WotC_Shoe: He DM's, but his pc's don't fight!

[Kwalish Kid]

What? No Combat? 4E isn't D&D

4E is Star Wars Galaxies!

 

[Puggins]

It is a legitimate question, however. What, if anything, is differentiating this situation from the same situation under 3e rules?

Why does everything have to be different than 3e? 3e was perfectly good at roleplaying, not so good at some other things. If they didn't bother modifying the parts that worked well, isn't that a good thing?

 

[WyzardWhately]

It is a legitimate question, however. What, if anything, is differentiating this situation from the same situation under 3e rules?

I would suppose that, for one example, diplomacy checks as an extended and resisted action, rather than as a WIN button, is different from 3.x.

 

[LostInTheMists]

This message is to LostintheMists: I am going to be running a 1 on 1 session or two and would like to know your advice on do's and dont's. A couple hints would suffice.

1. Be careful with combat, especially if they're only running one character (as opposed to one person handling four characters). Since they obviously will be missing some aspects of a balanced party, tailor the game to what they have. A rogue would be best suited, IMHO, for a mission-by-hire or intrigue game, while a solo fighter might be best starting out in a gladiatorial arena and "hired out" from there.

2. Take starting level into account. I'd recommend that for a solo game, start the character above level 1... level 5 has always worked well for me to give a good balance of challenge and non-squishiness.

3. Limit the amount of NPC's the character has access to on a regular basis. I know this may sound more like a handicap, but one of my first solo games that I DM'ed, the PC had access to a number of relatively powerful NPC's. I found that instead of trying to handle the challenges I presented to her by herself, she would go and get someone she knew to do it for her. Realistic? Yes. Fun? Not particularly. Also, if you have the PC meet up with a NPC group, limit the amount of time they're together. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to run a few NPC's that are helping the PC to fight more of your NPC's/monsters. You end up dumbing yourself down so you don't end up beating yourself too quickly.

That's about it. Don't want to completely threadjack the thread.

 

[Derren]

It is a legitimate question, however. What, if anything, is differentiating this situation from the same situation under 3e rules?

The difference is that in 3E such non combat scenes were much more DM centric. The PCs can do whatever they want but if that action actually helps them to reach their goal only depends on how the DM interprets the situation. That could range from the DM having an in dept knowledge about the fortress and its inhabitants which means that each action of the PCs gets a logical reaction from the NPCs and that the PCs can, through clever thinking, get to their objective without bloodshed to a DM who railroads the PCs into a specific path by letting nothing work even if the PCs succeed in skill rolls.
In 4E such scenes are not as freeform as in 3E because of the skill challenge system. The Dm sets a number of successes and failures required and lets the PC do whatever they want. Whenever they roll a skill its either a success or failure.
If the PCs get enough successes they get to their goal, no matter what they have done. If they get enough failures first the PCs either don't get to their goal or they get to it but something bad happens. For the DM this is easy as the only thing he has to do is keeping track of the number of successes and failures and nodding whenever a player rolls a dice, but people (DMs and players) who want a bit more logical reactions from the NPCs and want to reach the goals through thinking instead of just rolling enough dice till they hit a threshold might be dissapointed.

 

[Wormwood]

For the DM this is easy as the only thing he has to do is keeping track of the number of successes and failures and nodding whenever a player rolls a dice, but people (DMs and players) who want a bit more logical reactions from the NPCs and want to reach the goals through thinking instead of just rolling enough dice till they hit a threshold might be dissapointed.

Uh huh. Because none of the skill challenge examples we've seen to date have involved thinking, creativity or problem-solving.

 

[Derren]

Uh huh. Because none of the skill challenge examples we've seen to date have involved thinking, creativity or problem-solving.

In the end just the number of successes count, not what actually happened in the game. The skill system fails when teh PCs come up with a plan where they can get to their goal with just 3 skill checks but challenge requires 5 successes. Likewise when the PCs have a plan which is essentially fool proof the challenges also fail.

Coming up with a good plan is not very important anymore because you can get the same results with rolling enough successes so the PCs just have to make sure they always roll their good skills.

 

[Festivus]

in before "But you could do that in 3e!"

Can you point me to the section in the 3.5 DM guide where you handle roleplaying social encounters please? I want to say there is something like this in DMG2 but certainly not in DMG. PHB has some DC's for specific skills (bluff, intimidate, etc), but I get the feeling it's going to be much more elaborate in 4E. More like combat... with words.

 

[withak]

In the end just the number of successes count, not what actually happened in the game. The skill system fails when teh PCs come up with a plan where they can get to their goal with just 3 skill checks but challenge requires 5 successes. Likewise when the PCs have a plan which is essentially fool proof the challenges also fail.

Coming up with a good plan is not very important anymore because you can get the same results with rolling enough successes so the PCs just have to make sure they always roll their good skills.

So, when are you going to post more tidbits from your advance copy of the 4e DMG?

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would suppose that, for one example, diplomacy checks as an extended and resisted action, rather than as a WIN button, is different from 3.x.

This.

If they can provide a structure to this that allows unfamiliar or inexperienced DMs to run combat-free yet challenge-heavy sessions of D&D and not get lost or feel as if they have to default to combat, then it will succeed wildly at its intended goal.

And this.