Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Umbran]

In the case presented, it does, because the whole idea that there is a challenge involved to is (4e SC or not) implies that there is something more going on in the scenario.

That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.

In making this into a series of encounters, that apparently grew into "something more going on". So, I am back to wondering if this solution actually fits what was originally requested. We might see a bit of scope creep here, but as we see later on, that actually leads to some resolution...

This touches on one of the reasons I don't think 4e is any better at narrative pacing and thematic play than PF (which was the original point), and may be even worse due to what I consider... rigid design in the SC's basic structure.

Let us look at the crossing the swamp scenario. In 4e, it could be handled by a skill challenge. It has been suggested that in 3e, it could be 3 non-combat encounters and one minor combat encounters...

...which, if I translate it to 4e again, becomes 3 skill challenges and a small combat encounter.

In 4e you could deal with crossing the swamp in light detail (one SC) or greater detail (3+ challenges), at the GM's whim, not the rules' dictate. In 3e you wouldn't need to use 4 encounters - you could do it with less. In either edition, the level of detail, and thus the pacing, rests not in the rules, but in the adventure design in the first place - like it always has!

Mind you, I don't actually think there's anything new in the skill challenge. The SC is just a clarification of what I used to consider a non-combat scene, putting extended use of skills to solve problems into a framework so that GMs can think a little more clearly about them. In practice, I don't find its pacing to be any more rigid than 3e non-combat encounters/challenges.

 

[BryonD]

Why are there no dice? What game are you playing? The game expressly states how this is handled.

I'm going to just give the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't want to read the rest of my post. That's fine.

Good Gaming.

 

[Imaro]

That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.

In making this into a series of encounters, that apparently grew into "something more going on". So, I am back to wondering if this solution actually fits what was originally requested. We might see a bit of scope creep here, but as we see later on, that actually leads to some resolution...

Umbran, I was asked how I would run this without getting bogged down in details and minutae... not for a reconstruction of 4e SC mechanics using 3e/PF. I don't particularly like the pacing of 4e SC's which are too abstract, too railroaded and too based on group vs. individual protagonist's decisions... why would I replicate them exactly, especially when that's not what Permeton asked me to do.

Let us look at the crossing the swamp scenario. In 4e, it could be handled by a skill challenge. It has been suggested that in 3e, it could be 3 non-combat encounters and one minor combat encounters...

...which, if I translate it to 4e again, becomes 3 skill challenges and a small combat encounter.

In 4e you could deal with crossing the swamp in light detail (one SC) or greater detail (3+ challenges), at the GM's whim, not the rules' dictate. In 3e you wouldn't need to use 4 encounters - you could do it with less. In either edition, the level of detail, and thus the pacing, rests not in the rules, but in the adventure design in the first place - like it always has!

Mind you, I don't actually think there's anything new in the skill challenge. The SC is just a clarification of what I used to consider a non-combat scene, putting extended use of skills to solve problems into a framework so that GMs can think a little more clearly about them. In practice, I don't find its pacing to be any more rigid than 3e non-combat encounters/challenges.

So are you saying it is impossible to abstract to the level of a single roll called on by the DM to be taken by the person with the highest score in 3e? Especially if the DM makes the DC's for everything he deems not important, low enough to be passed by taking 10 or 20?

I don't think it's against the rules and it will give you similar results to 4e's SC's if that's what you want out of the game. Also why do you insist on an encounter being tied to a certain amount of time... it's not. A SC in 4e covers numerous encounters... how much time each takes to resolve is a totally different matter.

 

[Fifth Element]

So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That is a point that bears noting - correct me if I am wrong, but the initial goal was to set the effects of passing through the swamp on the party, to determine how fatigued they are at the end, and so forth.

If that's the case, it's even easier. The excellent 3pp 3e book, Wildscape (and check the author, btw, for a note of irony) gives you a series of hazards, with appropriate DCs, effects for failure, etc. If all you wanted to do was set the effects of passing through the swamp and determine how fatigued they are at the end, you can do that in 5 minutes flat. 10 if your players take a long time rolling the dice.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.

They certainly can be, depending upon the group.

But I wouldn't assume them to be for all groups. Nor would I assume that 3e resolution is necessarily the same for all 3e groups, or 4e resolution is necessarily the same for all 4e groups.


RC

 

[BryonD]

So as far as I can tell, the lesson from recent discussion is that in terms of non-combat resolution, 3E and 4E are essentially the same? I'd buy that.

I agree with RC that they can be.

In my personal opinion 3E does 4E style far better than 4E does 3E style. But you could have groups playing 4E style using 3E. I absolutely admit that 4E does 4E style far better than 3E does. So I don't claim there is any reason to use 3E if that is what you like.

Also, I further admit that my term "3E style" is from my own POV. If you were playing 3E 5 years ago in a way that now would be recognized as "4E style" then clearly to you that would be what you thought of as 3E style. They still would have been different pre-4E, but now it is easier for us to generalize with simple labels.

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to just give the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't want to read the rest of my post. That's fine.

Good Gaming.

Oh, no, I read the entire post. I would just like to see why you think that what you are doing is actually using the mechanics of the game you claim to be playing. You are saying that my characterization of pacing in the 3.5 ruleset is flat out wrong.

To show that I'm wrong, you then claim to not use any of the 3e ruleset but instead head off into your own diceless system that bears no actual resemblance to what the books say.

So, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that a wilderness trek will require a number of dice rolls to determine whether or not the party gets lost (see the Survival skill for DC's and effects) and a number of random encounter rolls (see the DMG for applicable tables and rules)?

Additionally, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that the results of those die rolls will dictate to a large degree the pacing of the scenario?

 

[Imaro]

Why are there no dice? What game are you playing? The game expressly states how this is handled. As you so rightly pointed out to me recently, ignoring the mechanics of a system is not a strength of the system.

3.5 D&D tells you specifically that you need to make survival checks to not get lost. The DMG specifically tells you that there should be random encounters at intervals when traveling across country.

Sure, you can ignore that all you like. Fair enough, but, you're not playing 3.5 D&D anymore. You're playing BryonD's Diceless d20. Because, again, the rules are pretty clear here in the books.

And, considering the number of shots about people not being perfectly up front about 4e mechanics, I figured that absolute adherence to the rules is a primary concern in this thread.

Well I am playing Pathfinder and it doesn't tell me specifically that anyone needs to make a survival check to avoid getting lost while travelling across swamp land. It gives me conditions during travel that may cause PC’s to get lost… none of which were part of the stated set-up and it gives me DC’s for the survival checks to avoid becoming lost but in no way forces me to do so without the specific conditions that cause PC's to get lost (Which of course are the purview of the DM and how he wants pacing to go). Also, per the Pathfinder Bestiary… wandering monster tables are purely optional and at the discretion of the DM. So exactly what rules are being broken?

EDIT: Just looked in my 3.5 DMG... "The exact formula for when you roll for wandering monsters is up to you"... pg. 77 under "Wandering Monsters".

Also in the 3.5 DMG... only poor visibility and rough terrain are mentioned as causes for PC's to get lost... we didn't specify either of these in the example, so I guess it's not just Pathfinder... what you are saying is just wrong going with the actual rules of 3.5.

 

[Imaro]

They certainly can be, depending upon the group.

But I wouldn't assume them to be for all groups. Nor would I assume that 3e resolution is necessarily the same for all 3e groups, or 4e resolution is necessarily the same for all 4e groups.

RC

This...