Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[darkbard]

Just wanted to correct this but the last iteration of skill challenge rules, found in the Essentials rulebooks, clearly states the typical SC is based on party level. Now no one is saying the DM can't do what he wants but it's made clear that the default standard SC will use character level as it's default for setting DC's.

That's true in the sense that the encounter level of a combat is also based on party level, but one frequently deviates from this baseline by a few "levels." Absolutely granted, most published SCs seem to be at the expected party level, but I don't think anything in the rules mandates that.

 

[Imaro]

That's true in the sense that the encounter level of a combat is also based on party level, but one frequently deviates from this baseline by a few "levels." Absolutely granted, most published SCs seem to be at the expected party level, but I don't think anything in the rules mandates that.

Nope, noting mandates it... but when discussing the mechanics and rules I think identifying the designers intentions for how the system should be used is important (especially when they are clearly stated). they intended for the DC's to be based on character level with some wriggle room... this is, at least as I read it, a different intent than assigning the DC"s based on the level of the SC which from what I can garner from @Tony Vargas post equates to anything you feel like within the fiction...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope, noting mandates it... but when discussing the mechanics and rules I think identifying the designers intentions

While such telepathic insights would certainly be nice, I do not credit you with the supernatural ability to divine those intentions.

Just wanted to correct this

You can't. I understand wanting to, but you can't correct something that is already correct, by asserting something that is wrong. Just basic logic.

but the last iteration of skill challenge rules, found in the Essentials rulebooks, clearly states the typical SC is based on party level. Now no one is saying the DM can't do what he wants but it's made clear that the default standard SC will use character level as it's default for setting DC's.

The DCs are based on the level of the skill challenge, not the level of the PCs. It can be higher or lower than the PC's level. The bit you're referencing is a guideline. A reasonable one, as a much lower-level skill challenge won't be challenging and a much-higher level one probably doomed to failure, but only a guideline, not a rule. Thus wording like 'typical.'

It is still the level of the skill challenge that determines the DCs, not the level of the PCs. That is what I said, it is correct, and your twisting of some guideline does not allow you to 'correct' it, no matter how much you may want to muddy the issue or score some sort of imaginary internet points.

Please don't waste my time with such nonsense again, Imaro.

 

[Imaro]

You can't. I understand wanting to, but you can't correct something that is already correct, by asserting something that is wrong. Just basic logic.

The DCs are based on the level of the skill challenge, not the level of the PCs. It can be higher or lower than the PC's level. The bit you're referencing is a guideline. A reasonable one, as a much lower-level skill challenge won't be challenging and a much-higher level one probably doomed to failure, but only a guideline, not a rule. Thus wording like 'typical.'

It is still the level of the skill challenge that determines the DCs, not the level of the PCs. That is what I said, it is correct, and your twisting of some guideline does not allow you to 'correct' it, no matter how much you may want to muddy the issue or score some sort of imaginary internet points.

Please don't waste my time with such nonsense again, Imaro.

It's not about internet points... Again as I stated earlier understanding and acknowledging designer intent is important when discussing how mechanics are intended and should work... sorry you feel that's nonsense since I think it's pretty important.

EDIT: The funny thing is you're basically saying they don't work properly if the character level isn't used as a basis but then claiming it's nonsense to point out the intention behind the design of the mechanic... that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

understanding and acknowledging designer intent is important when discussing how mechanics are intended and should work

While such telepathic insights would certainly be nice, I do not credit you with the supernatural ability to divine those intentions.

... sorry you feel that's nonsense since I think it's pretty important.

Your willful misrepresentation of guidelines as rules was nonsense, now you're doubling down on it by claiming to read the designers' minds.

Instead, let's go by the actual content of the game in question. As I correctly pointed out, above, the DCs in a Skill Challenge are based on the level of the Challenge, not the level of the party. That means that a same-level challenge is likely to be a reasonable one, a lower-level challenge easier, and a higher-level one harder. The guideline you pointed out supports that.

EDIT: The funny thing is you're basically saying they don't work properly if the character level isn't used as a basis

It's not funny that you would misrepresent what I said that way.

Higher-level challenges, whether SCs or combats, being harder than lower-level ones is hardly "not working properly." For instance, in a status-quo campaign, the DM might place monsters or other challenges of whatever level he feels represents them, those levels let him easily gauge the challenge they'd represent to the party, but the level of the party would in no way be based on them. Status Quo a legitimate way to run 4e campaigns, discussed in the 4e DMG.

but then claiming it's nonsense to point out the intention behind the design of the mechanic... that doesn't make any sense.

You don't know that intention. Speculating that the intent of a guideline was to be taken as rule that would change the meaning of the mechanics actually presented is hardly productive. I don't feel I was unfair in characterizing that as 'nonsense.'

 

[Imaro]

While such telepathic insights would certainly be nice, I do not credit you with the supernatural ability to divine those intentions.

Or I could just read what the designers stated is the basis for a typical skill challenge in the actual rule books... it's not that hard, really.

Your willful misrepresentation of guidelines as rules was nonsense, now you're doubling down on it by claiming to read the designers' minds.

I made no such claim only stated what is written in the books.

Instead, let's go by the actual content of the game in question. As I correctly pointed out, above, the DCs in a Skill Challenge are based on the level of the Challenge, not the level of the party. That means that a same-level challenge is likely to be a reasonable one, a lower-level challenge easier, and a higher-level one harder. The guideline you pointed out supports that.

And the level of the SC is typically based on the level of the characters. It's not rocket science. You went on to point to the level of the baron, the advisor and numerous other things. But yeah I'm going to walk away from this because it's tangential at best to my original point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While such telepathic insights would certainly be nice, I do not credit you with the supernatural ability to divine those intentions.

Your willful misrepresentation of guidelines as rules was nonsense, now you're doubling down on it by claiming to read the designers' minds.

Instead, let's go by the actual content of the game in question. As I correctly pointed out, above, the DCs in a Skill Challenge are based on the level of the Challenge, not the level of the party. That means that a same-level challenge is likely to be a reasonable one, a lower-level challenge easier, and a higher-level one harder. The guideline you pointed out supports that.

Hey, just a heads up, but you're the one coming off as a jerk, here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But yeah I'm going to walk away from this because it's tangential at best to my original point.

Probably for the best, at this point.

the DM could frame a scene wherein the advisor uses powers, skills, etc. against the PCs, but then we're moving into a combat encounter or some other framework.

Thanks to the wonder of 'exception-based design' (in context, 4e's much more constrained nod to DM Empowerment) the DM could give an NPC powers or traits that directly interact with a Skill Challenge. There aren't precedents for that (that I recall atm, anyway), but you don't need precedents ('exception' based, afterall).

Or the DM could model such within the framework of the SC system by, say, describing how the advisor augments his slick words with a subtle charm, thus setting that particular skill check by the PC as a hard DC (Arcana) or something similar.

One thing that's easy to lose sight of when discussing 4e, especially for those who have little experience and/or appreciation of the system (but even for those of us who have more), is that 4e got further away from the rubric of 'realism' than did other editions, and was a good deal more abstract. Like 1e & 2e, 4e used completely different types of stat blocks for monsters, and used them for NPCs, as well, even more often than those earlier editions. The resolution mechanics in 4e are more player-facing, too. They play well 'above board,' rather than behind a screen, not requiring secrecy to work or maintain illusions.

That does mean the modeling of PCs is pro-active and action-oriented, PCs do things, move the story, and are the focus of that story. Everything else provides the back-drop and challenges of the PCs' story. An NPC isn't ever a protagonist, even if it's an ally of the PCs, and helping it accomplish something is a focus of their story for a time. An antagonistic NPC, like the one in pemerton's example, is, by definition an antagonist to the PC protagonists, it would be absurd, not just in the sense of silly or counter-productive, but logically nonsensical, to try to give him 'protagonism' or agency.

I think the point is, rather, that the abilities of the NPC should figure into the skill challenge, as that paints the challenge more vividly and makes it more interesting. The basic SC mechanism - n successes before 3 failures, at DCs determined by the level of the Skill Challenge (not the party) - does not have a lot of space for an opposing NPC. The opposition (or just involvement) of an NPC might determine the level of the challenge and influence the difficulty of checks & number of successes required.

For instance, the level of the challenge in pemerton's example might have been based on the level of the Vizier, as the main antagonist, or on that of the Baron, as the object of both the PC's and Vizier's maneuvering. The difficulty of individual checks might also go either way. The active opposition of the Vizier could mean more successes required.

That's fine as far as it goes, but I've taken it further with the above option of giving an NPCs powers that directly affect a Skill Challenge. It'd've been nice if Skill Challenges had had more than a couple of years to develop and evolve, though.

In these--any many other, I'm sure--examples, the DM uses the framework of the system to represent NPC actions and adjudicate outcomes of these actions in response to what the PCs do rather than relying solely upon her judgment, which, without such mechanics and to return to the original point of this post, sets up the possibility of railroading.

I'm not too bothered by the idea of a DM favoring linear storytelling over sandboxing, but there are advantages to having a solid resolution system that the GM needn't constantly apply his judgement to (though he could still overrule it if he saw fit, and, of course, uses his judgement in deciding when/how to apply it). One of the more apparent is that it's a common resolution system, it's the same for everyone at the table, and it can be reasonably fair (hopefully balanced, too), allowing players to share the process more readily, and to make decisions with some idea of what's at stake & their chances of success.

 

[billd91]

How do you know that I didn't have to? What rulebook are you quoting from? Where do you get the authority to establish who enjoys what permissions at my group's table?

EDIT: Also, re combat: in D&D nothing tells you that the ogre is dead except a mechanical process of tabulation of successes. Why, in principle, can the same procedure not be used to tell you other stuff about the ogre? What is it about death that makes it uniquely suited to being established, as an element of the fiction, in such a manner? Nothing that I can see.

You can certainly use a mechanical process to tell all sorts of things about the ogre during the course of any particular encounter, the difference between getting him to cooperate via a diplomatic overture and killing him should be pretty obvious though. The next time you encounter the ogre, his attitude toward the PCs may be different depending on the circumstances and that encounter may be because the ogre initiated it (in the game's storyline). If he's dead, there's really no next time (barring the usual genre exceptions of resurrection, zombification, and so on...).

Ultimately, the reason the ogre would be permanently dealt (barring the PCs choosing to go visit him again) with is because you, as GM, choose to leave him so rather than choose to bring him back. The rules for 4e certainly aren't mandating it.

 

[billd91]

I think the point is, rather, that the abilities of the NPC should figure into the skill challenge, as that paints the challenge more vividly and makes it more interesting. The basic SC mechanism - n successes before 3 failures, at DCs determined by the level of the Skill Challenge (not the party) - does not have a lot of space for an opposing NPC. The opposition (or just involvement) of an NPC might determine the level of the challenge and influence the difficulty of checks & number of successes required.

Honestly, this insistence that the DCs are based on the level of the skill challenge not the PCs is getting a bit obsessive, particularly when the skill challenge is probably being designed for the group of PCs and the recommended level of the skill challenge starts with the levels of the PCs. It would be pretty pointless to design a skill challenge at level 25 and throw it at a bunch of level 4 PCs, particularly if you're trying to engage in a player-driven, scene framed campaign. You'd just be railroading them into failure.