D&D 4E JamesonCourage's First 4e Session

[D'karr]

Unfortunately, the group is mostly new (ish) to the game, and this can make it hard for them to come up with ways to use their skills. It also makes it fairly impossible for them to judge how difficult a particular task will be without running it through me first, which can make long term planning a bit harder. It's give and take, but I definitely see the upsides ("you have the Brew Potion ritual, so yes, I'll let you make an Arcana check to rig a bottle of wine to explode").

Even though they would have to run the "plan" by you to figure out the mechanics, I think the best way to handle skill use, from the player side of things, is not to worry about skills at all.

I've had to teach brand new players how to play D&D countless times, with multiple different editions. My initial conversation with them always brings one element that I want them to focus on - "This is an open-ended roleplaying game. Whatever you want to do is attemptable, you may not succeed but you can attempt it. If you can imagine it, you can try it."

Let/have the players think of what their character wants to do, and describe it in as much detail as they want/feel comfortable with. The DM, in the background, is keeping the tally of what skill might be appropriate for the particulars of the "plan". Then the DM discusses with the players the "perceived" difficulty of what they are attempting. The players get to decide if they want to attempt it after their character has ascertained the likeliness of success. They get to make an informed decision (player side) to perform an action (character side). This allows for very freeform use of skills, from the player's side of things. It does take a bit more time, but my players always enjoy that give and take you mentioned.

It looks to me like you have this well in hand.

 

[Storminator]

As the skill system is so very loose, using the Arcana skill to cover whatever I want it to is nice in some ways. As an experienced GM, it's easy for me to think "I see how it applies here." Unfortunately, the group is mostly new (ish) to the game, and this can make it hard for them to come up with ways to use their skills. It also makes it fairly impossible for them to judge how difficult a particular task will be without running it through me first, which can make long term planning a bit harder. It's give and take, but I definitely see the upsides ("you have the Brew Potion ritual, so yes, I'll let you make an Arcana check to rig a bottle of wine to explode").

With that in mind, it's not particularly liberating, it's just lighter. In my RPG, skills are very well defined (though you can still use them in ways that aren't listed), and so the players can say "I'm going to do this, as I know the DC. I know what the potential pitfalls are, what my general chances are, and can plan around that." In 4e, everything is getting filtered through me. What's the DC to do this task? Is it genre appropriate? Do they need to run a bunch of potential skill check DCs past me, and then attempt to remember them, when planning things out? This gives me the ability to tailor the game to whatever I feel is appropriate, as DM, which is nice. But, at the same time, it doesn't let me be free of those decisions, and rely on the game for them.

I've taken to handing out the Easy/Medium/Hard DCs and letting the players decide which they are trying to hit.

Have you thought about asking your players a) what DC they want to try for and b) what they get out of hitting it? Something like "I'm trying to fast talk the guards. I'll try the hard DC to get the pass phrase out of them." I think some games call this stake setting, where the players essentially bargain for what they're trying to accomplish.

I know when my players try something we always start with the fiction, then I ask the table what skill that seems likely to be, and somewhere in there we dicker about the DC. And no matter what DC they pick if they roll a crit I give them the hard DC success.

PS

 

[JamesonCourage]

Gotcha. Broad skills that manifest as close to "free descriptor" as possible in a specified skill system + a codified baseline for effects (cheat sheet/p 42) and its malleability with keywords was mainly what I was angling at so you pretty much covered your thoughts.

Yeah. I think I'm using the system well, but like I said, I'm trying to embrace its strong points.

Great stuff again. And I would echo Manbearcat's comments. It's great to see you're winning your player over to SCs.

Thanks. The Warpriest certainly seemed to enjoy it this time, and the others did, as well. So, hopefully, I can get them more used to skill challenges, since I plan to continue to use them.

BTW, I'm waiting to use Skype in the same way with my players. Unfortunately, clashing schedules keeps delaying this experiment. It's good to see that it worked for you and your group.

Yeah, Skype worked well for us (my main group has three players via Skype, but we don't use a battle map in that game). I was a little iffy about it, but it didn't add too much time, all told, and the time added was mainly due to me having to move her mini around the battle map at her instructions. I hope stuff works out for you.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Even though they would have to run the "plan" by you to figure out the mechanics, I think the best way to handle skill use, from the player side of things, is not to worry about skills at all.

I've had to teach brand new players how to play D&D countless times, with multiple different editions. My initial conversation with them always brings one element that I want them to focus on - "This is an open-ended roleplaying game. Whatever you want to do is attemptable, you may not succeed but you can attempt it. If you can imagine it, you can try it."

Again, ups and downs to this. I, as DM, can imagine an Epic-level Druid using a Nature check to attempt to control or lessen an earthquake that they are present for, but I certainly can't imagine a level 1 Druid doing that. Does the player know that this is my take on things? When you tell them "if you can imagine it, you can try it," and they do try it at level 1, do you let them succeed if they hit a Hard DC? Do you abandon that genre control and give it to the players? If so, what if other players don't think a level 1 Druid should be able to do that?

Like I said, ups and downs.

Let/have the players think of what their character wants to do, and describe it in as much detail as they want/feel comfortable with. The DM, in the background, is keeping the tally of what skill might be appropriate for the particulars of the "plan". Then the DM discusses with the players the "perceived" difficulty of what they are attempting. The players get to decide if they want to attempt it after their character has ascertained the likeliness of success. They get to make an informed decision (player side) to perform an action (character side). This allows for very freeform use of skills, from the player's side of things. It does take a bit more time, but my players always enjoy that give and take you mentioned.

Yeah. But then we get into areas, above, where players might/will have different conceptions of what they'll be able to do. A Wizard might think "okay, when we get to this point of the plan, I'll be able to do this by manipulating magic (an Arcana check, hopefully)." But, if he's level 1, and nobody else thinks that this is genre-appropriate, we have a problem. How does this Wizard player know that this wouldn't work for him? As far as I can tell, it's only by running it by everyone else. Which, as I said, means I don't feel unburdened by this system. It just feels lighter, in some ways.

It looks to me like you have this well in hand.

I think I do. I'm not worried about it being filtered through me, and there's no major problems yet.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've taken to handing out the Easy/Medium/Hard DCs and letting the players decide which they are trying to hit.

I basically tell them what skill they'll use and what DC it'll be (Easy / Moderate / Hard) after they say what they want to attempt. They can then decide if they want to go through with the action.

Have you thought about asking your players a) what DC they want to try for and b) what they get out of hitting it? Something like "I'm trying to fast talk the guards. I'll try the hard DC to get the pass phrase out of them." I think some games call this stake setting, where the players essentially bargain for what they're trying to accomplish.

I have not tried that, and I honestly probably won't. I can see them saying what they want to do, and what they're attempting to do. I actually require that before they can roll (they can't just say "I roll Bluff"). But, I don't want them setting their own DCs. A more consistent world comes when it's filtered through one person, which, in this case, is me, as the DM.

I know when my players try something we always start with the fiction, then I ask the table what skill that seems likely to be, and somewhere in there we dicker about the DC. And no matter what DC they pick if they roll a crit I give them the hard DC success.

That makes sense to me, but I'm the one that'll be coming up with DCs in my group. I think it's better for me, in that I can keep things more consistent. And honestly, I don't trust this group enough to do it. They're not bad players, but three out of four are relatively new-ish, and those three have wildly different gaming backgrounds (barely played at 12 years old and not since; hasn't played since 1e; OWOD Vampire LARPer). I doubt that they'd all have the same base genre ideas, which means I want to have it filtered through me.

Thanks for the reply, though. Now, off to my new job. Hurray.

 

[D'karr]

Again, ups and downs to this. I, as DM, can imagine an Epic-level Druid using a Nature check to attempt to control or lessen an earthquake that they are present for, but I certainly can't imagine a level 1 Druid doing that. Does the player know that this is my take on things? When you tell them "if you can imagine it, you can try it," and they do try it at level 1, do you let them succeed if they hit a Hard DC? Do you abandon that genre control and give it to the players? If so, what if other players don't think a level 1 Druid should be able to do that?

Why would it? As the DM you are the eyes, ears, and "knowledge" base for the characters. The DM IS the filter/interface to the game world/campaign. If as a DM, you don't think it appropriate for a level 1 character to be able to accomplish something, within the campaign, you let the player know what his character knows/sees/etc. - that what he would be attempting is beyond his capabilities/training/knowledge at this time. If a character wants to jump the width of the Grand Canyon the player should know, from the DM communicating to him, how he (the character) views the odds. 0% chance of success is a valid percentage, and they should be aware of it.

If you can imagine it you can try it, does not mean that they are going to be successful. That was the first thing I mentioned - attemptable, though you may not succeed. Attempting to jump the width of the Grand Canyon has a 0% chance of success. So that is what the DM should communicate to the player.

Yeah. But then we get into areas, above, where players might/will have different conceptions of what they'll be able to do. A Wizard might think "okay, when we get to this point of the plan, I'll be able to do this by manipulating magic (an Arcana check, hopefully)." But, if he's level 1, and nobody else thinks that this is genre-appropriate, we have a problem. How does this Wizard player know that this wouldn't work for him? As far as I can tell, it's only by running it by everyone else. Which, as I said, means I don't feel unburdened by this system. It just feels lighter, in some ways.

As explained above, a player might think "Oh, my wizard can do X!" The DM should let him (player) know if that is true or not within the campaign. The player should be communicating his desire to do something (in the metagame or the game world sense), the DM should communicate to the player (also in a metagame or game world sense) what he'd know from the character's perspective (world perspective). That would corroborate whether his assumption is correct or not.

What I found "refreshing" about the way 4e allows the DM to handle this is that it gives the DM the framework/tools to make "informed decisions" very quickly. Then I can communicate those "informed decisions" to the players. So they can also make "informed decisions." It also provides me a framework that I can use to challenge the characters from Level 1 to Level 30.

When I started running D&D, close to when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I also had to make those "informed decisions" on the fly. However, they were only informed by what I thought was appropriate. So if I assigned a 30% chance of success to a task it was simply a number I pulled out of thin air. Sometimes this was based on some experience. Many times it was based on no experience at all. So it was always a "gut-feel decision" rather than an "informed" one. When 3.x came around and assigned static numbers to the decision it gave me an adequate framework to go on. However there were always those cases where the static DCs made absolutely no sense. Specially as the characters leveled up, and as the opposition leveled up. A good example of where this did not work is in the Tumble skill and the static DC to avoid attacks of opportunity. What 4e provided to me was a framework/tool and a scaling level that allowed that particular task to be more difficult if the opposition was more challenging.

I might still be making "gut-feel decisions", but at least they are more "informed" with respect to the underlying design of the game. Like you said, that does not unburden me, specifically from the responsibilities of being a DM, but it actually does free me a lot more. I'm still running the game in a very similar manner as I was many years ago, but now my "rulings" make more sense from the game's design perspective, and from the campaign world perspective. YMMV

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why would it? As the DM you are the eyes, ears, and "knowledge" base for the characters. The DM IS the filter/interface to the game world/campaign. If as a DM, you don't think it appropriate for a level 1 character to be able to accomplish something, within the campaign, you let the player know what his character knows/sees/etc. - that what he would be attempting is beyond his capabilities/training/knowledge at this time.

This is exactly my point. You said "if you can imagine it, you can attempt it." If a player imagines something, he can't attempt it if you don't let him. As the DM, everything is filtered through you. At level 1, is something Easy, Moderate, Hard, or Impossible? Players don't really know until they consult you.

This is what makes me say that the system is light, but it's not really liberating. In my RPG, there's a lot of stuff written down on which skill can do what task. Most everything players will ask about will already be addressed. The DCs are listed, and are set, regardless of level. The upside to this is that players can consult things without relying on me, build their PCs with specific, achievable goals in mind, etc. It does not leave any pressure on me, as DM; it's all in the book.

However, this means that we consult the books a lot more than I need to in 4e, so it's not really more liberating for me. It's basically a wash. Neither method is more liberating, but both have their ups and downs. Which is what I was saying.

If a character wants to jump the width of the Grand Canyon the player should know, from the DM communicating to him, how he (the character) views the odds. 0% chance of success is a valid percentage, and they should be aware of it.

Exactly. Filtered through me. While the system is lighter, it's no more liberating, in my experience so far. The DM needs to remember their rulings, remain consistent, and be skilled enough to slowly alter them as the PCs go up in level (and Tier). It's not bad, but it's just the way it is.

If you can imagine it you can try it, does not mean that they are going to be successful. That was the first thing I mentioned - attemptable, though you may not succeed. Attempting to jump the width of the Grand Canyon has a 0% chance of success. So that is what the DM should communicate to the player.

That is not, in any way, "attemptable" in my book. That's "you can jump into the Grand Canyon," and not "you can try to jump over it." Your bolded section highlights that; "though you may not succeed" implies "but you have a chance." In this case, they don't.

As explained above, a player might think "Oh, my wizard can do X!" The DM should let him (player) know if that is true or not within the campaign. The player should be communicating his desire to do something (in the metagame or the game world sense), the DM should communicate to the player (also in a metagame or game world sense) what he'd know from the character's perspective (world perspective). That would corroborate whether his assumption is correct or not.

Yep. That's what I said. And I've explained why I don't find this any more liberating.

What I found "refreshing" about the way 4e allows the DM to handle this is that it gives the DM the framework/tools to make "informed decisions" very quickly. Then I can communicate those "informed decisions" to the players. So they can also make "informed decisions." It also provides me a framework that I can use to challenge the characters from Level 1 to Level 30.

I actually find it very lacking in giving me information outside of mathematics. I, as DM, can make informed decisions about how likely things will succeed, but I feel that there's a lot to be desired when it comes to letting me know what is appropriate. I basically have tiny skill descriptions and the descriptions of Tiers to go on, as well as, what, a couple examples (Page 42, etc.)?

But, I prefer skills being very well defined, so that players can reliably leverage those skills however they wish (in a way that won't break the game, and without having to consult the GM), and even make PC builds that include them. But it's just preference. I don't find 4e liberating, but it is "refreshing" in the sense that I don't have as much to memorize (because there isn't as much, since it's lighter).

What 4e provided to me was a framework/tool and a scaling level that allowed that particular task to be more difficult if the opposition was more challenging.

This is the solid information on mathematics I mentioned. From my limited experience, 4e handles this very well.

I might still be making "gut-feel decisions", but at least they are more "informed" with respect to the underlying design of the game. Like you said, that does not unburden me, specifically from the responsibilities of being a DM, but it actually does free me a lot more. I'm still running the game in a very similar manner as I was many years ago, but now my "rulings" make more sense from the game's design perspective, and from the campaign world perspective. YMMV

I don't see how it's any more "free" than adhering to static DCs in a book. They may not "make sense" to you, but if you stick to them, there's still nothing to worry about as far as making those decisions. Maybe it frees you, somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how (when compared to static DCs), and I definitely don't feel any more free when I've run my sessions. I don't feel bad, mind you. I just don't feel "liberated" in any real sense of the word.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't see how it's any more "free" than adhering to static DCs in a book. They may not "make sense" to you, but if you stick to them, there's still nothing to worry about as far as making those decisions. Maybe it frees you, somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how (when compared to static DCs), and I definitely don't feel any more free when I've run my sessions. I don't feel bad, mind you. I just don't feel "liberated" in any real sense of the word.

Some people see having (by their measure - incredibly subjective thing) a lot of fiddly detailed enumerations to be binding or obligatory and even a sirens call to them demanding these be looked up where as more generalized rules of thumb less so, or more easily absorbed it's not particularly mysterious.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Some people see having (by their measure - incredibly subjective thing) a lot of fiddly detailed enumerations to be binding or obligatory and even a sirens call to them demanding these be looked up where as more generalized rules of thumb less so, or more easily absorbed it's not particularly mysterious.

I do get that aspect, yep; I even mentioned having to look stuff up more. The 4e method certainly saves you from that, but it puts a lot more of the heavy lifting on the DM, in my eyes. It's now up to him to determine what is genre appropriate (how hard skill checks are for the PCs and at what levels), determine if PCs are even capable of tasks not outlined in the rules (see the Wizard in my first session trying to turn her bottle of wine into a bomb), etc.

To me, that means I don't feel any more free. I guess if that's how you always ran your game anyways, but now the rules are built to support that, it could feel liberating, though. I can see that.

 

[Manbearcat]

I wasn't angling at the "genre calibration as mental overhead" upthread when I asked if GMing 4e felt liberating after a fashion. However, subjective DCs, generalized/open descriptor skills, and a mapped framework for stunting does indeed have a built-in expectation of genre calibration for the table. This can, of course, be hammered out prior or can evolve naturally through practice with the players (including the GM). However, there is a mental overhead aspect (even if it diminishes with time, perhaps to ultimate extinction) to genre calibration, and it is heightened (intentionally) in games with system elements like 4e.

So @JamesonCourage's point makes sense to me. I suspect it will indeed diminish with time (perhaps not to extinction, but at least diminish), but the mental overhead should definitely be there right now with a new group that is developing chemistry and acclimating to one another and to a new system (specifically one with subjectivity/open-descriptor as a core element). Dungeon World has plenty of similarity to 4e in the output of its free-descriptor meets unified mechanics for conflict resolution meets narrative, tagged, "moves"-driven play (specifically with respect to challenging players with genre logic). I'm introducing my nephew to D&D/RPGing via the game and there is certainly an element of "genre calibration as mental overhead" there. In many of the free-descriptor/narrative games I've run in the past, its been with players I've known/run with forever and the game has clearly built-in genre expectations (eg superhero or western meets high fantasy). In JC's case, you have the truths that (1) 4e is driftable genre-wise (by design I think) and (2) his table is composed of mostly new elements working toward a cohesive unit. Mental overhead derived from 1 and 2 makes sense.