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

[Lacyon]

I think its only called "Religion" in 4E.

This is presumably because it covers more than just knowledge.

 

[Wolfspider]

Very interesting indeed, but I don't see how this has anything to do with running D&D without minis. I expected a discussion of how combat could work without a grid and miniatoures even in a heavily tactical system like 4e seems to be. Ahhh well.

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

WotC_Shoe shows at least one way to play 4E without minis:

Have dice, will roll
Posted By: WotC_Shoe, 4/3/2008 6:32:39 PM


This time around, the PCs were set to infiltrate a fortress occupied by deurgar slavers. Based on their usual approach, I expected this attempt to involve storming the gates, battling through the guards and other hazards in the stronghold, until they finally rescued their prize and fought their way back out again. I had my minis for the first couple battles, figuring that in one evening's work the party would get through three or four encounters.

Am I the only one that finds this unsettling? I know different game tables have different styles of play, but I didn't know the developers played such a...kick-in-the-door type of game. At the risk of sounding arrogant, those types of games got old and uninteresting very quickly for my gaming group; we haven't played like that since we were 14.

My group nearly always attempts the creative solution first, in the same vein as the wizard here, and resort to fighting should that plan fail. Is my group the exception here?

 

[Stormtalon]

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.

Uh-huh, riiight. All I see here are a bunch of unsubstantiated pessimistic assertions without a scrap of proof to back 'em up. Come on, give us rules citations -- especially ones that say that PCs don't have to have a good reason to use what would apparently be an unrelated skill just 'cause it's one of their best ones.

BTW, it was History that was used in the Escape from Sembia DDXP adventure, and I can think of a couple of good reasons why and how it could have been used to escape from guards during that chase sequence; things like knowing the history of the area and where passages might be, for one.

Sorry, man. No dragons 'round here, just windmills. Still, keep tilting away, I guess....

 

[drjones]

My group nearly always attempts the creative solution first, in the same vein as the wizard here, and resort to fighting should that plan fail. Is my group the exception here?

Does it matter? I don't think either approach is wrong unless the people at the table at that time are not having fun.

 

[Iron Sky]

Am I the only one that finds this unsettling? I know different game tables have different styles of play, but I didn't know the developers played such a...kick-in-the-door type of game. At the risk of sounding arrogant, those types of games got old and uninteresting very quickly for my gaming group; we haven't played like that since we were 14.

My group nearly always attempts the creative solution first, in the same vein as the wizard here, and resort to fighting should that plan fail. Is my group the exception here?

What is the only thing you've ever officially gotten XP for in dnd 2-3.5E? XP for anything outside of combat is a houserule or optional DMG rule as far as I can recall. If you can talk your way through an encounter for no XP or kill everything for a couple thousand, I think most people will go for the latter, especially if they try to talk through a couple times and get no in-game reward for it.

If you give XP for "alternative victory methods" (or have one of those rare groups to whom XP gain isn't a primary motivator) then you will get an increased level of PC creativity, but by default 3.5E rules, you get zilch.

I know in my group, 3/4 usually try the creative solution first, and the other guy does, but tends to use "arrowpoint diplomacy". For some reason wary/hostile npcs and mosters get touchy when you start every conversation with a drawn and nocked arrow levelled at their chest...

 

[Baka no Hentai]

Reading all the "Escape from Sembia" playtest reports would be a good start.

And when you can use Knowledge: Religion to escape from guards (example in one of the reports) you can certainly find a way to use stealth to impress the baron.

You are assuming however that the 4E system takes DM arbitration completely out of the equation, making the DM a slave to the players die rolls. This is a pretty big assumption.

I highly doubt that the DMG states that a DM must allow any skill check regardless of whether or not the skill the PC wants to use makes any sense whatsoever. It is more likely (IMO) that the PC will state what kind of skill check he wants to use and how that skill check would actually apply to that situation, and the DM can agree or disagree as he sees fit.

Maybe I'm wrong, and they set it up word for word as you describe. But with the amount of information I've seen thus far, I think I'm going to stick with "hoping for the best" rather than "expecting the worst."

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

The thing is, it is one thing for the system to have always allowed such a thing, and it is another thing for it to actively support it in the core rules. By what we've heard, the core books encourage the DM to say "yes" to almost every creative way to solve story challenges, and provides a practical and coherent mechanic to resolve them. That makes a huge difference, if only for newbies. People used to complain the core books did not emphazise solving problems with roleplaying or without consulting DC tables for skills; well, now it does. I think that's great.

 

[eleran]

Am I the only one that finds this unsettling? I know different game tables have different styles of play, but I didn't know the developers played such a...kick-in-the-door type of game. At the risk of sounding arrogant, those types of games got old and uninteresting very quickly for my gaming group; we haven't played like that since we were 14.

My group nearly always attempts the creative solution first, in the same vein as the wizard here, and resort to fighting should that plan fail. Is my group the exception here?

I think it depends entirely on the group. I have been in groups where no matter how creative the PCs/players tried to be to avoid combat the DM was dead set on there beign combat anyway.

Conversely, I have been in groups where the players almost always seem to initiate combat even when the DM does not intend for combat to take place. Actually my current group is kind of like that because of having 2 or 3 players that are fairly new to RPGs. We of the old guard are trying to remedy that situation.

Besides, who cares how others play? It doesn't affect your fun one iota.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Am I the only one that finds this unsettling?

Probably not. I certainly don't find it unsettling in the least.

I know different game tables have different styles of play, but I didn't know the developers played such a...kick-in-the-door type of game. At the risk of sounding arrogant, those types of games got old and uninteresting very quickly for my gaming group; we haven't played like that since we were 14.

And yet kick-in-the-door is just as valid a play style as "bluff your way in" or "ninja your way in".

IME, "creative play" is used when the odds are vastly unfavorable for the PCs. Like, when the hobgoblins are somehow sleeping in their armor, on the balls of their feet, and the entire fortress converges on any alarm ever.

Heck, in an old Shadowrun game, the GM had a hard time getting us involved in a fight, since fights were so brutal and unforgiving in that system. If we did get in a fight voluntarily, we'd usually try and set up an ambush that'd be over in two rounds or less with absurd firepower employed. More typically, we'd talk our way out of things, or have the decker or mage set things up and sneak in/out.

Brad