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

[Hussar]

Or you could just silo them... sorta like adventuring or exploration skills vs. utility skills... no one says utility powers shouldn't have a mechanical effect even though many are situational and some are only tangentially related to what would be considered by some as "adventuring".

Now this, I think is a fantastic suggestion. A third silo apart from "combat powers" and "general adventuring skills". Have a third option available to everyone that contains all these concepts - crafting, performance, oratory, etc. Not entirely sure how they'd advance, but, I think breaking them out of the "general adventuring skills" silo would be a fantastic idea.

Maybe classes all start with 1 or 2 "Background Skills" trained and then possibly gain the ability to add another trained skill from time to time. Or not. And, have the "trained" skills capable of doing things that untrained skills cannot. It's reasonable, after all, to assume that my 15th level character can do a basic dance - he's probably learned a bit after all. But the trained 15th level character is a fantastic dancer, capable of all sorts of things.

I think this would open up a big design space for character development.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Every poet uses a different skill set, so long as it can be justified to the table.

My dwarf bard uses Insight to evoke Gil Scott-Heron (RIP).

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY]YouTube - ‪Whitey on the moon - gil scott-heron‬‏[/ame]​

Of course, when he's evoking NWA, it's a little bit more Intimidate.

(Grandma Policy means I can't link that directly, but feel free to check it out yourself)

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Now this, I think is a fantastic suggestion. A third silo apart from "combat powers" and "general adventuring skills". Have a third option available to everyone that contains all these concepts - crafting, performance, oratory, etc. Not entirely sure how they'd advance, but, I think breaking them out of the "general adventuring skills" silo would be a fantastic idea.

Maybe classes all start with 1 or 2 "Background Skills" trained and then possibly gain the ability to add another trained skill from time to time. Or not. And, have the "trained" skills capable of doing things that untrained skills cannot. It's reasonable, after all, to assume that my 15th level character can do a basic dance - he's probably learned a bit after all. But the trained 15th level character is a fantastic dancer, capable of all sorts of things.

I think this would open up a big design space for character development.

I suggested this very thing several pages ago in this thread. I guess nobody read it :/

 

[Imaro]

Arrrggh. NO. This is where the breakdown comes every single time this conversation comes up. Mallus' paladin uses those three skills plus charisma. Why? Because Mallus says so.

My rogue, OTOH, uses Insight and Bluff only do make good poetry. Why? Because my poems are not so threatening, but, are moulded lovingly to fit with what the audience wants to hear.

The problem here is that people want there to be one and only one solution to every situation. That's not how 4e works. That's the simulationist talking. 4e says, "Pick what you want to happen, justify it in a manner acceptable to the table, and move on."

Every poet uses a different skill set, so long as it can be justified to the table.

Sooo are you saying it's effectively playing pick your best skills and find a way to justify them... and what part, exactly, does the DM play in this, or is he just the arbitrater as far as whether your justification was good enough or not?

Edit: On a side note... are all your poems lies? Otherwise why is he bluffing?? If he is telling the audience what they want to hear and it's the truth how does Bluff fit into it?

 

[Hussar]

"Are all your poems lies"? Well, now you're getting a bit too philosophical for me. I was making an example, not actually relating play experience. Heck, I would be perfectly fine with the player using Bluff one time and Intimidate the next, and Diplomacy the time after that.

It's going to come down to what is believable to the group at that time. If the player can pitch a good justification, whatever that justification is, then groovy.

If you can justify using your best skills for a given task, where's the problem? OTOH, I play with mature players who aren't going to accept "cos I said so" from anyone at the table. It works both ways. The players are invested in finding ways to not break immersion, every bit as much as the DM is. So, the player isn't just going to pick his best skill (Thievery) and then try to justify it, because, well, that's lame.

OTOH, we don't need tightly, pre-defined mechanics that dictate the game to us either. If the table, and I reiterate the table accepts the justification, then everyone is good to go.

Then again, I'm about as far from a viking hat DM as you can get without diving off into Indie Game territory. If the player makes an honest effort, that's good enough for me.

 

[Aenghus]

This is all IMO and I know little about music - like 90% or more of referees out there.

4e has gone for a reduced skill list, which pushes some skill resolution further towards negotiation between the player and the DM.

Does a "perform specific art" skill, if it exists, incorporate everything involved in making a performance, including reading the crowd, choosing what to perform, recovering or covering up errors, dealing with hecklers, adapting to changing circumstances? Not necessarily so. I think most of us are familiar of the concept of a technically proficient performer who lacks the social skills to work the crowd. Conversely, a con-man who was magically granted musical proficiency could make a good attempt at the other areas above.

The interesting thing to me in skill resolution are the real choices the player makes along the way. (This is in part the limits imposed by verbal communication in the game).

An audience of common people will probably want to hear a familiar ballad they can sing along with. Nobles may want a more complicated heroic ballad. A musical audience may want a technically difficult and less accessible piece. The Insight skill could be used to read the audience, and gauge their mood.

Perception could be used to hear requests from the audience and spot troublemakers in the audience, rotten fruit and other missiles on their way.

Intimidate could be used to cow hecklers, impress a belligerent audience, possibly make fun of someone in the audience.

Diplomacy could be used to adapt a work to the tastes of the audience, and deal politely with them.

There are lots of potential options here, and different people will have different tastes as to resolution.

To me, limiting a skill resolution of an importan conflict to one or more rolls of a very specific skill only one PC may have is very limiting, and potentially prohibitive(e.g. the player may miss the game).

I think important conflicts should involve some meaningful decision making. Just "rolling the single specific skill" and "rolling your best skill" are failure modes for the two types of resolution, the decisions framing the resolution are the interesting bit, at least for me.

I honestly don't think there is a "one size fits all" solution to detailed skill resolution.

 

[Ryujin]

Me, I got tired of massive skill lists in the days of Rolemaster, and had this dislike confirmed with GURPS.

The problems with massive skill lists are manyfold, including sometimes making specific concepts impossible, and the tendency to constantly have new skills added, moving the goalposts and making PCs less and less competent with time.

I prefer 4e's stance on skills. It does require being willing to adjudicate what skill or skills apply to a particular task at the time, but this should be anticipated and prepared for in advance for anything particularly important. Ah hoc rulings for unanticipated skill use have always been with us in every system.

4e skills are very broad and inclusive rather than proscriptive.

IMO having the specific skill for a very particular problem and rolling it isn't roleplaying, it's using mechanics and distincly the "game" part of RPG. The roleplaying comes in the depiction and elaboration of that skill use by the player, but this should be attempted in practically every system, not just D&D.

I also think it is impossible to come up with a skill system that will satisfy everyone out of the box. IMO most players will accept referee rulings, but a few players have very strong opinions and preconceptions that would need special treatment to support. I expect to compromise with my players over treatment of skills to suit their tastes when they really care about the treatment of particular areas, more than the core system does (or agree to disagree).

Also there is an inherent subjective element here, where different people instintively think the world works in different ways, and want the rules to reflect their own preferences. These preferences can be out of whack or totally contradictory, so compromises are again needed if the players are to coexist in the same game.

This was always a big problem of mine, also. I could get along with the big lists of skills, as it was the way of the game. What I couldn't take was when a new book came out, adding a bunch of skills that made previous assumptions as to how certain tasks would be done within the skill system, suddenly making my characters completely useless at things that had become signature to the character concept.

Sorry, you've got no idea what the flag on that ship is because you don't have the Heraldry skill, which has taken over that function from the History skill.

No, you can't swing from this building, to that. You don't have Acrobatics. Climbing skill no longer applies.

Story elements should be handled with story elements, whenever possible, rather than with mechanical elements. Limiting skills to a more broad range of 'macro' skills is a far better way to handle that. Modifying those skills to reflect a character being better or worse at something specific, than another character is, is the job of things like feats, but those become more limited in use by the presence of 'feat taxes' (see other thread ), so there are fewer of them available to serve that purpose.

People who think that skills like Intimidate don't figure into telling a joke, saying that they can't be intimidated into thinking that a comic is funny, fail to grasp what is needed in order to craft a good joke or story; making a believable one. Having an appropriate background makes it possible to do something like that, but having the appropriate skills makes you good at it. In game terms, of course.

 

[Imaro]

"Are all your poems lies"? Well, now you're getting a bit too philosophical for me. I was making an example, not actually relating play experience. Heck, I would be perfectly fine with the player using Bluff one time and Intimidate the next, and Diplomacy the time after that.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. See my problem with this method, is that I can't really (game wise) be a good musician because that's my character concept... unless I come up with a way, in each and every exchange where my music playing is relevant, to finagle a bunch of skills that aren't directly related to playing music and that I have a high rating in. That just doesn't sit right with me on a certain level... and yes I am fully aware it's a preference thing.

It's going to come down to what is believable to the group at that time. If the player can pitch a good justification, whatever that justification is, then groovy.

Hmmm, interesting because with the perform skill in the appropriate instrument I don't have to play mother may I with the group... I am a good musician because I made the choice to be one... not because everyone at the table did, or did not decide I fast talked well enough to justify it. Different strokes I guess.

"If you can justify using your best skills for a given task, where's the problem? OTOH, I play with mature players who aren't going to accept "cos I said so" from anyone at the table. It works both ways. The players are invested in finding ways to not break immersion, every bit as much as the DM is. So, the player isn't just going to pick his best skill (Thievery) and then try to justify it, because, well, that's lame.

That's cool for you and your table, but to assume everyone's priorities are the same as far as immersion vs. other things in the game, within the same group (especially when we've had people in this very thread tell us immersion isn't in the least bit important to them) let alone between groups doesn't seem like the best way to design a general rule to be used by all. YMMV of course.

"OTOH, we don't need tightly, pre-defined mechanics that dictate the game to us either. If the table, and I reiterate the table accepts the justification, then everyone is good to go.

See my thoughts above on table justification as a deciding factor on what my character can or can't pull of in game... though I will say I find it odd that the same proponent of the mentality you express as far as skills go... sees no problem in the numerous powers that now exsist in D&D as very specific and detailed codified rules for actions.

"Then again, I'm about as far from a viking hat DM as you can get without diving off into Indie Game territory. If the player makes an honest effort, that's good enough for me.

What does being a "Viking Hat" DM have to do with this... if you have the actual skill that would seem counter to the all-powerful DM fiat mentality I see usually associated with Viking Hat DM'ing. At any rate you are still judging whether a PC can or can't do something based on what you think is "justified" regardless of whether it's a council or a single person deciding... it isn't just that player getting to make a decison about what his man is or isn't capable of.

 

[Imaro]

This is all IMO and I know little about music - like 90% or more of referees out there.

4e has gone for a reduced skill list, which pushes some skill resolution further towards negotiation between the player and the DM.

Does a "perform specific art" skill, if it exists, incorporate everything involved in making a performance, including reading the crowd, choosing what to perform, recovering or covering up errors, dealing with hecklers, adapting to changing circumstances? Not necessarily so. I think most of us are familiar of the concept of a technically proficient performer who lacks the social skills to work the crowd. Conversely, a con-man who was magically granted musical proficiency could make a good attempt at the other areas above.

The interesting thing to me in skill resolution are the real choices the player makes along the way. (This is in part the limits imposed by verbal communication in the game).

An audience of common people will probably want to hear a familiar ballad they can sing along with. Nobles may want a more complicated heroic ballad. A musical audience may want a technically difficult and less accessible piece. The Insight skill could be used to read the audience, and gauge their mood.

Perception could be used to hear requests from the audience and spot troublemakers in the audience, rotten fruit and other missiles on their way.

Intimidate could be used to cow hecklers, impress a belligerent audience, possibly make fun of someone in the audience.

Diplomacy could be used to adapt a work to the tastes of the audience, and deal politely with them.

There are lots of potential options here, and different people will have different tastes as to resolution.

To me, limiting a skill resolution of an importan conflict to one or more rolls of a very specific skill only one PC may have is very limiting, and potentially prohibitive(e.g. the player may miss the game).

I think important conflicts should involve some meaningful decision making. Just "rolling the single specific skill" and "rolling your best skill" are failure modes for the two types of resolution, the decisions framing the resolution are the interesting bit, at least for me.

I honestly don't think there is a "one size fits all" solution to detailed skill resolution.

Good post, and I would even say I agree with you to a point... that's why in a Pathfinder game I would allow you to do everything you list above but eventually you will have to actually play the instrument... so I would use said skills to modify your perform roll... not as a substitute for it.

 

[Imaro]

Story elements should be handled with story elements, whenever possible, rather than with mechanical elements. Limiting skills to a more broad range of 'macro' skills is a far better way to handle that. Modifying those skills to reflect a character being better or worse at something specific, than another character is, is the job of things like feats, but those become more limited in use by the presence of 'feat taxes' (see other thread ), so there are fewer of them available to serve that purpose.

I'm curious... when dealing with so many different and diverse types of campaigns as D&D has generally been used for... where does the line between "story" element and "mechanical" element get drawn? I mean what makes one element a story element and another a mechanical element?

People who think that skills like Intimidate don't figure into telling a joke, saying that they can't be intimidated into thinking that a comic is funny, fail to grasp what is needed in order to craft a good joke or story; making a believable one. Having an appropriate background makes it possible to do something like that, but having the appropriate skills makes you good at it. In game terms, of course.

I think these skills (Intimidate, Insight, Bluff, etc.) can be used to enhance a particular type of performance... with certain people... perhaps. But they don't encompass the actual technical skill needed for a performance in a professional capacity. Otherwise a con-man or a bully should be able to bluff and intimidate any joke they've heard into being the funniest thing ever... and I'm not buying that.