Monte Cook's first Legends and Lore is up

[Crazy Jerome]

There is no way to increase meaningful choice in a game, that won't also cause analysis paralysis at some tables. Can't be done.

Whether the people at those tables adapt or not, to the new range of choices, is up to them, not the game.

 

[Scribble]

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.

That's not a 4e thing it's a player type thing.

I've had players who since basic have been bored to tears with anything other then combat.

 

[Nichwee]

This issue with skill where you want things to be able to have a person be better another but not insurmountably so, but also avoiding the "Expert rolling low loses to first timer rolling well" makes me think of the solution they had in another RP game a played once.
It went like this:
When you rolled for a skill (or attack, or anything but damage tbh) you rolled 3 dice and used the middle one - though you could get percs or flaws that meant you took the highest or lowest. Assuming no perks or flaws you got the exact same average as normal for the dice you were using, but you got a much tighter spread around that average.
This meant that being 3-4 higher on bonuses meant you nearly always had the best roll by at least a couple, but once in a while you screwed up, or did really well.
This version had 3 bonuses imo:
1) It correctly represented the fact that the most common outcome was an average performance (whereas a single dice gives the same odds for a bad performance as for a great one or an average one).
2) A small bonus to the roll would notably translate into the same bonus in results, as the swing of the dice came into it less so smaller bonuses can be used to differentiate good from bad at something.
3) It adds two ways to differentiate bad-average-good performers. You can have things like bonuses to the rolls and the ability to alter which dice of the 3 you take. So you could have:
Untrained = +0. Trained = +5. Skill Focus = +3 (As we have atm)
while also having things that are considered "Skilled uses" (like tightrope walking as opposed to staying upright on a ship in a storm, even if they had similar DCs), so those Untrained also get forced to take the lowest dice, and powers/feats/etc that can let you use the highest dice (like a power that gives someone a +2 bonus to a skill check and lets them use the highest of the dice rolled, as opposed to things like the Bard giving +5 or +10 to a roll which can make things 'too' certain).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Except you STILL have to rank things, you have to know that rank 'awesome' is better than rank 'master', or whatever. You've LOST required information, which you now have to keep looking up (and trust me, players and even many DMs will not keep those things straight. How many people manage to keep Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority straight).

You can say "numbers don't flow" but there's no flowing going on, there's a comparison of ordinality, which is a numeric function. It is a mistake to use some other method than numbers for ordination, it is just an obscure layer of indirection. Nothing is added, and frankly it is really seriously hard to know that "big number means I'm better at something"? I'm thinking if that's a tough concept for people then I'm really not sure how they have the mentality required to play 4e at all.

 

[keterys]

That's not a 4e thing it's a player type thing.

I've had players who since basic have been bored to tears with anything other then combat.

Eh, it's not even a combat vs not combat thing. I find the idea of laundry listing a scene to be far too close to the old Sierra-ish style games where you could literally just click on every pixel of the screen trying to find the right one...

That's _not_ desirable gameplay, and a system that encourages it isn't doing much for me.

Ie, I'm okay with the concept of someone saying "Okay, I take 20 to search" handwaving away the taking of time, but I'm not okay with the concept of someone saying "How many things are there in the room? Okay first one, how many salient features does it have? Okay, I search each of those in turn. Next one..."

I'd _prefer_ Burning Wheel's style of committing to a decision, making the roll, and going with it. Also the whole roll it or move on if it's not important.

A system where a circumstance bonus is +2, eh, it kinda folds in. One in which it's "Do I get to make a check at all, or do I automake the check?" is a big deal.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

The problem isn't really one specific instance of something happening. If you ran a game where once in a great while the players came to an interesting location and interacted with it that would be OK. The problem is that once the DM establishes that one location is worth investigating the players will also assume the same procedure could apply almost anywhere. Either the DM simply has to resort to meta-gaming "hey guys, this location is uninteresting, moving on...." or the game can slow to a crawl as the party pixel bitches every square inch of the world.

Thus the strong desire of a lot of experienced DMs to simply cut to the chase and have a quick way to let the players figure out what they will figure out anyway, which is a lot less boring and uninteresting than vast repetitions of "we check the doorknob, we check the hinges, we check the doorjam, etc"

 

[delericho]

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."

This is a playstyle issue, and really goes back to Mearls thesis that you can't make a DM better through the rules. In this instance, it applies to the players also.

Ideally, I think a room should be divided into a number of zones (the floor, the walls, that closet, the statue). If there are any interesting features to be found in the room, the description should indicate specifically what these are ("the statue's teeth slide inwards").

A DC (or rank, whatever) should be given for things assuming Passive Perception - if the PCs wander through the room, they may see some things automatically.

If the players say "we search the room", they should roll Perception against those same DCs.

If the players get more specific ("we search the statue"), they should roll Perception with a hefty bonus (+5, or with a 'rank' bonus) - but only for features in that 'zone'.

And if the players happen to hit the right words ("we check the statue's teeth"), they should find any appropriate features automatically. But if there is a feature in that same zone that is not in the specific area they described, they should still get a roll for searching the whole zone. (That is, if they say, "We check to see if the statue's arms move", they should get the roll for searching the statue 'zone. If that roll was a success, the DM should say, "The arms don't move. However, as you search you do notice that the teeth appear loose...")

(It may also be wise to differentiate between things that can be found by simple observation, and things that require the PCs to interact with the object being searched. Just in case of contact poisons and the like. )

The game should also give strong advice to the DM not to insist on pixel-bitching - Perception rolls are related to broad zones, not single specific features. The game should also strongly advise players not to bog play down by overdoing their searches and, perhaps more importantly, should also advise the DM not to allow multiple searches in the same zone - once they've rolled for the statue, any further detailed questions should meet with the response, "you've already searched the statue, and didn't find anything."

(This must apply even if their second, more detailed search happens to hit exactly the right spot. I guess they're just too close now to see it. This last is actually really crucial - otherwise you're still liable to get the ever-more-detailed search problem.)

Beyond that, I don't think there's really anything the game can do. If the DM is going to insist on pixel-bitching, the rulebooks can't stop him. If the players are going to insist on searching every inch of the game world in detail, the rulebooks can't stop that either.

Oh, one more thing: DM's (and adventure designers) must learn to be content with PCs not finding every secret in the game. If there's a secret door, it may well go unfound, and that's just the way it is. Otherwise, there's no point in bothering with Perception skills (or secret doors, or whatever) at all - if the DM insists that the PCs find these things anyway, they're better off just telling the players about them outright.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I would say that rolls should come in steps:

Step 1: PC's roll a search check and if they succeed the DM may give them one piece of information to get them started. "Oh you notice something odd about that statue."

Step 2: PC's start to inspect the statue so they have to make another roll in order to find something like a hidden mechanism.

Step 3: PC may use a dex check or a Thievery check to find out how to trigger the mechanism.

This could be repeated for each thing in the room if there is more than one. Also, each step could be more or less than the number of steps above. I wouldn't allow just one roll to figure out everything in a room just to hurry things along.

 

[Scribble]

Except you STILL have to rank things, you have to know that rank 'awesome' is better than rank 'master', or whatever.

I didn't say you don't have to know something, just that the words = numbers when you boil it down.

You've LOST required information, which you now have to keep looking up (and trust me, players and even many DMs will not keep those things straight. How many people manage to keep Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority straight).

Sure there are some drawbacks for people having to know the order of ranks.

You can say "numbers don't flow" but there's no flowing going on, there's a comparison of ordinality, which is a numeric function.

In my head when I'm DMing, I have an easier time thinking I want this to be "Hard" as opposed to I want this to be hard, so it needs to be DC whatever.

That's the "flow" I'm talking about.

It is a mistake to use some other method than numbers for ordination, it is just an obscure layer of indirection. Nothing is added, and frankly it is really seriously hard to know that "big number means I'm better at something"? I'm thinking if that's a tough concept for people then I'm really not sure how they have the mentality required to play 4e at all.

This is kind of like the same insulting question people ask when they are upset about the change from negative to positive AC. "Is it really that hard to subtract?" Maybe you shouldn't be playing D&D blah blah blah.

It's not about big number vrs small number, it's about knowing during a game what is statistically significant or not. 11 is bigger then 10 but is it really more of a challenge?

For some (myself included) it's just easier to think in terms of overall categories. Expert is more difficult then Hard.


In the end, I'm not arguing that it's a better system for those that like numbers, or that' it's a better system for those who don't.

I'm saying (and what I think the whole thing is about) is that it's a more diverse system then concentrating on one at the expense of the other.

Both "sides" can use the system without feeling like they're being told the style they want to play in is not the "correct" one.


Part of what I think made D&D special, and so popular was that it was relatively easy to bend to whatever style you wanted. The only issue (and part of why it was so easy to bend) was that it wasn't designed in any one particular philosophy. Stuff was just added on because someone thought it was cool.

Once they added the concept of "balance" (well the 3e + concept) they started focusing on singular play styles.

These articles (in my opinion) are about re-opening the game to different play styles, but in a way that still allows it to retain the "modern day" concept of balance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would say that rolls should come in steps:

Step 1: PC's roll a search check and if they succeed the DM may give them one piece of information to get them started. "Oh you notice something odd about that statue."

Step 2: PC's start to inspect the statue so they have to make another roll in order to find something like a hidden mechanism.

Step 3: PC may use a dex check or a Thievery check to find out how to trigger the mechanism.

This could be repeated for each thing in the room if there is more than one. Also, each step could be more or less than the number of steps above. I wouldn't allow just one roll to figure out everything in a room just to hurry things along.

Yeah, that mostly seems like a workable arrangement. You'd probably want step 1 checks to be easy enough that they are always passed by a skilled PC with passive perception. That way the players always have a chance to get more specific. OTOH you could leave some of those checks as fairly hard and reward players for putting a lot of points into Perception, but only for situations where finding something is purely optional.