Tourney play is a pretty artificially narrow assessment of 'player skill' anyway.
D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
- Thread starter clearstream
- Start date
At the bolded stage, is a check required or not?
Consider how this might play out in a 4e skill challenge: an appropriately framed Streetwise check to learn that only white robe cultists are allowed in; a Thievery check, perhaps, to steal some robes; and then a group Bluff check to pass the guards successfully. (I know that's only 4 checks and a skill challenge requires at least 4 - the 4th check could reflect something distinctive about the particular situation.)
Or imagine in AW, having learned about the white-robed cult and then making an Acting Under Fire check to enter the cult headquarters without being noticed.
Whether or not a check is required here will make a pretty big difference to play, I think. If it's not, then the main focus of play becomes finding a solution to the problem of how to sneak past the guard. If it is, then the main focus of play becomes will I successfully sneak past the guard? One is more like a procedural, the other is more like a thriller.
The conclusion you arrive to is quite surprising. I would say the opposite is true. A leader needs nuances, motivations, needs, for skilled play to occur.
I'm currently running Lost Caverns of Tsojcants with OSE (B/X d&d) rulesets. The vast wilderness part before the actual caverns really demands skilled play in terms of engaging with the fiction, the environment, but most importantly the opposing/interacting factions (there are many) to even think of finding a safe place to rest and heal.
Players must be very careful when approaching human patrols, monsters' lairs, or bands of goblinoids/tribesmen/dwarves/gnomes/half-orc smugglers ecc.
(By the way, I always ask for their Task & Intent when they declare actions, or approaches to situations
)I've never done a lot of tournament play, but when I did some (in the mid-90s) my group got some prizes, including some firsts, but never for D&D. I think we were being scored on a combination of how intensely did we engage the scenario presented and how well did we progress in the scenario objectives. I don't think it was a measure of skill in @Ovinomancer's sense (of leveraging the system to produce outcomes in the fiction). It was more like a measure of seriousness of play including perhaps some ability to apply the system features at a few key moments.
I'm looking at it from an OS(R) perspective. So no skill challenges, nor aw moves of any sort.
I'd say it depends on the plan, requiring negotiations between Gm/Players, maybe rolls, spell casting, combat, whatever is needed.
Then present themselves in front of the guards as white robed cultists, all bruised, bleeding, and filthy.
Edit: yes, definitely number 1: finding a solution to the problem. But I also like to use all dice rolls at disposal to bring the story forward, many pivotal moments where decided by rolls on both sides, so pretty thrilling even for me, the Gm.
I'm thinking of reaction rolls, initiative, attribute checks, saves, finding secret doors, also critical rolls (houseruled).
Last edited:
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Hard to say, because I see player attempts to leverage the fiction, but have no inputs on how the GM will actually adjudicate this. Since the decision process is black box, skilled play is impacted because I can't tell, as a player, which, if any, of these steps actually do anything to the outcomes. I don't need to know specifically, mind -- not everything need be completely spelled out -- but I wouldn't need to have an understanding that these things actually make a difference in toto.
Shorter form -- I can't tell if Force is applicable here, so I can say if skilled play is present.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I'm not clear as to what distinction you're drawing here, so I can't say. Man, that's two "can't says" in a row!
Maybe we're thinking of different degrees of nuance?The conclusion you arrive to is quite surprising. I would say the opposite is true. A leader needs nuances, motivations, needs, for skilled play to occur.
I'm currently running Lost Caverns of Tsojcants with OSE (B/X d&d) rulesets. The vast wilderness part before the actual caverns really demands skilled play in terms of engaging with the fiction, the environment, but most importantly the opposing/interacting factions (there are many) to even think of finding a safe place to rest and heal.
Players must be very careful when approaching human patrols, monsters' lairs, or bands of goblinoids/tribesmen/dwarves/gnomes/half-orc smugglers ecc.
(By the way, I always ask for their Task & Intent when they declare actions, or approaches to situations
I've just had a look through Lost Caverns. SPOILERS FOLLOW:
The module says that "An encounter with a military patrol could be a challenge to the party. A friendly patrol could tell the party how many 'dangerous areas' (variable encounter sites) are on the trail ahead, but not the exact locations. Winning the trust of a patrol is very difficult, however, for it is their mission to be suspicious of all armed travellers." But then for the human patrols, there is also this: "Simply stating that the party is in the Yatils adventuring and seeking to slay the enemies of humankind will generally suffice to obtain a grudging dismissal from a patrol." The mountain tribesmen "can be bribed with money and weapons or similar gear. They can also be enlisted as allies against known raiders, or to attack someplace and gain great and easy wealth." The dwarves "will not listen to talk which would prevent or delay [their] mission. They will ignore any party of neutral or good aligned characters - or anyone else who does not binder or attack them." For the hermit, "If the party will trade some valuable item . . . and some small amount of food and perhaps a new cloak, the fellow will give them a page from the journal of the lone survivor of a past expedition to the caverns." The stone giants, "if they are offered food and drink . . . will offer to trade a scroll they cannot read for coins or gems."
For a number of default hostile groups, there are statements about the circumstances under which they retreat/flee. For the hobgoblins there is more nuance as they are "in the pay of Ket, with orders to prevent or report human movement along the Kettite border area."
Of the gnomes, we are told that "If the party is friendly, the gnomes will not attack them, and if the party is of good alignment, they will be permitted to enter the vale and use it as a place of safety and rest. If the party has fought and defeated humanoids or ogres, trolls, etc., then the gnomes will befriend them, healing the party’s wounds and diseases, and supplying food. They will tell a trusted party the general whereabouts of the caverns. . . . For particularly heroic actions, the party will be rewarded by the gnomes."
I'm certainly not saying that there is no skilled play here, but the parameters for the social encounters seem pretty similar to what I described. There are no intricate interpersonal bonds or hostilities; no rivalries or hostilities that differ from those stated in the MM entries; and no general lack of willingness to accept payment for services.
Yeah, I mean, I expect both sides to agree that a solution, or plan, is plausible before executing it, or at the very least the Gm to give Players time to react to new, unforeseen obstacles before deploying them on the Pcs, otherwise, yes it is black box territory
Don't attribute checks risk becoming de facto skill checks?
If the PCs turn up in their white robes, do they also have to make a CHA check to pull it off? To me that would seem a bit unfair.
