Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Imaro]

You don't need to have the appropriate skill in order to attempt something; you can roll Stat + 1/2 level mod. The skill list isn't restrictive, it's a list of things a character can focus on. I think.

Oh, I agree... but players will tend to favor what they are more likely to achieve success with, and those are trained skills.

As an example (and one I didn't think was a good call) in the recent Robot Chicken D&D games I see one of the players (Bluebell I think) shut down by Chris Perkins when he tries to do things with the Acrobatic skill that tend to fall under Athletics. I believe it's in the ice episode he even says something to the effect of "Can't I flip form wall to wall and get up onto the room" and is told no by Chris. Is Chris wrong or a bad DM... No, I don't think he is for making this call (though it's different from how I do it in my game) but I think it's a good example that not everyone is as lenient or narratively focused when it comes to skill use as others are. it's because of this variation in playstyles that I think perhaps more examples and information on what skills can do for both players and DM's might be a good thing.

How I do non-combat stuff: figure out what level the opposition is (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.) and give it a DC. Herding mules? Use the level of the terrain and there's the DC.

Anyway, check it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/270905-fiction-first-skills.html (I think I've revised some stuff since then.)

Ok, I can get with that... and I personally have the rule of cool in my games now (a variation of Exalted's stunt system)... if you can describe it and it sounds cool... then you can use whatever skill(s) you want to accomplish something. but I guarantee there are some DM's that will play it by the book (and in no way am I saying they are wrong for this) and if the book doesn't give them or their players the tools and guidance to adapt and mold the skill system, they probably won't. I know I didn't when I first ran 4e and it was one of the reasons my players and I didn't like it at first. But you live and you learn.

 

[Imaro]

I agree to an extent, I think it's wrong to use such a broad brush, but I also think it's more than that. Even 4e. I think many see that in 4e a reduction in rules to handle these things in detail or directly as a retreat from that kind of play. That I don't agree with.

I think the reason it is viewed that way is because 4e does not explicitly tell or guide the DM or players in how to handle these things. I think this was especially bad when all we had was DMG 1 where the skill challenge rules didn't seem like they were explained or playtested very well (and I still don't think they've been especially well presented or figured out officially, but that's neither here nor there).

I think for an experienced gamer it's easy to handwave or create their own rules for things the game may be missing... however when this isn't addressed or explicitly stated for a new gamer, heck and even for some old hats (especially if they played a previous edition that did do this) trying to get a handle on the new rules... I can easily see how some or even many draw the conclusion that the game isn't concerned with such things, and may even actively discourage you and your group becoming concerned with them as well (Just by the fact that in order to get to a satisfactory level of detail about such things in your game now requires much more work on your part). Also, and it is quite evident in this post and many others, some 4e players enjoy the type of playstyle where these things don't matter and aren't a consideration of the game. They in turn can't understand, and are often actively hostile towards anyone who wants or needs more in their game for such things.

Either way it does seem 4e has chosen to go in a direction where such things aren't supported in a detailed manner. I personally don't see this as a good thing for the game, or as an evolution from previous editions and current media. I would however, be interested in hearing your view on why you don't see it's lackof rules/items/etc. in such areas as a retreat from that type of play.

 

[Alex319]

This is exactly what the skill challenge mechanics are for:

1. The GM assigns the difficulty (based on party level + circumstances).

2. The players use their knowledge of the ingame situation and the skill challenge rules to devise a plan. In light of the plan, the GM may adjust the difficulty assigned at step 1 (this is one area where narrative responsibility is shared between players and GM).

3. The players and the GM "run the plan through the rules system", including taking account of any modifications to the plan required by changes to the ingame situation that unfold during the course of resolving the skill challenge (see DMG2 for discussion of this).

Now I'm happy to admit that the skill challenge rules could do with more work to support GMs and players at each of steps 1 to 3 (they compare poorly to other games with similar mechanics, for example, in terms of the guidance they give). And I'll also allow that they may not be the sorts of mechanics that some people enjoy. But it seems bizarre to me to assert that 4e lacks such mechanics.

Okay, maybe I was too strong in saying that 4e "lacks" such mechanics. But the mechanics are definitely less fleshed out than they are for combat.

Maybe the appropriate analogy is: let's say combat was run like skill challenges. Then each player would have "combat skills" or be able to use existing skills in combat. Players would describe their tactics and the DM would give bonuses:

Fighter's Player: "I run up to the bad guy and distract him so my rogue can circle around."
Rogue's Player: "Yeah, I'll do that, I'll sneak around to the back and stab him in the back."
DM: "Okay, for using that tactic I'll give you a +2 bonus."

Compare that to how that same tactic would be done in the existing combat system:

Fighter's Player: "I charge the bad guy and mark him. (rolls dice for attack)".
Rogue's Player: "I move past him, into flanking position, Does he take his OA?"
DM: "No, because he's marked. You can attack him with CA."

---

The difference? In the first example, whether the tactic works and how effective it is is completely the DM's judgement. In the second example, the rules provide that information. And let's say the bad guys wanted to use a similar plan against the PCs - in the first example, it would just be the DM's whim, while in the second example, the players could see what the bad guy's plan is and try to counter it.

 

[jaerdaph]

Here's Your Freaking Mule!

Ask Sister Sara. I hear she has two.

 

[pemerton]

I think if the 4e skill list is suppose to cover the various actions that characters can achieve either the skill list needs to expand or further PHB's should expand on what can be accomplished with different skills so that players and DM's understand and know what they can drive narratively with the limited skills they have... I think this is especially important for limited skill classes like the Fighter.

I think it would undermine the design to introduce more skills, but I agree that more examples of how to build a wider range of skill challenges around the current skills would help.

One thing I think that 4e could be clearer on is bridging the gap between its self-conscious genre, and the range of situations the ruleset can handle. To explain: the game is very clear that it is a heroic fantasy game; but it doesn't go as far as it could in explaining how situations like the mules vs oxen can be approached in a heroic genre - ie not by going into the details of rates of food consumption, load capacity etc, but in broader terms of Nature skill ("My guy knows how to handle animals"), Stealth skill ("My guy knows how to steal more mules"), etc, and then giving the GM the tools and advice to build a series of heroic challenges around that.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is a fantasy action game and and it focuses on being that is the impression I get... The game focuses on what is important to this and not on what isn't

I agree with this. Personally, though, I think it's a feature. Taking the 4e ruleset and trying to turn into something that will support classic wargaming or railway tycoon-style resource management play seems to me a good way to undermine what's currently strong about the system.

To give an example - why can't a heroic tier player use more than 1 magic item power without a milestone? Because of her limited magical aptitude (ie an ingame reason)? Because it better fits the genre if she's not so reliant on her items, and they're only pulled out as a last resort (a metagame reason)? The rules don't tell us, leaving it up to each table and each individual PC and each moment of action resolution. Similarly for healing surges and what they mean. But introducing a serious resource-management ruleset of the sort some people on this thread are calling for would undermine this aspect of the design, by requiring a codification in the rules of what the ingame meaning of various PC resources is, and what the ingame significance is of spending them.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe the appropriate analogy is: let's say combat was run like skill challenges. Then each player would have "combat skills" or be able to use existing skills in combat. Players would describe their tactics and the DM would give bonuses

<snip>

The difference? In the first example, whether the tactic works and how effective it is is completely the DM's judgement. In the second example, the rules provide that information. And let's say the bad guys wanted to use a similar plan against the PCs - in the first example, it would just be the DM's whim, while in the second example, the players could see what the bad guy's plan is and try to counter it.

I agree that the combat and skill challenge rules are very different (and, in my experience, tricky to bring together - I want more rules guidance on this!). But if we wanted to make out-of-combat play more like combat, we wouldn't do that by introducing price lists, movement rates, food-consumption rates etc for mules, any more than the combat rules focus on weapon rates and speeds, details of armour design and weapons training, etc. Rather, we'd need non-combat analogues of action points, healing surges, second-wind (ie in-challenge resource replenishment) etc.

I can't say in detail what that game would look like, but I don't think it would satisfy the typical "10' pole and a mule" gamer.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a side note, I sometimes wonder if this attitude is what hampers the expansion of D&D into a wider player base. I mean I look at videogames like Fable, Fable 2, Oblivion, WoW and so on... that have rules to allow players the option to step beyond "adventuring" and do other things such as crafting, buying houses and businesses, and so on. In fact I would say most people are starting to expect rpg's to do exactly this and that the play experience becomes richer and more diverse for it... which in turn leads to a wider base of people who can find enjoyment in the game.

I find it a little dissapointing that not only has 4e decided to devolve in this area as opposed to evolving, refine and exapnd, but that those who play the game see this as a good thing and embrace it to the point where the other side is viewed as wrong for even suggesting that some may want other things.

Is it a bug or a feature? Depends on the point of view.

To me, I want the game to focus on doing something very well, rather than doing many things half assed.

I totally understand the want to play D&D as a skill based game rather than a combat game. I've been trying to do a satsifying naval based campaign for years in 3e. And, it rarely worked as well as I wanted it to, mostly because the bloody rules kepts jumping in the way. Try doing ship to ship combat where you have forty or fifty combatants per side with 3e rules. GACK.

Never mind that a ship full of trade goods is worth far more than the baseline wealth assumptions for most PC's. The players turned to me and quite seriously asked me why they shouldn't sell this 50 000 gp ship and turn it into magic items. And, other than the fact that it would pretty much sink my campaign, I couldn't come up with a good reason.

One of my favorite 3e 3pp books is Broadsides! and Pirates. Pirates has a great list of how much trade goods are worth - excellent for doing this sort of campaign. But, try using the ship to ship combat rules. Gurk. Four hours of moving ships around is NOT fun.

That's my beef with this sort of simulation and why I think the core rules should shy away from dealing with it - you wind up with one or two players who like this and can spend a large amount of game time dealing with it, while the other half of the group is playing Nintendo. So much of the "Economic RPG" mini-game is a solo thing. Yes, your character is a blacksmith and wants to sell his wares. Great. But, while you and the DM spend half an hour figuring out stuff and maybe doing some role playing with customers, the other four people at the table are left out in the cold.

Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group. It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it. 4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time. These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Ok, maybe that's hyperbole, but, IME, this sort of thing never appeals to the entire group. It's usually only the DM and maybe one player who gets into it. 4e is pretty unabashed about wanting everyone participating all the time. These solo mini games are pretty counter to what 4e is about.

It is hyperbole.

Combat is a minigame, too. 4e just focuses almost all of its attention on it (as does pretty much every other edition of D&D).

In the game I'm playing in at the moment, I play a very non-combat character; d20 Traveler being what it is, because I'm not focused on combat, I pretty much need to get out of a situation as soon as combat erupts, or else I'm toast. This usually means that I spend however long it takes to run the combat (at most an hour) not really doing much.

The whole "everyone must be able to participate all the time" thing just seems foreign to me. Why? My character is not a carbon copy of everyone else; my character has strengths and weaknesses. Dan's character might be awesome at combat, while mine is not - we have our own moments to shine, our own moments to show what our characters are good at.

4e's approach to combat is to give everyone a combat role, and to make those roles different. I think it's safe to say that the different roles play differently. Why can't you extend this back a step - everyone has a role, and combat is just one of them? Rather than focusing on the group working together at their own things to achieve combat success, the group works together by doing their own things to achieve overall success, be that via combat, crafting, or social encounters.

 

[jmucchiello]

Finally, now here is something we can say definitively is wrong with 4E:

Expanding the above, here is the (mostly complete) gear list for 4E:

Cart
...
Riding Horse

The designers put the cart before the horse. What were they thinking?