Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5436786" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are examples in the DMG (p 77) and the Rules Compendium (pp 162-63). Neither fits your example. Both involve the players explaining what their PCs do (with or without reference to the skill their PC is intending to use - much as has been the case in most RPG play since forever). Both involve the GM assigning a DC, and adjudicating the upshot - for the PC, and for the gameworld as a whole - of the player's skill roll. And then the players responding to the changed situation.Here are the quotes from the DMG, itemised by your points (the passages are found on pp 72-75):(1), (2) and (4): More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure… Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge.This does not say that the GM sets the goal. It says the GM defines the challenge. The meaning of this is perhaps ambiguous, but I think the examples make it pretty clear that what is intended is that the GM has authority over the starting situation. Much like the GM "defines the environment" of a dungeon, by populating rooms, specifying wall and door strength, etc. This is pretty traditional stuff, I think.This will also involve defining level and complexity. Defining level is perhaps less traditional - although it is traditional that a GM gets to set DCs, it is not traditional that the level of the encounter stipulates parameters for the GM to work within. As per my response above to BryonD, I think this is one of the key areas where 4e follows a "mechanics first, story second" approach.But this does not thwart any player agency, anymore than specifying a DC based on whether the door is made of wood or mithral thwarts player agency.(3) You can also make use of the “DM’s best friend” rule to reward particularly creative uses of skills (or penalise the opposite) by giving a character a +2 bonus or -2 penalty to the check.This is not radically different from many RPGs - 3E has a similar rule, I believe, and so do some anime/cinematic martial arts games, I think.What step (3) presupposes, of course, is that a skill check has been attempted. In your list of steps, you leave this out. Here is the relevant rules text: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… In skill challenges, players 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. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Your presentation of (5) and (6) seems to be confused about the temporal sequence of events in the course of play. Here is the relevant rules text, first from the PHB (pp 259 and 179) and then from the DMG:Rules for players 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… It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face. Rules for GMs Then, depending on the success or failure of the check, describe the consequences and go on to the next action.So the notion that players roll dice and "make up excuses" has no basis in the rulebooks. The GM describes a situation. The player chooses a skill whereby s/he wants her/his PC to respond to the situation. The GM specifies a DC (or may have done so in advance, if s/he anticipated that skill use in writing up notes for the encounter). A die is rolled and the skill check result determined. The GM then narrates the consequences of what it is the PC attempted, and in doing so is obliged by the rules of the game to have regard to whether the skill check succeed or failed.The description just given doesn't distinguish a skill challenge from resolving encounters in Travelller or Runequest, but there is a difference. The difference in setting DCs - guided by encounter level as a priority, with the ingame fiction to accommodate that, rather than vice versa - has already been noted earlier in this post. The other difference is that, by the rules, the PCs succeed at their goal if they get a certain number of succeses before 3 failures. This puts a burden on the GM to narrate the consequences of success and failure in such a way that this sort of resolution can emerge from the ingame situation. In my own experience with skill challenges, this is the most challenging aspect of GMing them (it resembles the way in which an unfolding HeroQuest/Wars extended contest must be narrated).One of the techniques the GM must be prepared to use as part of this narration is to have events occur in the gameworld, in response to skill checks (particularly failures thereof), whose logic is determined not by ingame cause but metagame cause. I talked about this in an earlier post, and criticised the skill challenge rules for failing to make this point explicit and instead relying on an example to demonstrate it.Despite the errors in your presentation of (1) to (6), you are correct that there is a complicated construction that differs from what is traditional in playing an RPG like Traveller, Runequest etc.In this post I've tried to explain what that complicated construction is, and how it differs from tradition - basically in DC setting, and in the "successes before failures" constraint on resolution.As to whether it's a good thing or not, that's a matter of taste. Having spent many years GMing "freeform" social interactions using Rolemaster - freeform in the sense that, while there are social skill checks that are made, the game leaves it up to me as GM to determine when enough checks have been made to persuade an NPC - I quite like having a structure. I've also used it to make overland travel an engaging part of my games again - I find it works much better than just clocking off the days and rolling for encounters.Others who are looking for different experiences from an RPG might of course prefer other approaches.</blockquote>

Verification