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

WotC_Shoe blog: Adapting to Non-Combat Challenges On the Fly

I thought this was a refreshing blog post about 4e, and its ability to adapt to non-combat challenges on the fly:

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=54776&pagemode=2&blogid=2074

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

Some of the best D&D game sessions occur when the unexpected happens.

My weekly group reconvened after a 1-week hiatus while the DM (me) was on vacation. Only 3 players were available (one had been working late and the other was out of town), but we made do. The PCs were pursuing some stolen goods that had traded hands a few times since the theft. At each step along the way of the adventure, the PCs have battled some group of evildoers purportedly in possession of these goods, only to find that the goods had been traded or taken away shortly before the PC's arrival.

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.

Then a funny thing happened as I was reaching for my initiative dice. The party wizard stepped forward and said "i've come to buy more slaves for my wizardly work." The other PCs played along, and suddenly all my combat prep went out the window. But without missing more than one beat, I pulled up the skill challenge pages from the DMG, and proceeded to keep the players on the edge of their seats as they proceeded deeper and deeper into the deurgar fortress. It wasn't a one-man show, either, as while the wizard was busy negotiating his way past the guards or other denizens, the rogue put on a show of being a sadistic thug, and the ranger tried her best to not look surprised or give away the ruse.

It was especially fun when, after the deurgar commander told the party that his slaves had already been scheduled to be sold to a mind flayer, the party's wizard suggested that not only would they buy the slaves, but they'd "take care of" the mind flayer. In a way that involved knives. The shock and "we are going to do What?" coming from the ranger (and her completely failed and untrained bluff check) was nicely covered up by the rogue creating a distraction...

In the end, the party escaped the stronghold, having retrieved their objective, and with a gaggle of newly freed slaves in tow.

Other than a brief combat at the end of the session (the party had to get rid of a pair of deurgar that were escorting them back to an underdark tradetown), there was hardly any dice rolling (well, some diplo, bluff, and Cha checks) -- mostly just roleplaying. It was a pleasant surprise and change of pace from this group's typical modus operandi (which is, try to kill it and take its stuff, then find more stuff to repeat). The party talking its way through the fortified stronghold will be remembered right up there with the time in a campaign a few years ago when the party managed to convince some athatch guards to drink some potions of Heroism, which turned out to be potions of gaseous form. Good times.

Last Edited By: WotC_Shoe, 4/3/2008 6:32:44 PM
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I like the effort but something about these skill challenges doesn't sit right with me. Somehow playing through a skill challenge sounds like playing Yatzy by oneself. I don't know - I havent tried it - but the recent examples makes me feel detached. Hopefully I can just chuck it out the window.
 


UngeheuerLich said:
The most important part of this article:

noone had to use "undetectable alignment"...

in 3.5 their trick would have failed very soon...

This is good news. No more "design adventures with fantastic abilities in the front seat of your mind".
 


Derren said:
The difference is that in 3E...

I agree with all this.

Derren said:
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.

I agree with that too. I'd change the first sentence slightly to "a good plan in the DM's eyes" to point out the resolution system.

Derren said:
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.

I somewhat disagree here. The number of successes defines what happens in the game. I'd also say that their plan which only requires 3 skill checks is not a good enough plan in the game world.

I suspect that if the DM thinks the plan is foolproof he can say that there's no skill challenge needed. (The classic "I give" move.) I don't know if the PCs will still get XP in that situation, though.
 

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
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 game with a group of folks that are a bit older than me (I'm in my early twenties), and while there's always a story, and a lot of roleplaying, our group loves combat. A lot.

Everyone likes different styles of gaming, nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's all taste.

That said, the session described in the OP sounds awesome.
 


SmilingPiePlate said:
I game with a group of folks that are a bit older than me (I'm in my early twenties), and while there's always a story, and a lot of roleplaying, our group loves combat. A lot.

Everyone likes different styles of gaming, nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's all taste.

That said, the session described in the OP sounds awesome.
We call our group TTT, which (according to what the forming members said) stands for "Töten, töten, töten". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out what this means in English. My only hints: It means not "Butterflies, Butterflies, Butterflies".
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
We call our group TTT, which (according to what the forming members said) stands for "Töten, töten, töten". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out what this means in English. My only hints: It means not "Butterflies, Butterflies, Butterflies".

"Death, death, death"?

Cheers,
Cam
 

Remove ads

Top