Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[pemerton]

If improvising almost always is able to make an enemy irrelevant or even defeat an enemy faster than using the rules in book, then improvising becomes the ONLY choice. Why attack for 1d8 damage when an improvised action causes rocks to fall on the enemies head and kill them instantly. Or locks them in a corner, unable to get out for days.

<snip>

If you improvise an action your DM might assign it at-will damage or encounter damage instead of daily damage. The DM might determine that it only qualifies for damage a couple levels lower than you. They might decide that using p42 for this particular improvised maneuver isn't appropriate and make up a new mechanic all together.

What I am seeing here (at least in the context of 4e) is nothing but a risk that the GM might ignore the rules. If the GM doesn't ignore the rules then (1) s/he will apply page 42, and hence (2) won't set the damage a couple of levels lower than you, nor let rocks fall on everyone's head and kill them instantly.

Unfortunately, there are so FEW situations that have enough interesting things to narrate to require that complexity of skill challenge that they should almost never be used. Plus, for a lot of DMs, they have no idea how much interesting things they have to narrate until they come out of their mouth since they are DMing mostly on the fly.

Though, that doesn't stop the DMs who are pretty much improvising on the spot from saying "I need to give them a bunch of XP, so I'll use a high complexity skill challenge because I don't want to run a combat." and then end up spending the next 15 minutes saying "That's not enough successes, roll again".

This almost always feels artificial, in my experience:

"I tell the king that the kingdom will fall to the horde of demons we saw approaching and he needs to ride out and meet them. There were hundreds of them and we can't defeat them alone!"
"Make a Diplomacy check."
"I get 30. That should convince him."
"He's not completely convinced. Maybe if you demonstrated your strength, he'd be convinced."
"Really? An army of demons isn't enough to convince him? I have to lift a table over my head as well?"
"Yeah, sorry, I didn't expect you to make such a great point as your first check, and this is a complexity 5 skill challenge."

I find "I'll keep asking for skill checks until I'm convinced they've succeeded in their goal" works much better than setting a specific number of successes required. If it takes only 1 skill check to succeed in something, then so be it. If it takes 30, that's fine as well. I think skill challenges are just too formal.

To be completely honest, what I'm seeing here is simply poor GMing. GMs who don't know how to frame challenging non-combat scenes; and GMs who don't know how to narrate and adjudicate complications. For instance, in the case of the demon horde, IF the GM has framed it as a high-complexity skill challenge then the GM needs to have complications in mind. Possibilities I can think of off the top of my head include that the king is afraid and would rather have the heroes fight the demons; that the king is secretly a demon-worshipper; that the king thinks the PCs are lying or exaggerating, or otherwise doesn't trust them; that the king wants to be seen to not be helping them for some other reason the PCs need to discover; etc.

As for "such a great point": vs AC 25, a 35 to hit roll does no more damage than a 25 to hit roll. It's binary, and any pip in excess is wasted. The same is true in a skill challenge, with one exception: if you're using the rules from Essentials then hard successes can, in some circusmtances, count as two successes.

Regeneration says to me "I take damage normally, but I regain it quickly" vs a forcefield which says to me "I stop damage from ever occurring. In MHRP, both just add a dice to your dice pool when defending.

This is not correct. Regeneration is modelled by Stamina plus SFX. A forcefield is modelled by Durability. Durability can be used in a reaction pool when defending. Typically Stamina cannot be - it is used in recovery actions or with recovery SFX.

This would be fine if the traits and powers seemed to have any effect on the game at all except slightly different die sizes.

No, that doesn't mean they are connected. It just means that the game is a freeform roleplaying game that periodically rolls dice to decide what happens.

I get the sense that you reall have very little familiarity with the system. I GMed my first session the other day - the actual play post is here. The short version, though, is that traits and powers had an effect on the game. War Machine ran different arguments in front of Congress from Bobby Drake. Wolverine tracked people and cut them up; Invisible Woman trapped people in force cages; and Iceman slid them down ice slides and froze them into ice cages.

Guess what happens when Collosus uses his best dice against Titanium Man? Answer: The Watcher spends a Doom Pool die, activating Titanium Man's Invulnerable SFX and ignores all damage.

This happened in my game when Wolverine hit Armadillo. So they trapped him in a force/ice cage instead.

Guys, as much as I love MHRP, this isn't the forum. Can we return to replaying in DND and specifically Next?

But mathematically, it's still a bad idea to use any power that has a lower die. Sure, it MIGHT not make a difference because of how small the numbers are. However, if your goal is to hit an enemy, choosing a lower die is counter to that goal.

I want to pick up this last point in a way that is (I think) relevant to RP in D&Dnext.

In my experience, the single biggest enemy of RP in D&D is that players always have a reason to try and roll their best dice, and therefore try to avoid stepping outside very narrow bands of PC competence. In 4e, I can sometime break this down by thoughtful framing of skill challenges, but even then it isn't easy.

Systems like BW, or MHRP, which via a method of (1) separating PC advancement from PC success, and (2) fail forward in action resolution, release this brake on RP. It would be good if Inspiration mechanics could somehow achieve the same thing in D&Dnext.

 

[LostSoul]

For instance, in the case of the demon horde, IF the GM has framed it as a high-complexity skill challenge then the GM needs to have complications in mind. Possibilities I can think of off the top of my head include that the king is afraid and would rather have the heroes fight the demons; that the king is secretly a demon-worshipper; that the king thinks the PCs are lying or exaggerating, or otherwise doesn't trust them; that the king wants to be seen to not be helping them for some other reason the PCs need to discover; etc.

What usually happens in my high-complexity social skill challenges is that, somewhere in the middle, the nature of the negotiation changes: it goes from the NPC being rather obstinate and stubborn to a back-and-forth negotiation.

Assuming I had nothing prepped for the king, other than "King", this is what I'd do:

Situation: The PCs see a horde of demons approaching the King's lands. The PCs arrange an audience with the King.

DM: [makes a reaction roll to set the complexity; the result is uncertain, cautious, and wary, meaning 6 successes are necessary] (I go with 2/4/6/8 successes)
DM: [interprets this to mean that the King thinks the PCs are dangerous agents that work against the status quo which supports the King and maintains peace and stability - such as it is - in his lands, but they are good for stomping out threats without having to pay, feed, house, and supply them.]
PC: "I tell the king that the kingdom will fall to the horde of demons we saw approaching and he needs to ride out and meet them. There were hundreds of them and we can't defeat them alone!"
King: [uncertain about these wild claims] "A horde of demons? Why haven't my patrols spotted them?"

A few checks are made; the PCs convince the King that the threat is real.

King: "This is troubling. I will give you authority to lead a band of men, but you must swear fealty to me and obey my edicts and requests."

More checks are made, hammering out the deal.​

I'm also not afraid to end a skill challenge if there's no conflict left. If the King agrees to the PC's demands, and he has none of his own (or the PCs agree to those), it's over. I guess you could award XP based on the complexity as it stands when the skill challenge ends: if you needed 8 checks, and it ends after 4, award XP based on the lower complexity. (I think that's how XP and skill challenges work, I don't use the standard XP system.)

 

[Warbringer]

I'm also not afraid to end a skill challenge if there's no conflict left. If the King agrees to the PC's demands, and he has none of his own (or the PCs agree to those), it's over. I guess you could award XP based on the complexity as it stands when the skill challenge ends: if you needed 8 checks, and it ends after 4, award XP based on the lower complexity. (I think that's how XP and skill challenges work, I don't use the standard XP system.)

This is good advise, and equally applicable to combat. Yes, the rules may say that we only have 4 successes but need 8, but the scene has reached its goal. In combat, an encounter may have reached he stage where the NPCs and monsters are at 40% of there hit points, but hey are clearly at a huge disadvantage ( say they lost 60% of their resources in 2 rounds), the goal of the scene is surely met...

But, how many DMs and players keep going until the challenge is obliterated, not simply achieved. Surrender NPCs offer far for replay and social/investigative play than dead ones (mostly, )

IMO, communicating objectives and recognizing when they are achieved in story reduces this tendency to keep in flogging a dead horse (in game, sometimes literally)

 

[LostSoul]

This is good advise, and equally applicable to combat. Yes, the rules may say that we only have 4 successes but need 8, but the scene has reached its goal. In combat, an encounter may have reached he stage where the NPCs and monsters are at 40% of there hit points, but hey are clearly at a huge disadvantage ( say they lost 60% of their resources in 2 rounds), the goal of the scene is surely met...

But, how many DMs and players keep going until the challenge is obliterated, not simply achieved. Surrender NPCs offer far for replay and social/investigative play than dead ones (mostly, )

IMO, communicating objectives and recognizing when they are achieved in story reduces this tendency to keep in flogging a dead horse (in game, sometimes literally)

This is why I like to use Morale Checks in combat - they remind me, as DM, to at least consider breaking off and running away. I've run a few combats where I think the NPCs would have killed a PC or two but instead ran for it (or negotiated, depending on their nature).

I haven't used a morale system that meshes with 4E that well. One thing that springs to mind is a skill challenge that runs alongside the combat. You could write down a number of minor goals (and have a set of defaults) for the PCs to reach during the combat. Each success counts towards morale failure, maybe with some other rider effects (and again, some defaults would be nice). It could be transparent to the players (they know what they can do to generate a success), or not. It would also provide a 4E method of resolving the conflict in a way other than through HP ablation.

That sounds like a lot of extra work that may add too much complexity, so I'm not sure how much it would mesh.

 

[pemerton]

What usually happens in my high-complexity social skill challenges is that, somewhere in the middle, the nature of the negotiation changes: it goes from the NPC being rather obstinate and stubborn to a back-and-forth negotiation.

That makes sense to me.