Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[hong]

To me, all three are implausible , with the second and third example becoming progressively more so. You are actually illustrating my point -- that the problem with ceding narrative control to the players is that no one will agree on where the line between plausible and implausible will lie. I prefer having one person (the DM) who constructs a narrative description of the world, for that reason.

Nothing about this system implies that the DM doesn't retain veto power. If you think something is dumb, you can say so.

 

[Oldtimer]

In 4E, since action points renew themselves at the end of every encounter,

No, they don't.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

OK, I stand corrected. When can one recover an action point in 4E?

Ken

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

OK, I stand corrected. When can one recover an action point in 4E?

Ken

You start each day with one and gain another after each milestone (two encounters). Taking an extended rest resets your action points to one.

 

[keterys]

'About every two encounters' - you can set milestones as appropriate.

 

[Cadfan]

OK, I stand corrected. When can one recover an action point in 4E?

Basically, they renew every other encounter. You get one when you wake up in the morning, and when you complete your second encounter of the day you get another. Same if/when you complete a fourth. You can only spend one action point per encounter.

In order to spend 2 action points in a day, you would then have to have three encounters. But since the game is no longer on a "four encounters per day for balance reasons" schedule, that will only happen when story reasons demand.

That being said, I agree that there's no real point in using action points as a "spend an action point to take momentary narrative control" resource. If a player wanted to, say, use a Search check to try to find a sewer entrance in what otherwise would be a dead end alley, I'd do as follows:

1: Decide whether it is plausible and appropriate for a sewer to be located in this place.
2: If no, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check. No matter the outcome, no sewer is found.
3: If yes, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check. If the player rolls high, a sewer is found. If the player rolls low, no sewer is found.

Lets say I decide "yes," and the player rolls low. Later, they come back and search in their spare time, when they can take 20. I still would keep for myself the option of not having a sewer entrance be found.

Until the sewer entrance is found, or conclusively proven not to exist, it exists in an indeterminate state.

This is how I do things in 3e, and its how 4e seems to do things. I really don't see the problem.

 

[apoptosis]

Basically, they renew every other encounter. You get one when you wake up in the morning, and when you complete your second encounter of the day you get another. Same if/when you complete a fourth. You can only spend one action point per encounter.

In order to spend 2 action points in a day, you would then have to have three encounters. But since the game is no longer on a "four encounters per day for balance reasons" schedule, that will only happen when story reasons demand.

That being said, I agree that there's no real point in using action points as a "spend an action point to take momentary narrative control" resource. If a player wanted to, say, use a Search check to try to find a sewer entrance in what otherwise would be a dead end alley, I'd do as follows:

1: Decide whether it is plausible and appropriate for a sewer to be located in this place.
2: If no, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check. No matter the outcome, no sewer is found.
3: If yes, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check. If the player rolls high, a sewer is found. If the player rolls low, no sewer is found.

Lets say I decide "yes," and the player rolls low. Later, they come back and search in their spare time, when they can take 20. I still would keep for myself the option of not having a sewer entrance be found.

Until the sewer entrance is found, or conclusively proven not to exist, it exists in an indeterminate state.

This is how I do things in 3e, and its how 4e seems to do things. I really don't see the problem.

I find using an action point to take narrative control by far the most interesting use of action points.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As an aside, if you were going to implement the PC getting lucky and finding a previously unknown sewer entrance, I think an actual luck mechanic would be in order. In an eberron game you could use an action point for this -- I think it would be appropriate to use a scarce, not easily renewed resource to implement someone getting so unbelievablly lucky as to have the sewer entrance present itself in the dead end alley just as they need it.

In 4E, since action points renew themselves at the end of every encounter, I don't think this would work.

Ken

So your players can only find smoething you described when they first entered the dead end alley?

DM: you get into a dead end alley. Make a spot check.
P: 23
DM: you see a wall which you think you are able to climb up...

wow, that´s fun...
... sounds like a computer game to me...

What is wrong with:

P: Are there any sewers under the city?
DM: Maybe
P: Do I know it? I have streetwise trained!

Or
P: Are there any sewers under the city?
DM: Maybe
P: I know about the history of this city. Do i know if there was a sewer system build to prevent epidemics?

Preferably you should ask the player what skill he wants to try, before he even gets into that dead end. If you know the city, you don´t get into dead ends.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Well, unless the DM wants the players in a dead end. But at that point, it's not a question of what skills the PCs have or not.

I'm not sure we should be designing adventures that test whether or not PCs have a certain skill. If there are going to be play restrictions on character creation, they should be out in the open, not enforced after the fact through punishment and reward.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Well, unless the DM wants the players in a dead end. But at that point, it's not a question of what skills the PCs have or not.

I'm not sure we should be designing adventures that test whether or not PCs have a certain skill. If there are going to be play restrictions on character creation, they should be out in the open, not enforced after the fact through punishment and reward.

So, you aren't going to have any cliffs that need climbing (rewarding those that can climb and punishing those that cannot), or ancient texts that need reading, or narrow beams that one must balance on to cross, or sneaking enemies that might be spotted? All of those elements test whether or not PCs have a certain skill.

Or, we could open up the skill system a bit and give classes more skill points, so that players could choose to develop skills when they go up levels if they thought they would be useful.

Since I come from a background of playing RuneQuest for 15 years or so, where virtually everything a PC does is mediated by a skill (including attacking with a sword and casting some spells), I'm comfortable with adventures that test whether PCs have or don't have a certain skill.

Ken