Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Hussar]

Heh, y'know, I remember doing exactly this sort of thing in the old 007 rpg back in the 80's. Had an absolute blast with it.

This interactivity - the ability of the PCs to find creative solutions to problems which may not have occured to the DM, and the ability of the DM to make changes to the game world on the fly in response to what the PCs do, or even depending on whether the PCs succeed or fail - is one thing that computers are not yet able to do, and it is thus going to be one critical factor in distinguishing a role-playing game with a human DM from one run by a computer.

You mean... no... could it be? 4e is not the computerization of D&D?

 

[hong]

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.

"I use History to find an NPC to tell us more about this thing!" is a fine way for PCs to meet a skill challenge.

 

[Hussar]

I think the major issue here is a play expectation one. I don't think the rules are going to suggest that a skill contest should look like this:

DM: You find a locked door.
Player: I use my history skill to open it.
DM: It opens.

That's most certainly not what should be happening at the table. It's not like 3e skills where you simply use the right skill to do that task and then roll a pass/fail (or bypass the roll and take 20). The new rules are going to encourage players to state beforehand how their skill is going to apply to the following situation. So, as Hong says, the player could use his History skill to engage with the setting, or he could try something wonkier, but, what he can't do is just name any skill and assume it will possibly work.

 

[Syrsuro]

There are those who think it is only a good idea if they, as DM, thought of it first ("I didn't put a ventilation shaft in that room/ sewer grate in that ally - so there isn't one there") and there are those who think that anyone at the table is capable of coming up with a good idea ("I didn't think to put a ventilation shaft in that room/ sewer grate in that ally, but - hey - that's a good idea!").

It may not always be about ego, but certainly in many cases it sounds like it might be.

Personally - I like any system that increases player buy-in, and think that this is a great idea. Rather than simply looking forward to 4E, I am trying to come up with ways to rethink skill-based challenges in my 3.5 game.

Of course, one of the things I like about it is that it encourages creative problem solving by the players - and creative problem solving does not mean, imho, "anything goes". It means that if you can come up with an idea that sounds reasonable - even if its something that hadn't already occured to me - it might be worth trying. But, and this is where the strawmen start to show up in some other posts, it has to make sense. If the player's idea doesn't make sense, it isn't going to succeed, no matter how high he/she rolls.


Will I say "Yes" to every idea they come up with? Doubtful. (It's not necessarily a good idea to put ventilation shafts in a prison cell, and if they are there, maybe they are blocked with bars).

But those ideas that are plausible, even those I didn't think of first? Why not?

Carl

 

[FireLance]

But, and this is where the strawmen start to show up in some other posts, it has to make sense. If the player's idea doesn't make sense, it isn't going to succeed, no matter how high he/she rolls.

I think it's best to assume that the DM is at least as capable of identifying a plausible idea during the game as he is before the game. In other words, the kind of DM that would allow a player to use a History check to open a door would be the kind of DM to have placed a door that could be opened with a History check in his adventure if he had thought of it first.

 

[Syrsuro]

FireLance Quote:

I think it's best to assume that the DM is at least as capable of identifying a plausible idea during the game as he is before the game. In other words, the kind of DM that would allow a player to use a History check to open a door would be the kind of DM to have placed a door that could be opened with a History check in his adventure if he had thought of it first.

Aye. But its that 'if he had thought of it first' that is the key.

I've been DMing (off and on) for nearly thirty years (Wow, has it really been that long?) and I wouldn't presume to think I had come up with every 'plausible' idea for a given situation. So why should those ideas I happened to think of first automatically be 'the right answer' and all those I didn't happen to think of first be 'the wrong answer'.

Unless the name of the game is really 'second guess the DM'.

Carl

 

[Mallus]

I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example)

But can't you imagine situations where the DM has failed to completely conceive of the situation, where they 'left something out by mistake', where they failed to take into account some logical and obvious things. In short, when the DM goofed, and the player's suggestion describes a more realistic, or versimilar --hmmm, that isn't really a word, is it?-- world?

Happens to me all the time as DM. That's why I welcome our new (more) distributed narrative authority masters. I find the idea that the DM isn't wholly responsible for making the environment make sense to be a relief.