Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters

[Irda Ranger]

I blame you for episode 1-3 of Star Wars.

The Internet has reached a new low.

But they ... should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.

Oh fuss off. The whole campaign world is one of make-believe. Everything in it magically appears because someone wants it to. Why should the DM be the only one who can do it?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Time for a combat example, though. Tonight we played in a bastardized continuation of Mearls' Scalegloom Hall adventure from D&D XP. I was playing the halfling paladin, and at one point I was knocked unconscious. As I lay dying on the ground, the kobold that speared me grabbed my shield and declared it his trophy, running off to engage the fighter. After some healing from the cleric, I got up and faced a choice: go back and get my shield (optimal choice, as it raises my defenses), or leap across the chasm to take out the kobolds that were attacking the party ranger. I decided to do the latter, because that's just like a paladin to go leaping across a chasm to save his stalwart ally, with no need of a shield with the gods on your side. We won (barely, I ended the fight with 3 hp), but I was able to do this and succeed because I had options that let me choose a course of action. I knew that I'd take more damage without a shield, but I also knew I had an at-will power that provided me with temporary hit points, effectively acting as a round-by-round buffer against death. I chose to go that route because I had the means to do so, and I think it was both roleplaying choice and a successful choice.

I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'. Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"? Depending on the numbers, the at-will temporary hit points are acting exactly as the shield would mechanically by providing damage protection. In fact, the at-will ability likely works better than the shield, as you are guaranteed a certain amount of DR. This is a prime example of a trivial choice. The shield is unimportant, mechanically, since there is an ability that more or less mimics what the shield does, which is to mitigate damage. In most cases, the at-will ability is probably more effective, although it may cost some kind of action, likely minor, possibly free. Even as a minor action, you get your attack, exactly as you would with a shield.

Oh fuss off. The whole campaign world is one of make-believe. Everything in it magically appears because someone wants it to. Why should the DM be the only one who can do it?

Because that has historically been the referee's task. Otherwise, you can remove the GM and play a round-robin freeform storytelling session. What else should the players be doing? Deciding the composition of an encounter ("I made my History check and remembered there are no Ogres in these hills, only Kobold Minions")? Determining the placement of traps ("My Dungeoneering roll tells me the walls are too thick to have a spear trap there")?

There has to be some level of objective reality, even when the characters aren't looking. An example I used a long time ago was a treasury vault. Is the local baron thinking "Well, I am only expecting inexperienced thieves to attempt to steal from me, so I had better use simple locks and easily bypassed traps to secure it." Or will the baron get the best security money can buy? Granted, there may not be much in the coffers, or it may have been a bad harvest one year, but they will still get the best they can afford, and upgrade as soon and as often as possible. This presumes the baron has been around for more than the ten minutes prior to the players running into them. This kind of persistant history is precisely what makes a game interesting and not just a story-telling session with some fiddly rules*.

I agree, saying 'yes' to your players is good, but only up to a point. As mentioned earlier, if they are just pixel hunting until they find the right place, most players will get a bit miffed if they run into a wall where throwing random skills until they stick doesn't work. If there is a specific situation or sequence of events you want to occur, the players will probably get frustrated when their usual reward mechanism fails.

*Which is a perfectly valid play-style. I just disagree that is the best play-style for everyone.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Ditto. The system is already there, all we need is better guidelines.

I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.

That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'. Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"?

If I am not entirely mistaken, Shield and the Paladin ability to gain temporary hit points "stack" or can be used concurrently. He just felt "safe enough" with relying on the temporary hit points.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'. Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"? Depending on the numbers, the at-will temporary hit points are acting exactly as the shield would mechanically by providing damage protection.

Yes. This was Rodney's point, actually. 4E gives characters options for filling their roles. In 3E the character would have to decide between the suboptimal choice of charging back into battle without his shield or the suboptimal choice of going to retrieve his shield and leaving a comrade to suffer. The 4E defender was able to come to the aid of his ally (his role as defender) while still able to do so effectively because of his choice in powers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Such as?

Seriously, what would you expect the players to do after they had been bolted into a windowless room?

What would you do?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?

Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"

How does that work in the context of the mechanics? My understanding was that the whole point of skill challenges was to allow everyone to participate and avoid the netrunner/skill monkey problem. The group accumulates successes in a vary abstract way, and the totality of all the rolls is the 'skill encounter'.

The way some people are describing it, the abstract skill challenge and the tactical combat system are used concurrently, and I don't see that as solving the problem it was intended to. If the sewer-runner stops to fight dire rats while everyone else twiddles their thumbs, we're back to the same issue. And if he doesn't, a lot of people's enthusiasm for the potential of this system is misplaced. From what I can tell, this is a very abstract system -- there isn't really a gangwar, there aren't really sewers -- those are descriptions of the results of the roll, just as "You have a nasty gash on your shoulder from that orc" is the description of the purely abstract result of an attack roll. The set of rolls/results for a skill challenge, like a combat encounter, take place in their own bubble of space time. It's like a montage scene in a movie.

We may need to see more example of actual play.

That's an interesting question.

I don't know if there is anything "concrete" about it. But maybe it ties in with quest mechanics and the encounter building guidelines.

Something I just came up with:
A skill challenge is basically a quest with associated XP.
Characters roll their checks. If they make the required successes and not to many failures, they "absolve" it perfecly and get out without any fight.
If they roll well enough, there might be some drawbacks at a later time.
If they fail, the guards will catch onto them and a full-blown combat encounter ensues. The encounter XP cost would be approximated by the quests XP.
If we assume the group needs 6 successes, it gets the full XP for the quest. For each "missing" success, they lose out on a proportional amount of XP.
If we assume the group needs 4 failures to fail, they, they have to beat an encounter worth an proportional amount of XP - which is deducted from their quest XP. When this encounter happens depends on the nature of the challenge.
The encounter can be a skill challenge again, if it doesn't make sense if this results in a combat. The XP "debt" of the PCs might be added to a later combat encounter (maybe the guards are preparing an ambush for the Sembia Escapees. If the group failed, some of the guards that were on their tail the last time might still be on their tails and aid the ambushees...)

Interesting question might be what you do if a player wants to have a short combat as part of the challenge (escaping the guards - beat down the last two between him and freedom, or to help the others?).

I don't believe though - whatever you do - that's always guaranteed by this system that only some of the characters enjoy the spotlight during one encounter. The system can help to avoid some pitfalls here, but make it fully impossible - I don't see it yet...

 

[iskurthi]

Greyhawk the gift pack!

I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.

That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.

In 3e, it would be a method to let people who've invested a lot of points in a skill really show off, even if that skill doesn't seem to be immediately applicable - letting a feature of someone's character drive the action can never be all that bad. Depending on how well it's all spelled out, this may be one of the things that should be looted off of 4e when we're beating it up in an alley and taking its stuff.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.

Absolutely.

That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.

That is in fact the weird reason why in my group we are still more fond of the 3.0 skills than the 3.5 skills (they are almost the same, but in 3.5 you just get more for your bucks).

Finding yourself (the whole group) without one skill that would be useful is not that tragic, when it forces you to think about an alternative way to beat the challenge.

The only case when it's a bit frustrating is with move silently, when the group needs to stick together and the worst comrade can spoil it all.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Such as?

Seriously, what would you expect the players to do after they had been bolted into a windowless room?

What would you do?

Well, assuming they are being held captive, they could:

1) have one of them fake an illness/heart attack and try to overpower whoever comes to check on them

2) try to bribe one of their guards

3) use magic to signal someone outside who could bust them out

All of these options are considerably less trite than a player just inventing a laundry chute in a prison cell. They also leave the narrative responsibility in the hands of the DM, where I think it belongs in D&D.

Ken