Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

If any of the above bring the story to a halt, then no, I will not have any of those elements. I will come up with multiple solutions. All that is being said in this thread is that if the players come up with a good, plausible solution that you hadn't planned for, you should try to work that idea in by saying 'yes' instead of always saying 'no.'

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

If any of the above bring the story to a halt, then no, I will not have any of those elements. I will come up with multiple solutions. All that is being said in this thread is that if the players come up with a good, plausible solution that you hadn't planned for, you should try to work that idea in by saying 'yes' instead of always saying 'no.'

How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt? Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?

I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement. In my ideal game, there isn't a single story that the GM designs and the PCs participate in. Rather, the GM details a setting that the PCs can interact with , and the story emerges from their actions.

If there's a single story that has to happen, then yeah, I can see how you'd have a problem with a PC's lack of a particular skill getting in the way of telling it. But that's not how I prefer to play D&D.

Ken

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt? Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?

I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement. In my ideal game, there isn't a single story that the GM designs and the PCs participate in. Rather, the GM details a setting that the PCs can interact with , and the story emerges from their actions.

If there's a single story that has to happen, then yeah, I can see how you'd have a problem with a PC's lack of a particular skill getting in the way of telling it. But that's not how I prefer to play D&D.

Ken

It brings the story to a halt if you back them into a deadend (literally or figuratively) with only one solution that you have devised for them to 'escape.'

You can't condemn the guidelines set out in this thread just because they don't match your playstyle, no more than I could condemn your playstyle as being the 'wrong' way to play.

But I would feel safe to say that many people's games do have a story in mind. See the popularity of various companies' adventure paths. If you wrote a junction in one of these adventure paths that required the PCs to have the Decipher Script skill to continue, if non of the characters have the skill, then the whole adventure path goes down the tubes.

Most good adventures are not written with one solution, but many are written with the limited solutions developed by the writer. All this threads posits is that a DM should be open to player ideas that the author/DM had not thought of.

If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

"If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle."

I don't want 4E to change D&D in a way that's bad for my playstyle. Other people are happy that D&D is changing in a way that supports _their_ playstyle.

Neither one of us is irrational for feeling the way we do, or for making our points.

Ken

 

[Cadfan]

How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt? Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?

I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement.

No, its not.

Skill challenges sometimes function as gateways, where, if the party wants to get to the rest of the adventure, they MUST have a certain amount of ranks in a particular skill. I've always referred to these as "gateways," and to the thing you need to have to pass the gateway as the "key." It is generally not a good idea to create a gateway in your campaign to which the party literally cannot obtain the key. Not unless you really mean to create a wall.

You basically cannot hide behind "I just created the world, what you do in it is up to you" when you dangle a plot hook in front of the players, and once they bite, inform them that, no, it turns out THAT plot hook was only available to parties with a Paladin, or to parties with one character wtih at least +15 in Disable Device, or to parties where someone can cast Plane Shift. You created the situation, you created the need for the key, you knew the party didn't have the key, you control the party's access to alternative keys, you control everything. Sandbox play is great and all, but its still your sandbox.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

"If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle."

I don't want 4E to change D&D in a way that's bad for my playstyle. Other people are happy that D&D is changing in a way that supports _their_ playstyle.

Neither one of us is irrational for feeling the way we do, or for making our points.

Ken

But one point you seem to ignore is that as DM you can continue to say 'no' all you want. So your playstyle is safe and sound.

 

[Praeden]

Perhaps I could have used a better adjective than 'Trite', since the definition you point out wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey.

In an RPG my suspension of disbelief can only go so far. I find the idea that someone could make a History check or whatever to find a passage out of their prison cell just too hard to believe.

So you, as the DM, veto the idea. I happen to agree, because unless the secret passage was on an ancient map, or had played some significant role in history, there would be absolutely no reason for History to be appropriate in that situation, even if it was decided that such a passage did in fact exist.

Just to quote from the blog that is behind this controversy:

"...the default assumption in 4th Edition is that players should and will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules are designed not only to allow the DM to fairly adjudicate those assumptions but also to reward players for doing so."

First, notice the reference to DM adjudication.

Second, I don't think we should automatically assume that it means "reward players for holding up their character sheets and pointing to their best skill". It seems more likely that they mean "reward players for coming up with a clever, plausible plan".

The problem with players taking narrative control is that there aren't any good boundaries for how far that control should go. Can the player use his History check to find a sewer entrance? OK, if that works, how about finding a loaded crossbow in a barrel? Or a treasure chest? I just disagree with the whole approach to roleplaying; I rejected it in my games in the 80s and 90s when the Storyteller system came into vogue, and I reject it now. It isn't fun for me; nor is it for the friends I have grown up playing RPGs with over the years.

So there's no problem is there? You and your players are in agreement.

Without seeing the encounter decribed in the blog, we don't even know if the sewer had been written in already. This was a encounter designed to showcase the skill system, so it's actually quite reasonable to assume that it had. In which case, there's no problem.

When the PCs get captured, having the game stay fun does demand that they find a way to escape, since it isn't fun to roleplay staying in a prison cell for years on end. But I think that there are lots of ways to have that happen that are a lot more believable than just finding a secret passage leading out of your cell because you're a great historian.

Yes, and I suspect that most people, including the people who wrote the 4E rulebooks, would agree with you.

Mouseferatu has said in this thread that the DM still gets to make these kinds of judgement calls - and unlike us, he has seen the entire rules system.

In fact, I'd bet that there's actually a passage in the DMG which says something equivalent to your statement above.

Bribing a guard, for example. You're right that I shouldn't have used the word 'trite', because the truth is, we do see this in media a lot. But we see it in films and TV shows precisely because it's believable; it's more believeable in '24', for example, for Jack Bauer to overpower his guard by feigning illness, or bribe him, or be rescued by his friends, than for Jack Bauer to find a secret passage leading out of his prison cell.

But let's take this example ; bribing the guard . In my opinion, it should require one of a few specific skills (Bluff, or Diplomacy, for example). It isn't a good idea for the DM to let someone use their 'History' skill to bribe the guard.

There you are then. Once again, you've demonstrated how the 4E skill system can be sensibly handled. It's not exactly rocket science - why assume, on the strength of an ambiguous blog entry, that professional game designers would throw away basic common sense ?

 

[Fifth Element]

Otherwise, you can remove the GM and play a round-robin freeform storytelling session. What else should the players be doing? Deciding the composition of an encounter ("I made my History check and remembered there are no Ogres in these hills, only Kobold Minions")? Determining the placement of traps ("My Dungeoneering roll tells me the walls are too thick to have a spear trap there")?

Slippery slope FTW!

 

[Fifth Element]

They should [do something else] instead of always repeating the same thing over and over again.

Oh, the delicious irony.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

There's nothing to stop a party without +15 in disable device from:

1) coming back later after the rogue studies disable device some more

2) hiring an NPC to come disable the device for them.

I think it makes the world more believable and interesting when there are some challenges that have to be met by asking others for help, or waiting for another day. I don't think that every path has to be navigable to its end by anyone , all the time.

Ken

No, its not.

Skill challenges sometimes function as gateways, where, if the party wants to get to the rest of the adventure, they MUST have a certain amount of ranks in a particular skill. I've always referred to these as "gateways," and to the thing you need to have to pass the gateway as the "key." It is generally not a good idea to create a gateway in your campaign to which the party literally cannot obtain the key. Not unless you really mean to create a wall.

You basically cannot hide behind "I just created the world, what you do in it is up to you" when you dangle a plot hook in front of the players, and once they bite, inform them that, no, it turns out THAT plot hook was only available to parties with a Paladin, or to parties with one character wtih at least +15 in Disable Device, or to parties where someone can cast Plane Shift. You created the situation, you created the need for the key, you knew the party didn't have the key, you control the party's access to alternative keys, you control everything. Sandbox play is great and all, but its still your sandbox.