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

[Gryph]

I agree with Avin, this is a tangent (and has gone fairly well into derail).

I have used very "skill-challenge-like" devices in multiple systems. But the specifics of 4E skill challenges reflect one aspect of the overall design/approach/"feel" of 4E.

Certainly SCs alone don't remotely change the feel. But, without the existing "feel", SCs may bot be quite what they now are....

Thanks for that. I think that part of the discussion did go off the rails. I apologize for having helped take it of track earlier in thread.

I quite agree that the design feel (some of which I am not thrilled with) of 4e permeates the SC mechanics. With mixed results, in my experience.

I would like you to expand on the ellipsis, if it isn't too much of an aside. I am honestly puzzled at what you are hinting at in your last sentence.

 

[BryonD]

I'm hinting that robots designed 4E, not humans, because clearly 4E has no heart....

Or, maybe I just meant to type "not".


I think SCs are a result of:
-easy to run on the fly is important
-easy for new DMs is important
-the math works is important
-overall gamist approach

 

[Hussar]

No, the mechanics do not control the narrative.

Now, the thing is, mechanics are dumb. They don't know if they are trying to control the narrative or not. So it is the responsibility of the DM to keep the mechanics in line.

To me, part of that is limited and considered use of random encounter tables. There are certainyl times when they apply and they certaintly add value in giving the narrative an organic feel.

But if they are designed with "what should be in the ogre's" lair in mind, not "what EL fitting encounters should be in an ogre's lair". If I were forcing "good fights" as defined by the game system, then you would have a point. I don't do that.


If it turns out that the party going after the CR10 Ogre Lord happens upon an EL16 group of visiting stone giants, then they will need to escape the situation, be it through diplomacy, magic, rapidly placing one foot in front of the other, whatever. If they encounter a group of giant rats, then it may simply be a purely narrative, mood-setting encounter.

Now, to be clear, I do not use random encounter tables on a highly recurring basis, and these types of encounters (in particular the very high danger encounters) are not high probability on them. So this conversation has turned very hypothetical. But the point is, the mechanics will not control the narrative.

Now clearly, just rolling on a table is a mechanic and if I roll rats the narrative which follows will be decidedly different than if I roll stone giants. So one could argue that is mechanics controlling narrative. But I think anyone who understands the point will see how that is not a meaningful conclusion. Every item on the list has been validated against the narrative first. The narrative is the foundation.

So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?

Again, I'm failing to see a huge difference here.

Any randomly determined event in D&D is always controlled by the mechanics. Full stop. Whether it's how far your character can jump, what pieces of history you know, how well you swing your sword or any other mechanically determined even, it is always, always, the mechanics that determine the narrative.

Otherwise you have a situation where you either ignore the mechanics and simply dictate the results, or you have to retcon the narrative to fit the mechanics.

So how are SC's any different?

Pawsplay - I stated that you cannot OPEN a lock without tools. You stated that you could. You were wrong. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

- I stated that you cannot play a diplomatic fighter in 3e. That's pretty much true. It takes a pretty far out reading of the game to decide that a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding with someone who actually wasn't hostile to begin with as a "successful diplomat". But, hey, I'm just building strawmen over here.

So the only question is, are you so stuck in that viewpoint that you are unable to see people outside of it? I can see you standing in there. Hi! Can you see me standing out here?

Well, from my point of view, I see a bunch of people staking flags on very shifty ground, so, I don't think you are actually outside of my viewpoint. "No, it's totally different!" isn't really all that helpful without any actual examples of how its different.

If every single mechanically determined event in D&D is mechanics first, then how is adding in a SC so radically different? At no point in D&D can you narrate before you know the results of a mechanically determined event. So, adding in a framework where you have a mechanically determined method for resolving complicated events, a framework, by the way, that is not simply limited to 6/3, but to any number of successes/failures, where you can end the SC early BY THE RULES and where the chances of success are determined by the in game fiction.

Where's the problem?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, from my point of view, I see a bunch of people staking flags on very shifty ground, so, I don't think you are actually outside of my viewpoint.

Well, then, I take it that you can't see anyone out here. Or, if you see us, you fail to do so clearly.

Don't worry; happens to the best of us. There are things I fail to see clearly, too.


RC

 

[Gryph]

I'm hinting that robots designed 4E, not humans, because clearly 4E has no heart....

Or, maybe I just meant to type "not".


I think SCs are a result of:
-easy to run on the fly is important
-easy for new DMs is important
-the math works is important
-overall gamist approach

Batteries are expensive, robots need work too.

Thanks for the clarification. For what its worth, I agree with all 4 points.

Back in the late 70's Gygax made a conscious decision to split D&D from AD&D and to use D&D as the entry point for new gamers into the hobby. I think if a similar decision had been made early in the design sessions for 4e we might be in a better place now with D&D.

With the bewildering assortment of powers, builds, feats and classes reduced to a manageable size; 4e has a nice gamey experience at the table. Well suited, I think, to introducing new players to the hobby.

At this point though as a DM, I feel burdened with too many player rules on a system that feels built on a bike with training wheels. The granularity in character build options is at odds with the structure of encounter resolutions and play time keeps getting bogged down in minutia and decision paralysis.

And now I've gone off track for the thread. <shrug>

 

[Summer-Knight925]

anyone seen that movie Joe Dirt?
with the part when he goes to his old house and the guy with the heavy accent means to say "home is where you make it" but Joe doesn't understand?
D&D is what you make it, in fact, the name pretty much says what it is, sometimes there are dungeons and other times there are dragons

thats about all you need for D&D
the edition number is just rules and publications, for making money, thats all they are

granted 2e to 3e was a big jump in understanding, I do fondly remember flipping through my fathers 1e books he still has and getting adventure ideas (INSIDE THE BLACKMOOR BOOK IS A COMPLETE ADVENTURE I STOLE! MWHAHAHAHAHAA! thats a DC 13 forgery check for all you 3.5ers out there)

also,
i did not update to 4e for 7 reasons:
1. my group didn't want to
2-6. I did not have the money
7. 3.5e was great, why mess with perfection?


4e just made D&D for a new branch of people, its meant to be easier so new players can pick it up

theyre taking marketing ideas from MTG (magic: the gathering)
not a bad thing....unless you are a seasoned player

D&D is not about the number before the 'e' on the book,

D&D is about being heroic, about going into a dungeon and fighting a dragon, looting his corpse as all lawful good paladins are taught to do and then using said gold to fund more adventures


and if anyone has a problem with what I said, I do have improved initiative...just sayin, watchyoself

 

[Nagol]

So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?

Yep, my last session had an EL 6 encounter in an EL 17 adventure.

I've had EL 1/4 encounters in an EL 10+ adventure. I've had EL 20+ encounters in an EL 9 adventure. Stuff is where stuff should be.

 

[BryonD]

So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?

Who says I make adventures with an EL?

Any randomly determined event in D&D is always controlled by the mechanics. Full stop. Whether it's how far your character can jump, what pieces of history you know, how well you swing your sword or any other mechanically determined even, it is always, always, the mechanics that determine the narrative.

To me, the fact that this requires explaining says volumes about the differences in where we are coming from.

Yes, if the fighter swings at the Ogre and misses the narrative is different than if the fighter swings and hits.

But, the mechanics DO NOT determine how far your character can jump. Who your character IS determines how far your character can jump.
In 3.5 you don't end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because the mechanics said so. You end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because you see the character that way and built him to reflect the way he is. The narrative tells the mechanics what to do.

In 4E they replaced ranks with everyone gets 1/2 level. Relatively speaking the mechanics tell the narrative how your wizard will be defined in terms of his ability to jump (and everything else) vastly more than 3.5 does.

The fact that you then use the mechanics to define specific events does not remotely mean that the mechanics are in control of anything. Those mechanics can and should be defined by the narrative in the first place. Full stop.

The chance that a fighter may hit or miss is defined by who that fighter is and is translated into the mechanical system. Now, he isn't narratively defined as "I always hit ogres" or as "I always miss ogres". So each actual time he tries, it needs to be determined.

Honestly, if you can't grasp this distinction, then so be it. Good gaming.

 

[Hussar]

But, the mechanics DO NOT determine how far your character can jump. Who your character IS determines how far your character can jump.
In 3.5 you don't end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because the mechanics said so. You end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because you see the character that way and built him to reflect the way he is. The narrative tells the mechanics what to do.

Really? So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined? That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined? The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined? The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?

Really? Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make? Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?

Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not. That's part of the character building mechanics. But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.

In the same way, all good trippers must have a base Int of 13 (Combat Expertise feat requires an Int of 13). How is that narratively determined? Anyone who is good at tripping must be of above average intelligence.

The vast majority of D&D is not narratively determined. If you want narratively determined mechanics, there are excellent games out there that do this. Spirit of the Century immedietely jumps to mind here, where the fact that you are good at something flows from the character narratives. 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars also allows for all sorts of narrative control in the game.

D&D? Not so much.

 

[Lalato]

As far as I remember, you still have to make a die roll to see if you succeed at jumping... and to see how far it is that you can jump. So yeah... mechanics still affect the narrative. All the ranks do is help mitigate failure at the die roll. A player can put a bunch of ranks into a Skill and still fail.

So... yeah... mechanics help determine the narrative. That's not to say that you can't do things to the narrative without making a die roll, but we're using Jump as an example... so yeah... failing that die roll changes everything. Especially if you're attempting to jump across a 100 foot chasm.

I just played in a session where it was almost totally roleplaying. The session didn't really advance the narrative all that much, but it was a hell of a lot of fun to play. We did make the occasional die roll to determine if what our characters were doing was actually effective or not... and the effect of those die rolls changed the narrative... and our roleplaying. As an aside, we were playing 4e.

I don't understand what is so controversial about that. Mechanics do, in fact, affect the narrative. How much they affect the narrative is up to your group. The DM decides when a roll is appropriate. I don't see how this is different through any of the editions of D&D. It's still D&D... each edition I've played has warts as far as I'm concerned (I've been playing since 1981), but I consider them all D&D. I also don't understand what is so controversial about that.