The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

This implies, for example, that in a skill challenge approach the narrative significance of the RP is not included. Which I regard as false.

Regard it all you want. It makes no difference to me.

The way YOU initially described it, the only relevance is whether you veto a check as valid or not. Presuming you agree with the actions proclaimed, 6/3 is the end of discussion. Now, it has been clarified to me that a cool really applicable action could count double. And, truly, going from having zero relevance to having relevance is a huge improvement. It still falls way short, but it is a huge improvement.

But still, before you ever sat down to the table you knew that 6 valid successes would be victory. That knowledge comes with zero insight or relationship to the actions the characters will eventually take. It does not need that insight because it isn't relevant.

I'm guessing here, but I think I'm coming to understand where your view comes from.
After the game is over, you and I could each sit down and write out the events in a story form. Neither of us would mention anything that had anything to do with mechanics. Someone reading our stories would learn of characters encountering situations and taking appropriate actions to overcome the obstacle. There would be no way to tell it was a game at all, much less a game run using skill challenges or not.

So from that point of view, either way is identical. A collection of narrative appropriate actions were used to solve a problem. Our stories can not be distinguished from each other and both involve only actions in which are fitting to the narrative. Therefore there is no difference.

And, if I simply wanted to write fiction, that would be true.

But I love the mechanics. I love seeing how the pieces interact in a consistent, but not fully predictable manner. I love seeing the direct cause and effect and how the world changes on both the immense and trivial scales. There is no way I would ever sit down at a table knowing that every challenge can be overcome by N successes. Even if N can change from challenge to challenge and really cool successes can count with a multiplier 2, 3, or 19. The very model is wrong from the get go. These are not mathematical problems to be quantified. Certainly not at anything remotely as coarse as 6/3. Counting successes has nothing to do with the solution. It isn't a quantitative problem, it is a qualitative problem. You can have a DC to determine if a given action is successful or not. (And I frequently use much more than an up/down interpretation of skill check) But the impact of that action on the challenge simply can not be satisfactorily captured as 1 or 2 of X successes. The impact and how the situation changes should be judged based purely on the narrative value.

End the end skill challenges ignore the narrative value. Yes, the veto is there, ok, the double credit chance is there. But, ultimately it is check marks that control.

You could run a skill challenge as a 6/3. And the characters could overcome that obstacle in seven tries, with one failure. And you could then write a back story to fit what happened. And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.

Then, for kicks, you could run the exact same skill challenge as a 11/5. And the characters could take the exact same seven actions, and then finish off in seven more, with two more failures in the mix. And you could then write a back story to fit what happened. And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.

But, the stories would not be compatible. The actions which solved the problem the first time would be inadequate to solve the problem the second time. This is possible because the narrative significance of the actions are irrelevant to the progress. You only go in and assign the relevance after the fact. Because the mechanical system imposed is in charge and the narrative obeys the mechanics.

In my games, a valid solution is a valid solution. It may be harder or easier to implement that solution, and appropriate DCs can be used to set that. But if one character does just the right thing, then, in hindsight I now know that was a 1/0 challenge. Or maybe it was a 3/11 challenge. I can retrofit a skill challenge on to the events afterward the same way you can retro fit narrative.

But when you start a skill challenge, you know that the first character's action is not going to solve the problem. You know that because the mechanics are in control and won't allow it. I don't know because the narrative is in control and all bets are off.

And, as I understand it, that is a design success of skill challenges. The first guy to go won't solve the problem. It will be a team effort and all the players get to contribute and share the glory. And my system completely fails at this.

And I don't care about that.
Just as you clearly don't care that the narrative is retrofitted to match the N successes. We both start with a challenge and end with a narrative fitting result. I don't claim one is better, or much much less, more "fun" or rewarding than the other.

But I absolutely claim they are significantly different and that I have a personal preference for one approach over the other.

The narrative can control the mechanics or the mechanics can control the narrative.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I believe BryonD has the right of it.

The Jester's skill challenge impressed me because it follows the natural consequences of the setting, and implies both that it is static (i.e., the difficulty for actions is given in the check, rather than determined by the PCs), is triggered by PC decisions (if the PCs attempt this, that is the result), and is bypassable (if the PCs do not attempt this, then some other result occurs). Or, at least, it seemed to as I read it.

These factors, combined, are all necessary for a skill challenge to be "fiction-first" as opposed to "rules-first", IMHO.

For example, in BryonD's post, he could have notes about the DCs of attempting various things, and what needs to be done to accomplish a task. And that could be seen as a "skill challenge" of sorts. But, if the PCs come up with some method of bypassing their difficulties, then they don't have to slog through the "challenge".

I.e., the challenge is about bypassing or cleverly resolving difficulties rather than playing through them to ensure everyone has a turn, or the level of challenge isn't changed by player choices, or everyone gets so much XP, and so on.

I was also very favourably impressed by the implication in the Jester's skill challenge by how the actions of the PCs affected the outcome of future actions. It seemed much better than simply 6/3. Indeed, it seemed (to me) head-and-shoulders over any other example that I have read.

([MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION]: Sorry, I know that your pigeon attack was probably fun to play, but the setup as you described it sounds much more like what BryonD is talking about, and much less like what the Jester accomplishes with his. I do list this one as #2, though. IMHO. YMMV. )


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that's a little harsh.

How come, in earlier editions, the paladin using his "Shout really loud in the name of my god" power to scare someone is creative spellcasing, but in 4e it's "receiving a bonus to get a cookie"?

Who says it is? A character using a standard ability for its intended effect in any edition isn't being particularly creative. The same goes for a magic user casting a sleep spell to incapacitate foes using AD&D. It is simply the standard use of character abilities to accomplish goals.

The difference with skill challenges is that the players engage the mechanical structure instead of the situation. Rather than think about what can be done to resolve the issue, the player thinks about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against in order to contribute toward winning the challenge.

This is partially a skill challenge problem but mostly an encounter problem.
"The encounter" is the root of all suckitude and the death of organic play IMHO. The breaking up of activity into set piece mechanics-heavy mini games is bad enough for just combat but when applied to any activity of substance going on at all the game itself drifts away into this series of mini games.

Honestly, it seems like D&D for the attention deficit generation. Blah, Blah,Blah [combat] Blah,Blah [skill challenge],Blah,Blah [skill challenge],Blah,Blah [combat]

Between these set piece mini games is "filler" during which players get a drink, go to the bathroom, check twitter, etc. The encounter structure is a player dog whistle signaling that its time to pay attention because turn taking, round robin dice rolling is about to begin.

This is just how I feel about the encounter structure having run a 4E campaign for about a year. The experiences of others will most certainly vary.

This is definitely too harsh. If you come over to the Actual Play thread that I linked to earlier, I think you'll see that computer simulation is not an option on the table.

Live play at the table can never be captured by computer. The question is, can the resolution of encounters be so modeled?

 

[BryonD]

For example, in BryonD's post, he could have notes about the DCs of attempting various things, and what needs to be done to accomplish a task. And that could be seen as a "skill challenge" of sorts.

To be clear, the root concept of skill challenges is really cool. And I've been using things that would be seen as clearly cousins to the approach since long before 4E was heard of.

It is the preconceived mechanical determinism that I wish to avoid.

You could even reverse engineer a scenario in which the 4E approach fits perfectly. But you would need to find a particular scenario that just happens to fit the model. (Stopped clock happens to be right this time)

 

[BryonD]

I was also very favourably impressed by the implication in the Jester's skill challenge by how the actions of the PCs affected the outcome of future actions.

For my view, this is great, but also aside from the point.

The skill challenge is a black box. Even with all my worst case claims presumed for sake of argument, a narrative which resolved the challenge exists at the end of the process. And a good DM should absolutely keep that narrative im mind for future implications. Whether the narrative resulted from the mechanics or it is a narrative which controlled the mechanics is not significant to that point.

Both of our black boxes should fit well in the larger story. And they both are quite capable of that. It is only the internal details of the black box that are a concern to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To be clear, the root concept of skill challenges is really cool. And I've been using things that would be seen as clearly cousins to the approach since long before 4E was heard of.

It is the preconceived mechanical determinism that I wish to avoid.

You could even reverse engineer a scenario in which the 4E approach fits perfectly. But you would need to find a particular scenario that just happens to fit the model. (Stopped clock happens to be right this time)

Yeah, I got that.

I was just trying to explain how (1) pemerton's examples leave me cold, (2) the Jester's example changes my thinking about how skill challenges could be run, and (3) I think you are right....all at the same time.






(I mean, without mentioning my upcoming commitment to Arkham Asylum)

 

[pemerton]

But when you start a skill challenge, you know that the first character's action is not going to solve the problem.

<snip>

But I absolutely claim they are significantly different.

I agree with this 100%. (There could be exceptions to the first sentence. Suppose, having encountered the water weird, the PCs all run away and just use rocks, bears, magic, etc to cave in the roof of the temple. That would end the threat of the weird without needint to succeed in a skill challenge - assuming that I didn't have any ideas on how to make an interesting challenge out of the cave-in plan - but it would also mean the PCs had essentially abandoned their goal in the scene, which was to extract some gold statues lying in the bottom of the water weird's pool.)

It doesn't therefore follow that the narrative is irrelevant. It just follows that it is not solely determinative.

Why, on my approach, is the first action not going to resolve the situation? Suppose the first action, as narrated, is manifestly not enough to resolve the situation - say, in a navigation challenge like the Jester's, the first action is simply pulling out an old journal and trying to correlate it's contents to the surrounding terrain - then the narrative itself explains why more skill checks are needed. Suppose, on the other hand, the first action, as narrated, does appear sufficient to resolve the situation - let's say the first action is to summon a genie from a bottle - then the narrative itself doesn't explain why more skill chekcs are needed. At that point, the GM's role (on my approach) is to inject complication. (Perhaps the genie is grumpy. Perhaps the site the PCs are looking for is magically warded against geneis. Perhaps the genie doesn't want to go there because of something that happened there in the past - and this gives the players a clue to pick up on for their further checks.)

Notice here that the narrative is still very important. The nature of the complication that the GM introduces is itself related to the ongoing narrative - both the fact that the PCs are trying to get somewhere, and that they have summoned a genie to try and get them there. It's just that the narrative is not all that is going on. In Raven Crowking's terminology, it is not "fiction first" because something other than considerations of ingame causal logic are in play - namely, the GM is introducing complications out of metagame considerations.

(This post hasn't addressed at all why one might want a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)

The narrative can control the mechanics or the mechanics can control the narrative.

You say this as if it is self-evidently true. But, as in many other systems, the interaction and mediation between components can be quite a bit more complex. I don't, and never have, denied that action resolution in 4e is very different from simulationist games. And of course it is connected, in part, to the relationship between narrative and mechanics. But your slogan doesn't capture what the difference is.

In particular, your slogan implies that in 4e the narrative is irrelevant. And I've given numerous examples that demonstrate the contrary. It's just that something can be relevant without being determinative.

 

[pemerton]

Rather than think about what can be done to resolve the issue, the player thinks about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against in order to contribute toward winning the challenge.

Again, I just don't really feel the force of this. Are you really telling me that mine is the only group where, when I as GM describe a scene that the players are getting ready to engage with via their PCs, the players then look over their character sheets to see what sorts of resources - skills, spells, items, contacts, knowledge of backstory - that they might bring to bear?

Coming at it in another way - what is the difference between "thinking about what can be done to resolve the issue" and "thining about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against"? After all, the sole measure of applicability here is able to be used to resolve the issue!

 

[BryonD]

It doesn't therefore follow that the narrative is irrelevant. It just follows that it is not solely determinative.

As I said multiple times, you can veto and, though nothing you previously said suggest this, you can double count a cool action. Aside from those, it has no further determinative power.

Why, on my approach, is the first action not going to resolve the situation? Suppose the first action, as narrated, is manifestly not enough to resolve the situation - say, in a navigation challenge like the Jester's, the first action is simply pulling out an old journal and trying to correlate it's contents to the surrounding terrain - then the narrative itself explains why more skill checks are needed. Suppose, on the other hand, the first action, as narrated, does appear sufficient to resolve the situation - let's say the first action is to summon a genie from a bottle - then the narrative itself doesn't explain why more skill chekcs are needed. At that point, the GM's role (on my approach) is to inject complication. (Perhaps the genie is grumpy. Perhaps the site the PCs are looking for is magically warded against geneis. Perhaps the genie doesn't want to go there because of something that happened there in the past - and this gives the players a clue to pick up on for their further checks.)

Notice here that the narrative is still very important. The nature of the complication that the GM introduces is itself related to the ongoing narrative - both the fact that the PCs are trying to get somewhere, and that they have summoned a genie to try and get them there. It's just that the narrative is not all that is going on. In Raven Crowking's terminology, it is not "fiction first" because something other than considerations of ingame causal logic are in play - namely, the GM is introducing complications out of metagame considerations.

(This post hasn't addressed at all why one might want a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)

You have proven my point on two different levels.

First, you proved that the first action can not solve the problem. You specifically brought up an example of a first action *CAPABLE* of solving the problem. It is critically important to note that I never said the first action could not be one that SHOULD be able to solve the problem. I said it just can't actually do it. And you proved that by admitting that you are now obliged to find a way to stop it, whether you want to or not. (Obviously you could just throw the skill challenge out the window, but since the point here is skill challenges, I think that would be a losing position.)

So you have conceded and even demonstrated that no matter how excellent the first action may be, under a skill challenge it will not move the party to a condition of success.


Second, you proved that the narrative is the slave to the mechanics. Why is the genie grumpy? Why is the site warded? These are details that you are suddenly required to invent (back to "pop quiz role playing") because you are out of compliance with THE MECHANICS if you don't. In order to obey the decree of the mechanics your narrative must conform itself to the system's demands.

Yes, there are thousands of different narrative answers you could come up with. But you seem to think that having a variety of options for following the mechanics means you are not following the mechanics.
The narrative you just made IS NOT important to the mechanics. Within the on-going event the narrative has close to no importance to the mechanical resolution of the situation.

You say this as if it is self-evidently true. But, as in many other systems, the interaction and mediation between components can be quite a bit more complex. I don't, and never have, denied that action resolution in 4e is very different from simulationist games. And of course it is connected, in part, to the relationship between narrative and mechanics. But your slogan doesn't capture what the difference is.

In particular, your slogan implies that in 4e the narrative is irrelevant. And I've given numerous examples that demonstrate the contrary. It's just that something can be relevant without being determinative.

My slogan means what it says, the mechanics control the narrative. In your example the narrative you provided is clearly controlled by the mechanics. You have demonstrated exactly what I am talking about.

Yes, it is complex. I agree with that. But in your example those complications are all within a narrative that obeys the mechanics.

 

[BryonD]

(This post hasn't addressed at all why one might want a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)

I think I've made it clear on numerous occasions that I understand and even respect this.

You like your side of Rome, I like my side of Rome.
But when you tell me that the oranges in your side of Rome make just as good apple pie as the apples on my side, I'm going to disagree.
Your oranges are great. I'm glad you enjoy them.