Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters
- Thread starter Vyvyan Basterd
- Start date
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Greg K said:
They always could be done, the problem is that DMs have never really been given any solid advice or structure for doing so. They were left to wing it. Many people probably have been doing just what was suggested in Rodney's blog. And if you played in such a group you may have picked up those skills when you started to DM. But all of us have different talents and even though I haven't had more than a couple people complain that I was an enjoyable DM over the course of 25 years (the majority of my players have described me as a good DM), I had not thought about encouraging a framework of the player setting 'Plan A' to 'Skill X' and determining the outcome based on their skill check.
Does this make me substandard to you? Not in and of itself to be sure. There are many other factors involved that could make me a better or worse DM than you.
But ideas like this need to be presented and shared to allow all DMs or varying skill and talents to take advantage of what is a great idea. The additional uses of skills sections were too restrictive. They implied that while the designers were able to discover new rules for a skill, that such rules had to be strictly codified and pre-set. The new uses still tied to what normally should be able to be accomplished with the skill. Rodney's article gave good examples of how a skill could be used to accomplish something you wouldn't normally associate the skill with.
Last edited:
Storminator
First Post
Goobermunch said:
Instead of the stat trade, I think of it as a Heroic, trained PC is as good as a Paragon untrained PC. Training is as good as 10 levels.
PS
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
I think I'm going to hate the new skill system.
I really don't like the assertion that being able to use any arbitrary skill to get out of a bad situtation is an example of the game mechanics facilitating good roleplaying.
I especially don't like the idea of the History skill conveying knowledge of a sewer grate. Why is it that this is the result of knowing history? Isn't it far more likely that use of the History skill would help the PC determine that in fact, there wasn't a convenient sewer grate all ready to jump into?
Because of the trained mechanic, it looks to me like characters are going to have a bunch of skills at moderate levels, and a couple of good skills. Because of the idea that PCs get to determine for themselves which skills get them out of bad situations, I'm going to see the wizard demanding to use his History skill for every conceivable dilemna, and the rogue using his Sneak skill every time. I can just picture the arguments that will ensue if I resist this, given that the PHB will probably have specific verbiage encouraging it.
Which means that each PC only has one skill that matters: their best one.
Ken
I really don't like the assertion that being able to use any arbitrary skill to get out of a bad situtation is an example of the game mechanics facilitating good roleplaying.
I especially don't like the idea of the History skill conveying knowledge of a sewer grate. Why is it that this is the result of knowing history? Isn't it far more likely that use of the History skill would help the PC determine that in fact, there wasn't a convenient sewer grate all ready to jump into?
Because of the trained mechanic, it looks to me like characters are going to have a bunch of skills at moderate levels, and a couple of good skills. Because of the idea that PCs get to determine for themselves which skills get them out of bad situations, I'm going to see the wizard demanding to use his History skill for every conceivable dilemna, and the rogue using his Sneak skill every time. I can just picture the arguments that will ensue if I resist this, given that the PHB will probably have specific verbiage encouraging it.
Which means that each PC only has one skill that matters: their best one.
Ken
Doug McCrae
Legend
Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Greg K said:
I didn't mean that I got that I got that impression from you either.
I was trying to point out that all DMs could benefit from the information in Rodney's blog being fleshed out in the DMG, even good experienced DMs. Even if the potential was always there and some people figured it out for themselves doesn't mean its not valid for the designers to tout this as a virtue of 4E. And I still contend that use of skills in this manner was not properly promoted in previous edition, imo.
Haffrung Helleyes said:
I agree, I wouldn't put a sewer there just because the player came up with the idea. However, in my 3.5 game, if there was a sewer beneath the city, and it had played some historical role. I would allow the History check probably at an increased DC to know it where as a Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (streetwise) would reveal the knowledge at a lower DC or even succeed automatically( if the character was from the city).
Goobermunch
Explorer
Haffrung Helleyes said:
I'm sure you will. That's an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I believe that it's still the DM's job to look at the proposed skill use and determine whether the suggested resolution has anything to do with the challenge at hand. I believe that the DM can still adjust the DC to reflect the fact that my sneak skill will be more useful for crossing that cavern full of slumbering orcs than your insight skill. But, if you are able to articulate a compelling or interesting way in which your insight skill might permit you to avoid alerting the orcs, why shouldn't you be able to do that?
Moreover, why should it be solely the DM's job to anticipate every possible resolution to an encounter and set DCs accordingly? If that's the case, then a narrow-minded DM will end up railroading PCs because the only successful path is the one the DM preconceived.
--G
Similar Threads
