Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[fuzzlewump]

The problem is, that by stating that, you now incentivize people back to "searching every square", just with words. I search the room, find anything? Okay, I search... the statue, the bed, and the bookshelf. Still no? Okay, let's get specific, I check out the statue's eyes and hands, underneath the bed and in the mattress, and behind the bookshelf and on the shelf that starts with the letter H, cause Halaster was crazy like that."

Is that bad, though? That seems more interesting, to me at least, than rolling. And I think it's more specific to the people who have fun doing that.

In other words, the people who do not enjoy the scenario you described will be less likely to want to go through with searching via words. But, those people will be more willing to roll the d20 every 5 feet because it's easier with less mental effort.

So you're left with a system that tends to reward people who enjoy exploring via words, and tends to make people who don't enjoy that just skip the whole process altogether. (Sounds good to me.)

 

[Balesir]

The problem is, that by stating that, you now incentivize people back to "searching every square", just with words. I search the room, find anything? Okay, I search... the statue, the bed, and the bookshelf. Still no? Okay, let's get specific, I check out the statue's eyes and hands, underneath the bed and in the mattress, and behind the bookshelf and on the shelf that starts with the letter H, cause Halaster was crazy like that."

I think this is a key weakness. The alternative I can think of that appeals to me far more is to give bonuses for actual, meaningful choices. In other words, supposing the object of the search is a statue, give the option to focus the search - on the statue's head, say - to get a bonus for hidden things in the area focussed on and a penalty everywhere else. This prevents the "shopping list" approach in an attempt to hit the particular "hot button word" selected by the DM but still rewards engagement with the game world. It also opens scope for two searchers focussing on different parts of the search target, thus giving "second string" searchers a possible role in boosting search capability other than "Aid Another".

Is that bad, though? That seems more interesting, to me at least, than rolling. And I think it's more specific to the people who have fun doing that.

It fast becomes a problem, in my experience, because the "exploring with words" fast becomes a rote script of all the imaginable aspects of every common situation or feature, combined with a tedious "20 questions" about every unusual feature.

Giving the players meaningful choices to make could be a good thing; allowing them to list all the choices they can think of and letting them take all of them I think is a recipe for tedium.

 

[Scribble]

I have been disappointed by this column. The skills are not a big problem in D&D4.0. Other aspects of the edition need, in my humble opinion, fixing or ironing. Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook both avoid the biggest problems and toy with aspects of the game that already work and need no modification.

Which is why I don't believe this column is in any way shape or form about trying to fix problems with a particular set of game rules.

 

[keterys]

tackle the problems of the length of combats

They've done an article about that. They also did the MM3 errata (helped reduce encounter level), expertise, and added various bonus damages to the system (both reducing # of rounds), such that it's very possible to do quicker combats if that's really what you're going for...

and the difficulty to instill narration in combats.

... wait, what?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this is a key weakness. The alternative I can think of that appeals to me far more is to give bonuses for actual, meaningful choices. In other words, supposing the object of the search is a statue, give the option to focus the search - on the statue's head, say - to get a bonus for hidden things in the area focussed on and a penalty everywhere else. This prevents the "shopping list" approach in an attempt to hit the particular "hot button word" selected by the DM but still rewards engagement with the game world. It also opens scope for two searchers focussing on different parts of the search target, thus giving "second string" searchers a possible role in boosting search capability other than "Aid Another".

It fast becomes a problem, in my experience, because the "exploring with words" fast becomes a rote script of all the imaginable aspects of every common situation or feature, combined with a tedious "20 questions" about every unusual feature.

Giving the players meaningful choices to make could be a good thing; allowing them to list all the choices they can think of and letting them take all of them I think is a recipe for tedium.

It seems like even your technique still devolves down to the 20 questions thing. I don't really see where skill 'ranks' is in any way required to make it work, just note on your location description "Searching the head - DC10 Dungeoneering: You find a loose tooth which appears to be a lever connected to something." or alternately "Searching - DC20 Dungeoneering or DC10 Dungeoneering if the PC specifically searches the head..."

Meaningful choices is good, but there's got to be a way to both give the players interesting choices to make and at the same time streamlining things to the point where pixel bitching doesn't happen. The 'classic' 1e way to do this was simply to make time really important. Search too long and wandering monsters show up. Couple that with a hierarchy of general and more specific results and you have a pretty good setup. Of course wandering monsters aren't such a great option in 4e, so the question then is can you get some kind of similar trade off? Sometimes time is of the essence in 4e as well for plot reasons, but otherwise there might need to be some other similar mechanic.

 

[Scribble]

It seems like even your technique still devolves down to the 20 questions thing. I don't really see where skill 'ranks' is in any way required to make it work...

They're not if you're not the type that likes to use them. The ranks in this case for someone (presumably like you) are just shorthand for numbers. If you have the right rank you get to make a check just as usual.

If your group is not into numbers though you can fall back on the ranks, and determining success through whatever the player says he does.

Personally I sit in the middle here. I don't like the old-school no skills style. I like the idea of skills and chances of success, but numbers don't always flow right in my head. It's much easier for me to think in terms of, this challenge is "Hard" as opposed to figuring out what number equates to hard.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Meaningful choices is good, but there's got to be a way to both give the players interesting choices to make and at the same time streamlining things to the point where pixel bitching doesn't happen. The 'classic' 1e way to do this was simply to make time really important. Search too long and wandering monsters show up. Couple that with a hierarchy of general and more specific results and you have a pretty good setup. Of course wandering monsters aren't such a great option in 4e, so the question then is can you get some kind of similar trade off? Sometimes time is of the essence in 4e as well for plot reasons, but otherwise there might need to be some other similar mechanic.

Sure. Embed into D&D the Burning Wheel, "Say Yes or Roll the Dice,"* and also the BW tying of meaningful, consequential rolls to advancement somehow.

Wandering monsters are one of the consequences of failure for meaningful rolls. And since you always, "Say Yes" when the rolls aren't meaningful, those wandering monsters aren't slowing down the game.

It is the tying of the checks to advancement that gets tricky, since D&D is class-based instead of skill-based. Perhaps a skill challenge framework, version 2.0, can solve that puzzle. If I had an easy answer to that one, I'd write my own best selling game.

* "Say Yes" concept is not original in BW, but its formulation in BW is probably the most accessible version to translate to D&D play.

 

[Tymophil]

They've done an article about that. [Length of combats]

I'll search for it.

They also did the MM3 errata (helped reduce encounter level), expertise, and added various bonus damages to the system (both reducing # of rounds), such that it's very possible to do quicker combats if that's really what you're going for...

I begun playing D&D4 one year ago, so all that was already known. Still the combats may still last very long...

Anyway, there are not that many rounds in a fight. But each player's turn is quit longuish (first assess ongoing effects, three actions along with interruptions, reactions, opportunity actions, and such and then, finally, end of turn sequence with saves).

... wait, what?[the difficulty to instill narration in combats.]

Here is my problem.
When a combat is joined, there are some powers that translate easily into narration : "Gurel does that and that, then that occurs." Then the players gives the amount of damage and everything is nice.
But for many powers, it is simply impossible to tell what is happening in a narrative way.
For example, a shaman can bestow some temporary hp, another leader can give some bonuses on AC, etc. Sure the player could come up with a neat description of the effect, but it would require him nonetheless to give the bonus to the other players. It would be a time consuming task and turns are already quite long.
Do you se the problem ?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally I sit in the middle here. I don't like the old-school no skills style. I like the idea of skills and chances of success, but numbers don't always flow right in my head. It's much easier for me to think in terms of, this challenge is "Hard" as opposed to figuring out what number equates to hard.

I'm in a similar but slightly different boat. I think in numbers, but all the players think in labels. So I'm constantly having to translate the numbers into labels for them.

All else being equal, I'd rather the game be mainly in labels, with no translation when communicating with the players, except when the mechanics finally get down to rolling. Then if I need to translate those labels into numbers for my own processes, it doesn't disrupt the flow. I'll have to translate one way or the other. Might as well be as convenient as possible.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The problem is, that by stating that, you now incentivize people back to "searching every square", just with words. I search the room, find anything? Okay, I search... the statue, the bed, and the bookshelf. Still no? Okay, let's get specific, I check out the statue's eyes and hands, underneath the bed and in the mattress, and behind the bookshelf and on the shelf that starts with the letter H, cause Halaster was crazy like that."

Why is that such a bad thing? I mean is your group in so much of a hurry that you want a group to make one roll to find everything in the room and be on to the next one?

In 4th edition I have always gotten the impression that it's all about having to hurry up and get to the next battle.