D&D General New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E

[Oofta]

That's awesome. I'd say that's an auto win. Let them have it and move on. Same with spells. The world comes first. What makes sense in the fiction comes first. If they "short circuit" the skill challenge with clever thinking or spells, they beat it. Simple as. But yeah, I 100% get the "Nah, let's just play an old-school game" sentiment. I'm right there with you.

I don't remember anything saying you could cut a skill challenge short in the rules. Most DMs I had certainly didn't allow it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And I’m 100% the opposite.

The question I'd like to ask is should both of you play D&D?

 

[Retreater]

Why would that happen? Not every failiure has the same effect.

Healing Surges are probably the most frequent cost to a group's failure of a Skill Challenge. For the player who contributed a Diplomacy check (or something else not physical), he or she will lose a Healing Surge just the same as someone who failed an Endurance or Athletics check.

But the costs are the same for the entire party, regardless of the skill that is rolled. You could lose healing surges, you could generate 2 extra guards at the next fight, etc. The skill that is rolled rarely matters in the consequences of the Challenge.

But all this discussion, all these if/then situations, you might as well just handle it narratively with a couple skill rolls.

 

[TiQuinn]

The question I'd like to ask is should both of you play D&D?

Yes. The versions that are out there are still completely playable. I can still play any version of the game I want, and there are 4e games still.

And as I've said elsewhere, there are very well received modern games that are D&D adjacent that carry on the 4e design ethos.

Finally, I believe there is a happy middle ground that scratches both itches. I don't believe that it can't be done. For instance, there are plenty of times that I have rolled my eyes at the overly lawyer like way 5e is written, and I find it unnecessary. There's a place for bullet point "here are the facts" alongside my flowerly language.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think so. Some referees didn't read the DMG. Some referees were draconian in their restrictions. That's not something that's down to the rules being written one way or the other. Whatever their reasoning, I'm sure it would equally apply to natural language powers. Hopefully the players dealing with that simply abandoned that referee and they stopped running games or learned they were being an ass and stopped.

Eh. That's like putting warning labels on obviously dangerous stuff. Yes, obviously fire will burn things. If someone doesn't understand that fire burns things, that's entirely a personal problem for them. Again, a restrictive vs permissive mindset. "The book doesn't specifically say X, therefore not X." Nah, man. And again, why I vastly prefer old-school, OSR, or NuSR games. You never need to explain things like "fire burns stuff" to people.

I wasn't talking about it from a referee not letting a player do it perspective, but from a player not thinking about it or coming up with the idea perspective.

If 4E powers are written in such a way that it is almost all its mechanical combat expression, we shouldn't be surprised if some players don't consider or think about their use out of combat.

If you are able to take the step from combat power to its potential use out of combat, that's great. But I do think others might not have been so lucky as to making those leaps... just because the power descriptions were not that detailed other than a line or two of fluff.

I have no idea if either of what we are suggesting is true, but my feelings on the matter make sense to me. Take it for what you will.

 

[Oofta]

Why would that happen? Not every failiure has the same effect.

Again, they're not supposed to realize you're counting up successes and failures. They're just trying to accomplish a thing as a team and you track their success and failures to help you know what the consequences would be.

I'd ask them to describe what they are doing that requires them to be Stealthy and what they want to accomplish.

What are they trying to do? And again, they shouldn't know that stuff.

Well now that's just a classic murderhobo

Well to be fair a Wish would be something the PC could do.

I don't see what you mean no? If nothing happens for 5 minutes, you have officially taken a short rest and the encounter is over. 4e is very much non-ambiguous about its durations and I don't know why you keep hammering on that point?

Okay? then they can just use bypass the challenge by spending the ability to fly.

Yeah they were badly explained and it's pretty difficult to make a good one because sometimes you get to the end and realize you forgot to come up for a situation where the party fails. Like I said, the best way I found is to just not tell the PC 'you are in a skill challenge'.

I don't think they expected you to read the Power/Item Lists like a novel. I think I never read a class power list beyond like... level 3 encounter powers until I reached a specific level.

Sometimes I feel like we played different versions of the game. I just Googled 4E skill challenge t make sure i was remembering correctly and, for example, it tells you

"Running the challenge itself is not all that different from running a combat encounter. Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge."

You tell them they're in a challenge. You let them know what the primary skills are. They absolutely know they're in a skill challenge. People learn pretty quickly how they work if the DM doesn't simply tell them. Worst thing for me is that it's basically reducing this kind of activity to just another combat encounter where the only thing that matters is success or failure of a d20 check.

 

[overgeeked]

I wasn't talking about it from a referee not letting a player do it perspective,

Sure. But that was mentioned in the thread so that's what I was referring to in that bit. Referees not allowing.

but from a player not thinking about it or coming up with the idea perspective.

If 4E powers are written in such a way that it is almost all its mechanical combat expression, we shouldn't be surprised if some players don't consider or think about their use out of combat.

I think I found the problem with that.

If you are able to take the step from combat power to its potential use out of combat, that's great. But I do think others might not have been so lucky as to making those leaps...

Yeah, because the way we've always played D&D requires the players to actually think. Which is why I prefer old-school, OSR, and NSR games. I don't play these games for abnegation. It's not a rote button-pressing exercise.

just because the power descriptions were not that detailed other than a line or two of fluff.

If the word fire appears anywhere in the text that should be more than enough. If not, again, that's a player not engaging their brain problem.

I have no idea if either of what we are suggesting is true, but my feelings on the matter make sense to me. Take it for what you will.

So it's not something you've actually experienced, it's just a thing you thought of feel and wanted to say made 4E design bad?

 

[mamba]

I don't think they expected you to read the Power/Item Lists like a novel. I think I never read a class power list beyond like... level 3 encounter powers until I reached a specific level.

that does not really matter, it still is sterile and uninspiring and I would move to something else because of that

 

[SteveC]

Healing Surges are probably the most frequent cost to a group's failure of a Skill Challenge. For the player who contributed a Diplomacy check (or something else not physical), he or she will lose a Healing Surge just the same as someone who failed an Endurance or Athletics check.

But the costs are the same for the entire party, regardless of the skill that is rolled. You could lose healing surges, you could generate 2 extra guards at the next fight, etc. The skill that is rolled rarely matters in the consequences of the Challenge.

But all this discussion, all these if/then situations, you might as well just handle it narratively with a couple skill rolls.

This is one of the things where I think you know the solution: you run a skill challenge like you would in a PbtA game. Use the conversation. The GM describes the situation, draws attention to what's going on, and then asks, "What do you do?"

One of the players tells you, you negotiate it and make a check if the fiction demands it. And then you narrate the consequences, ending with "Here's the situation now, what do you, <different character>, do?"

Why did you lose a healing surge in a social situation? Maybe someone came up and slapped the character. Maybe you ended up arguing for a long time, and it was physically draining. But as the DM, you need to explain it.

If the consequences for failing a challenge don't make sense, you aren't bound to use them and can do something else; you need to make sense of it in the fiction.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So it's not something you've actually experienced, it's just a thing you thought of feel and wanted to say made 4E design bad?

Well, I mean I did experience it in that my players did not look at their class's powers lists and almost ever use them outside of combat. They appeared to be combat powers so the players used them in combat (and usually only in combat). Even many of the utility powers seemed to be combat-centric than anything to use for exploration or social, so when it came to exploration and social parts of the game, looking at their powers was pretty far down the list.

And all this being said doesn't make 4E "bad". I'm not putting a value judgement on it. It just is what it is. My players did not see 4E powers as things to be used out of combat and based on how I remember people talking about 4E (here and elsewhere) that it seems many others felt the same way. Like I said, if you and your group were able to make that jump, then that's great for you and it probably made 4E more interesting and palatable. My players didn't tend to do it, but then again my particular style of DMing didn't ask it of them usually anyway. You know me... game mechanics are the last thing I tend to be concerned about, LOL.