it reads when the way you're playing it isn't really how it reads?" My answer to that is, "With a little smirk?"

More seriously what I'm getting at is that, as an experienced GM, I am more than happy to adopt the parts of a system that I like and ignore the parts that I don't. Anybody looking for me to spout the line that 4e is perfect per the RAW will be disappointed. I simply think that the core of the system is sound and, with some modifications, works quite well for my purposes.

Coming back around to Skill Challenges for a moment though, one thing that I've adopted from the 4e RAW is the idea of trying to make sure that everybody in the party (or as close to that ideal as possible) is involved in the encounter. In the past our 3.x games tended to be ones where somebody in the group was the "face man" and had good scores in Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. And they did all the talking, albeit with some input from the rest of the group.

With 4e, I'm much more likely to handle something like that by "going around the table" more and seeing if the players are creative enough to bring other skills to bear on the challenge presented. So while I'm not running the game precisely by the RAW, my methods are somewhat inspired by the RAW. This philosophy is guiding my use of 4e in a great many ways and I'm trying to keep my tweaks small but meaningful.

 

[Agamon]

This is how I run skill challenges, from a previous thread on the subject:

Step One: Ensure that the players have an objective. This could be one that they came up with themselves, e.g. "We want to interrogate the hobgoblin", one that you hint at, e.g. "As you kill the last kobold, you hear a menacing growl. You realize that the bear that the kobolds had been keeping prisoner has escaped" (the PCs may either fight the bear or attempt a skill challenge to calm it down), or one that you state explicitly, e.g. "How will you persuade the Duke to agree to your proposal?"

Step Two: Ask each player what he wants his PC to do to help achieve the objective.

Step Three: Translate what the players say into a skill check, e.g. "I threaten the hobgoblin" could be an Intimidate check. "I speak soothingly to the bear" could be a Nature check. "I try to get a sense of the Duke's current mood" could be an Insight check.

Step Four: Decide whether what the player proposes to do will contribute towards the objective. If it seems reasonable, make it a Moderate skill check. If it seems unlikely or counter-productive, make it a Hard check or even an automatic failure. If it seems very effective, make it an Easy check or even an automatic success. For example, a Heal check to treat the bear's injuries might require a Moderate skill check. A cleric using healing word on the bear might be an automatic success, but making loud noises to scare the bear off might be a Hard Intimidate check or even an automatic failure.

Step Five: Have the players make their skill checks and narrate the results. If the check is successful, convey a sense of progress towards achieving the objective. If the check is unsuccessful, describe what setbacks have occured. If the skill challenge is not over, go back to Step Two.

This is how I do it, too. It's really just a codified way of how skills were used in 3e outside of combat.

Players: This is what we want to do.

DM: How do you want to it?

Players: This way.

DM: Make these skill checks.

Players make skill checks, DM tells them the results. The phrase "skill challenge" need never be uttered at the game table, and only players that know what a skill challenge is might recognize it before the process is over.

Oh, and skills listed in published skill challenges are the most useful and likely ones, but you don't need to confine yourself and your players to just them. Turn whatever they want to do into a skill check using the closest skill to match what they trying.

 

[Agamon]

Coming back around to Skill Challenges for a moment though, one thing that I've adopted from the 4e RAW is the idea of trying to make sure that everybody in the party (or as close to that ideal as possible) is involved in the encounter. In the past our 3.x games tended to be ones where somebody in the group was the "face man" and had good scores in Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. And they did all the talking, albeit with some input from the rest of the group.

With 4e, I'm much more likely to handle something like that by "going around the table" more and seeing if the players are creative enough to bring other skills to bear on the challenge presented. So while I'm not running the game precisely by the RAW, my methods are somewhat inspired by the RAW. This philosophy is guiding my use of 4e in a great many ways and I'm trying to keep my tweaks small but meaningful.

I tried this a couple times, but it seemed very artificial. I have no problem with tactical combat, but tactical non-combat encounters leave a bad taste in my mouth. I find that if I don't tell the players what skills are most likely involved in the challenge, they'll be creative enough in figuring out how they accomplish their goal.

That said, it's a good idea to try and involve everyone. If a few players pipe up and a couple don't, I'll ask them what their PCs are doing while everyone else is doing their stated actions. Standing guard, watching or helping someone else are all fine answers, as long as I've given them the option rather (as opposed to requiring them to do something).

 

[darjr]

In the PHB I liked most of what I saw, until I got to powers. I didn't like them. Not that the book read bad, to me it reads rather well, one of the best rpg books out there in my humble opinion.

Still, powers, I did not like them. Still, I played, and I found that they work, they work really well for me and the folks I play with.

Playing is what really sold me on 4e.