Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.

I can never tell whether you're being serious or not...

 

[Toryx]

Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.

I'm sure that's there. You just roll your History skill to recall that the famous Ranger Laslego once utilized his Acrobatic skill combined with his Atheletics skill and Nature skill to achieve the correct balance, speed, and understanding of the beast's spinal/ tail bone structure to scramble up on top and slay it from behind.

I'm inclined to agree that what Thompson described is nothing different from what creative DMs have been doing with 3.x skill rules. Even with the constant advancement of the skills, however, I don't really think that the Trained +5 bonus and increased limits on skills a class can be trained in are really going to add flexibility to the system. The simplification of the skill structure, based on what we've seen, seem to me only confining unless the DM and a group use their imaginations to resolve issues.

Maybe I'm wrong, but using a knowledge type skill to remember/ figure out a place to hide doesn't seem all that "skillful" to me.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Since you're inventing a passage in the PHB, I'm going to invent one in the DMG which advises how to handle such a situation.

A WoTC developer is asserting in his blog that it's appropriate for the PC to determine which skill will get him out of a given situation (the History check to find the sewer grate).

I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that the PHB will incorporate this paradigm. Why else would he write about it?

Ken

 

[Wormwood]

I agree, I wouldn't put a sewer there just because the player came up with the idea.

This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.

Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Oh, pointing it out is a great thing, imo. I just didn't think that the idea was something new and exclusive to 4e. But I do agree, it wasn't properly promoted in 3e as were not a few other things.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

In addition, the sewer example could lead the PC into a whole new dilemma.

Oh the possibilities...

Rodney's blog has given me new inspiration for ANY game I run.

 

[mudbunny]

Just because a player succeeds in his/her history check, it doesn't mean that they found something like a sewer. If there is nothing in the area that a history check could provide as a help to escape/infiltrate/whatever, the successful history check reveals: "You are sure that there is nothing that you remember about escaping/infiltrating from this area."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.

Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.

I agree with Wormwood and to add my own take:

I doubt the player even invented it in the DDXP adventure. I doubt they said "I use my History skill to find the sewers so I can escape."

It was probably a more generic, "With my History skill can I think of any old, forgotten tunnels used by past invaders or underground groups that I might be able to use to escape the guards?" The DM created the sewers. (Does that help DMs that want to keep all levels of minutiae to themselves when it comes to world-building?)

A good D&D literature example comes from the first Dragonlance Trilogy. The Qualinesti elves used their knowledge of history to remember an ancient path, the Sla-Mori, to gain secret access to the mines.

In 4E instead of only putting these kinds of resources at the hands of NPCs to point out a possible path, now the players have a more active role in forming the world and the story. This gives them a vested interested, which will keep them more engaged, which will keep them coming back for more.

 

[Scrollreader]

This is, I think a big divide that 4e is sort of making clearer, (though to be sure, it already existed). I haven't had a setting where I have every dead end, every sewer grate and apple cart mapped out since probably the second AD&D game that I ran. If you want to swing on a tapestry, and you're someplace where there /should/ be a tapestry (ie, inside a traditional mdieval castle's dining hall, or whatever) and it's cool, then yeah, there's a tapestry within reach. I just don't find any fun, for me or for my players, for spending an hour premapping the locations of tapestries in all my castles. This isn't to say that a player can invent a secret door, with a high enough search check, but I appear to be somewhat in the middle of the road, as far as narrative control in the hands of the players. Some of this is a necessity (there are six of them, creative people, and only one of me, and I don't have time to detail everything like when I was an obsessive compulsive new DM with no need to work for a living) and other parts of it are personal preference. I can't say I'm anything but happy with most of the 4e stuff I've seen so far, but then I guess me and my gametable (online though it may be) are exactly their target audience.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Just because a player succeeds in his/her history check, it doesn't mean that they found something like a sewer. If there is nothing in the area that a history check could provide as a help to escape/infiltrate/whatever, the successful history check reveals: "You are sure that there is nothing that you remember about escaping/infiltrating from this area."

Except this is how things occur now. The article suggests that you encourage imaginative thinking by finding ways to make the character's skill checks useful and successful. If all your History checks ever reveal is that you are sure that nothing of the sort you are seeking exists, you will quickly become discouraged from using that skill. Just remember that success comes in different forms and that old phrase "be careful what you wish for." Success couple with new tangles based on a player's decisions make for a layered, dramatic game.