Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[arscott]

If there is anything I don't like on 4E, it's definitely that there are to many "Thom-" designers.

This issue has been noted and fixed by the 4e team.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This issue has been noted and fixed by the 4e team.

Phewt, They can tell me what they want - as long as their board names are still indistinguishable, I don't care!



Alternative Response:

Wow. These guys are really thinking of everything.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Isn't there such a thing as objective reality in a campaign though?

I am fairly creative as a DM in adjudicating rules, but in certain situations there are only a few or one way to proceed in a certain tactic.

Ironically, I find that to be a very computer-game way of playing. By that, it reminds me of the computer adventure games that I used to play many eons ago, when to resolve a problem and pass on to the next section you had to come up with the *exact* method that the programmer had thought of to continue. (I guess that the same principle still turns up even in modern games, although it is disguised in 'jump here, twist there, shoot that' kind of actions).

Too much depended on "Use the Cucumber to Press the Button on the Pedestal".

In RPGs the same problem can easily present itself. One adventure I ran, the PCs were captured and put into a room. Someone says "Is there a ventilation shaft?"

If I say "No", then everyone just twiddles their fingers until the next thing happens (along my railroad?)

If I say "Yes, (why not?)", then the party attempts a daring escape attempt crawling through big air ducts, perhaps pursued by the enemy who is periodically shooting.

Which one is more fun for everyone? I think the latter is. I remember the situation though because I said 'No' rather than 'Yes', and regretted it within 30 minutes.

I can almost picture the scene in 'Aliens'

DM: The monsters have got past the barricade - the sensor tells you they are inside the room, although you can't see them!

Hicks: I'll look up in the roof space...

DM: You can see dozens of the aliens crawling through the roof space towards you!

Burke: I run out the back way and lock the door behind me! See you, suckers!

Ripley: Damn. Hey, newt was hiding in ventilation shafts earlier. Are there any in this room?

DM: (checks existing map.) No, you're all gonna die!

or

DM: Yes - do you want to try to get it open?

Cheers

 

[Primal]

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

I see no problem with this, because many nar games utilize such "shared storytelling" mechanics (although you still need the DM's approval). In fact, Dust Devils explicitly tells the Dealer to encourage the players to max out skills and also to use them in inventive ways in conflicts. This ensures that the players get involved in the story and encourages character immersion.

Basicly, it's a very gamist element. Here's this task and if I pick the "easy" way I'm almost certainly going to pull it off, BUT should I choose the "hard" way, my PC gets more XP or probably some extra information. Usually metagaming in D&D is seen as "bad", but here I see it actually leading to better stories.

In the end, it really doesn't matter *how* the PC escaped capture, since that is the goal anyway, or the story (momentarily) stops there. Besides, it might lead to other events, such as a combat encounter in the sewers or meeting a mysterious NPC that the DM has had no way of introducing before. I see a lot of storytelling (and role-playing) possibilities in this new skill system. How well it is received by players and DMs alike and how well does it "fit" in with the "crunchy" and highly tactical emphasis on the rest of the mechanics -- I guess we'll see. Personally I like it.

 

[Derren]

In RPGs the same problem can easily present itself. One adventure I ran, the PCs were captured and put into a room. Someone says "Is there a ventilation shaft?"

If I say "No", then everyone just twiddles their fingers until the next thing happens (along my railroad?)

If I say "Yes, (why not?)", then the party attempts a daring escape attempt crawling through big air ducts, perhaps pursued by the enemy who is periodically shooting.

And why do the PCs just sit around doing nothing when there is no ventilation shaft? This sounds more like a player problem to me where they expect the DM to hand them everything on a silver platter instead of thinking of something for themselves which takes the actual situation into account.
And why is having unimagitive players who can't think of something else besides crawling through an ventilation shaft railroading? Imo the players should have total freedom of what to do and what not, but they have to live with the consequences of their actions (or in this case inaction)

 

[Nightchilde-2]

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.

This.

 

[Voss]

Wow, that's possibly the most cynical, word-twisting interpretation of anything I wrote. Nowhere did I invalidate anyone's opinions or say they don't count. As for not showing you the mechanics, we DID show you the mechanics at D&D Experience. You didn't go? That doesn't mean we didn't showcase the mechanics to some people, and it was in fact in reference to that event that I wrote, specifically the Escape from Sembia adventure, which many people on these boards have had a chance to play and report their experiences. However, I was lamenting that we'd not said much about the noncombat encounter system, not trying to dangle the information in front of you.

So, wait. You did show the mechanics that you were saying you couldn't show people? And by that, I mean this-

I find it particularly interesting that the areas where I feel we've improved the game the most aren't the ones we're showing off.

That is dangling. Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.


And the specific example... feh. So the player magically creates sewers. So what? He *still* has to elude the guards! Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards? At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.

It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.

 

[Imban]

My take on this is simple:

Any feature of the terrain which I have explicitly detailed, either by describing it or drawing it on the map, is there, no questions asked. Any feature of the terrain which corresponds to / goes against my mental image but I haven't described by accident (if you've been thrown into a barred cell with plate metal walls, and ask if it has a ventilation duct, I'll probably answer no if I meant for it not to have one) is there or not as appropriate. Oops.

For the rest of the stuff, if it's not patent nonsense, you can describe it being there or ask if it's there and effectively "create" it on the fly.

(I'd be a little leery of letting someone just escape pursuing guards through a sewer underneath a city, though. That seems like the sort of thing I'd definitely allow if a sewer was appropriate there, but it also seems like the sort of thing that would get you out of the frying pan and into the fire. Sewers in D&D not being monster-infested deathtraps is pretty rare.)

 

[Primal]

So, wait. You did show the mechanics that you were saying you couldn't show people? And by that, I mean this-


That is dangling. Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.


And the specific example... feh. So the player magically creates sewers. So what? He *still* has to elude the guards! Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards? At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.

It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.

Hmmm... I understand your point, but see my reply to Heffrung above. I actually see this new system engaging the players more in the story, but that's just my opinion. I guess that the 'complex skill check' (requiring several Victories) would be reasonable in this case (to escape the guards).

 

[hong]

And the specific example... feh. So the player magically creates sewers. So what? He *still* has to elude the guards! Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards? At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.

The hiding part can safely be subsumed into the jumping-into-the-sewers part. It doesn't take much skill, brains or innovation to pull a sewer grating closed. Similarly, it can be assumed the entrance is relatively obscure and out-of-the-way, otherwise you wouldn't need a History check to know it was there.

It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.

To be precise, the player used his brains to come up with a novel way to relate a given skill to the problem at hand. I suppose it's possible that god came down from heaven and put that idea freshly-formed into the player's head, which would mean the player couldn't claim credit for it. However, this should be considered unlikely.

(You'll note I managed to avoid all use of the word "roleplaying", whether in a positive or negative light, in the above. This is deliberate.)