Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, and that includes finding a way to escape this confined room. But they have to work with how the room looks and what tools are available and should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.

No one said it 'magically appears' or that the players decide that there is a ventillation shaft. If you as GM just described the room in such detail that there is no ventillation shaft, then there isn't one. If the players ask a reasonable question of whether there is one in the cell (as seen in many movies), then you as DM decide whether there is one or not. It is still your decision as DM. What people are suggesting is that you learn to say yes to make the game more interesting when supplied with reasonable ideas that you hadn't thought of during prep. A good DM will make it seem like the ventillation shaft was 'always there' when he designed the cell so as to not ruin the sense of verisimilitude. If the players ask rediculous questions like, "Is there a full-grown bull elephant in the tiny cell that can help us bust through the outer wall?" First, you should ask that player to at least refrain from drug use on game nights and possibly seek help. Then you should ignore their question and wait for more reasoned queries.

 

[satori01]

"Yes You Can" is a great game philosophy especially as it applies to skills. One of the worst things about 3.X is so many of the skills have easily forgotten rules and specific rules....Jump & Hide I am looking at you.

I Like that skill should be broadened. A single History check, as opposed to one posters suggestion that the History check should give a bonus on a Knowledge local check. Specifiably detailing every aspect of a skill can lead to rigid thinking, and frankly some redundancy, does one truly need Spellcraft and Arcana.....pretty much a character if they have one, will have the other. Same thing for Profession type skills, would it not be safe to say the Profession Sailor: pretty much allows for knowledge and use of ropes, balance, and sailing terms. Yet in 3.5 you pretty much have to play a rogue to get Use Rope, Balance, Climb.

My big question is if skills have combat applications, are those applications either more powerful if standard actions, or easier to use...say as minor actions. Intimidate in combat is generally a subpar action.

 

[Lizard]

One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?

Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"

How does that work in the context of the mechanics? My understanding was that the whole point of skill challenges was to allow everyone to participate and avoid the netrunner/skill monkey problem. The group accumulates successes in a vary abstract way, and the totality of all the rolls is the 'skill encounter'.

The way some people are describing it, the abstract skill challenge and the tactical combat system are used concurrently, and I don't see that as solving the problem it was intended to. If the sewer-runner stops to fight dire rats while everyone else twiddles their thumbs, we're back to the same issue. And if he doesn't, a lot of people's enthusiasm for the potential of this system is misplaced. From what I can tell, this is a very abstract system -- there isn't really a gangwar, there aren't really sewers -- those are descriptions of the results of the roll, just as "You have a nasty gash on your shoulder from that orc" is the description of the purely abstract result of an attack roll. The set of rolls/results for a skill challenge, like a combat encounter, take place in their own bubble of space time. It's like a montage scene in a movie.

We may need to see more example of actual play.

 

[hong]

One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?

Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"

How does that work in the context of the mechanics? My understanding was that the whole point of skill challenges was to allow everyone to participate and avoid the netrunner/skill monkey problem. The group accumulates successes in a vary abstract way, and the totality of all the rolls is the 'skill encounter'.

The way some people are describing it, the abstract skill challenge and the tactical combat system are used concurrently, and I don't see that as solving the problem it was intended to. If the sewer-runner stops to fight dire rats while everyone else twiddles their thumbs, we're back to the same issue. And if he doesn't, a lot of people's enthusiasm for the potential of this system is misplaced. From what I can tell, this is a very abstract system -- there isn't really a gangwar, there aren't really sewers -- those are descriptions of the results of the roll, just as "You have a nasty gash on your shoulder from that orc" is the description of the purely abstract result of an attack roll. The set of rolls/results for a skill challenge, like a combat encounter, take place in their own bubble of space time. It's like a montage scene in a movie.

We may need to see more example of actual play.

I actually asked a similar thing in another thread. Reposting here because this is probably a more appropriate thread:

One thing about the new approach to skills is that it might require more forethought and planning, or at least better improvisational skills within the context of the storyline, to DM.

Under the "task resolution" setup, you can pretty much handle events as they crop up. The PCs talk to the guards, fine, make a Diplomacy check (or run it freeform). They botch it, make a Str check to run away. Make a Hide check to hide. Make a Climb check to climb over the wall. And so on, until you eventually get tired, or the guards catch them, or whatever.

Under the "conflict resolution" setup, you have to consider possible events as part of an overarching conflict. Say they botch their conversation with the guards. What is the conflict now? Maybe it's to get away (the immediate conflict). Or maybe it's to get back on track with whatever they wanted to do in the first place (longer-term conflict). Deciding which is more appropriate may not be something that D&D DMs are familiar with.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Rodney's Blog

This has been the best tidbit yet.

I hope this helps alleviate the "4E is a wargame" concern that many here have.

I like the approach they're taking, and it sounds great to me.

However, I know that the hardcore 4th edition haters are going to hate this equally, too. They're just going to say "it's going to ruin roleplaying by tying it to rules mechanics."

Of course, their demands are basically illogical. They claim to want a system that's going to encourage role-playing, but which has no mechanical aspect or effect whatsoever. This nebulous, never-never version of "role-playing rules" which encourages deep role-playing while leaving player choice infinite and having no mechanical consequences is actually like cool fire -- it's impossible. But by demanding the impossible, they can condemn 4th edition for not delivering it, which is really what they're after anyway.

That's fine -- I have no objection to someone hating 4th edition, really. But I'm pointing out to you that this article is going to do nothing to alleviate the 4th edition hate, because nothing can.

 

[Nytmare]

the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it.

I would like to take this opportunity to again encourage anyone who is interested in this skill system to get a copy of "Truth in Comedy" by Del Close, Charna Halpern, and Kim Johnson. Yes it's a book about improvisational comedy, no that's not the only thing it's good for.

 

[Uzzy]

Despite being one of the 4th Edition 'Haters', I quite like this way of using skill checks. I liked it in 3rd edition too! I'm surprised that people use it, to be honest.

I mean, if a player asked me if they could use x skill in y situation to achieve z, then I'd usually say yes they could try, unless the proposed action was obviously impossible. This doesn't seem all that new.

I'm more curious about the shape of the advice that's going to be given, and if DM's will be left to adjudicate in every case. Will adventures have long lists of possible ways to use skills in certain events, perhaps?

Either way, seeing an article on the advice given would be nice and entirely doable. It sure beats posts about 'This is great, but we can't show you'.

 

[RodneyThompson]

That is dangling. Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.

Actually, I was referring to the Dungeon Mastering side of the game as a whole, not the noncombat encounter system. If you do more than cherry pick that one line, you'd notice that was in the section where I discuss how I think the improvements to DMing are larger than the improvements to playing, and why. Also note that this is on my personal blog, not in an official article. So, when I say I wish we were showing off more DM stuff it means exactly that--that I wish we were showing off more DM stuff.

I thought I peppered the blog entry with enough examples of things that have been released--such as encounter building, which is discussed by Mike and Dave in the podcast, or the specific noncombat encounter example from Escape from Sembia--that it would be clear the point I was trying to make.

 

[keterys]

Don't try to wriggle your way out of this one, Rodney. Next you'll expect people to not quote you out of context, blame you for the ills of the world, and think you're a big fat meanie.

I blame you for episode 1-3 of Star Wars. Yeah. I went there

P.S. I really bet that most of the wotc folks are chomping at the bit to be able to _really_ talk about everything.

 

[Wormwood]

I thought I peppered the blog entry with enough examples of things that have been released--such as encounter building, which is discussed by Mike and Dave in the podcast, or the specific noncombat encounter example from Escape from Sembia--that it would be clear the point I was trying to make.

To be fair, I think a lot of people grokked your point.

Seemed clear enough to me at least.