Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[Korgoth]

In the old days, avoiding monsters or other difficulties in order to get treasure posed no more of a philosophical problem than avoiding the other team's defensive line to score a goal in a ball game.

Nice analogy. Quite right. I tried to give you XP, but I couldn't!

 

[jensun]

Otherwise, there is a very basic flaw with -- or, depending one's preference, feature of -- the whole "encounter" concept in 4E. It's compounded by the notion that whatever is not a combat is a "skill challenge", and further by the nature of the skill challenge formalism itself.

This is, in my experience, completely inaccurate.

There are all sorts of parts of the game which dont involve combat or a skill challenge. Skill Challenges exist to provide a fairly loose framework for resolving significant non combat events, they are not the default structure for everything that happens which is not combat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are all sorts of parts of the game which dont involve combat or a skill challenge. Skill Challenges exist to provide a fairly loose framework for resolving significant non combat events, they are not the default structure for everything that happens which is not combat.

Jensun, could you expand on this?

What parts of the game don't involve combat or skill challenges? How are they resolved? Are there any good examples from 4e modules?

This isn't sniping.....I am seriously interested in your views here. I would like to like 4e more than I do.


RC

 

[Kingreaper]

Let's flip the question: How lethal is your roleplaying?

For example, let's say there's a crime lord the PCs need something from. They have the choice of either attacking the lord's lair (combat) or negotiating with him (roleplay).

How often are you willing to have the PCs outright fail if they undertake the second option? And have the crime lord kill them outright.

Most DMs I've seen will "roleplay" for a while, as the PCs pull out all sort of ideas, but will let them be sucessful in the end. So if the combat option is lethal, but the roleplay option never is, then obviously players will roleplay.

But is that the correct response? Sometimes combat is the correct response. To me, a lot of the discussion in this thread states that negotiating in the scenario above is the more desired option. I'm not sure that's correct. Both options should be equally desirable, equally different, and equally lethal.

How do you die from negotiation? They attack you.
What's them attacking you? Combat.

Combat is the lethal bit. Trying and failing to negotiate just means that when the combat comes you'll probably be in a worse situation. But it's still failing at the combat that kills you.

 

[jensun]

Cursed double posts.

 

[jensun]

Jensun, could you expand on this?

What parts of the game don't involve combat or skill challenges? How are they resolved? Are there any good examples from 4e modules?

This isn't sniping.....I am seriously interested in your views here. I would like to like 4e more than I do.


RC

Really, most of it.

In my experience I only use a skill challenge for significant and substantial conflicts or sections of the game. Much of the game is simply roleplayed out. In general I use skill challenges in a limited number of circumstances:

1. Where there is something major at stake or some significant conflict.
2. For a lot of exploration type stuff.

The second is I suspect much more unusual and is based in my extreme dislike of drawing maps and my groups strong preference for a more drama based approach.

I get the impression that some people in the thread think that everything that happens outside of a fight is a skill challenge. That seems to be a major misreading of the situation in my view.

As far as modules go most WotC modules so far contain no more than one or two skill challenges per module. The chances are that if you just played out an encounter between players and GM in a pre 4e version then that is how it would play out in 4e.

I probably make more use of them than most but my game includes far less nambling about shopping for stuff or talking to inn keepers and much more focus on the central conflicts and issues in the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry for the imprecision, jensun. By "everything" I really meant only "every 'encounter'," as opposed to insignificant non-combat events. The notion is bolstered by the books. An encounter is made up of threats that have levels. "An encounter, by definition, involves a meaningful risk of failure. It's possible for a puzzle to fit that definition," the DMG indicates, "particularly if it's paired with a trap or if it involves an encounter with a monster such as a sphinx. Other puzzles, though, aren't encounters. They might be obstacles in the characters' path, but ones they can find other ways around."

So, if you can find a way around it, then it is in 4E terms not an "encounter". Nor have I seen guidelines for XP awards for problems challenging the players themselves.

 

[Mallus]

I could settle a deadly feud with musical theatre. At up to 500 paces, my singing can cause people's ears to bleed.

Hey, we have something in common !

 

[Mallus]

What parts of the game don't involve combat or skill challenges?

Let me take a stab at this.

The parts of the game that don't involve combat or skill challenges are all those in which the DM doesn't use the combat skill or skill challenge framework to resolve a conflict. This will vary quite a bit from group to group, but I think it's safe to say that a large part of the game for most people occurs in a space unmediated by the rules.

I say this because it's my experience is that most RPG play, regardless of the system, occurs in a space unmediated by the rules. And my experience w/4e is in line with that.

How are they resolved?

DM fiat and player consent. Two great tastes that taste great together!

Are there any good examples from 4e modules?

Wouldn't know. We homebrew adventures.

 

[Ariosto]

This is just my local and personal view, but in my neck of the woods RPGA appears to account for a lot of 4E play -- especially of formative experiences. It's not a good representation of the whole of the game, but neither were old (A)D&D modules (which ran rather contrary to the campaign mode the designers considered normative).

The game as informed by that context may inculcate expectations of a lot of combat, but it also puts the direction of events clearly in the DM's hands. Regardless of lethality, it seems largely up to the DM how much emphasis is on non-combat encounters.

I don't know how significant RPGA is in the broader demographic now, or how much in the long run it will shape the game culture. Even without it, I think the game's presentation taken by itself strongly encourages a DM-directed approach.