Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[KidSnide]

Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one. At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem. If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it. If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.

I frequently let PCs propose a skill that they would use to solve a problem at hand. I have a general DC in mind for a regularly appropriate skill and apply a penalty if you're trying to use an inappropriate skill.

For example, if a character has an amazing acrobatic skill (say +12-15 above level bonus) and a terrible diplomacy skill (say -1 to -3 below level bonus), she may prefer to impress someone with an acrobatic display rather than attempt a hopeless diplomacy roll, but she's still working with a -10 or so penalty. So, first, she has an incentive to find some 2nd best skill that's more appropriate. And, second, another party member *with* a good diplomacy skill has a chance to shine.

 

[Felon]

Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one. At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem. If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it. If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.

This is a problem that cropped up in the Iron Heroes game I played in constantly. A player would attempt a stunt involving rebounding off of a wall. The GM might say it requires a Jump check. The player really wanted it to be a Tumble check, because the latter is maxed out while the former has only 1 rank in it. In fact, with Tumble being his best skill, he tries to make every stunt into a Tumble check. In this case, the player says "never mind" and then just makes a vanilla attack, and waits for a chandalier to appear because he suspects that with this GM, chandaliers will always be as "tumbly" props rather than "jumpy" ones. The stunt mechanic that ostensibly rewarded dynamic, creative gameplay quickly showed its true colors as another one-trick-pony tactic.

It's fine if you can use a skill multiple ways to handle a variety problems, it just needs to be a little more clear when one skill is going to be better-suited for a particular challenge than another skill. It shouldn't be six-or-half-dozen whether you use Acrobatics, History, or Streetwise. Unfortunately, considering what appears to have happened with with ability scores and Reflex, Fort, and Will defenses, I have every reason to believe that the "close enough for government work" mentality will extend to this area as well.

 

[Will]

While there are things I dislike about 4e, this isn't one of them.

It may seem like some sort of 'cheating' to let players use different skills to solve a problem, but in my experience it's going to save you from Mr. Diplomacy taking the stage and everyone else reading magazines or sighing loudly until his 'turn' is done.

And, heck, giving people an incentive to come up with bizarre and interesting uses of skills to solve a problem? That's the kind of creativity and lateral thinking I want to ENCOURAGE in my game.

It also sounds like if you want only a few skills to work... you can decide that way. Create an encounter, jot down 'Diplomacy DC 20, Intimidate DC 30 with potentially nasty drawbacks if you fail by 5 or more' and whatnot.

 

[Cyronax]

But then the only way your players get to be creative is if you do a whole crapload of planning. This takes some of the onus off the DM and puts it on the shoulders of the players. It sounds like, by the method you're advocating, the players' choice is between risking your method or guaranteed failure at something you hadn't planned because you don't want them to do that. This way you can sketch out a more freeform world and then have the players help you fill in the details as the game is played.

That might boil down to a style of DMing and gaming in that case. All but one player (out of six) in my gaming group enjoys a more objective setting, in which many of the details are presented as fact (and yes I have a fair bit of prep time per each combat encounter). In many instances they will probe for more information in case I hadn't described something to its fullest extent, but in most cases I serve as the world and its inhabitants, and the players travel through it. That's sounds like railroading, but it never feels that way to any of the players (and I have asked).

Now ... let me say, I do have one player who often comes of with 'crazy' ideas (a term he's probably used before) that try to bypass much of the logic laid down in the rules (not my campaign). The player often tries to use rushed Diplomacy checks against an extremely sleighted/pissed off foe in order to head off combat. He complains whenever the party faces monsters with level drain or effects that last more than an encounter. He's the poster child for much of what 4e touts. YET, he is also the same player (of an aristocrat with add on marshal levels --- equivalent to a 4e warlord) who has talked his way into the courts of every noble of every land the PCs have traveled through (and gained their respect in most cases). He's 6th level and he regularly rolls into the mid-30's for Diplomacy.

All I will say is that from his perspective I am sure he will enjoy a more freeform ad hoc system for D&D. I don't yet know if I will or many of the gamers I know, both in my group and outside it. Rodney Thompson spoke in extreme terms that made it sound like a DM would be lambasted if he tried to check some wildly implausible uses of skills. I don't know. I'm optimistic that we're making much ado about nothing. I personally think the designers do themselves a disservice in some of their pro-4e writings .... but I'm definitely not the first to say that.

BTW, I pre-ordered 4e already. I look forward to less prep time, but I want to read the skills challenges first. If they're like Uneartherd Arcana's variant rules ... then I have no problem.

Likewise, I played through Escape from Sembia at the D&D XP (an eladrin ranger ... so much fun!!!) I actually tried to use History in order to get around the oncoming Guard Horde as a joke. I used a more glib example than a sewer grate, but the DM actually said no to my idea. I ended up using Athletics or Acrobatics (can't remember which) to finally kip up on to a roof and get out of their field of vision.

C.I.D.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

All I will say is that from his perspective I am sure he will enjoy a more freeform ad hoc system for D&D. I don't yet know if I will or many of the gamers I know, both in my group and outside it. Rodney Thompson spoke in extreme terms that made it sound like a DM would be lambasted if he tried to check some wildly implausible uses of skills. I don't know. I'm optimistic that we're making much ado about nothing. I personally think the designers do themselves a disservice in some of their pro-4e writings .... but I'm definitely not the first to say that.

As Rodney says, the philosophy of 4e really IS "YES YOU CAN!!" The books really do enforce this at every step.

It's not that you would be lambasted for saying no. I said no while running that skill challenge and I certainly wouldn't think ill of a DM who said no. However, most of the time it's just more fun to say yes and see what happens. I didn't think this way before I started preparing for D&D XP. I do now, however. I had a lot of fun watching parties find their way through the Skill Challenge. When people were encouraged to innovate they really did. And everyone seemed to have a lot of fun doing it.

 

[Cyronax]

I've never run an encounter outside of the strictly equated CR/EL level. This is because I want the PCs to win.

I don't know if I understand this point. Sticking within the CR system is supposed to give the PCs a better chance of winning than making them face something higher.

It really is a difference in playstyles again. If your goal is to simulate a reality exactly, then you are going to have a point where the PCs do something to piss off someone who is WAY too powerful for them and they are all going to die. They are going to accidentally wander into that dragon's lair they didn't know was there and end up lunch.

If your goal is a story based one then you simply don't write that sort of thing into the story.

Of course there are very different playing styles. I may be at an extreme end of the spectrum. Some past players have said as much, but I think I've had more success as a DM then displeasure with the following method of running a campaign:

1) after extensive experiences with building a campaign around a story idea, I realized that myself and the players felt railroaded by events.

2) upon realizing this, I switched to the a method that has actually led to fewer player character deaths than I thought probable in a game like D&D.

3) essentially, I explicitly told my players that I have no dog in the race. I built a detailed campaign world in which they could aid in development through early, detailed character backgrounds.

4) For my part I did create a wide array of NPCs that each had their own agendas. I also built the world to account for Good's ability to on occaision tolerate certain strands of Evil. (Essentially Good plus LE and a greedy NE types saw it to be more beneficial to help fight off CE, which would ruin everyone's party).

5) The PCs then would grope around the world for stuff to do. They can do whatever they want, and its their's to suffer the benefits or negative consequences. They have gone off on several wild tangents that I didn't expect, but its increased their buy and made the game feel more real.

6) In the end, I also explicitly told the players that by and large, any ruling I hand down will probably be in their favor. They just need to know that with this method, they do have the potential to sometimes face foes wildly above their level. In those cases (in which I often throw up a few hints) they should remember that RUN is always an option.

7) And yes it was a lot of work for prep time and ad hoc unexpected PC-chosen paths.

IMO that's the type of objective-reality-fantasy that allows for truly surprising and satisfying outcomes. It helps me feel like I'm a player to in many respects. I forced myself to not have a 'favorite' NPC, and just contented myself to playing NPCs with their own well thought out agendas that sometimes ends up helping the party. More than one session has ended with the party convincing a somewhat hostile group that inmity was not necessary (and of course they got proper XP for overcoming the encounter).

Anyway ..... a dissertation length way of saying, I look forward to 4e making monster design less time consuming, but I do like having published adventures have a select set of DCs for specific skill checks in order for (non-combat) success. I don't like the idea of all skills being equally valid ..... in every situation.

C.I.D.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This is a problem that cropped up in the Iron Heroes game I played in constantly. A player would attempt a stunt involving rebounding off of a wall. The GM might say it requires a Jump check. The player really wanted it to be a Tumble check, because the latter is maxed out while the former has only 1 rank in it. In fact, with Tumble being his best skill, he tries to make every stunt into a Tumble check. In this case, the player says "never mind" and then just makes a vanilla attack, and waits for a chandalier to appear because he suspects that with this GM, chandaliers will always be as "tumbly" props rather than "jumpy" ones. The stunt mechanic that ostensibly rewarded dynamic, creative gameplay quickly showed its true colors as another one-trick-pony tactic.

That's sub-optimal IH gameplay, though. What you're saying is that the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a bonus (from stunting) simply because that bonus wasn't going to be as high as what he could get in a completely different situation using a different skill. It's not like stunts have a per-day restriction, after all. I think a similar thing will apply in 4e: You'll use the skill that's appropriate in the right situation (or that you can justify as appropriate in the right situation), but different situations will call for a different skill or skills.

 

[Cyronax]

As Rodney says, the philosophy of 4e really IS "YES YOU CAN!!" The books really do enforce this at every step.

It's not that you would be lambasted for saying no. I said no while running that skill challenge and I certainly wouldn't think ill of a DM who said no. However, most of the time it's just more fun to say yes and see what happens. I didn't think this way before I started preparing for D&D XP. I do now, however. I had a lot of fun watching parties find their way through the Skill Challenge. When people were encouraged to innovate they really did. And everyone seemed to have a lot of fun doing it.

As a DDXP DM then, do you have any insight if the Escape From Sembia skills challenge is truly indicative of what 4e will entail? For reasons already mentioned, I didn't like its ad hoc feel.

Likewise, I'm glad that you said 'no' and hope you're right in the end. I suspect you will be. Rodney unfortunately wrote a probably extreme version of the 4e version of the Unearthed Arcana skill challenges (which I liked, but have not used in play).

Cheers,
C.I.D.

 

[Felon]

That's sub-optimal IH gameplay, though. What you're saying is that the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a bonus (from stunting) simply because that bonus wasn't going to be as high as what he could get in a completely different situation using a different skill. It's not like stunts have a per-day restriction, after all.

It's more like the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a penalty from failing the stunt.

 

[hong]

Once it has been explicitly stated, yes. Before that, no. It's like Schroedinger's cat that way. Any "fact" about the world which does not contradict any previously laid down "fact" could be true.

I like to think of it as: the story is in the process of being told. After it has been told, it's fixed for all time. Up to then, all kinds of stuff can happen.

It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.

I am in favour of all three. In particular, I am in favour of any mechanic that increases buy-in, other than (vicarious) personal enrichment.