D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Dannyalcatraz]

And just what do you think the Bluff and Intimidate skills are other than the skills to make people believe what you are saying and to tug on their heart strings, drawing emotion from them. Possibly I allow more out of intimidate than canon rules (it's a weak skill otherwise).

Are you kidding me?

4Ed PHB p183
Bluff
"You can make what's false appear to be true, what's outrageous seem plausible, and what's suspicious seem ordinary. You make a Bluff check to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, gamble, pass off a disguise, or fake documentation, and otherwise tell lies."

While it describes a kind of performance, it is most definitely NOT a musical one. You (and any other musicians in the ensemble) either can or cannot play the music they are trying to play. To paraphrase Yoda, there is no bluff, only play or play not.

4Ed PHB p186
Intimidate
"Make an Intimidate check to influence others through hostile actions, overt threats, and deadly persuasion."

I don't know what musicians YOU'VE been listening to, but nobody I can think of has ever been threatened into enjoying a show.

About that word "embellished"... But being serious, you've managed to explain why I have serious problems with detailed skill systems withoug massive lists of defaults. They say what you aren't competent in. If there's a skill and you don't have it then you can't be competent in it. And with so many different craft and knowledge skills you need to take if you are to claim a well-rounded education, you cripple yourself on the directly relevant skills if you wish to be an adventurer.

That's a design issue, easily addressed by systems that draw combat/adventuring and non-combat skills from separate pools, or simply letting players choose how focused they want to be. Even in 3.X, where skills were drawn from the same pool, you could only spend a certain amount of points improving a given skill per level, so if you had "extra" you were forced to look elsewhere (though you could go cross-class instead of non-combat).

Simply excising non-combat skills is, IMHO, suboptimal design at best.

The only cases I can think of where this is true are The Devil Went Down To Georgia and the story of Arachne (and possibly Tenacious D come to think of it). And by claiming to be "The best there's ever been", it claims there's an objective scale of who's the best musician. Who's better - Bethoven or the Beatles? Elvis or Orpheus? More commonly in mythology you get stories like the story of Orpheus - where his songs were enough to soften Hades heart. It's normally about the right performance at the right time in the right way - and showing up with the wrong music for your target would fail utterly.

Add to that list the story of the comedian who had to tell a joke to a mobster to save his life (which actually derived in part from tales of jesters and kings)- a mobster who had once been his comedic rival. The comic stole one of the (not yet a) mobster's as-yet unperformed routines and rocketed to fame, while the other man's career flamed out.

So he had 24 hours to make this man laugh or be shot.

Add to that list the 1980s movie Crossroads, starring Steve Vai as the Devil's guitarist...like the aforementioned "Devil Went Down to Georgia", inspired by several score blues songs about "going down to the crossroads" to make a deal with or to compete against the Devil. The whole crossroads thing has been alleged of many guitarists, including the bluesman Robert Johnson and prog guitarist Robert Fripp: they gained their skill by making a deal with the devil...then won their souls back.

Add to that list Scheherazade, who had to tell the King stories in order to save her life...

The list DOES go on. Its a pretty common trope. Some (not all) would consider the story of Baldur's death and non-resurrection to fall under this umbrella.

Besides, with incredibly rare exceptions (e.g. Orpheus), most people who take part in such duels are musicians. Not adventurers.

1) Being an adventurer and a musician (or otherwise artistic) are not mutually exclusive. In some traditions, being able to recite poetry, do calligraphy, sing or play an instrument are as essential to one's place in society as skill with bow, blade and buckler. Heck, in some, poetry & storytelling was the primary tool of passing along education, since writing was not a common skill.

2) By eliminating the skills, you eliminate even the possibility of a well-rounded artist/adventurer (and all those potential storylines) in your campaign.

But if it's an event that can happen very occasionally as a change of pace and with a goal of moving the audience far more than expected rather than claiming to be the best there's ever been, then the skill challenge is up to the job.

If there is no skill, there is no skill challenge, just a kludge...a workaround.

 

[Imaro]

Pace Mallus, if all it is is a "flag", then just have flags. I don't need flags artificially embedded into the mechanics of the skill system in order to tell me what the players are interested in. Just have flags.

OTOH, if the skills are more than that, they are supposed to represent some kind of mechanical heft (e.g. Danny's example of not everyone is an equally good musician, or any other kinds of heft you want), then they should do that well.

This is exactly what I've been talking about with throwing everything that has a patina of "skill" into the same bucket, and thinking that because you can describe it as a "skill", and you have a "skill system", that it belongs there.

What is particular annoying about it in D&D and similarly abstract games is that it isn't even consistent. I can kind of see it in something like Runequest or Burning Wheel or Hero or GURPS or even Toon (to name some widely divergent examples). You've got "skills" and pretty much everything drives off it--including fighting. But in D&D, "weapon skill" and "sneak/diplomacy/knowledge/athletics/etc." are already in different mechanical categories. So despite the fact that, in heroic fantasy, "sword skill" and "sneak skill" are of similar important, story heft, character scope, and so forth, it is somehow important to separate them? Hmm. OK. But we'll have Pinky the Bard's dabbling in painting represented by ... lumping it in with regular skills?

It's a "level of abstraction error"--like talking about building a house of out of paint molecules, lumber, and rooms--true if you squint at it in an odd way with your tongue hanging out, but not if you think about it very long--and certainly not the correct model for either the chemist, the builder, or the home owner.

Using 3E-type skills for craft and profession as flags only works when you handwave the abstraction error away. So yes, you can compensate for the poor design and get something out of it, but nothing that you couldn't also get from a better system. And if you want them to be more than flags, you sure as heck are compensating for the way they don't really represent what they purport to represent very well, and aren't mechanically scoped correctly for the subject matter in simulation nor gamist terms.

The only way a person pretends not to handwave in this situation is to move back and forth between using them as flags and as something more. We'll use them for something more right up until they break; then we'll use them for flags. We'll use them for nothing but flags right up until we want to make mechanical distinctions with heft; at which point we'll squit, move real fast, and then move on. Pay no attention to the left hand while the right hand is doing its thing.

That groups manage to use this effectively is a testament to the way the human brain can adapt poor tools and get something worthwhile out of it anyway. Yea for us! But it is still a surpremely ill-informed and crappy addition to the skill system.

The biggest problem I have with your ideas are the presumption that you could know what weight any one particular skill does or should have in any particular campaign outside your own... I mean fantasy is so rich and diverse that yes there are fantasy adventure stories where a heroes talent in magic, painting or anything else you might not consider "important" is actual more powerful than the blow of a sword or the ability to creep through shadows. It think your inability to even consider this as interesting fodder is a self imposed limitation that doesn't necesarily apply to everyone else. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

 

[Mallus]

Uhm, no... putting skill points in it signifies interest in having said skill factor into the game... In other words the skill points are currency and you are spending them to let the DM know you want the fact that you are skilled in piracy or haikus to be relevant in the game.

Wouldn't simply telling the DM what you're interested in be simpler? Leaving the skill system to address a small number of lowest common denominator adventuring tasks. The advantage to this should be obvious: there's no need for a costing scheme which has to "price" Stealth against things like baking or flower arranging.

Here's how I signified my old 4e paladin was interested in poetry: I said "Yatagan is a slam poet!" Easy-peasy. When I had to make a check, I used Diplomacy, Intimidate (Dragonborn love poetry is heavy on threats), Insight, or CHA. Worked like a charm. I can't imagine rolling Perform: Poetry would have yielded a more satisfying or immersive result. Specifically, I can't imagine how.

Now if we're talking about a system with actual rules for things like poetry slams --does Burning Wheel have a Duel of Poesy?-- then that's different story...

 

[Imaro]

Wouldn't simply telling the DM what you're interested in be simpler? Leaving the skill system to address a small number of lowest common denominator adventuring tasks. The advantage to this should be obvious: there's no need for a costing scheme which has to "price" Stealth against things like baking or flower arranging.

Here's how I signified my old 4e paladin was interested in poetry: I said "Yatagan is a slam poet!" Easy-peasy. When I had to make a check, I used Diplomacy, Intimidate (Dragonborn love poetry is heavy on threats), Insight, or CHA. Worked like a charm. I can't imagine rolling Perform: Poetry would have yielded a more satisfying or immersive result.

Wow, so to be a good poet one has to be good at Diplomacy, Intimidate and Insight and be charismatic as well... Hope those are on your trained list... and you have more than 3 skills...oh yeah and make sure you pick a class that actually uses charisma. So in this system I need 3 skills in order to be a decent poet... what is the advantage to this again if I just want to be good at poetry?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The editions have come and gone over the 24-odd years that I've been playing RPGs and specifically D&D, but one thing remains constant - that sessions still go by where not a single attack roll is made and we still get so wrapped up in character and story that we end up playing far longer than intended.

The only thing that I've noticed being any different is the style of combat, in that things are much more tactical now). Not even the length so much. 3e combats still took a very long time, especially at higher levels. I remember several doozies from the 2e era even. And the Combat & Tactics book made 2e fairly heavily tactical as well.

I found the 3e skill system to be burdensome to character development and background, as it ate up resources you could be spending on "survival" skills. Ditching the need to slot and rank your fluff and background skills is, IMHO, a *huge* leap forward.

Clearly not everybody enjoys this design element and feels the need to mechanically represent everything, which is fine, but then I might suggest they stick with what works for them, or houserule another option, such as an additional, separate pool of skills to be spend on only non-combat stuff (which you get to make up). Wanna shred on your lute better than anyone? Slot it with one of these. Call yourself trained, add in appropriate stat modifier. If you're really good, maybe you get the equivalent of skill focus, and if you play a masterwork or magic lute... you're further ahead with an item bonus.

For this to work, obviously your DM has to be on board (or your players if you are the DM), and requires a little bit of handwaving and line drawing. Everybody can't be a master of everything, but it still allows for the freedom of the 4e system while still scratching that "gotta represent everything with numbers" itch that some folks have. Where you draw your lines will be up to you or your DM or your group or whatever, but you can be pretty liberal, since it doesn't impact game balance much.

Granting characters an equal number of background/craft/profession skills to their class skills, or based on the modifier for their highest mental stat, or just fixing it at a flat number between 3 and 5 isn't out of whack. Most of these "skills" don't matter in a typical adventure (and when they do it will/should be only *because* you took those skills and the DM decided to make them relevant by giving your character background a moment in the spotlight), and thus don't add to character power.

This may not work for everyone, but it is one possible way to handle it.

 

[IanB]

2) By eliminating the skills, you eliminate even the possibility of a well-rounded artist/adventurer (and all those potential storylines) in your campaign.

I disagree. I think you increase the possibility, because now people aren't forced to pick between this and essential D&D sorts of stuff like "can I climb" and just have the freedom to say "I learned to play the harmonica when I was stationed in the trenches" or the like. Stuff like that doesn't need mechanical weight any more than "I have a bad temper" or "I don't believe in Kord."

I don't really see grabbing a DC off of page 42 and asking for a roll when it comes up as a 'kludge' or 'workaround', at least not in the pejorative sense you seem to mean it. A rule isn't any more or less valuable for being written down, in other words.

Not every aspect of a character has to have a number to write down, some things are really better handled by backstory or ad-hoc rolls, and the skills they eliminated definitely fall into that category for me at least.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The biggest problem I have with your ideas are the presumption that you could know what weight any one particular skill does or should have in any particular campaign outside your own... I mean fantasy is so rich and diverse that yes there are fantasy adventure stories where a heroes talent in magic, painting or anything else you might not consider "important" is actual more powerful than the blow of a sword or the ability to creep through shadows. It think your inability to even consider this as interesting fodder is a self imposed limitation that doesn't necesarily apply to everyone else. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.

There is no such presumption. I'm trying to pin you down on shifting ground.

Skills are flags, or they are something else (possibly flags+something else)? Right?

Before you were arguing from the perspective that they were flags. I answered that. Now you are arguing that they are more and/or something else. OK. My answer is that I'm supremely interested in a set of mechanics that makes music relevant, mechanically. However, grafting a "perform" skill onto a 3E or 4E type skill system does not accomplish this result. Unless, of course, I handwave and make it work out.

This is analogous to me walking by and seeing you carrying rocks one at a time across your yard to a rock garden. It will eventually get the job done, true. I remark that if it were me, I'd either not do it or get a wheel barrow or some help or a bobcat or something else--anything else. You then tell me that I'm not interested in rock gardens and are presuming that no one else is, either.

 

[Imaro]

There is no such presumption. I'm trying to pin you down on shifting ground.

Skills are flags, or they are something else (possibly flags+something else)? Right?

Ah, I see semantic games... define a skill so the minute you step out of the definition I can play "GOTCHA!!!" no thanks. I never defined a skill at all, I said that they can be used by the DM to inform adventure design which is not something either revolutionary or new in rpg's.

Before you were arguing from the perspective that they were flags. I answered that. Now you are arguing that they are more and/or something else. OK. My answer is that I'm supremely interested in a set of mechanics that makes music relevant, mechanically. However, grafting a "perform" skill onto a 3E or 4E type skill system does not accomplish this result. Unless, of course, I handwave and make it work out.

Again, I said they could be used as flags... what is with you and trying to define an exact usage and designation for skills, I think different DM's and even players are going to look at what skills in their games mean in different ways. The same way no definition or mechanical box is going to be able to totally encompass every possible use a player could come up with for a skill and those DM's will always have to decide what exactly is or is not encompased by a particular skill.

Also...I'm sure you meant to say it doesn't accomplish it for you in the type of game you play.

This is analogous to me walking by and seeing you carrying rocks one at a time across your yard to a rock garden. It will eventually get the job done, true. I remark that if it were me, I'd either not do it or get a wheel barrow or some help or a bobcat or something else--anything else. You then tell me that I'm not interested in rock gardens and are presuming that no one else is, either.

No...it really isn't.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ah, I see semantic games... define a skill so the minute you step out of the definition I can play "GOTCHA!!!" no thanks.

Not semantics, logic. A thing can be simply X. Or it can be something else that is not X. Or it can be X and something else. No Gotcha. An attempt to communicate.

And my analogy is right on. I'm criticizing a tool as a poor tool, and you then stated that I had no interest in the activity performed by that tool, and assumed that other people did not as well. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I disagree. I think you increase the possibility, because now people aren't forced to pick between this and essential D&D sorts of stuff like "can I climb" and just have the freedom to say "I learned to play the harmonica when I was stationed in the trenches" or the like. Stuff like that doesn't need mechanical weight any more than "I have a bad temper" or "I don't believe in Kord."

I don't really see grabbing a DC off of page 42 and asking for a roll when it comes up as a 'kludge' or 'workaround', at least not in the pejorative sense you seem to mean it. A rule isn't any more or less valuable for being written down, in other words.

Not every aspect of a character has to have a number to write down, some things are really better handled by backstory or ad-hoc rolls, and the skills they eliminated definitely fall into that category for me at least.

Clearly, you and I differ on this at many levels...I'm cool with that.

Not every system is for every gamer, and I've not minced my words about my opinions on 4Ed. Overall, I don't think it's that good.

But I can- and do- have fun playing it.