Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Right, but my version involves dead cats, so, bonus.

 

[Henry]

I used to feel this way, but in recent years, I've come to find it a bit tedious across the board. I don't want to have every detail of every encounter area (or larger setting) mapped out, and it frustrates me to no end when an intricate webwork of potential encounter hooks or useable terrain gets tossed by the wayside simply because it doesn't match up congruently with the occasions on which PCs need to use it.

I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies.

To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies.

To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.

This sums up everything I've been trying to say.

 

[Cyronax]

I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies.

To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.

This is fine and good though .. to a point. Taken to the extreme, I can see players just rambling off ideas until one strikes home with the DM. We're arguing the same thing IMO. Its appropriateness vs. frequency of idea. Player creativity is great in most cases, but if its just a way to half-ass any given problem ..... where's the fun for all sides?

The discussion isn't about PC buy-in, but their ability to control the setting. What's wrong with the DM saying that 'I'm sorry but this city doesn't have a sewer system.' Many of the settlements in campaigns I've run and played in were too poor or medieval too actually have such an accomplishment. In an example aside from sewers, I still say why do players get to decide vast details like this? I want assurances that the DM still has final say (and in a way that won't create built-in strife for 4e) before I wholeheartedly switch.


C.I.D.

 

[hong]

The discussion isn't about PC buy-in, but their ability to control the setting. What's wrong with the DM saying that 'I'm sorry but this city doesn't have a sewer system.'

Nothing. Did you see anyone saying that it was wrong?

 

[Cyronax]

Nothing. Did you see anyone saying that it was wrong?

That's what I took away from many comments. I did get the sense that arguments would be had between players and DMs around such issues. But this is as much conjecture as our analysis of Rodney's initial blog.

 

[hong]

That's what I took away from many comments. I did get the sense that arguments would be had between players and DMs around such issues.

To be precise, it is mistaking the zeitgeist for the rules.

But this is as much conjecture as our analysis of Rodney's initial blog.

Yes. And both zeitgeist and rules are subject to change.

 

[Cyronax]

To be precise, it is mistaking the zeitgeist for the rules.

Yes. And both zeitgeist and rules are subject to change.

Let's hope so after the hamfisted Escape from Semiba skill challenges.

C.I.D.

 

[Pale Jackal]

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.

Indeed, and it's clever/cool enough that I'd probably have it just pop into existence. A DM who did otherwise wouldn't necessarily be doing the wrong thing, of course.

 

[FireLance]

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.

This.

This is fine and good though .. to a point. Taken to the extreme, I can see players just rambling off ideas until one strikes home with the DM. We're arguing the same thing IMO. Its appropriateness vs. frequency of idea. Player creativity is great in most cases, but if its just a way to half-ass any given problem ..... where's the fun for all sides?

If taken to extremes, I will simply rule that too many implausible ideas racks up one failure for wasting time pursuing dead ends.

My views on the new skill system can be found in my CircvsMaximvs blog, and are reproduced below if you don't want to click the link.

I've thought more about the new skill system and I've gone from grudging thumbs up to fairly positive. It seems to me that I can use it to resolve some of the tension between player ability and character ability.

Of course, it should be noted that the new skill system isn't entirely new. The idea of complex skill challenges that require more than one successful skill check to overcome had previously appeared in the 3e Unearthed Arcana. The main difference between the new system and the one presented in Unearthed Arcana is the explicit acknowledgement that the skill challenge could be open-ended, and different characters with different skills might be able to contribute to overcoming it if the players can come up with a plausible reason why their individual skills might help. However, even that idea is not completely new - coming up with crazy creative schemes and convincing your DM that they could work is a tradition as old as role-playing.

The improvement I see in the new skill system is that it better balances (in my view) player ability with character ability by providing a nice, structured middle ground between the emphasis on character ability in 3e and the emphasis on player ability in the earlier editions. Rewarding player ability was a delicate balance in 3e for me because on the one hand, I wanted to reward clever and perceptive players, but on the other hand, I wanted character abilities to mean something. So, good player ability pretty much translated into a bonus on the skill check. However, if you had to use a skill that you had no ranks in, even a +4 bonus could mean that you had no practical chance of success. Of course, I considered it a feature at the time - an experienced DM could always put ways to bypass the need for a critical skill check or enough items and information that grant circumstance bonuses in an adventure, so that the lack of ranks in a key skill would not stop a good player.

The 4e approach of abstracting a skill challenge into a number of required "successes" and allowing the player to select a skill and describe how he will use it to overcome the challenge is, in my view, a good balance. Some skills will be directly applicable to the skill challenge at hand, and even relatively inexperienced players will immediately be able to see how they can be used. Other skills may not be so obviously applicable, but an experienced and creative player might be able to find a way to use them. Player ability thus increases the character's options, but is still required to work through the character's abilities: you still need to roll well to get your successes, after all.

The "multiple successes required" abstraction also creates more granularity when it comes to overcoming a challenge, and is another variable which player ability could affect. For example, certain actions by the player might result in automatic successes, lowering the number of successes that the character has to roll for. A simple puzzle might require three successful checks, for example, but if a player is able to solve the puzzle within 2 minutes real time, it might count as two successes, while a partial solution might count as one. The characters ought to be required to roll at least one success, though, so that character ability is still necessary.

In addition to allowing for greater player input into skill challenge resolution, this increased granularity could be a good mechanism for allowing previous successes (or failures) to affect future events. For example, the PCs may require ten successes to persuade a king not to go to war. However, if they had earlier found evidence that a pro-war noble was actually an agent of a third country, presenting it to the king might count as four successes.