Legends & Lore: Skills

[KidSnide]

This week, Mike Mearls discusses skills.

Interestingly, he focuses on the tension between providing a consistent mechanical system for resolving actions and requiring the player to describe (or roleplay) what the character does. It's the difference between "I search" and "I look under the bed... then under the desk... then in the drawers..."

I think that 4e doesn't provide enough weight to the player's role-playing or thought process in skill resolution. Typically, I give a +2, +5 or +10 bonus to the roll, which sometimes effectively generates an auto-success with a skilled character. I think the balance in a game like D&D should be to weight the player's actions (and skills) approximately equally to the character's abilities when determining success or failure.

The other interesting note from the article is that Mearls doesn't address what I see as a frequently raised point concerning skills - they allow players to play characters who are more persuasive or clever than the players themselves. (I disagree with this argument more often than I agree with it, but it's a curiously omitted part of the discussion.)

-KS

 

[Incenjucar]

The articles are getting much much better now. Whether you agree with him or not, he's getting his ideas across much more effectively.

Personally I agree with the idea of skills needing to have more benefits and less numbers involved, but I like to use the skill check as a "degrees of success" kind of thing rather than ignoring it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there's a middle ground between tossing a Perception check to search a room and describing each thing the PC searches and just telling them exactly what they see. A Perception check can let the DM know how observant the character is. A high check can provide hints about where to search "you notice there seems to be something under the bed" without giving away the whole show, and the player can still make decisions about exactly how he's searching and what he's looking for. I don't think you necessarily need to provide a "role play bonus" as a numerical bonus.

I've always preferred the "roll first and then describe" concept in general as it reduces the difference between the two styles in many cases. OK, you rolled a terrible Perception check, maybe you describe that as failing to look under the bed or not noticing that locked chest in the corner behind the coat rack. It certainly works well for social skill use situations where the player can roll his Diplomacy roll and if he gets a lousy roll then maybe the character just doesn't clue in on the best approach and the player can describe him putting his foot in his mouth instead. This engages RP and narrative talent. There are still plenty of opportunities for the player to think up clever plans, he's got to have SOMETHING clever to use to describe his good Diplomacy check after all, and if he can only come up with something rather thin and implausible then the check may succeed but the results are going to be in keeping with how he narrated his actions. Impressing someone that you are a great guy is fine, but it doesn't necessarily get you that sweet deal on ritual components.

And yeah, I notice that Mike didn't mention the way using skill checks lets the PC's competency be decoupled from the player's. One issue with 4e I think is that since clever strategic planning seems to be less of an element in the game there's less scope for cleverness at that level, which in AD&D at least was where cunning players really could make a huge impact. You have to aim consciously for that sort of play in 4e since the PCs come with a lot of built-in capabilities, unlike your average low level AD&D party where you definitely had to scrape for every advantage you could get if you were going to survive.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've always preferred the "roll first and then describe" concept in general as it reduces the difference between the two styles in many cases...

Me too. The one thing really missing in 4E (and D&D in general) to better support this style of play is separate awards for roleplaying--especially failed attempts. You can (and D&D DMs often have) award bonus XP or other such for roleplaying, but this messes with the reward curve in some games. It leads to that business that Pemerton has referenced, where there isn't much challenge if the numbers simply move as you level.

Say, for the sake of argument, that you house rule to only get XP for success, and you only get action points for roleplaying. And just assume that action points are valuable enough to the participants that they want to regularly go after them, same as XP. Suddenly, the chops brought by the player really matter, but not at that expense of portraying a character who is so much more glib than yourself.

Not saying that such a house rule is a good way to address it. It probably isn't. But to the extent that you want player skill to matter without trumping character skill, you really do want to make failures a rich vein to explore.

 

[Kinneus]

I agree that there needs to be a greater level of description and roleplaying when it comes to skills. I think one of the (many) pitfalls of the skill challenge system is that puts skills in a very limited box. It says, "PCs can use Diplomacy to convince the duke that this is a bad idea for one success." They can't turn the entire scene into a diplomatic scene because... um, because the skill challenge isn't written that way. You have to use Intimidate and Athletics and Arcana to get the rest of your successes, and god help the poor bastard that wants to use Bluff!

Once, I was playing in a campaign with an otherwise very good DM. I was playing a Genasi Swordmage with a very strong lightning and storms theme. We encountered a trap that was basically massive static charges flinging from one rock to the next. We had to figure out how to disarm it so we could safely rest in the area.

I asked the DM if, being an elemental being of lightning, I could use Endurance to try to simply absorb the shock. "No," he told me.

"Okay," I said, "can I use Arcana to try and nullify the energy?"

"No," he told me.

And then the halfling monk said, "I use Thievery," and he rolled a 16, and the DM said, "You succeed."

Now, a pessimist might argue that I was simply trying to find ways to make my character's best skills applicable (and I totally was). But I would have to ask what the heck is wrong with that? If a PC can figure out a way to use his skill in a manner that's interesting and creative and makes narrative sense, isn't that better than "I use Thievery?"

4e needs more of the former and less the latter, and Skill Challenges saying "You can only use skills X and Y for successes, and Z for marginal modifiers. All other skills are totally irrelevant" isn't doing anybody any favors.

 

[DNH]

I've always preferred the "roll first and then describe" concept in general.

As do I. I have been a fan of your posts for some time now - always comprehensive and eloquent and usually in complete accord with my own thinking - and this is another one of those. I don't know if it's just the way our group has always played since several editions back or what but it always seems to me to be the best way (the only way?) to get decent role-playing going. I have tried things like "+2 bonus to the check if you can describe what you are doing in florid prose" but that always seems the wrong way around to me. Far better to use the RP around the table to describe the results of the dice rolls.

... for our group, at least. Don't forget the Mearls' spaghetti sauce!

 

[DNH]

Skill Challenges saying "You can only use skills X and Y for successes, and Z for marginal modifiers. All other skills are totally irrelevant" isn't doing anybody any favors.

I don't think anyone is saying that. Certainly not the Wizards of the Coast. They have gone on at some length to expand on what is possible in Skill Challenges and taken pains to ensure that DMs consider all options, especially those brought up at the table by their players. Including the use of non-skills (eg powers or items or money) to generate successes. You may just have found some bad examples and/or not considered how they play out.

 

[KidSnide]

I've always preferred the "roll first and then describe" concept in general as it reduces the difference between the two styles in many cases. OK, you rolled a terrible Perception check, maybe you describe that as failing to look under the bed or not noticing that locked chest in the corner behind the coat rack. It certainly works well for social skill use situations where the player can roll his Diplomacy roll and if he gets a lousy roll then maybe the character just doesn't clue in on the best approach and the player can describe him putting his foot in his mouth instead. This engages RP and narrative talent.

This system does have the advantage of narrative coherence, although it directs the player's skill into narrating actions consistent with the dice. I like this sort of approach for when there is no in-game detail for the players to analyze. E.g. when the players are trying to traverse a swamp, I don't have a swamp map for the players to analyze, so it makes sense to use a die roll as the sole determiner of the character's effectiveness. Similarly, if the PCs are trying to intimidate a random guard patrol, the roleplaying is going to be some sort of generic display of bravado. I feel the same way about searching for treasure in dungeons.

In contrast, when the PCs are trying to persuade a fully developed NPC, that character's motivations, loyalties are quirks are things that the players actually have information about. Reducing interaction with that character to a die roll seems like it loses a great opportunity. Instead, I want the players to think about what sorts of arguments that NPC would find persuasive, and I want to provide major adjustments (or auto-successes) to reflect that player consideration of the game world. Similarly, if I'm running a detective mystery, it's important for the players to think about where to find clues. There I take an old school approach by deciding where the clues are actually hidden. Each time the PCs make a search check, they need to say where they are looking, and looking in the right place provides a major bonus (or auto-success).

To me, the roll-first vs. roll-second question depends on whether the players have enough information to meaningfully interact with the game world. Obviously, this means that roll-first tends to happen with less important rolls (which tend to involve less detailed aspects of the game world), while the players have to think carefully (and roll-second) when there is detail to analyze.

Obviously, the "correct" technique for handling skills is significantly group and game dependent. However, I think 4e deserves a bit of criticism for it's one-size-fits-all design philosophy. YMMV.

-KS

 

[OnlineDM]

Me too. The one thing really missing in 4E (and D&D in general) to better support this style of play is separate awards for roleplaying--especially failed attempts. You can (and D&D DMs often have) award bonus XP or other such for roleplaying, but this messes with the reward curve in some games. It leads to that business that Pemerton has referenced, where there isn't much challenge if the numbers simply move as you level.

Say, for the sake of argument, that you house rule to only get XP for success, and you only get action points for roleplaying. And just assume that action points are valuable enough to the participants that they want to regularly go after them, same as XP. Suddenly, the chops brought by the player really matter, but not at that expense of portraying a character who is so much more glib than yourself.

Not saying that such a house rule is a good way to address it. It probably isn't. But to the extent that you want player skill to matter without trumping character skill, you really do want to make failures a rich vein to explore.

I give out bonus points for cool role playing (you can cash them in for a +1 to a roll you make or a -1 to a roll made against you). It works really well, and it's easy.

As for the article itself, I actually thought it did allude to the difference between rewarding character skill versus player skill. This is definitely an area where 4e seems to be different from 1e; not having played 1e I can't really say which version I prefer.

There are some skills that could rely on player skill (mainly the social skills, Perception, Insight) but most would have to be tied to character skill, I think (Thievery, Endurance, Athletics, etc.). The game could use two different systems to represent these, but 4e feels like a game that wants unified mechanics wherever possible (though this is changing somewhat with certain Essentials classes). I'm not sure what would be best, frankly, but it's clear that there are different ways one could handle this.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In contrast, when the PCs are trying to persuade a fully developed NPC, that character's motivations, loyalties are quirks are things that the players actually have information about. Reducing interaction with that character to a die roll seems like it loses a great opportunity. Instead, I want the players to think about what sorts of arguments that NPC would find persuasive, and I want to provide major adjustments (or auto-successes) to reflect that player consideration of the game world...

Sure, but note that this isn't exclusive with roll first, narrate second. There is nothing prohibited in roll first with setting the scene, being clever, etc. The players are free to eke out as much advantage as they can, using whatever information they have, up to the limits of what the table will tolerate. As you say, in the middle of the swamp, that might be very little. With the long-running NPC, it might be a lot. Then they roll. Then they narrate the result.

About the only time this can easily break down is in some variant of a negotiation scene. The method depends on the DM having a clear understanding of the differences between roleplaying that happens leading up to a mechanical decision point, versus the narration that may follow that decision point. And of course, in smooth play, the narration seems to bleed into the roleplaying for the next decision point.

Which is why "roll first, roleplay after" is correct, but probably a bit of a sloppy way of putting it. But even when roleplay for advantage (or mere color or otherwise) is tightly mixed in with roleplay via narration, they are still separate activities in my mind.