Will DMs Need to Plan the PC Strategy?

[Vempyre]

... as now the PCs write the details of the setting. Having a unclimbable wall (for the climb skill the PC has) does not mesh well with the 4E skill challenge system...

It is a false assumption. The above will only be true if you make it true, as the DM. Otherwise it's been stated that it's the DM that decides if a skill is appropriate to the situation and after that if a specific use of an appropriate skill is appropriate in turn.

You assume that the 4e DMG will say : "let the players decide everything in the skill challenges" and you use that argument as if it was true while it's not.

Just because players are encouraged to be creative with their skills and that they are going to be able to use them more often in various situations doesn't mean they will be the ones deciding how the story develops when such skills get used.

 

[Derren]

It is a false assumption. The above will only be true if you make it true, as the DM. Otherwise it's been stated that it's the DM that decides if a skill is appropriate to the situation and after that if a specific use of an appropriate skill is appropriate in turn.

As in skill challenges the number of successes and failures count its is very unfair to have a unmakeable skill check in it, so the only fair thing is to say "no you can't do that" which imo is bad DMing.
Also how do you define "appropriate". Is it appropriate to try to climb over a wall when you want to get inside a fortress?

Also there is some indications that skill checks DCs in 4E are supposed to scale with the level (the guideline what a easy, middle or hard check is in a skill challenge). Some DMs at DDXP even let the players decide what the DC of the skill check is (easy/middle/hard)

 

[hong]

As in skill challenges the number of successes and failures count its is very unfair to have a unmakeable skill check in it, so the only fair thing is to say "no you can't do that" which imo is bad DMing.

Silly Derren. Assuming there is a good reason for having an unclimbable wall, it is good DMing, because you're being honest with your players. Good DMs make a habit of being honest rather than trying to cover up behind rules dodges.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't get it. If the goal is to get inside the fortress, why would a DM make the wall unclimbable? That seems like a very valid way to get in. It simply comes with it's own problems (IE apart from breaking the front door down it's the most obvious thing for defenders to look out for.)

Darren, while I agree with a number of your points I always find it frustrating that you seem incapable of EVER budging even the smallest amount, no matter how good anyone's counter is.

Fitz

 

[Derren]

I don't get it. If the goal is to get inside the fortress, why would a DM make the wall unclimbable? That seems like a very valid way to get in. It simply comes with it's own problems (IE apart from breaking the front door down it's the most obvious thing for defenders to look out for.)

Situation: The PCs must get into a big fortress with big, well made walls. Technically the DC for climbing the wall would be very high. Now use the 4E skill challenge system where one player wants to scale the wall.. What do you do?

1. Allow it even though the PC can't make the check -> automatic failure which counts
2. Don't allow it to not give the PCs a failure as he has no chance to succeed
3. Reduce the DC for climbing the wall so that the PC can make it.

Solution 1 is unfair in the context for skill challenges, 2 is less than ideal DMing and 3 is, according to Vempyre not necessary.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm really torn on this subject. I've wrapped my head about D&D abilities and have started to include them into my adventures (or not), depending on my PCs. I have no issues with spells like speak like dead - I sometimes even require them. But I've learned it the hard way and learned how to deal with it - not without the help of some nudges from Monte Cook's articles on his old website.

On the other hand, I've seen DMs fumbling with stuff like that, especially newer DMs and/or DMs, who draw heavy inspiration from other fantasy sources - novels, settings, whatever - and would run good games, if not for these abilities.

Now, 4E has definitively tries to draw on new audience, so I see why they want to get closer to classical fantasy - and nothing bad in there. But I also see that people who are used to it and especially "Tacticians" (as defined by Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering) are annoyed by it - they lose their tools to circumvent the plot. And that's bad for them.

I guess that's due to the "Buttkicker"-ification of D&D. But in general, it's not bad, just a shift on playstyle. But I see where Derren is coming from, but then, we don't know how customizable D&D will be: It is possible that a lot of these Tactician-tools are coming back in the form of rituals, regulated by the DM. Or coming later, perhaps in books like Mouseferatu's Advanced PHB.

EDIT: I've looked at your sig, Derren. That booklet is worth much more than the some pennies you have to pay for! And I guess 4E is, more than ever, dependent on a good DM, if you're not a buttkicker, so that Tacticians can get their kick. Right now, it's more geared towards buttkickers and casuals - but then, they are possible more common among D&D players. And MMORPGs are popular, because they appeal to these groups - if D&D can tap that playstyle, I see why it's good for the game - there are a lot of these guys out there!

Cheers, LT.

 

[osmanb]

Yes. I'm not claiming that I dislike plot-breaking spells. I actually play far more than I DM, but this is just a general issue that I've noticed in numerous games. I'm not even sure that it's a big problem, it's just that historically, the DM needs to think about party capabilities in a different way at low level vs. high level. At low level, it's largely about ensuring that each situation can be overcome with the limited set of resources at the disposal of the players. At high level, it's about constructing challenges that are still interesting and challenging, even in the face of nearly unlimited transportation, powerful divinations, etc...

 

[Vempyre]

Also there is some indications that skill checks DCs in 4E are supposed to scale with the level (the guideline what a easy, middle or hard check is in a skill challenge). Some DMs at DDXP even let the players decide what the DC of the skill check is (easy/middle/hard)

It is still all's assumptive land.

DDXP DMs did not have the final version of the rules and "some DMs" are hardly representative of reality. If I was going to make assumptions myself, I could assume that those DMs made those decisions by themselves and modified the rules that were presented to them, not because of the rules said it should be done this or that way.

Also how do you define "appropriate". Is it appropriate to try to climb over a wall when you want to get inside a fortress?

"I" am not the one defining it. Each DM does it according to the context of the story and campaign. Part of the job. In the above exemple the DM will will judge it depending on what he has determined he wants the wall to be. Is it at a reverse 45 degree angle? Steep? Slick? With special materials or magical? Floating? Transparent? Made of steel? Or is it just a plain old crumbling wall?

 

[Praeden]

Ban all spells which can destroy are poorly thought out plot (a plot which does not take the D&D specific abilities into account) and there are only single target direct damage spells left. Thats not very interesting (and its what 4E is apparently doing).

4E still includes both utility spells and rituals which don't inflict damage. Things like teleport and invisibility are still in, though at different levels. I know this makes it harder for you to dislike everything about 4E, but there you are.

 

[hong]

Situation: The PCs must get into a big fortress with big, well made walls. Technically the DC for climbing the wall would be very high.

Why?