D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[Tony Vargas]

I think the best way is to establish a series of archetypes for skill challenges. The Chase, The Race, The Puzzle, The Journey, The Negotiation, and perhaps a series of 'complications' (The Roadblock, Active Opposition, Secondary Goal, External Forces, etc). These could be combined in various ways. This allows production of a fairly extensive set of variations on an SC that will roughly fit many situations. The exact skills required and how the different elements precisely interact can vary greatly of course, but you could pretty much pull these off a table and use them.

One thing I've found with Skill Challenges is that it helps to dress them up with decisions (or events, even random events) that influence what skill you can use, and a clear, visual way of tracking progress beyond just accumulating n successes before 3 failures. It makes them into a sort of game-within-a-game.

If one were to expand the system the way you two are discussing, each sort of challenge could have it's own sort of mini-game feel.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think the best way is to establish a series of archetypes for skill challenges. The Chase, The Race, The Puzzle, The Journey, The Negotiation, and perhaps a series of 'complications' (The Roadblock, Active Opposition, Secondary Goal, External Forces, etc). These could be combined in various ways. This allows production of a fairly extensive set of variations on an SC that will roughly fit many situations. The exact skills required and how the different elements precisely interact can vary greatly of course, but you could pretty much pull these off a table and use them.

I really agree with this, and it's something I played around with during 4e's active lifecycle. Skill challenges were a great idea better presented in Star Wars SAGA, 4e DMG II, and [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]'s Obsidian system. While the original conception was sadly flawed and only marginally useful, it did improve into a usable system. However, WotC didn't take it to that next level with archetypal non-combat challenges given their own templates (e.g. The Infiltration, The Chase, etc).

Actually, speaking of The Chase, one of the things 5e does is include explicit chase rules which seem pretty decent after my initial read-thru. A great improvisation tool that can be used as is, or modified with custom obstacle tables & other hazards. It's actually not a bad model for where I would like to see the skill challenge concept expand...in any edition.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, it ate my reply to you, and I'm not going to write it all up again. The main points:

(1) I like details, and it doesn't have to be mundane exploration tracking. One of the PCs in my long-running 3.X game lost both his eyes, and if he hadn't been blinded in our fourth session, things would have been massively different. So that's why I like details like that.

(2) Empowering players comes in when you take power away from the GM and give it to the players. In my system, the players have the capability to determine the DC of a check, and find ways to hit that DC, forcing events to happen. So they can determine that someone is very hard to convince, find out why, and find ways around it. This is all mechanically. And that takes power from the GM and gives it to the players, which is what I would describe as player empowerment.

(3) I don't think player empowerment usually avoids GMs that want to railroad. But it can certainly stop a lot of it.

Hmmmm, I started playing way back in OD&D days, and back then spells were just a couple sentences and a name. Even after 1e was introduced and they got a bit more formalized most spells left a vast array of open questions, especially the higher level ones. Even a lot of low level spells didn't address basic stuff though. OTOH 4e powers are VERY nailed down. Each one is very specific. However you're correct that the DM COULD allow them to be extrapolated on. 4e's rules are pretty much silent on this though. The DM could also make situational rulings like "fireball doesn't work under water", although that one would probably raise a few eyebrows.

Right. And the more defined you get, the more empowered your players are. I don't feel like the things I've described in 4e (skills, skill challenges, subjective DCs, and stunts) are very defined at all. They're all filtered through the GM. And while you say you think everything is, you also point out that powers are "VERY nailed down." And the closer you get to that side of the park, the more power the players possess. I find skills, skill challenges, subjective DCs, and stunts on the other side of the park.

I think where I get lost is the notion that it is POSSIBLE to codify 'non-combat' like that. Non-combat to me is a gajillion things. My mind can't even bend around the possibility of codifying them like combat is. I can imagine that if a game is very focused on certain specific things, like say a game that focuses very heavily on climbing and such, that you might make up very elaborate subsystems for that one thing. There will STILL at some level have to be a highly generalized task resolution system for all the rest of the things that come up. I just cannot imagine anyone designing or running a game where even half of the stuff that comes up in every session in our games would already be accounted for in some very specific way.

I dunno. I feel pretty happy with my stuff. And it has rules for a lot of things D&D doesn't try (outside of skill challenges for some of these): navigation and long term travel, running nations (with things like economy, loyalty, population density, land benefits, materials to be produced, etc.), running organizations, running businesses, running cities, random events for nations/cities/organizations and their mechanical effects (d100), changing weather, two levels of mass combat rules, sieges, how far you can throw things, feats of strength, effects of alcohol, effects of drugs, gambling, torture, magical land, character personality traits, assessing DCs, predicting actions, a life course, background charts, mechanical effects for all objects, the economy and pricing, an in-depth crafting system, inventions, new magical effects (like imbuing magic into land or things like protection on objects instead of people), tiring yourself to get a bonus on a Strength check, fame, calling in favors, titles, reputations, respect from the people, respect from organizations, rank in the military, rank as a noble or as a member of royalty, relationships with NPCs, societal status, national traits, societal traits, regional traits, stunts, training, earning experience in a time skip, working, solving riddles or puzzles, advanced mathematics, controlling emotions, feigning death, making jury-rigged objects, mimicking sound, ingratiating yourself to someone over substantial time, interpreting, setting moods, forging objects, breeding animals, base animal temperaments and how to change them, training animals to gain experience, autopsies, identify details from a wound, reduce or negate penalties through the mundane Heal skill on a broad level, resuscitating dead creatures, attracting attention, beating others while avoiding marks, bullying someone over time, research, commanding armies, inspiring troops on a broad level, spreading rumors, making a deal with someone, mundanely fascinating a crowd with a performance, uplifting the spirits of traveling companions over long distances, professions that cover broad areas (such as just the Blacksmith or Ranger skill), cold reading, counseling, figuring out what someone values, rules on gathering food in various terrains/seasons/temperatures, forming shield walls, and probably more.

And then there's the combat stuff I added: appendage loss, bleeding, other maimings (eye, nose, ears, etc.), called shots, combat styles, maneuvers, technique points, defense bonus to AC, various combat maneuvers (like repositioning people), taking people hostage, holding back damage, extra damage for beating a DC, hitting people that attack you, grappling maneuvers, riding maneuvers, knocking people unconscious on surprise, pressure point attacks, combat stunts, changing your damage type, gaining combat feats you can swap out quickly, mundanely reducing penalties to attacks, hitting someone quietly, mortally wounding enemies, skull fractures, broken bones, etc.

All told, my book weighs in at about 320 pages. And that includes rules for all the standard stuff (making magic items, making monsters, etc.). So, is it possible? Well, to my satisfaction, yes.

I think we have different table cultures. My players, in the last several groups I've run, have all been very laid back. I don't make a lot of eyebrow raising rulings and they do the more wacky and outrageous things in a consultative way. We've all DMed a lot, so we all know how to make things work smoothly.

Why would things not be laid back at my table? Out of the players that I run my RPG for, I've known them for 13 years, 15 years, 15 years, and 29 years (and I'm 29!). We're all very close friends, and very relaxed.

I just like to give them the power and options. It's more transparent and player-empowering for them, and less work for me. Win-win, as far as my playstyle preference is concerned

 

[pemerton]

Sheesh. Did I not say I used the technique, myself? It's a legitimate way of dealing with a balky system. Yes, it 'breaks the social contract,' in theory but running a game that sucks does that too, and no one has any fun that way. With skillful illusionism, you can at least deliver a good play experience fairly consistently, in spite of the system.

Sorry for irritating you - it wasn't on purpose! I was just trying to explain why I thought that you and I (and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]) were talking about the same thing, although [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] had thought we were talking about different things.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Logistical D&D is an old tradition and a perfectly valid playing style, but I think one that primarily interests a subset of detail-oriented people, and bores rather more.

I agree, but that was just an example. There are a lot to choose from without getting bogged down in a completely understandable "mundane issues like carrying capacity and ammo tracking bores me."

I've seldom seen logistics being enforced consistently and fairly either. "Forgotten rope" issues can be a sign that the DM feels his or her adventure hasn't been sufficiently prepared/ written and wants to delay the players. This being a case where the players had discussed a plan using ropes well beforehand, there was plenty of time and opportunity to prepare, and logistics checking hadn't been an issue in the campaign much before.

YMMV, etc. etc. etc.

While as in your example this sort of thing can leads to lots of adventure, it can also make the person who forgot the rope, or forgot or mislaid the piece of paper with rope written on it, or who wasn't able to get to the session, feel stupid or responsible for getting a PC killed. If there's enough bad feeling about it, the campaign can blow up as a consequence. "For want of a rope the campaign was lost"

Yes!!!! Exactly. I'm more than willing to have that happen, too, if the dice somehow fall that way because there was no rope. I'm one of those GMs that prefers to see where things lead rather than lead them there. I feel a lot worse controlling the narrative than preventing a campaign from imploding (though I've only had 1 TPK and 1 total party wipe in about 11 years of GMing).

Adventures can contain single points of failure where something is needed to pass them, and being roadblocked by them may be naturalistic but it often isn't fun for anyone involved. Sometimes, particularly in dungeons, there's only one way forward, and a roadblock is a literal roadblock, forcing the party to leave to get the lost item. At which point a lot of DMs do a u-turn and just let them have the forgotten item, as they realise the mistake is partially their own.

I guess I don't run dungeons outside of the 4e game, so that's probably a big part that I do miss here.

Also, I don't agree all the details are out in the open. Even the referee doesn't know everything, but he knows far more than the players. There is such a vast amount of detail in the gameworld, and most of it is irrelevant, but the relevant details pop out clearly to the referee. It's hard to keep in mind that this isn't the case for the players who generally have difficulty distinguishing genuine clues from red herrings, mistaken conclusions, badly written notes, lies from NPCs, lies from other PCs, etc.(the referee doesn't know the secret plans of the players, individually and in groups and subgroups)

Fair point, and it's well-taken.

I prefer higher level D&D in any case, where simple logistical problems are moot due to bags of holding filled with all basic adventuring supplies. If your players aren't detail oriented, punishing them for that lack is shortsighted and fails in the DM duty to cater to the players you have rather than punishing them for what they are not. Though obviously, it's sensible to recruit players who want the style of game that you want to run.

Yeah, I don't cater to what the players want in terms of my GMing style. I'll ask what kind of campaign they want (mercenary units have been done, warlords have been done, adventurers have been done... right now they're kind of high-status adventurers in my RPG campaign), but I still don't bend outside of my comfort zone for them. The game needs to be fun for me in order for me to run it. And I have fun running a certain type of game, not just making them happy (that's more my brother's style).

Also my playing time is precious and I see a sizable amount of logistical roadblocking as timewasting, wasting both my players and my own precious playing time.

It can reach this point, true. I do try to help move things along, but as I see pacing as a GM virtue, I feel I'm pretty good at it.

The "Assumption of Competence" is one of my core principles nowadays - generally assume that the PCs are competent, don't make dumb decisions off camera, don't forget basic supplies, don't get killed by house cats. Newbie PCs can flail around a little, but my players and I have done all the logistical exercises before in previous games, we don't need to do them over and over again. For me the fun failures are those that take place on camera in the game due to the active decisions of the players.

I get that, and that's cool. That just includes shopping to me, for example. But the examples are nearly endless, and it doesn't have to be mundane exploration stuff.

As others have said, the gameworld is always filtered through the DM. Barring a DMing AI and virtual environment, the players are forced to constantly play twenty questions to build up even a pale shadow of the DM's appreciation of the gameworld. Thus all the stories about DMs who failed to mention the giant dragon in the centre of the room (which is the D&D version of the Elephant in the Room). Players can't automatically see what is clear to the DM due to the lack of context and ability to zoom into details, mostly irrelevant.

YMMV, etc. etc. etc.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In what game is this not true? I mean its simply not plausible to me that your RPG spells out a formula for each skill that literally deterministically states for all situations when and how that skill is useful, what the DC is, and what the results of use/failure are going to be. I can imagine you have covered the most basic common cases of skill uses that probably DO cover 80% of skill checks, but so does every other game. When the rogue asks what the DC is going to be for leaping off the balcony onto the top of the flaming balloon, riding it to the ceiling and leaping to the ledge, you can't possibly pull that off a chart. Presumably in 4e someone is going to say its a hard stunt of DC N, and make an Acrobatics check. I think that's about as transparent/empowering as you can get, isn't it?

Oh, no, not transparent enough at all. Nor empowering. Before asking the GM, the Rogue doesn't know the DC. Nor does he get to build his PC with that in mind. What if the GM calls for Athletics for jumping, and the Rogue didn't know it would be, and is thus untrained?

You can take it in steps. Leaping off a balcony X distance? Check appropriate skill (Jump, Athletics, whatever) DC formula for jumping. Does riding it call for a check? If it does, check appropriate skill (Acrobatics, Balance, whatever) DC for balancing and riding it. Leaping again? First skill check.

Now, I'm sure many people are thinking "three skill checks! You just want him to fail!" Well, except my RPG does have things like Consistent Skill (+1 bonus to skill, and can literally always take a 10 on it). If the player knows what the DCs are, he can build his PC in such a way that checks like these he doesn't even need to roll for. He knows what he needs to build to (transparency) and has the tools to pull it off (player empowerment).

In my opinion when people talk about 'empowerment' they are saying "the players have clear rules and guidelines they can use to decide if they can do this thing or not", which is empowering because it removes the doubt and makes explicit the risks and rewards inherent in an action.

That's transparency. Empowerment is taking the call away from the GM, and giving the players the tools they need to do it themselves.

It depends on what levels your PCs are.

That's true. Mine are level 11 in 4e.

Clearly at level 30 a character with a 10 in a stat (started with an 8) and no bonuses of any kind can't even do an easy task without a 19, but its a demi-god level task, and they won't pass a medium skill check ever. I don't think this is disempowering at all, its just very clear, you have to invest in your skills, to be able to do the really hard stuff.

That's... kind of against what some people were saying they appreciated about 4e in this thread, but I don't really mind if people can't succeed on tasks. However, the objection I have is that the GM gets to decide DCs (Easy/Moderate/Hard), and now has more tools to roadblock players than if this wasn't the case.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm saying that once the GM is obliged to be open about what s/he is doing - for instance, that such-and-such a thing is or isn't permissible in the fiction - this opens a space for negotiation between the players and the GM. Which is empowering.

[SNIP]

So the empowerment, at least as I have experienced it, lies in the change in the social dynamic that results from transparency about what the nature is of the decision that the GM is making.

I don't think I'd call that player-empowerment so much as table dynamics. The GM still has final say. He just says yes a lot. But the players don't have any more power. Unless I'm misinterpreting this and they do now have more power?

On the issue of DCs: a Hard DC at level 1 is 18 (isn't it?) which is doable though hard for an untrained PC (the chance drops down to 10% for an untrained 8-stat PC). At higher levels the gaps grow but so do the opportunities for buffs etc.

See the end of my reply, just above this post, for my thoughts on this.

 

[JamesonCourage]

As it happens, I would have loved to see some expanded non-combat systems for situations that come up as "challenges" commonly in adventure stories. I honestly don't think there are an unconquerable number of them; they commonly revolve around sneaking, tricking, persuading, building, mending or navigating - not that huge a number of situational classes to cover (and for the remainder you still have skill challenges). But, alas, it was not to be (and now most likely will not be for a loooong time...)

That would have been awesome.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One thing I've found with Skill Challenges is that it helps to dress them up with decisions (or events, even random events) that influence what skill you can use, and a clear, visual way of tracking progress beyond just accumulating n successes before 3 failures. It makes them into a sort of game-within-a-game.

If one were to expand the system the way you two are discussing, each sort of challenge could have it's own sort of mini-game feel.

Yeah, I've been doing a bit of a write-up to explain the challenge mechanics I've been presenting for a game I'm going to run using some 4e-like rules. We do these experiments now and then, every couple years, to just poke at our understanding of RPGs. I'm not sure its EXACTLY a set of mini-games. It COULD be, but so far I'm seeing it more as a set of guidelines and recommended uses for things like advantages and possibly setbacks as well. So you have (for the most part) the same basic mechanics with each template providing hooks as to how to employ them and which subset to employ for that particular class of situations. The situations are also IMHO somewhat abstract. A 'chase' might in theory encompass other situations that are 'chase-like' etc. Some of those situations might use different skills, but they would probably all have analogous points where the same kinds of things would come up.

 

[pemerton]

While the original conception was sadly flawed and only marginally useful

This I don't agree with - at least, I think it's at best partially true.

I think the original conception did have issues with skill DCs. This is one instance of a bigger problem of not having solidified all their maths. That skill DCs would go through 3 (I think) revisions - first dropping the footnote that said "add 5", then the DMG2 numbers, then the Essentials numbers, is a sign of inadequate playtesting and also inadequate attention to the sorts of character builds the system makes typical.

The original conception also had issues with presentation, because bits and pieces of it were scattered through the PHB (in the skill chapter, and in the section on skill challenges) and the DMG (in the section on skill challenges, as well as hints here and there on p 42 and in the trap write-ups).

But if you combine everything that is said about skill challenges in the PHB and DMG, and if you take the Essentials skill DCs (or even the DMG2 ones for a non-optimised Heroic-tier campaign), then I think you get a pretty good system:

From the player’s point of view (Text from PHB pp 179 & 259)
A skill challenge is a complex situation in which you must make several successful checks . . . before you can claim success in the encounter. . . .

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail. . . .

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. . . .

Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. . . . Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you through the challenge.

From the GM’s point of view (Text from DMG pp 72–76)
The difference between a combat challenge and a skill challenge isn’t the presence or absence of physical risk, nor the presence or absence of attack rolls and damage rolls and power use. The difference is in how the encounter treats PC actions. . . . More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure. . . . Failure introduces complications rather than ending the adventure. . . .

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . . Define the goal of the challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal. . . .

You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results. . . . Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun.

[R]eward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check. Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action. . . .

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . . . Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. . . . [P]layers will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth. . . .

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. . . . [Y]ou should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.

Characters might have access to utility powers or rituals that can help them. These might allow special uses of skills, perhaps with a bonus. Rituals in particular might grant an automatic success or remove failures from the running total.​

I've reordered the text for clarity, but I haven't added anything.

What have I cut out? The reference on DMG p 74 to initiative checks - which is not hopeless, but isn't terrific either. Better would be advice on framing the challenge and narrating consequences so that all the PCs (and, thereby, the players) get drawn into the action.

I've also cut out the advice that skills the GM didn't think of should be treated as 'secondary' skills with a higher check DC and a tighter limit on repeat uses. This is generally bad advice, but following it won't completely derail the system (in general, the skills a player is pushing for will be ones in which his/her PC has a high bonus).

The main thing that is missing from all this advice is some discussion of the overall abstract and "closed-scene" nature of the system. The DMG alludes to this when it says that the main difference from combat is how PC actions are treated, but exactly what this difference consists in, and exactly how the GM should narrate consequences, is left very opaque. But this was never improved in later presentations - it's almost equally opaque following the DMG2 and in the Essentials presentation.

The DMG2 makes three main contributions. First, it offers more concrete advice on mechanical benefits to be gained from using powers or rituals, and also talks about possible benefits from spending action points or money. Second, it gives examples and advice on narrative structure for skill challenges. Third, it gives this bit of advice:

DMG 2 p 83
Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:

* Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue, a path to success they didn't know existed;

* Change the situation, such as by sending the PC's to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication;

* Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check's success or failure . . . that influences their subsequent decisions.​

This is useful, and a bit more spelled out than the DMG, but it still doesn't explain how narration is related to the "closed scene" structure.

Essentials makes two main contributions. First, it offers more concrete advice on how to set check DCs and how to ration skill use so as to avoid spamming (although it does not give any advice on how to narrate that sort of rationing). Second, it introduces the "advantage" mechanic, which is basically a device for fudging over the wonkiness of the 4e skill maths. Unfortunately this mechanic is not really developed in any serious way - it remains not much more developed than the DMG references to using powers and rituals.

TL;DR: while later advice and additions were helpful (and necessary as far as level-appropriate DCs are concerned), I think the core of the system is there in the PHB and DMG, and that it is more than marginally useful.