Oblivion vs Skyrim...

[DEFCON 1]

Even with those 4E skill charts, note that it's still by level of the challenge, not level of the character. So if you want to monster knowledge a level 1 guy and a level 20 guy, it doesn't matter what level you are. Similarly, level 1 door vs level 10 door. Even if the DM is more likely to handwave it all and just throw level 10 doors against level 10 players, and just flip the Easy/Normal/Hard toggle instead, the option is right there and works.

I don't think this can be stressed enough. Setting the *level* of the skill challenge (which is not always just the level of the party) is something that I think has gotten lost in the explanation of them over time. We all remember the difficulty of the Challenge (how many successes you need before 3 failures) and the difficulty of the individual checks (Easy, Moderate, and Hard)... but it's that the level of the challenge does not (and oftentimes should not) be the level of the party. Some should be higher and some should be lower, thereby always changing the DCs the players need to hit.

I think we sometimes get so caught up in using Easy/Mod/Hard as our three dials of DC difficulty that we forget there's a finer-tuning dial of Challenge Level that can help raise or lower the stakes as well. And I think it might help get this across to us if perhaps the next iteration of the game goes into a little more depth to explain when/why the DM might raise or lower the challenge level off of the baseline of party level. It certainly couldn't hurt.

 

[Spatula]

Which is not a pretension that all of us follow- my preferred style is one in which the pcs can choose to face challenges of different levels, with commensurate rewards for each.

IOW, big risk = big rewards.

If my 5th level party fights a level 9 encounters, they get 9th level treasure. If they fight a level 2 encounter, they get a level 2 treasure.

This is true in any edition.

IME, it's also true that the DM doesn't send a big dragon to attack the 1st level characters' village, unless the party is specifically told, "you can't fight this." (Skyrim!) And that players of 1st level characters know not to go hunting adult dragons until they're more powerful.

The point is that (IME anyway), actual play tends to result in the players facing threats that they are capable of beating, or that they know they can't beat. This is especially true in this era of adventure paths, which have become quite popular. In a home game, you can dress it up with world-building and whatnot but the end result is mostly the same. Because the alternative is generally not fun, IMO, unless everyone knows they're signing up for random deaths and TPKs. There are no beholders in your average DM's "dungeon level 1 random encounter table."

Perhaps the issue is that 4e and Oblivion are too self-aware. They know they are games and aim for what they think will be enjoyable game experiences, possibly destroying some folks' verisimilitude in the process. Previous editions of D&D (and previous Elder Scroll CRPGs, for that matter) weren't quite sure if they were primarily games or fantasy simulators.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't think that I have ever had to tell a first level party that they had to run from the giant fire breathing dragon of doom that just leveled half the town with its first fly-by.

I think that they took the hint pretty quick....

(Worth noting - and became important later, none of the townsfolk were killed. Thatch was set afire, the church steeple razed, and two cows were taken out of the field, but the dragon was actually careful to do only property damage....)

The Auld Grump, the dragon was after tribute.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't think this can be stressed enough. Setting the *level* of the skill challenge (which is not always just the level of the party) is something that I think has gotten lost in the explanation of them over time.

I completely agree here. However, I think some of the DC setting advice in skill challenges has run against the idea of fixed levels, much to the detriment of skill challenges, as presented. Part of the problem is that there are two decisions going on in a typical challenge situation.

First, there is an adventure design problem: figuring out the difficulty of the obstacle. For example, how tall and slippery is the wall and how stubborn and willful is the Duke. This determines the level of the obstacle.

Second, there is a DMing problem: figuring out how to come up with a DC based on how the PCs decide to approach it. For example, does the PC climb the wall freestyle (hard) or with a rope (easy) or convince the duke to invade his neighbor (hard) vs. to invite his neighbor to dinner (easy).

In most advice I've read, either the level is ignored or the two aspects of the analysis are conflated.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Clear scaling and how to use it properly is an unmitigated good thing. Of course, if you can't convey how to use it properly, then it isn't so hot. One of the crucial things that should be advised when using clear scaling is that sometimes a cakewalk or bloodbath is necessary for consistency of the story or setting.

So put me in the camp that the problem was not with the scaling, but rather the skill challenges--and indeed the skill system itself. d20+mod versus DC -- even gussied up with skill challenges, isn't robust enough by itself to have interesting decision points. 3E had this same problem. So that puts the work back on the DM to make the players care about making those skill checks--and even then, they can't do much to show they care.


I can think of at least two ways, cribbed straight from D&D combat, to make skills more interesting in practice:

• Have some equivalent of hit points as a pacing mechanic--critically, to let you retreat or press on as the rolls fall.
• Have resources to manage that affect skill checks.

That would help. What I would prefer is a full-blown reward cycle, where trying things with skills (succeed or fail) got you those resources that let you do attempt more with skills later, plus some resources that were gold/time based and thus an intersecton with the world.

 

[DonTadow]

This question really has nothing to do with how 5e is made, it's a choice of dming style. I can do Skyrim or Oblivion with any system.

I prefer to make adventures for the party, thus its scaled for them. Sure there are always things in my world that can kill them at a moments notice, but, like in Syrim, these things are raraely interested in something as puny as you unless you mess with its layer.

You really can't compare this aspect to a video game, cause, like someone said, i can save and do it again. Now, if you tell me you play Skyrim hardcore, i say go ahead and adopt it. That is, you play, and if you die you start all over again.

 

[Ainamacar]

This question really has nothing to do with how 5e is made, it's a choice of dming style. I can do Skyrim or Oblivion with any system.

In principle that is true, but in practice there is a big caveat: the tools the game makes available to the DM can have a big impact on how the game is actually run.

Consider 3.5's CR system, 4e's DDI, and either system run in a gritty low-magic setting. The absence of CR, DDI, or low-magic rules or guidelines does not make achieving the exact same results at the table impossible, but it probably makes it very unlikely to occur. (For CR, many encounters might actually be different. For groups that use DDI, its absence might change how the campaign is run, or even if the campaign continues. For low-magic worlds robust guidelines on how to do it without upsetting the rest of the game can make all the difference, even if no rules actually change.)

The same is true in terms of running an Oblivion-style or Skyrim-style game. In this case modularity is about giving the DM the guidelines necessary to easily run the game he or she wants, even if the rules proper are unaltered. For plenty of people it doesn't matter how "possible" something is if it isn't also easy.

 

[Reynard]

This question really has nothing to do with how 5e is made, it's a choice of dming style.

I don't think this is particularly true. How the system handles disparities in power level has a big impact. If the power curve is steep -- 2 or 3 levels making a big difference as in Pathfinder -- it is more difficult to integrate non-level scaled encounters.

It is interesting to note the convention that (as mentioned upthread) in older editions, dungeons were level scaled (to the level of the dungeon, not the PCs) while the wilderness was more verisimilitudinous.

Of course, making sure to follow all the guidelines for encounters -- distance, reaction, evasion -- helped even more. If fights aren't a foregone conclusion, more varied encounters can be viable.

I hope that D&D Next (or whatever) evens out the power curve and lowers the numbers overall.

 

[howandwhy99]

Here's the OD&D level-based multiverse as I understand it. It isn't a layer cake, but that can help.

10 class levels can account for 10 levels of power for other things too. Spells, magic items, equipment, traps, monsters, even complexity.

Traditional dungeons are underground maze affairs that appear as layer cakes. Levels 1-10 (and more, and even sub-levels) correspond ON AVERAGE to all of the contents within them.

Now, we can warp and curve this layer into an onion, a tube, and other configurations, but one element to remember is that easy entrances are to level 1 and harder entrances are to lower levels. Nor are dungeons strictly underground affairs. Wilderness is a dungeon as are towns and cities. Different territories in each are more or less difficult to invade - by whatever means.

The most important thing is that the PCs choose how "deep to delve" in every instance. They can hang out in a proverbial level 1 as 10th level characters and play whack-a-mole. Or they can (almost certainly) over extend themselves by delving down level 10 (or at least attempt to) while they are still level 1, zero XP.

What this does is enable an averaged sweet spot for PCs to face challenges appropriate to their level by excelling up to it in the dungeon. It mixes Oblivion and SKyrim without putting the PCs on rails other than the layer system at large.

EDIT:
Also, in regards to "everything is the same difficulty on my appropriate level" being a boring choice, remember that all of these challenges are split by class as well. For some the trap on 2nd level is a 4th level challenge, for other classes it could be a 1st level one. It depends upon the means each class is better equipped to perform based on class abilities.