D&D 5E Skills in 5e

[Manbearcat]

No problem. Movement rules are, IMO, one inheritance from its wargame roots that D&D could stand to drop. Nonetheless D&D remains a skirmish game at heart. Lately I've been thinking it does better when it remembers that. Although I have trouble squaring that with the "Three Pillars" talk.

<snip>

However, I've lately started thinking of it as more a skirmish system with (as you note) combat as its focus. (Don't tell the 4e fans that its focused on combat, they get grumpy about it.)

I think the two of these can be answered in the same way (and hopefully it provides some optimism But perhaps not). Conflict resolution being primarily resolved via combat is not presage for the exclusion of conflict resolution via other means. Even if its 75/25, a clear majority, you're still having 1 "other means" (parlay, chase, investigation, hunt, mediated dispute, interrogation, etc) for every combat.

I think you'll find that most 4e advocates have no problem with the above statement. What they have a problem with is the indictment that 4e is a "tactical skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay", "not D&D", "not an RPG" or any derivative thereof. Especially when you consider that 4e is the first version of D&D to have a dedicated mechanical system of non-combat resolution. It may be abstract and it may have had poor initial instructions such that those that weren't exposed to story-gaming struggled with it conceptually (a fair commentary), but it was there and it was robust enough to do the job.

Personally, while combat is still the majority, my 4e games are probably a lot closer to 2 "other means" for every 3 combats so "other means" are probably closer to 40 % of my total conflict resolution. I suspect others are in that vicinity.

Does 25 - 40 % of mechanical resolution as non-combat still make you cringe? D&D can pull that off just fine I think.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think you'll find that most 4e advocates have no problem with the above statement. What they have a problem with is the indictment that 4e is a "tactical skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay", "not D&D", "not an RPG" or any derivative thereof. Especially when you consider that 4e is the first version of D&D to have a dedicated mechanical system of non-combat resolution. It may be abstract and it may have had poor initial instructions such that those that weren't exposed to story-gaming struggled with it conceptually (a fair commentary), but it was there and it was robust enough to do the job.

I think you mean "non-combat conflict resolution". Certainly task resolution existed in previous editions. I agree with the rest of your assessment...at least after it was errata'd...my group was frustrated with the original SC rules.

I would also note that I have personally witnessed several groups in my area play 4e precisely as a "tactical skirmish linked by (mostly)freeform roleplay". The idea that many people perceive it that way doesn't surprise me at all.

Personally, while combat is still the majority, my 4e games are probably a lot closer to 2 "other means" for every 3 combats so "other means" are probably closer to 40 % of my total conflict resolution. I suspect others are in that vicinity.

Does 25 - 40 % of mechanical resolution as non-combat still make you cringe? D&D can pull that off just fine I think.

I don't think its the percentage so much as the speed differential that bothers me. I mean, MHRP probably features a heavy selection of combat (50/50, by the book.) I don't really have a problem with 4e, I just find it a slow in real time. When I'm running a 4e combat, I find the profusion of fiddly bits slows us down so that its easy for me to drop out of the narrative head-space and into that "tactical skirmish" mode. I know that's not a problem for everyone, and that's cool. I should also point out that I had the same problem with 3e, especially once the characters got higher than about 7th or 8th level.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ratskinner Yup. Oversight. I meant to put "conflict" resolution in there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would also note that I have personally witnessed several groups in my area play 4e precisely as a "tactical skirmish linked by (mostly)freeform roleplay". The idea that many people perceive it that way doesn't surprise me at all.

The only opinion that matters is that of the people at the table. If they were doing as much RP as they cared to do and they consider that an RPG, then there you go. I mean, what do you think the people playing in Dave Arneson's game were doing? I guess maybe OD&D isn't an RPG, but that seems a little restrictive to me....

 

[pemerton]

Don't tell the 4e fans that its focused on combat, they get grumpy about it.

Not at all!

Clearly, in 4e, combat is the preeminent site of conflict resolution. It's just not the only site of conflict resolution. And nor is the game about combat. (I compare it to classic X-Men or Hulk comics: combat is the preeminent site of conflict resolution, but neither is about combat. X-Men is about social liberation. The Hulk is about Freudian psyhcology.)

When I'm running a 4e combat, I find the profusion of fiddly bits slows us down so that its easy for me to drop out of the narrative head-space and into that "tactical skirmish" mode.

That's why I try to use the combat to express/progress the story. (OK, so it's a pretty violent story.)

That's also part of why I talk about my game being "light". In the last session, the PCs (led by the dwarf and his dwarven thrower artefact) had assaulted a small fort with goblins and trolls inside it. The whole thing was poorly planned - the players were expecting a walkover and were overly cavalier, to the point that they had even checked how they would all get through/over the walls, and it took the paladin about 3 rounds to get in, and the invoker more than that.

Anyway, the fort had a tower attached and it became clear pretty early on that some psychic being was inside it (because of telepathic communications, plus psychic attacks through an arrow slit). The drow chaos sorcerer flew up to the top of the tower to try and find a way in and deal with the psychic - who had been generally identified as a mind flayer (via a combination of reasoning from established ingame law, plus one of the players correctly guessing that I would find mind flayers pretty cool).

So while everyone else is down in the fort fighting goblins and trolls, the sorcerer is on his own, on top of the fort, opening the trapdoor to take down the mindflayer solo. And one of the other players even says, "You're crazy, and if your brain gets eaten by a mindflayer I'll laugh." Needless to say the PC sticks his head down the trapdoor, gets grabbed by tentacles and then "Bore into Brain" begins, while the other PCs are down below fighting the "real fight" and wondering where the hell their main artillery support has got to.

I didn't get to actually eat the brain, because the ranger-cleric (whose player was the one who threatened laughter) climbed up to the top of the tower and used healing magic to keep the drow alive. (I was planning to go for the "dominate" option, because that sorcerer is awesome against the other PCs when dominated.)

That's story, of a fairly basic kind, and the way it played out was very consistent with how the PCs play and what they are built to be and do. The drow especially is the instigator (at the character level as well as the player level), and is built for it.

Now that's a story that could play out in a lighter system too, but something about the fiddly bits - knowing how many turns help is away, watching those hit points count down as the mind flayer tries to crack the drow's skull, etc - creates some sort of viscerality. Maybe I've just got very traditional sensibilities.

 

[Ratskinner]

The only opinion that matters is that of the people at the table. If they were doing as much RP as they cared to do and they consider that an RPG, then there you go. I mean, what do you think the people playing in Dave Arneson's game were doing? I guess maybe OD&D isn't an RPG, but that seems a little restrictive to me....

Certainly true.

 

[Ratskinner]

Clearly, in 4e, combat is the preeminent site of conflict resolution. It's just not the only site of conflict resolution. And nor is the game about combat. (I compare it to classic X-Men or Hulk comics: combat is the preeminent site of conflict resolution, but neither is about combat. X-Men is about social liberation. The Hulk is about Freudian psyhcology.)

That's why I try to use the combat to express/progress the story. (OK, so it's a pretty violent story.)

That's also part of why I talk about my game being "light". In the last session, the PCs (led by the dwarf and his dwarven

<snip the story>

Now that's a story that could play out in a lighter system too, but something about the fiddly bits - knowing how many turns help is away, watching those hit points count down as the mind flayer tries to crack the drow's skull, etc - creates some sort of viscerality. Maybe I've just got very traditional sensibilities.

I don't think there's anything wrong or weird with that. Its just different strokes for different folks. I know what you're talking about with the viscerality, too. FATE people often talk about that from the other perspective...its great at generating story, but harder to generate that viscerality. It's not impossible, but the stance of the game is a bit different. hmm...maybe I'm wrong about that...."FATE generates that viscerality, but not as profoundly" is probably more accurate. I suppose that's a more appropriate topic for the FATE groups.

Anyway...noticing that we are horribly off-topic....

umm....

I'm in favor of lighter mechanics for skills in 5e. However, I'd like things like Scene Framing and Conflict Resolution to show up somewhere.